House Rules or Pelosi Rules?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by red states rule, May 18, 2007.

  1. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572
    When the lose, Dems will try to change the rules

    Since libs cannot compete with conservatives on the radio - they want to enact the Fairness Doctrone to change the rule

    Now, Dems are failing to ram through their bills so San Fran Nan wants to change the rules

    Dems say they want a level playing field - so why do they want to tilt the field in their favor when they lose?


    House rules, or Pelosi's rules?
    May 18, 2007


    This week's attempted quashing of longstanding House procedures is a sign of serious disarray in the Democratic Caucus. The motion to recommit, on the books since 1822, is a tool for the minority to offer alternative legislation which dates to the James Madison administration. One would think that the "most honest and most open" Congress in history would need to honor it to keep its self-appellation intact. And yet, the threat this week from the House leadership, before its exposure by the minority on Wednesday, was to rewrite the rules as no Congress before it to rid the leadership of this literally ancient mechanism of accountability.
    For a sense of how the motion to recommit is used in this Congress, consider terrorism-tipster immunity legislation. The House's Democratic leadership prefers open season in civil court on tipsters, who would risk a lawsuit if the information they pass to authorities is wrong. The motion to recommit spearheaded in late March by Rep. Peter King, New York Republican, showed that a majority of the House opposes this idea. A majority would rather protect good-faith tipsters than have them risk financial ruin, all for trying to thwart terrorism. There are other examples.
    The light that this episode sheds on the House leadership shows a more encouraging picture for conservatives than some will admit. Never during the recent Republican majorities was this idea considered -- not even in the darkest hours. And it was not until well into the Republican Revolution that the House leadership began regularly blocking the minority's floor amendments, as this Congress is already doing.
    So, in that respect, this episode is a sign that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi lacks the requisite political skill to keep the majority together through conventional means. This resort to unprecedented means of thwarting Republicans would not be necessary for a speaker who knows how to call in her chits, or even has those chits to begin with.
    But let no one think that this episode is primarily about political tactics. It is a sign of the divisiveness of the agenda which the House's Democratic leadership is promoting. The "100 days" is no Contract With America. From Iraq to taxation to terrorist surveillance, this leadership pushes a narrow agenda which leaves the moderate wing of the Democratic party in the lurch, to say nothing of Republicans and the few remaining conservative Democrats. This fact is made clearer each time a Republican motion to recommit cleaves off a few dozen Democrats who prefer a more reasonable approach.
    In the larger picture, this resort by Mrs. Pelosi and her allies to an extraordinary and unprecedented measure is a sign of the strain of an unworkable agenda which cannot win the consensus of a majority.

    http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20070517-100743-4875r.htm
     

Share This Page