House Dems looking out for themselves?

October 17, 2007

We’ve seen the pattern play out a more than a few times this year. House Dems take up a bill, pass it, and send it to the Senate. Senate Dems take up the bill, Republicans block the vote, and the bill goes away. Republicans then complain that congressional Dems aren’t doing enough to pass bills. It’s a rather annoying cycle.

With this in mind, there’s an interesting piece in The Hill today about the House Democratic leadership working to make it clear that they are doing their job, and it’s not their fault if progress in an evenly-divided Senate stalls.

Frustrated by lack of legislative progress in the Senate, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is increasingly touting Democratic achievements in the House.

Her statements represent a significant shift from the stance she took six months ago. In March, the Speaker celebrated the first 100 days of the congressional majority by stating, “Democrats have brought the winds of change to the Capitol.”

These days, she’s confined to claiming those winds are blowing on her side of the building. In the minds of her caucus members, the Senate is in the doldrums and House members are paying the price for Senate inaction on Democratic priorities.

In response, Don Stewart, a spokesman for Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, and the one who’s been fibbing quite a bit lately, said, “Let me get this straight: When they were in the minority, it was the majority’s fault when their agenda failed. And now that they’re in the majority, it’s the minority’s fault? Seriously?”

Even by Senate Republican standards, it shouldn’t be too difficult to understand. When Dems were in the Senate minority, the GOP wouldn’t let Democratic bills move. With Dems in the Senate majority, the GOP is blocking almost every piece of legislation it can from even coming up for a vote. Indeed, the Senate GOP is on track to block more legislation in the 110th Congress than any in history — filibustering at triple the usual rate.

Why would Republicans find this complicated?

I think the report shouldn’t be exaggerated into some kind of bicameral partisan fight. There’s nothing in the report, or anywhere else, that the House Democratic leadership is unsatisfied with the Senate Democratic leadership. This is more about frustration with an agenda that enjoys broad support, but can’t get through Congress due to Republican obstructionism.

With that in mind, House Dems aren’t just complaining to cover themselves; they apparently want to see Senate Dems get more aggressive.

The change in talking points at the top reflects a deepening frustration among House Democrats, who are irritated with lack of progress in the Senate and are starting to publicly press their Senate counterparts to stop letting Republicans use procedural tactics and instead force Republicans to carry out a filibuster, if that’s what it takes. […]

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) complained last month about a “Republican-controlled Senate” and hasn’t backed down since. He agrees that Senate Democrats should force votes, rather than simply backing down when Republican senators use procedural maneuvers to block legislation.

That would certainly shake things up, though it’s unclear if Senate Dems are open the possibility of actual filibusters. Stay tuned.

Nancy can put her lip-stick on this pig as much as she wants –it doesn’t change a damn thing. She is presiding over a House of Representatives that refuses to take action on behalf of the American People to end the unconstitutional, “undeclared” war and occupation of Iraq and impeach the Dictator-In-Chief and his cabal of NeoCon Supremacists for capital crimes and treason.

Our Constitutional Republic is being destroyed by King George and the Dicktator and she is talking about “achievements”? Two steps backward to take one step forward is no achievement.

  • Listening to Bush’s conference this AM. Quite an admonishing he’s given to Congress today. He sounds like a father chastizing some wayward children. He says its a shame Congress is so focused on condemning Turkey for the Armenien Genocide — I guess it was okay to issue a non-binding comdenation of Moveon.org.

  • JKap, I don’t think that is a fair evaluation. Important as Iraq is, there is more than one issue in the world. The House completed its 100 Days agenda, passing things like minimum wage increases and ethics reforms that would never have had a chance without Democratic control. They have brought information to light on BushCo corruption that would never have surfaced absent Democratic control. Just because the House is not doing the one thing you care about doesn’t mean they aren’t accomplishing anything. Trust me, there are a lot of people out there for whom the minimum wage (and more important, its ripple effect through low wage jobs generally) means much. Ditto S-CHIP – it certainly isn’t Pelosi’s fault that Bush wont sign it and Boehner is willing to follow Bush off a cliff. These are domestic initiatives that have a vry real impact on people’s day to day lives, in some ways even more directly than Iraq for families without a loved one in the service.

  • Force the filibuster. Take one bill—just one—and roll it out on a Friday afternoon.Tell McConnell and his thugs that it’s coming up for an up-or-down vote. he threatens the filibuster, just reply with, “I hope you didn’t have any plans for the weekend, Mitch—because you’re going to earn that paycheck you’ve been gouging the People for every month.”

    It’s the same as cut-throat poker—raise, call, of fold….

  • “Let me get this straight: When they were in the minority, it was the majority’s fault when their agenda failed. And now that they’re in the majority, it’s the minority’s fault? Seriously?”

    This is really B.S. Someone needs to remind Don Stewart, Mitch McConnell and the rest of this country that the REPUBLICANS are the hypocritical jack*sses that are obstructing everything the Democrats try to accomplish. Had the Democrats behaved this way when the Rrepublicans were in the majority, every news channel would be leading every news hour with Obstructionist Democrat stories.

    Anyone that wants to point fingers at Nancy and Harry over this is seriously mistaken on who is responsible for the situation. And as long as these Republican shills get away with blaming Harry and Nancy, there will never be a resolution to the problem.

    It’s time to get behind the Democrats and take the fight to the Republicans

  • What a nation we have come to when political leaders, (read Bush and his Republican apologists), strenuously work to massage the political ignorance of the common American people for their own benefit, instead of leading us prosperously into the future. With the level of obstructionism displayed by our friends in the Republican party, we may not see much of a prosperous future! -Kevo

  • It’s time for the Democrats to get their message straight, and repeat in every single interview, several times, the words “Republican Obstruction” and “Republican filibuster”. Remind the press that there’s Republican support for many of these bills.

    And it’s also time to make them really filibuster. Letting them use the threat, and never making them actually stand there and read the phone book while they let American kids die, that’s criminal.

    I’m looking at you, Harry Reid.

  • zeitgeist

    I have to agree with JKap on this one.

    While there are certainly other issues that Congress must deal with, the most urgent ones involve America’s Constitutional crisis. The charge to the Democrats in 2006 was mostly to stop the Bush administration’s destruction of America, which includes the illegal war in Iraq (weren’t the Democrats elected to a majority in 2006 to fight the good fight and end the war, even by defunding it?), but also to stop the move toward an attack on Iran, end Bush’s torture and renditions (the Geneva Convention provisions), restoring FISA, and repeal the Patriot Act.

    Whatever the reason on Constitutional matters, the Democrats have marched in lockstep with the unconstitutional WH agenda and haven’t fought with tactics and strategies at their disposal. Their approach has been to put energy into political matters only if they think they can win. Their approach has been to play footsie with the Bush administration’s illegal and unconstitutional agenda, giving up their power by negotiating with the liars and criminals there. Instead of voting AGAINST bills that are unconstitutional, sometimes they voted FOR them with the explanation, “We’ll fix this later”, after negotiating the constitutional principles away. I didn’t cast my vote for Democrats in 2006 so they could do this. It was because they promised, above all else, to fight Bush on the Iraq war.

    Now, I don’t think you’d see rational progressives being critical of the Democrats at all if they’d just FOUGHT the Republican agenda at the front lines, win or lose, dammit! But they didn’t. Whether they do now or not is anybody’s guess.

    I’ll be a merciless goad to the Democrats (if they listen) until they realize they aren’t attending a sock hop but rather the destruction of America’s Constitutional government.

  • I read somewhere a month or so ago that since they couldn’t get anything through the senate, their strategy was going to be to push a bunch of stuff through the house to highlight the problem. Not a bad strategy in theory but if they end up dropping the ball on the PR end, what else is new. The Republicans generally excel in the PR wars.

  • Trent Lott said something a few months ago about how they would be obstructionist because it was working for them. And he is right. It’s time for Harry Reid to make them perform real and actual filibusters if they want to block bills from coming to the Senate floor. Racerx was right about that. And I also agree with Anney and JKap, we elected the dems to put an end to this war and to stop the illegal unconstitutional things that the Bush cabal has perpetrated on our country. Bring up the Webb Amendment over and over. Bring up SCHIP and make them filibuster. If we lose the battles, please God make it a Phyrric victory for the Republicans. And begin every interview and press conference with Republican obstructionism. Republicans following their leader rather than their constitutents etc. This is a battle that can be won all day evry day, from the well of the Senate to every talking heads program on every cable station (well, except for Fox.) Push Back Harry! We’ve got your back!

    And if Dems have to filibuster a few votes themselves, like blocking the republican cretin from the FEC, or stopping the appointee from OLC at DoJ then by golly do it! Defend what’s left of our Constitution, and then we’ll all set about restoring it. And Block any bill that grants immunity to the Telecoms.

    And I think Nancy is right to bring up and pass as many popularly supported bills in the house as they can, but then she and Harry must follow throw and make the public realize that it’s the Republicans who are stopping all progress. (FWIW)

  • On several of the topics mentioned in this thread, there needs to be some political realism.

    First, in regards to impeachment of Bush — though I fully agree Bush deserves to be impeached more than any president in our history, it would be a political and national disaster to try. In the incredibly unlikely event that Congress succeeded impeaching and convicting Bush, you are left with President Cheney! Does anyone really want to go that route? Someone will probably suggest impeaching Cheney first, or at the same time, but there are still huge problems. Simultaneous kis probably constitutionally dubious and would be portrayed by the Republicans as a attempted coup to install a President Pelosi. Even without the foregoing problems, one must remember the impeachment process. Even if the House votes articles of impeachment (not a foregone conclusion by any means), the Senate must still vote to convict by a two-thirds majority — a complete impossiblity. Also remember, once the House votes the articles of impeachment, all other business in the Senate stops for the trial. Also at that point, the Dems would no longer have control of the situation in the Senate, since the trial is presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court — John Roberts. Does anyone really think this whole scenario is viable or leads to any good outcome for the country?

    As for Senate filibusters, the rules were changed in 1975. Actually standing there and talking, the classic filibuster, is no longer required under the Senate rules. And I believe changing the rules would require a two-thirds vote.

    I agree the Dems should be doing a lot more to win the PR war against the Republicans, but impeachment and/or filibusters are dead issues.

  • Pingback: WHAT THEY SAID…

  • williamjacobs,

    Until 1975 it required a two thirds vote for cloture to end a filibuster. In 1975 they dropped the required number to 60, making it much easier (in theory) to end a filibuster. To get this change required some compromises to get enough votes to make the change. The deal was that the Senate would drop the cloture number to 60, but it no longer required a member to actually stand up on the Senate floor and talk — the classic filibuster. Now all that was required was that at least 41 senators indicate their willingness to filibuster. It has been at times called the “silent filibuster”. One of the ideas behind the change was that filibusters would not bring the Senate’s work to a halt and the whole body could function more efficiently. Now everyone should get up off the floor from their laughing fit over that idea and try to remember that the Congress was no where near as partisan in those far off days of thirty years ago. It was still thought that most Senators would have the good of the country in mind, most of the time. It did not occur to people then that the minority party would decide that for their own political gain, they would stop the majority of the Senate from passing anything but the most trivial things.

  • Probably the Republicans have some stiff blackmail on
    Harry Reid, so he has to go along and act like a patsy
    or end up in jail.

    Or else he’s that spineless and stupid.

    Occam’s Razor says it’s easier to believe the first scenario.
    Reid is from Nevada, after all.

  • filibustering at triple the usual rate.

    This simply isn’t true. I’m surprised you bought into it. What is happending is that the Senate Republicans have threatened a filibuster, and Senate Democrats, in the wake of this threat, cave time after time after time. While it is important to accurately put the blame where it belongs, it is equally important to accurately describe the problem.

    I agree with Steve (above) that we need to call them on it. Put a line in the sand, and see how long Senate Republicans stand with their weakened President. As it is, Senate Democrats are simply enabling (and offereing cover to) what is dreadful political behavior.

    Fred

  • This is actually smart to do. Demonstrate the House — where Dems have a larger majority — can still get things done, but then get stopped up in the Senate, where control is tenuous.

    So, if you want things done, you need a larger Leiberman proof Democratic majority.

    • Comments are closed.