Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Democrats learned a few things from Tom DeLay. To wit, how to rush through legislation without any minority participation or public debate   (opinionjournal.com) divider line
57
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

588 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Jan 2007 at 6:40 PM (16 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



57 Comments     (+0 »)


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
The_Flatline
2007-01-04 2:37:28 PM  
The biggest difference here is that a republican has veto power. If he feels that more debate is needed, or that the minority in the house and senate were not properly represented, he can veto the bill and it can go back to congress. If Congress can get 2/3 majority in both houses, they can stuff the bill down Bush's throat and he'll have to like it. Otherwise, they'll have to revise the bill.

It's called checks & balances. The system is *supposed* to police itself. With a pencilwhipping president who wouldn't say "no" to his party, the system was broken. Now the question is, will he say "yes" to this congress when it's fair, will he fall into a party line, or if he'll go off cowboy on his own tangent.
 
HansensDisease
2007-01-04 3:13:24 PM  
Don't worry! Bush has already made a rubberstamp for his signing statements that says "Suck it Libs"
 
Cyclometh [TotalFark]
2007-01-04 3:25:28 PM  
"What, you mean we have to lie in the bed we made? But I don't wanna. Daddy, the mean democrats aren't being bi-partisan!"

Suck it, republicans.
 
Comrade438
2007-01-04 3:35:03 PM  
HansensDisease: Don't worry! Bush has already made a rubberstamp for his signing statements that says "Suck it Libs"

Amen. Suck it, Libs.
 
POAC
2007-01-04 3:36:27 PM  
You've had the place for 12 years. Pardon them if they exclude you from the first 100 hours while they pick up your mess.
 
HansensDisease
2007-01-04 3:42:43 PM  
Comrade438: Amen. Suck it, Libs.

Your Sarcasmometer is broken.

When Bush gets around to reading your mail he'll tell you where to buy a new one.
 
Comrade438
2007-01-04 3:46:50 PM  
HansensDisease: Your Sarcasmometer is broken.

You don't know? It's real. I've seen it.
 
ekdikeo4
2007-01-04 3:51:10 PM  
I'm fine with underhanded bill passing as long as it's used only to underhandedly UNDO all the underhanded things that were already done.

Unfortunatly, we may not have the opportunity to learn this.
 
HansensDisease
2007-01-04 3:55:27 PM  
Comrade438: You don't know? It's real. I've seen it.

No fair! You broke my troll!

Now I have to wait 'til the liters get here!
 
schnee [TotalFark]
2007-01-04 3:57:16 PM  
Its just a little harmless fun. Let'em get it out of their system.
 
dillenger69
2007-01-04 4:00:28 PM  
They said things would be different and they are.
Now it's the Republicans that are being shut out instead of the Democrats.
 
barneyfifesbullet
2007-01-04 4:02:33 PM  
The country spoke loud and clear on behalf of Democrats last November, but we doubt this means it voted for everything on the party's partisan wish list.

Like, Americans voted for everything on the neocon wish list that got shoved down our throats for 12 years.

Besides, what part of 'loud and clear' don't you understand? Number of Senate and House seats taken over by Republicans in 2006 = zero.

Attempting to shove these measures through the House without allowing votes on amendments or alternatives isn't the way a confident majority behaves. We guess this is why the Founders created the Senate.

See, House of Representatives 1995-2006 for the example on how to do this.

Amusing how these types act like the poor, little, Republicans never had a chance to run things.
 
BlueGargoyle
2007-01-04 4:10:02 PM  
Oh noes! The Democrats are going to treat us the exact same way we treated them for over a decade?!?

[image from members.cox.net too old to be available]
 
MusicMakeMyHeadPound [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2007-01-04 4:34:12 PM  
The_Flatline
Now the question is, will he say "yes" to this congress when it's fair, will he fall into a party line, or if he'll go off cowboy on his own tangent.

I wonder if Harriet Miers quit because he's announced his intention to do the last one there.
 
Superjew
2007-01-04 6:50:26 PM  
Any republican who whines about the dems fixing their mess without inviting them to help can DIA farking big-ass F. Preferably as soon as possible.

/you reap what you mother-farking sow, biatches.
 
yeegrek
2007-01-04 6:53:48 PM  
Damn me, I gotta get TF subscription. I had a wonderfully witty retort ready to go, and dillenger69 beat my lite ass to it. I'm just terrified to see what TF will do to my already limited time.
 
dillenger69
2007-01-04 6:58:51 PM  
yeegrek: Damn me, I gotta get TF subscription. I had a wonderfully witty retort ready to go, and dillenger69 beat my lite ass to it

Welcome to the world of TF ... where your witty idea has been thought of by someone else just before you.
 
Poopspasm
2007-01-04 7:01:54 PM  
Well, let's see....they ran on a platform of getting things done.....and now they don't want stupid ass R's attaching 5 brazillion riders to every bill or gumming up the works.....

Seems like they're trying to deliver, and the Republicans are doing the only thing they no how to do: make excuses and mudsling. Par for the course.
 
Poopspasm
2007-01-04 7:03:14 PM  
no = know

/my bad, spelling nazis
//^does that count as a Godwin?
 
Lord_Baull
2007-01-04 7:03:55 PM  
OH NO! The minimum wage will cost American jobs!

/I can't for the life of me remember the last time automotive corporations, airline corporations, Enron, or any other big business had to cut jobs in the past 6 years. Those evil Dems!! *shakes fist*
 
schrodinger
2007-01-04 7:04:48 PM  
I find it amusing that the article is written in the past tense, even though the article itself was written yesterday.

No serious economist disputes that a higher wage floor will reduce employment. The debate is only over how many people will lose their jobs. Minorities, low-skilled workers and small businesses get hit hardest,

Appeal to ridicule. According to a 2000 surveyed, 46% of economists flat out agreed with the idea that it would reduce unemployment among unskilled and young workers, where as 27% disagreed with it outright. Note that this is only unskilled and younger workers, not unemployment in general, which the author hear implies would be lower.

If a Member can be bought with a free lunch or skybox ticket from a lobbyist, he shouldn't be in Congress anyway.

Woulda, coulda, shoulda.

This is supposed to be a mechanism for reducing the deficit, but in practice it keeps the spending spigots open and makes tax cuts next to impossible.

You mean that in a time of record high deficits, we can't cut taxes without cutting spending? Heavens forbid!

Under paygo rules, the Bush tax cuts that expire in 2010 have no chance of being extended--as Democrats well know.

And your point is what? According to a February 2005 CBS poll (Back when Bush was still reeling from election day highs, and before the failures of Iraq and Katrina), even 40% of the population (including 25% of republicans) said that the tax cuts should be allowed to expire, vs. 43% of the population that said they should remain in place. So what difference does it make if they do?

The country spoke loud and clear on behalf of Democrats last November, but we doubt this means it voted for everything on the party's partisan wish list.

Try asking them. You might be surprised. FYI, 85% of Americans currently support raising the minimum wage, but keep convincng yourself that it's not what the public wants.
 
FlashLV
2007-01-04 7:05:16 PM  
It's all smoke and mirror politics anyways. Did anyone think it was gonna be different?
 
schrodinger
2007-01-04 7:05:32 PM  
I find it amusing that the article is written in the past tense, even though the article itself was written yesterday.

Whoopse, brain fart. Scratch that.
 
BlueGargoyle
2007-01-04 7:08:19 PM  
FlashLV

It's all smoke and mirror politics anyways. Did anyone think it was gonna be different?


It already is different. Bush doesn't have his ass-licking rubber stamp congress anymore. Eve if they just stop Republicans from farking things up any further, that's good enough for me.
 
shinjitsuism
2007-01-04 7:15:24 PM  
POAC You've had the place for 12 years. Pardon them if they exclude you from the first 100 hours while they pick up your mess.

Hmmmm... If I recall Democrats were the majority in the house for 40 years before 1994, yet we don't remember or discuss this fact... not to mention any of the scandals and abuse of legislative powers that occurred then
 
Saiga410
2007-01-04 7:19:44 PM  
I am curious when will it be acceptable to berate the dem congress, without receiving a "but but repubs ...."?

/Curious when I can start.
 
FlashLV
2007-01-04 7:21:41 PM  
BlueGargoyle

It already is different. Bush doesn't have his ass-licking rubber stamp congress anymore. Eve if they just stop Republicans from farking things up any further, that's good enough for me.

I sense much anger in you young one.

What's so bad besides Iraq, we all know that's bad. So please what else angry one.
 
Poopspasm
2007-01-04 7:23:02 PM  
Saiga410 I am curious when will it be acceptable to berate the dem congress, without receiving a "but but repubs ...."?

/Curious when I can start.

I'll take "After their first piece of legislation" for $500, Alex.

They are, after all the legislative branch. Perhaps you might wait until they have a track record of any kind.
 
Poopspasm
2007-01-04 7:26:00 PM  
What's so bad besides Iraq, we all know that's bad. So please what else angry one.

FlashLV in all fairness, I think Iraq is going to be farking America up for a long time after it's over. Between balooning debt, the division of America, the treatment of vets (who will eventually used as political pawns by one party or the other), and the long-standing hatred it will create towards America in the world.....it's a once-in-a-generation disaster.
 
Murkanen
2007-01-04 7:28:29 PM  
Saiga410

I am curious when will it be acceptable to berate the dem congress, without receiving a "but but repubs ...."?

/Curious when I can start.

After the first 100 hours which had been declared "not open to discussion" for a good number of weeks before the 110th Congress went into session.
 
Saiga410
2007-01-04 7:31:22 PM  
Sweet, I have confirmation. So in a week or so I might be able to question their moves without bush or foley or hastert or any of that stuff thrown in my face, but an actual debate. Wait this is fark again. Dang.

/Still, I am going to save that one
 
Poopspasm
2007-01-04 7:37:15 PM  
/Still, I am going to save that one

Feel free. Note that I don't speak for all lefties here. But yeah, if they fark up, I'd be willing to debate the issue with you honestly. I would however point out, that if I think it's wrong but not completely unacceptable (ie corrupt or against the interests of the people), my response would be something of the lines of "while I disagree with them on this particular issue, I'll gladly tolerate this sort of thing to rid our country of the orgy of corruption that the Republican congress had become."

Does that still count as a "but...but...but" if I openly admit that I disagree with the Dems first?
 
Saiga410
2007-01-04 7:44:55 PM  
A bit much, but I can accept it somewhat. Why ever go there when that is not the point at hand? Oh well, hoping some day people can sit down and talk religion and politics (nfsw?) peacefully.
 
Craptastic
2007-01-04 8:04:03 PM  
"Up or down vote", biatches.
 
Befuddled
2007-01-04 8:15:54 PM  
So which Democrat was it that held a gun to DeLay's head all these years forcing DeLay to be such a slimey dick?

The Republicans need to feel this, being bent over and sodomized politically for a while so then maybe, just maybe, they'll understand why doing it to others isn't a good thing.
 
Chris Barr
2007-01-04 8:22:05 PM  
Partisan Politics aside, the article does make some decent points.

Instead of attacking lobbyists, why not make it harder to hide the Congressmen who are bought off by them? It would be much easier legislation to write and would have less loopholes.

Ethics training for employees is stupid. All they need to know: You can't recieve more than $50 worth of gifts in any given year. Oh, and if you were working in a Congressional Office and then become a registered lobbyist, you can't talk to your old office for a year. Those are the rules now. Seem pretty simple to me.

I will debate anyone who thinks that blanket policies for the entire United States are a good idea. That includes national a minimum wage, health care.
 
BlueGargoyle
2007-01-04 8:23:21 PM  
FlashLV

I sense much anger in you young one.

What's so bad besides Iraq, we all know that's bad. So please what else angry one.

Tax breaks for rich assholes and corporations, budget/deficit mismanagement and record setting debt, slahing vet benefits, just to name a few. Nice attempt at minimizing the issue, princess.
 
Chris Barr
2007-01-04 8:26:47 PM  
Befuddled: The Republicans need to feel this, being bent over and sodomized politically for a while so then maybe, just maybe, they'll understand why doing it to others isn't a good thing.

Isn't that why everyone was upset with the Republicans last year?

Two wrongs don't make a right.
 
phillydrifter
2007-01-04 8:42:06 PM  
This is not new, this is exactly how Harry Anslinger pushed marijuana prohibition through an ignorant congress with little talk and nothing more than checking off their name on one list or the other as they exited the chamber, with less than 5 minutes of discussion at 4:55 on a hot summer day in congress before air conditioners existed. How many people do you think were there?

Not many.

/ya rly
//no pops for you
 
Korovyov
2007-01-04 8:52:13 PM  
Chris Barr --
Not so simple. It's simple to set rules on gifts to the Congressman, but focusing on them ignores conflicts of interest.


For instance, if a Congressman's wife works in a law firm specializing in securities law, should he recuse himself from voting on a possible revision of Sarbannes-Oxley? If one of his spawn has a nontrivial stake in Verizon Wireless (as in non-trivial from the spawn's point of view, not as in owning 5% of that venture), should he avoid sitting on committees regulating telecommunications? If a commercial real-estate firm bankrolled his inauguration party, should he avoid working on environmental policy that might significantly affect the ease of development, and therefore the value of land?
 
WizardX
2007-01-04 8:53:29 PM  
Look, the Republicans are going to get the long, glistening Democratic shaft for the first 100 hours.

That is a given. One might as well argue that the Sun won't be rising tomorrow.

The question is whether the Republicans will be given their voice back AFTER the 100 hours. That would be the politically wise thing to do. But I'm not sure the Democrats will be over to get over their understandable bitterness and see it.

So I'm very curious how THAT turns out.
 
StinkyFiddlewinks
2007-01-04 9:10:32 PM  
WAAHH! THE POOR PEOPLE ARE GETTING OUR MONEY!
 
Lord_Baull
2007-01-04 9:28:25 PM  
So in a week or so I might be able to question their moves without bush or foley or hastert or any of that stuff thrown in my face, but an actual debate.

I promise the first time any democratic senators that craft legislation to make it illegal to solicit or entice minors into inappropriate behaviour and have a history of gay-bashing go and entice minors of the same sex into inappropriate behaviour, I will NOT mention Mark Foley. Nor will I mention Haslert when Pelosi subsequently covers it up for the duration of her tenure. .
 
Lord_Baull
2007-01-04 9:40:30 PM  

For instance, if a Congressman's wife works in a law firm specializing in securities law, should he recuse himself from voting on a possible revision of Sarbannes-Oxley? If one of his spawn has a nontrivial stake in Verizon Wireless (as in non-trivial from the spawn's point of view, not as in owning 5% of that venture), should he avoid sitting on committees regulating telecommunications? If a commercial real-estate firm bankrolled his inauguration party, should he avoid working on environmental policy that might significantly affect the ease of development, and therefore the value of land?

This is my take:
Bar any/all lobbyists. If a congressman needs info on a topic, Google will be his friend, and won't need to buy him a house.
Any legislation that will benefit the a congressman's pocketbook needs to b e sponsored and authored by another congressman. Then you'll see true politics.
No riders to any bills.
 
Wraithbane
2007-01-04 10:06:53 PM  
I love it. Democrats run on the platform that they're going to change the way things are done and the first thing they do is to do exactly what they biatched about the Republicans doing.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
 
BlueGargoyle
2007-01-04 10:21:32 PM  
Revenge is sweet, eh Wraithbane?
 
yeegrek
2007-01-04 10:49:10 PM  
So, I suppose I owe someone a pint or two. You know who you are. Big thanks.
 
Aexia
2007-01-04 11:12:36 PM  
Hmmmm... If I recall Democrats were the majority in the house for 40 years before 1994, yet we don't remember or discuss this fact... not to mention any of the scandals and abuse of legislative powers that occurred then

House Republicans, when they were in the minority, did a report on how they were being railroaded by the Democrats and did a report on it. This was 1992 IIRC.

House Democrats in 2000 or 2002 and now in the minority did a followup report and noted that for every abuse the GOP complained about at the time, in the majority they were 10 times worse. I'll have to see if I can track down the report.

In short, under Democrats, the minority had less input into the legislative agenda; under Republicans, the minority has had *none*.
 
Chris Barr
2007-01-04 11:17:10 PM  
korovev: Not so simple. It's simple to set rules on gifts to the Congressman, but focusing on them ignores conflicts of interest.

No, it is pretty easy. You can write the legislation to make it easier to hide. Right now they have to announce gifts of over X amount. (I don't know the exact number) Make that number low, so there is rarely any question on whether or not it should be reported. Yeah, its a lot of paperwork, but it makes the process incredibly transparent. As for your examples, Yes, No, and No. Its impossible to eliminate all conflicts of interest, but there is such a thing as common sense.

Lord Baull: This is my take:
Bar any/all lobbyists. If a congressman needs info on a topic, Google will be his friend, and won't need to buy him a house.
Any legislation that will benefit the a congressman's pocketbook needs to b e sponsored and authored by another congressman. Then you'll see true politics.
No riders to any bills.

You are an idiot. You do realize that everytime someone calls/mails/faxes their congressman that they are technically a "lobbyist." Corespondence with their constituents is one of the most important things a Congressman does. Some view it almost as important as actually voting.
 
Skleenar
2007-01-04 11:25:15 PM  
shinjitsuism: Hmmmm... If I recall Democrats were the majority in the house for 40 years before 1994, yet we don't remember or discuss this fact... not to mention any of the scandals and abuse of legislative powers that occurred then

That's mostly because they do not compare to what the GOP wrought in 12 years. Not even close.

Go ahead. Do the research.

I did.
 
Displayed 50 of 57 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all



Redisplay/refresh comments
This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

If you like these links, you'll love

TotalFark

$10 a month since 19 aught diddly.

learn more | sign up
On Twitter

  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.