The new Republican House Majority

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Usually following such a setback in an election the House Leader of the losing party steps down. Doesn't always happen, but usually does : this was an unusually large setback in a mid term election for any Party.

Pelosi represents the relatively extreme liberal wing of the House Democrat membership: Hoyer the more moderate group. This doesn't bode well for the "cooperation" you (falsely, I believe) claim to seek.

The Cooperation isn't between the House Dems and the House Republicans, but instead between House Republicans and either Reid or Obama. The House Dems are far enough in the minority that their cooperation on issues isn't required, or even really a factor, in getting bills passed - the same way that cooperation from the Republicans wasn't required in the last Congress to get any of the bills in the House passed.

Once again, I shouldn't have to be explaining the basics of how politics works to you, George. The power dynamics are clear and identifiable, yet you pretend to misunderstand them to this degree? At least, I hope and assume you are pretending.

Quote:

I was very clear that "obstructionism" is a relative (and perjorative) term that is entirely dependent on one's point of view. There is no absolute test for it that would be acceptable to all observers. You are playing word games, just as with your repeated use of phrases like "argument from extremes". I note you didn't object to Fido's **** above.

My phrase was 'Appeal to Extremes.' It's a logical fallacy. I would tell you to look it up, but you also suffer from the intellectual laziness fallacy and won't do so, so why bother? You know what you were doing.

I asked you a simple question: does obstructionism exist? Do you believe that ANYONE is actually being obstructionist? It's clear that the reason you can't answer this question is because there is no way to do so without admitting that your side has been engaging in it, heavily, for years. So instead you twist yourself into knots in order to avoid admitting the truth.

And it's not a matter of opinion, as you propose, either. It is a fact-based argument examining the use of procdeural tricks in order to keep a majority from conducting business.

You really have no leg to stand on here, and you won't respond to this with anything remotely resembling a logical, fact based argument, so I'm just going to chalk this up to another example of your unwillingness to engage in intellectually honest arguments. You can respond with whatever condescending bile you wish to; it's clear to any reader of this thread what is going on.

As for Fido's post, I hadn't actually read it - I usually prefer my correspondents to be able to follow basic rules of grammar before I take them seriously - but now that you point it out, I will say that he is exaggerating factors, but ones which are definitely at play.

Cycloptichorn

3 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Do you really think they are any worse than the annointed amateur in the White House and the likes of Harry Reid, Chris Dodd, Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, Maxine Waters and the rest of that menagerie?

Yes. Much. (Not that I can speak for Kickycan.)

1 Reply

@squinney,

squinney wrote:

Setanta wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:
. . . it can be viewed as a very positive thing from a more elevated perspective.

More elevated ? ! ? ! ? Please, O'George, don't piss down my leg and tell me it's raining. Politicians, and especially those dear to the hearts of the tea baggers, are not and never will be in the business of "elevating" political discourse and processes.

Ha! It's more elevated so it can Trickle Down.

What to you mean by the "it" in "it's more elevated"? The discourse or the leg on which George is pissing?

0 Replies

From Slate:

Slate wrote:

Pelosi's Triumph
Democrats didn't lose the battle of 2010. They won it.
By William Saletan

Democrats have lost the House, and health care is getting the blame. Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana, a retiring Democrat, says his party "overreached by focusing on health care rather than job creation" and by spending $1 trillion on "a major entitlement expansion." Sen. John McCain's economic adviser agrees. Pundits say the health care bill killed President Obama's approval ratings, cost congressional Democrats their jobs, and snuffed out the legacy of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. "Virtually every House Democrat from a swing district who took a gamble by voting for the health law made a bad political bet," says the New York Times. The Los Angeles Times laments that "the measure of a leader in Washington isn't how much gets done, it's who holds power in the end. On that scale, Pelosi failed."

I'm not buying the autopsy or the obituary. In the national exit poll, voters were split on health care. Unemployment is at nearly 10 percent. Democrats lost a lot of seats that were never really theirs, and those who voted against the bill lost at a higher rate than did those who voted for it. But if health care did cost the party its majority, so what? The bill was more important than the election.

I realize that sounds crazy. We've become so obsessed with who wins or loses in politics that we've forgotten what the winning and losing are about. Partisans fixate on punishing their enemies in the next campaign. Reporters, in the name of objectivity, refuse to judge anything but the Election Day score card. Politicians rationalize their self-preservation by imagining themselves as dynasty builders. They think this is the big picture.

They're wrong. The big picture isn't about winning or keeping power. It's about using it. I've made this argument before, but David Frum, the former speechwriter to President Bush, has made it better. In March, when Democrats secured enough votes to pass the bill, he castigated fellow conservatives who looked forward to punishing Pelosi and President Obama "with a big win in the November 2010 elections." Frum observed:

Legislative majorities come and go. This healthcare bill is forever. A win in November is very poor compensation for this debacle now. … No illusions please: This bill will not be repealed. Even if Republicans scored a 1994 style landslide in November, how many votes could we muster to re-open the "doughnut hole" and charge seniors more for prescription drugs? How many votes to re-allow insurers to rescind policies when they discover a pre-existing condition? How many votes to banish 25 year olds from their parents' insurance coverage?

Exactly. A party that loses a House seat can win it back two years later, as Republicans just proved. But a party that loses a legislative fight against a middle-class health care entitlement never restores the old order. Pretty soon, Republicans will be claiming the program as their own. Indeed, one of their favorite arguments against this year's health care bill was that it would cut funding for Medicare. Now they're pledging to rescind those cuts. In 30 years, they'll be accusing Democrats of defunding Obamacare.

Most bills aren't more important than elections. This one was. Take it from Mitch McConnell, the Senate Republican leader. Yesterday, in his election victory speech at the Heritage Foundation, he declared, "Health care was the worst piece of legislation that's passed during my time in the Senate." McConnell has been in the Senate for 26 years. He understands the bill's significance: It's a huge structural change in the relationship between the public, the economy, and the government.

Politicians have tried and failed for decades to enact universal health care. This time, they succeeded. In 2008, Democrats won the presidency and both houses of Congress, and by the thinnest of margins, they rammed a bill through. They weren't going to get another opportunity for a very long time. It cost them their majority, and it was worth it.

And that's not counting financial regulation, economic stimulus, college lending reform, and all the other bills that became law under Pelosi. So spare me the tears and gloating about her so-called failure. If John Boehner is speaker of the House for the next 20 years, he'll be lucky to match her achievements.

Will Republicans revisit health care? Sure. Will they enact some changes to the program? Yes, and Democrats will help them. Every program needs revisions. Republicans will get other things, too: business tax breaks, education reform, more nuclear power, and a crackdown on earmarks. These are issues on which both parties can agree. Which is why, if you're a Democrat, you deal with them after you've lost your majority—not before.

It's funny, in a twisted way, to read all the post-election complaints that Democrats lost because they thought only of themselves. Even the chief operating officer of the party's leading think tank, the Center for American Progress, says Obama failed to convince Americans "that he knows their jobs are as important as his." That's too bad, because Obama, Pelosi, and their congressional allies proved just the opposite. They risked their jobs—and in many cases lost them—to pass the health care bill. The elections were a painful defeat, and you can argue that the bill was misguided. But Democrats didn't lose the most important battle of 2010. They won it.

I don't share the author's enthusiasm, but he makes a good point about the value of power versus using power.

A
R
T

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:
Do you really think they are any worse than the annointed amateur in the White House and the likes of Harry Reid, Chris Dodd, Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, Maxine Waters and the rest of that menagerie?

Yes. Much. (Not that I can speak for Kickycan.)

You do speak for me, it seems, at least in this case.

I second, and capitalize that "YES" from Thomas.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I asked you a simple question: does obstructionism exist? Do you believe that ANYONE is actually being obstructionist? It's clear that the reason you can't answer this question is because there is no way to do so without admitting that your side has been engaging in it, heavily, for years. So instead you twist yourself into knots in order to avoid admitting the truth.

And it's not a matter of opinion, as you propose, either. It is a fact-based argument examining the use of procdeural tricks in order to keep a majority from conducting business.

You really have no leg to stand on here, and you won't respond to this with anything remotely resembling a logical, fact based argument, so I'm just going to chalk this up to another example of your unwillingness to engage in intellectually honest arguments. You can respond with whatever condescending bile you wish to; it's clear to any reader of this thread what is going on.
Cycloptichorn

I agree thar Republicans have used procedural devices that arise from the duly constituted rules of the Senate as well as their constitutionally established legislative rights as the (then) elected minority to delay and defeat legislation proposed by the Democrats - just as minority parties have done sincve the founding of the republic. That's how our Democracy works: indeed the constitution proscribes several of these devices precisely to preserve and protect those minority rights.

Now, based on the recent election it appears the American people have chosen a divided legislature, instead of one dominated by the President's party. How can this be interpreted as anything other than some new degree of opposition to the majority and/or support for the minority?

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I asked you a simple question: does obstructionism exist? Do you believe that ANYONE is actually being obstructionist? It's clear that the reason you can't answer this question is because there is no way to do so without admitting that your side has been engaging in it, heavily, for years. So instead you twist yourself into knots in order to avoid admitting the truth.

And it's not a matter of opinion, as you propose, either. It is a fact-based argument examining the use of procdeural tricks in order to keep a majority from conducting business.

... You can respond with whatever condescending bile you wish to; it's clear to any reader of this thread what is going on.
Cycloptichorn

I agree that Republicans have used procedural devices that arise from the duly constituted rules of the Senate as well as their constitutionally established legislative rights as the (then) elected minority to delay and defeat legislation proposed by the Democrats - just as minority parties have done since the founding of the republic. That's how our Democracy works: indeed the constitution proscribes several of these devices precisely to preserve and protect those minority rights.

Now, based on the recent election it appears the American people have chosen a divided legislature, instead of one dominated by the President's party. How can this be interpreted as anything other than some new degree of opposition to the majority and/or support for the minority?

You are free to call this "obstructionism" if you wish. I believe it was (mostly) principled and practical opposition to the policies in question - and that is the best characterization of the motives and intent of those who did it.

I am trying to respond to you in all this, not to grandstand to others who might be reading it. Is that not also your intent?

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Okay, let's look at the area of specific disagreement here:

Quote:

You are free to call this "obstructionism" if you wish. I believe it was (mostly) principled and practical opposition to the policies in question - and that is the best characterization of the motives and intent of those who did it.

I have a hard time calling a repeated abuse of the rules 'principled or practical.'

When you oppose legislation, it's appropriate to fight hard against it. I totally and completely agree that the Republicans had a moral obligation to oppose much of what the Dems put forth, simply because they didn't agree with the direction that these policies would take our country in. I expect the Republicans to continue to fight against Obama and his plans for the country.

But what does it mean to 'fight?' Does it mean that the only thing that matters is achieving the goal? That any and all tactics used to achieve that goal are by definition 'principled and practical?' That anything is justified, as long as you block the policies?

I would submit that this is not the case. Instead, I would submit that judgment should be used as to what tactics are appropriate and when.

Here's an example: the Republicans in the House were displeased that they weren't getting their way on an Appropriations bill in 2009. So, did they rail against the bill? Vote against it? Yes, but that wouldn't be enough to stop it. So they turned to an abuse of the rules, because they don't have any other power:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/24138.html

Quote:

Republicans set a record in forcing 52 roll call votes in one day last week, virtually shutting down the House, and they may try to wreak havoc again today if they don't get the amendments they want on an appropriations bill.

52 Roll Call votes in one day! Motioning to adjourn constantly and repeatedly, each time requiring a recorded vote. Motioning to recommit EVERY SINGLE bill, even the naming of post offices, so that doing even uncontroversial business takes so much time that the Majority cannot get any work done. Do you believe that such actions are not obstructionist? That they are principled and correct? I don't see how you could possibly defend such a position.

It is clear that the Republicans did NOT respect the fact that the Dems got voted HEAVILY into the majority in both Houses. You talk about Obama and the Dems and me understanding that the recent election signals that the public is looking for a change in policies. Do you not believe that the last elections sent the same signal? Were the Republicans not beholden to respect the public's will, but the Democrats are beholden to do so?

If you don't think that any of this is obstructionist, imagine what you would be saying if a Pelosi-led minority asked for 50 roll-call votes a day on the House floor, every day, so that your group couldn't pass anything. If the Dems refused to show up for committee meetings, so your side could NEVER get a quorum to pass things out of committee. If instead of attending committee meetings or hearings, the Dems went to drinking parties and fund-raisers - Boehner and others did this several times last year while claiming he couldn't make the sessions of Congress.

Your elected leaders would be screaming bloody murder and calling the Dems traitors to America. They would be referring to the Dems as rank obstructionists. Hell, we don't even need to speculate; remember when the Dems wouldn't allow up-or-down votes on Bush judges? This is exactly what your side said about them. That of course didn't stop them from (in 2008-10) holding up more than double the number of appointees than the previous record, which they set under Clinton!

I don't believe you can build a logical case which states that repeated, gross and hypocritical manipulation of the rules is a principled act. It isn't a principled act. It's a desperate one. It worked quite well for the Republicans and I understand why they did it; but I don't celebrate it, or pretend that they were acting honorably. And I don't recommend that the Democrats adopt the same tactics, even if it puts us at a disadvantage.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

My father was a Democrat Congressman from Michigan for about 24 years. I can recall as a young boy sitting in the members family gallery watching the proceedings on the floor and eating lunch in the Capital members restaurant with Wilbur Mills and other then prominent Democrat committee chairmen. I recall lots of disdcussions about procedure and tactics with which to delay opposition legislation or to use amendments as poison pills in legislation they opposed. I have the strong feeling that very little of that has changed very much.

Let me ask you what is the dividing line between "fighting hard" against legislation you oppose and what you would term obstructionism? I suspect the difference here may seem clear as long as you are merely characterizing the other persons motives, but when it comes dowen to specific actions and distinguishing between them it becomes very difficult. In my view "obstructionism" is merely a perjorative word used to describe what the speaker assumes are the opponent's motivations or bad intent.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

Part of this revolves around whether or not one truly believes that elections should send a signal to the opposition party, that the country has indicated that they wish for the new majority to have their policies enacted, their agenda moved forward. If we do believe this, it is very difficult to build a case in which opposition - sincere or not - based upon technical manipulations of the rules is principled.

If your team loses so many votes in Congress, and the other side gets to run things for a while, it's fine to fight against it. I think our founding fathers or some political theorists would say that the primary way that politicians should be trying to influence the majority is through the strength of their ideas, and their willingness to make deals. But when you make defeating the other side the ultimate goal, with no thought as to the effects of what you're doing or whether or not there are actual issues to be addressed, and start to rely upon every technicality to get that done, it quickly wears thin. It is practically impossible to look at the set of tactics employed by the Republicans in the last Congress and come to the conclusion that they were acting in a principled manner, if you believe that elections send signals that the populace approves of policies - and that legislators should respect that.

Perhaps you could say that the ideological divide between the parties is so vast that there is no room for compromise, or that Republican politicians shouldn't give up some things in order to influence legislation to be more Conservative over all, or get some concession later. I don't accept that view, and I would hope that you wouldn't either, because it implies a Republican party which is so radicalized, it cannot envision compromise.

If, on the other hand, you don't believe that elections send signals to politicans that the country wants certain policies enacted; that politicians should not heed setbacks by changing course, then I'm sure you won't expect and don't think the Dems should work towards or enact any policies which are in any way more centrist or Conservative in nature than the ones they've already been doing. You would believe that Obama should use every tactic he can to bypass Congress and marginalize the Republicans. That these would be the correct and principled things for them to do.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

Let me ask you what is the dividing line between "fighting hard" against legislation you oppose and what you would term obstructionism?

I hope you and Cy cross posted, Gob, 'cause if you didn't you can't read any better than my dog. But I must note, she's pretty bright and she's improving.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Very interesting questions, and they don't have answers that are either easy or simple. The history of our country involves fairly continuous and sometimes bitter struggles between the parties within the Congress and between Congress and the President. The issues ranged from management of the currency; the question of a national bank; slavery; reconstruction in the South; immigration; the expansion of the country and the political effects of adding states; monetary policy and the attendant struggles between the urban industrial regions and those devoted to agriculture; our entry in WWI and later WWII; dealings with organized labor and many other issues - all with undercurrents of the economic struggle between haves and have nots in a very turbulent and mobile society & economy. I believe that continues today more or less as it has for many years.

There were cases in which issues were temporarily resolved through compromise among legislators, but they were very few. In most cases one side or the other prevailed either through raw political force and votes or by what you might call trickery. In many cases changes in public sentiment maniifest in elections finally determined the winner after protracted struggles encompassing several election cycles. Read the history of President Roosevelt's first two terms and you will find a good deal of what might be called trickery and obstructionism on issues ranging from unconstitutional assumptions of presidential power and threats to stack the Supreme Court. The country in the late 1930s rather clearly wanted to stay out of the renewed war that was obviously coming in Europe. Indeed in the 1940 election President Roosevelt campaigned (and was elected) on the promise to keep us out of the War - even as his correspoindence now reveals he was conspiring with Winston Churchill to get us into it.

Perhaps the issue between us comes down to this question: did the sweeping Democrat victory in the 2008 election entitle them to enact Health Care Reform, Financial reregulation, Cap & Trade legislation limiting CO2 emissions, and new legislation eliminating the current requirement for secret ballots and majority elections in labor union organizing ... all without "undue" (whatever that means) interference from Republicans. These were, after all the central legislative proposals of the Democrat Platform.

The question is made particularly interesting by the fact that two of these four legislative priorities, Cap & Trade and labor union organizing were not enacted at all -- apparently a result of a combination of fierce Republican opposition in the Congress, adverse public sentiment, and the political calculation by Democrats that they should not proceed. Were these legislative initiatives wrongfully defeated or prevented in your view?

With respect to Health Care Reform the Republicans opposed nearly all aspects of the legislation, including both the single payer option and the mandatory insurance scheme that finally emerged. My underestanding is that the single payer option, passed by the Democrat controlled House was stopped in the Senate by Democrat Congressional leaders, based on their own political calculations, and not on any compromise with Republicans who opposed both versions.

We can argue endlessly about poll data. However most polls and certainly the results of the recent midyear election very strongly suggest that a very substantial segment of the public now opposes most of the above Democrat initiatives including health care. Is this 2010 opposition less legitamate than the support evident in the 2008 election? I don't think so. Was the health care legislation enacted by the Democrat Congress completely consistent with the campaign rhetoric (presumably the source of the public support that emerged) of candidate Obama? Again, I don't think so.

I do believe that President Obama will indeed continue to bypass and attempt to marginalize the Congress when it suits him - as he already has done repeatedly with respect to regulation of CO2 and in the cases of several key high level appointments involving Senate confirmation. I also believe that he and Democrat leaders will attempt to maneuver the Republican opposition into embarassing or self-defeating positions, using many of the legislative tricks of which you accuse Republicans - just as you have repeatedly promised and threatened yourself.

All of these actions are at least permitted by our Constitution and I don't begrudge them to Democrats. Why should either of us advocate a different standard for the other party?

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Thanks for the in-depth response (which I'll respond to in further depth later), but you could have saved a lot of time by just writing 'I think any tactics are justified as long as my side gets their way.'

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

This isn't strictly the House, but it will be soon, so:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44888.html#ixzz14oTrf54C

Summary: the old guard Republicans have no intention whatsoever of getting rid of earmarks or making ANY of the reforms that the so-called 'tea partiers' demanded.

Quote:

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is maneuvering behind the scenes to defeat a conservative plan aimed at restricting earmarks, setting up a high-stakes showdown that pits the GOP leader and his “Old Bull” allies against Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and a new breed of conservative senators.

In a series of one-on-one conversations with incoming and sitting senators, McConnell is encouraging his colleagues to keep an open mind and not to automatically side with DeMint, whose plan calls on Senate Republicans to unilaterally give up earmarks in the 112th Congress, according to several people familiar with the talks.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

This isn't strictly the House, but it will be soon, so:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44888.html#ixzz14oTrf54C

Summary: the old guard Republicans have no intention whatsoever of getting rid of earmarks or making ANY of the reforms that the so-called 'tea partiers' demanded.

Quote:
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is maneuvering behind the scenes to defeat a conservative plan aimed at restricting earmarks, setting up a high-stakes showdown that pits the GOP leader and his “Old Bull” allies against Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and a new breed of conservative senators.

In a series of one-on-one conversations with incoming and sitting senators, McConnell is encouraging his colleagues to keep an open mind and not to automatically side with DeMint, whose plan calls on Senate Republicans to unilaterally give up earmarks in the 112th Congress, according to several people familiar with the talks.

Cycloptichorn

They are happy to use those people and disregard in those people the need for change of any sort...

Perhaps old mama mitch realizes that if they can only manage to make government work for enough people the terms conservative and liberal will become meaningless, and American will become meaningful. Again

0 Replies

Exit polls since the mid-term elections have said that most voters are concerned with the economy and that is why they voted republican. I don't see how a return to investigations are going to improve the economy in any way.

GOP Congress: Investigations instead of solutions

2 Replies

@revelette,

It's not in the Republican's interests for the economy to turn around before the 2012 election cycle; their best chance of getting rid of Obama is for the economy to stay in the crapper.

2 Replies

@DrewDad,

Of course, that means they have to be able to blame the lack of an economic turn around on the Dems. It will be harder next time since they will have to show they tried to do something but were blocked. The propaganda machine will have to be in full swing for that one.

0 Replies

@revelette,

I suspect this comes from the influence peddling scandal which sank the Republicans in 2006. I suspect they think they can come up with something equivalent so as to sweep all before them in 2012. There's a lot more than just the economy which will suffer is this becomes their focus and their sole task.

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

It's not in the Republican's interests for the economy to turn around before the 2012 election cycle; their best chance of getting rid of Obama is for the economy to stay in the crapper.

It is contrary to republican ideology to believe you can positively affect the economy except by giving money to the rich... They believe it will get better on its own, and better faster with tax breaks to the rich... What they do not realize is that the thing went south because the rich were not taxed while working people were taxed, and high profits and high interest paid on every thing bought drained the wealth out of the poor and middle classes... The rich have all the money, the government has none and the poor have only debt with very little of our economy given to actual production of goods... A service economy importing much of what it consumes has no guts... It is never coming back unless private wealth can be reurned to the commonwealth, and unless the people can keep a fair proportion of the value they create...Any body who would vote republican deserves them in office... Too bad the whole nation must suffer them for the stupidity of a single group.. They do not care what happens... They let their ideology think for them, and that is the end of their thinking... It must work because it did work...

1 Reply

The new Republican House Majority

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know