Sunday Discussion Group

November 12, 2006

Now that Dems have reclaimed the majority in Congress, one of the many questions to consider is how the party will run the show. The outgoing Republican majority didn’t exactly offer a model of efficacy.

It is no big scoop that the majority party in Congress has always found ways of giving the shaft to the minority. But there is a marked difference in the size and the length of the shaft the Republicans have given the Democrats in the past six years. There has been a systematic effort not only to deny the Democrats any kind of power-sharing role in creating or refining legislation but to humiliate them publicly, show them up, pee in their faces. […]

American government was not designed for one-party rule but for rule by consensus — so this current batch of Republicans has found a way to work around that product design. They have scuttled both the spirit and the letter of congressional procedure, turning the lawmaking process into a backroom deal, with power concentrated in the hands of a few chiefs behind the scenes. This reduces the legislature to a Belarus-style rubber stamp, where the opposition is just there for show, human pieces of stagecraft — a fact the Republicans don’t even bother to conceal.

I can appreciate that this may seem like inside-pool to most Americans — congressional procedure usually doesn’t sound like a riveting subject — but the way in which the Republican majority would operate the mechanics of government was truly embarrassing. It’s not that they’d mistreat the minority party; it’s that they decided that the minority party was literally irrelevant. Dems were, in the eyes of the GOP, annoying children to be ignored.

Legislation was written without Dem input; bills were passed without letting Dems read it; Dems’ bills were denied hearings and votes; Dems weren’t allowed to offer amendments to legislation; Dems weren’t even allowed to use hearing rooms. If Dems managed to win a key vote on the floor, Republicans would simply keep the vote open — literally for hours, if necessary — until enough arms could be twisted and/or lawmakers bribed. Being a congressional Democrat in recent years was frequently nothing short of humiliating.

Now, of course, Republicans are the minority party on the Hill. The question is obvious: does the Democratic majority treat the Republican minority the way they were treated?

I suppose the reflexive answer is, of course they do. Republicans treated Dems like dirt; now it’s time to return the favor. But consider two sides to this:

* We should treat Republicans the way they treated us — The GOP needs to be taught a lesson. No majority party has ever run Congress with dictatorial impulses shown the Republican majority in recent years, and if Dems don’t show them what it’s really like, they’ll simply get away with their ridiculous behavior. The shoe is on the other foot, and it’s time to stop getting stomped on and start doing the stomping. Better yet, Dems need not worry about political consequences for hardball tactics — most Americans don’t know or care about procedural issues, and even if the GOP raised a fuss, Dems could simply say, “We’re just following the precedent set last year by the other side. What are they complaining about?”

* We shouldn’t follow the Republicans’ bad example — Like it or not, Dems are the grown-ups. We could act like the GOP acted, but then we’d be just as ridiculous as they are. Reciprocation may be tempting, but it’s just creating a cycle of bitterness and animosity that further poisons the political process. It’s not fair that we suffered as the minority party and they shouldn’t, but that’s the cost of being the responsible, reasonable party in a democracy. The GOP lost perspective and corrupted how Congress operates, but we’re better than them and here’s our chance to prove it. We can show the nation, once and for all, which party deserves to run the legislative branch.

So, what would you do? Is there value in playing by fair rules, or is it better to stack the deck the way the GOP did? Is this a good-for-the-goose dynamic, or should Dems hold themselves to a higher standard?

Here’s a refresher course on how the Republicans have treated us these past few years.

  • I understand how badly the GOP treated Dems for the last few years. But adopting the same policies is self-defeating. For Democrats, the answer is simple: we should govern as if our status as majority party is self-evident. Which should be easy, because we are actually the party with a natural majority right now. The GOP is now a southern party, and we should expect to build on our gains as a matter of course.

    A party like that can govern without fear, take its due as the majority but no more than that. We should govern as if it is the mid-1980s, in that sense, not as if we are abused stepchildren who have just gotten the upper hand.

  • I know it’s my own fault for not copying before hitting the “post” button, but it really is maddening to watch a half hour of composing/emending go “poof” in a flash. I don’t have the heart (or the time) to start over.

  • A couple of pointed, but mild, gestures. Get their attention, make the point, and leave it go. It is written that whatsoever shall go around, therefore shall it come around. Verily.

  • Now, of course, Republicans are the minority party on the Hill. The question is obvious: does the Democratic majority treat the Republican minority the way they were treated?

    Yep…

    Oh I guess I should go on, er, like a grown-up. I think one way that the Dems can be the grown-ups is to say “No” frequently and as needed. They should set the bar very high for cooperation. If a Republican wants to participate in our particapatory government, they should prove themselves and earn it. A lot of Republican politicians were sort of held hostage by the far rightwingers who were in power.

    They tell new teachers, “don’t smile until November” to point out that it’s easier to loosen up than it is to tighten up. I’d say cooperate with the Republicans but be very very careful.

  • With the exception of holding the votes open, I say keep the repub’s rules in place, out of the gate. They can be relaxed gradually, if and when the repubs return to reality. I look forward to the repubs whining about how unfair they suddenly have been all these years.

  • The reason we should not follow the Republican’ts example is their’s was the path of corruption. By breaking all the rules on legislating and appropriating, they created the circumstances that let Randy “Duke” Cunningham replace his opinion for the wishes of the Pentagon on whose anti-IED systems to buy, and since his were inferior, there was a significant number of American Servicemen and women killed or maimed that need not have been.

    If that’s not reason enough to follow the rules, I don’t know what is.

  • While “turning the other cheek” may be the wiser course to follow. Should there be little or no consequences to the Republicans, for past bad behavior, wouldn’t that just reinforce their idea that the “end justifies the means?” Seems to me, that at a minimum, they’ve earned a slap or two on the wrist.

  • I think reciprocity in general would be a Bad Thing(tm) — but that laws associated with restoring the rule of law to the country should be rammed through without mercy.

  • #1 &y That’s an excellent article and series. It makes me think two things. One, is that the system definitely needs reform. Two, the Republicans don’t deserve to benefit from that reform.

  • Unfortunately, we need to expect that those Republic party leaders who engineered the trampling of minority rights in the last few Congresses will energetically try to game the rules in ways that will entangle or block the new majority’s agenda in the new Congress.

    The new leadership, in my judgment, therefore needs to follow a two-pronged path (and here I’m echoing several posters above).

    On the one hand, the old Republic leadership, and any current Republic congresspersons who try to keep gaming the balance of power, should be treated with maximum rigor by the new majority. Offices in broomclosets; no invitations to hearings; ruthless squelching of their earmark requests. People like Hastert and Sensenbrenner deserve no better on the basis of the established record.

    On the other hand, other Republican congresspersons without a demonstrated record of rolling over minorities, as well as new congressmen and those who behave like legislators, not thugs, should receive respectful treatment. Their amendments should be heard, they should get the text of bills before the vote, etc.

    Finally, the overall procedure should be managed in a way that follows the rules of congressional comity, but without opening doors for obstructionism. The House does run on a majority, and comity does not require changing that.

    In short, the House has always had a ‘hardball’ aspect, and that’s the reality in a two-party system. Then again, hardball is “America’s game”, and the Major Leagues manage to keep order while allowing intense competition. That’s how the House can work best, too.

  • Well, if we could actually trust the Dems to use their power for good, I’d say play by Repub rules for the next two years, send the Repubs to their rooms until the mess is cleaned up and start with a blank slate in 2009. As that is not how the real world works, even if Pelosi uses her mother of five voice, the Dems should make a very public display of repudiating the old rules and implementing the new ones in the hope the public will understand.

  • I think a little apology is in order before we let the Republicans sit at the big people’s table. They should have to say “We’re sorry we behaved this way. It was clearly wrong. We’re grateful that the Democrats are not going to reciprocate and we promise not to do so again when we have control.” If they can’t bring themselves to say this then they obviously see nothing wrong with being treated this way themselves.

  • Many Congressional Republicans are simply bad people. Politics will not return to normal just because the grown ups have the majority , not when the minority is composed of sociopaths, religious extremists, and loud mouthed fakes. They will take fair treatment as a sign of weakness and exploit it.
    I think the idea of starting out with their rules is the only way to go. Use their rules to get some essential reforms in place and to teach them that their crap will not be tolerated. Then lighten up incrementally so they know the old rules will come back if they don’t behave.
    I know that isn’t the course that’s best for democracy in the lonng run but it is the only way to deal with a mob of morally deficient hacks like the Congressional Republicans.

  • Dems have 2 years to prove they’re capable of governing responsibly, ethically, wisely and in a way that Americans perceive to be fair, after which they’ll be penalized or rewarded based on their performance. Personally, I think the future of the republic depends on them being successful and continuing to have a role in government.

    So, treat the new minority fairly but firmly. Reward those who willing to work with you in a civilized manner by giving them a voice in what and how things are done, but do not bend to the boorish, immature behavior we’ve seen these past 12 years. Part of the goal must be encourage the more extreme elements on the right to marginalize themselves.

  • What PQuincy @ 11 said. Word for bloody word.

    Democrats should be firm but fair: Keep a firm grip on individual GOP goolies and only give a squeeze when it is necessary. Besides, Ds & Rs all need to gang up and go after their common enemy: ShrubCo.

    The Bush Admin. is counting on a Senate crippled by in-fighting and grudge matches for the next two years so they never get around to issuing subpoenas and conducting hearings. In addition, Bush is used to a Senate that works for him, if he can’t have that he’ll want one that just doesn’t work.

  • Scooterlib wrote: “Should there be little or no consequences to the Republicans, for past bad behavior,..”

    Those consequences came last Tuesday.

    Now the Democrats should concentrate on good policy. Its good for the country and its also good politics. Revenge is for chumps.

    That goes for impeachment as well. Bush and the Republican Congress are being wept into the dustbin of history.

  • #11 PQuincy’s well thoughtout comment made a lot of sense.

    Any reforms the Democrats make must be made for the nation and the people. There is no amount of catering to Republicans that will make them be fairer in the future. A lot of corrupt ones are out, but there are plenty of mean ones left. And the Republicans are the party of Mean.

    I agree with Martin#12 that it’s eally important for the Dems to be ethical and show it.

    A lot of people have talked about how they don’t want conservatives to disappear. I somewhat agree, but what I really don’t want to disappear are leftists and true liberals. Probably the left-centrists should rule, but we need the left to continue to be strong and loud.

    Put Bernie Sanders in charge of the ethics committee.

  • To me the most-telling (although not most offensive) effort to isolate Democrats was the GOP’s insistance that legislation be passed by a “majority of the majority.” This effectively reduced Democrats to non-voting members of the House; their votes were statements of preference or opinion, ultimately having no greater legal weight than mine or any other random American’s.

    As to how to deal with it now? I was originally going to propose the “Just Once” policy. Whatever the GOP did, I would suggest that the Democrats do it themselves “Just Once” to prove that they will not unilaterally disarm.

    However, I actually prefer Jay’s solution. Hold open votes until the GOP whines, then make the leadership declare, in writing, that the practice is wrong and that they apologize for engaging in it in the past.

  • Everyone should read “The Origins of Virtue”, or one of the other many books out now, in response to the cynics who use “The Selfish Gene” as their Bible. The Free Market types and conservatives see the driving force behind everything as selfishness. As a result, they have tradition vices — lying, cheating, greed — virtue and traditional virtues — honesty, selflessness, sacrifice, kindness — vices. One who is wise enough to realize all human bahavior is, at heart, driven solely by spreading your own genes, sees virtues as hypocrisy: one is either virtuous because it benefits you, or because it makes it easier for you to act selfishly if you pretend to be virtuous.

    They actually came up with a computer simulation providing programs with “prisoner’s dillemmas” – situations where common good conflicts with self interest – to see which society was the “fittest”. Turns out, if everyone acts virtuous, society is great. A herd of rabbits is utopia. But what happens when a wolf enters? As soon as scumwads enter the picture, they screw all the good, decent people and completely takeover.

    So is the lesson to become shitheads like they are?

    No. There is a program that was even more successful than the rabbit or the wolf. It was called “tit-for-tat”. In essence, it is kind and trusting, forgiving and cooperative. It is virtuous, with a caveate — fuck with it, it fucks with you. Once it’s screwed you, you’re on the blacklist and marginalizes you until you grovel for forgiveness, and if their mea-culpa seems genuine, accepts you back into the fold but keeps an eye on you. Jesus could afford to turn the other cheek when he had God’s wrath to back him up.

    The Democrats were rabbits who got overrun by wolves. Dean and the New Democrats are wiser, and smarter. We’re still the good guys, but don’t fuck with us.

  • It may be better, by far, to take the higher road; Democrats are not Republicans, never have been Republicans, and will never be Republicans. Such ‘de-evolution” would just violate so-oooo many Laws of Nature.

    HOWEVER……..

    The scuttlebutt—and one does not even have to “read between the lines” to interpret it—is that a Republican Congressional Minority will be an anal-retentive, obstructionist minority. They honestly believe that they can hold the line on the Dem majority in both Houses, because (1) Dems will revert to a “fair-play” procedural doctrine, and (2) that Dems lact the intestinal fortitude to “play rough.”

    There’s also the issue of having to repair the incredible amounts of damage caused by these “WereHumans” (think “bipedal werewolves” here). How much of the Constitution have they already tried to flush down the toilet with their rubber-stamp plungers? How badly have they broken our military, and our healthcare, and our social core? What can be done to reverse the transformation of the Executive, back from the excessive dictatorial, and to a partner in functional Democracy?

    Sometimes, the only way to defeat a forest fire is to start a “back-burn,” and use fire itself to destroy the larger fire’s ability to continue feeding. It is never the safest method; history shows that a backburn itself can get out of control, thus adding to the onslaught of that original destructive force.

    Herein lies the danger; the methodology of “payback” being nothing more than a continuation of what the legions of Lott, Frist, Hastert, DeLay, Boehner, et al and ad nauseum, have done to Democracy. They and their ilk have demonstrated that it is possible to take a Hollywood invention (the “Sith” of Star Wars fame) and turn it into a demonstrable reality. True Democracy cannot function, if the “Sithiness” of neoconservativism is merely replaced by a similar sithiness of Democrat-centric foundation.

    But given the amount of damage to be undone, reversed, counteracted…..the better Path may well be to adopt a nationwide attitude of “urban renewal”—and bring in the demolition equipment. Republicans expect their Democratic counterparts in Washington and elsewhere to be weak. They expect us to be passive, and pacifistic. They expect us to quickly forget their trespasses against the American People, and their Constitution, and their Rule of Law.

    We must never forget what these thugs have done to our Nation; to our fellow Citizens; to our International Standing; to our Planet.

    And sometimes, “not forgetting” means “not forgiving.” Allowing people to go unpunished for blatant violations of both specific codified laws and pre-established rules of conduct is to set legal precedence for it to be done—again, and again—and yet, again still.

    I say: It stops HERE. Do not allow this dangerous concept of “but-it-happened-before-and-was-okay” to establish nothing less than overt permission for these Republican thugs to do it again, should they ever be given a second opportunity. Because if they get that second chance, it will be the death of the United States of America as a Democracy….

  • Democrats need to be hard-nosed about each and every action of the congress; however, they also need to be very careful to keep their ranks clean of corruption and scandal. Any congressperson, of whatever party, who strays from the straight and narrow path of what is best for the country should be immediately punished in some way. What the people want is clean government. They want no special priviledges for anyone. They want legislators who act like real citizens and who follow the same rules that all of us are required to follow. If Democrats rule in an inclusive manner that always focuses on the greater good, they will remain in power for many years! If they fail, it will be because they decided to be Republican-lite instead of Democrat-steady.

  • A very difficult question.

    It would be nice if we could punish the individuals, rather than the party. For example, when holding the back-room meetings at which details are really hashed out, invite only those Republicans who weren’t orchestrators of their party’s crimes. If they have to be brought there blindfolded, so be it.

    Of course, I have the ulterior goal of sowing division amongst their side. I don’t know how realistic this is.

    (None of this should be construed as to suggest that those Republicans who didn’t orchestrate, but merely went along with, their essentially criminal behavior are not complicit. But it seems worth drawing a line somewhere and this is where I see it.)

  • THE BIPARTISAN PRESIDENT

    In 2001, Mr. Bush assumed the presidency claiming to be a “uniter, not a divider” and then for six years rode roughshod over the Democrats. During this year’s campaign he said that election of the Democrats would be a victory for the terrorists.

    So this guy is going to be bipartisan?

    True to form, he’s trying to get the Republican lame duck Congress to approve two controversial measures, warrantless eavedropping and the appointment of John Bolton as ambassador to the UN

    from http://www.altara.blogspot.com

    Homer

  • The problem is that the GOP has to pay for their behavior, or they’ve benefitted. When Bush took office, I would have held up all of his nominations until the vacancies in Clinton’s term had been filled.

    As far as the lawlessness of the Congress, I would get some PR out of ending things like shutting out the opposition from discussion on bills — and get some press for “changing” the way Washington is run. Also, publicly announce that from now on, Congressmembers will have a certain amount of time to READ a bill before the vote. Behind the scenes, I would demand certain things from the opposition for these things: don’t want us to act like you? Then you have to stop acting like you.

  • It would be nice if we could punish the individuals, rather than the party. For example, when holding the back-room meetings at which details are really hashed out, invite only those Republicans who weren’t orchestrators of their party’s crimes. If they have to be brought there blindfolded, so be it.

    My understanding is that the party leadership selects who serves on conference committees. So if John Boehner and Roy Blunt send James Sensenbrenner to make a deal, we get James Sensenbrenner. I’m not sure Democrats would ever been in the position to dictate who the opposition party selects for committee assignments and vice versa.

    As much I’d like to see Democrats grind the remaining Republicans under their thumb, it isn’t a practical way to govern. PQunicy at #11 has struck the best balance. Deal fairly with Republicans who are reasonable and fair-minded. To the rest offer Karl Rove’s infamous threat “We’ll f*** him like he’s never been f***ed before.”

  • I’ve been putting a lot of thought into this since Tuesday. There’s a very strong part of me that wants to punch the futhermuckers in the face and then kick them in the balls as they go down, having had six years of personal harassment by the white trash thugs and wannabe-brownshirts who voted for these scum, and I’d love to rub their noses in their defeat.

    That said, I have come to the point where I agree with the statements in posts #2 and #4. I say that entirely pragmatically.

    The truth is, we have only stopped them, not defeated them. If we’re going to defeat them, that’s for 2008, and the way to that is to demonstrate in the next two years that We Aren’t Them. We may dislike the various idiots who have whined about “restoring civility” in the face of what’s gone on, but in fact the public does want that. What we can do is demonstrate what that term really means, which is not what the scumballs meant. Playing by the rules, and forcing them to do so, and then whipping their asses every time, is the path to ultimately kicking them onto history’s trash heap.

    That said, there are a few of the more egregious assholes on the other side who need to be whacked at the outset, just so the others have an example of what bad behavior will get them. Remember, we’re dealing with southern mules that need to be hit over the head with a bat to know you’re there. Candidate #1 is that little putx Patrick McHenry. Give him the Sonny Bono Office (smallest office on the top floor, one floor above the elevator). There are others who need to be banished to the swamps, I’ll let others come up with the nominees.

    Pelosi needs to keep discipline, since traditionally leading Democrats is like herding a swarm of bees through a blizzard with a switch. First and foremost, she needs to keep that sonofabitch Steny Hoyer the hell away from K Street. The last thing we need is a Democratic version of the DeLay Machine.

    While we don’t need to constantly keep our fingers to the wind, it would be well to read and re-read and commit to memory the following items from the latest MSNBC/Newsweek poll:

    Just about everyone believes the Republicans lost the 2006 midterms more than the Democrats won it. Presented with a list of factors that may have contributed to the Democrats’ success, 85 percent of Americans said the “major reason” was disapproval of the administration’s handling of the war in Iraq, 71 percent said disapproval of Bush’s overall job performance, 67 percent cited dissatisfaction with how Republicans have
    handled government spending and the deficit, 63 percent said disapproval of the overall performance of Republicans in Congress, 61 percent said Democrats’ ideas and proposals for changing course in Iraq. Tellingly, just 27 percent said a major reason the Democrats won was because they had better candidates.

    That means the new Congressional majority may be kept on a short leash. A majority of Americans, 51 percent, believe it’s a good thing that the Democrats regained control of Congress, including 18 percent of Republicans, while only 17 percent think it is a bad thing. (When the Republicans won the 2002 midterms, 30 percent thought it was a good thing that the GOP kept control, while 34 percent thought it was a bad thing.)

    There’s massive support for much of the Democratic Congress’s presumed agenda. For instance, 75 percent of Americans say allowing the government to negotiate directly with pharmaceutical companies to lower drug prices for seniors should be a “top priority,” including 67 percent of
    Republicans. Increasing the minimum wage comes next (68 percent) on the public’s list, followed by investigating government contracts in Iraq (60 percent).

    There’s good guidance there. Two years of success working on the items in the last paragraph will bring the public around to believing the Democrats have the best candidates in 2008.

    As to impeachment, while I’d love to provide the rope for Bush and Cheney and to pull the trap door for both of them, Pelosi and Conyers are right to take it off the table. For now. (and you don’t say “for now”) You cannot bring impeachment without overwhelming support of the public, or you repeat what the Republicans did in 1998. And even when you have support, as was the case in 1974 with Old Shovel Nose, it has to be overwhelming support that also takes the supporters and small soldiers down with the king, or you end up 30 years later dealing with their revenge, as we have done with Cheney, Rove and Rumsfeld, and 30 years of “movement conservatism” to erase the defeat of Nixon. That said, the hearings that the people say in the poll that they’d like to see happen are where the evidence will come out that will create that overwhelming support if it’s going to happen. Myself, I think the hearings will destroy Bush-Cheney, and in so doing kill the Republican Party for the 2008 elections. We may never impeach them for their crimes, but as Oscar Wilde said, “Living well is the best revenge.”

    Right now, the best thing we can do is demonstrate in the doing that everything the Right has has said about us is a lie. Exacting revenge and playing the game by their rules won’t do that.

  • I agree with those who have said it should be some combination of both. Precedent is precedent, after all, and they set it. However, as much as I hate to say it, we have to keep in mind how the media will play it. They reported the repubs bad behavior but I don’t remember much questioning of it by the punditocracy. Given their rightward bent, it could be very bad for politics if the dems treat the repubs as they were treated — but it would be sweet.

  • There’s more than a lot of pages in the dictionary that mark the difference between “Reciprocity” and “Accountability”. Holding the theives and liars and criminals accountable is not a childish tit-for-tat. It is unimaginable that Pelosi & Co. are simply going to allow them to pocket their usurious profits and move on, to get their pointy heads together in back rooms and plot the next Republican Ascendancy. If there’s no punishment for lying and cheating, not to mention getting innocent people killed with those misdemeanors, the people grow to expect no better from their governments. After a brief interlude marked by a few unimpressive or dissatisfying initiatives, they might well want those liars and cheaters back in power.

    Which leads me to my next point; could the American people PLEASE compile a checklist of what a president should be, and be able to do, before the next presidential elections thrust themselves upon us? The past 6 years should have provided a sharp lesson on the wisdom, or lack thereof, in electing an individual who claims UP-FRONT to “go with his gut”, but who has run every business venture he ever captained into the hard earth of bankruptville. Why should anyone be surprised when such a walking conundrum proves to be an utter failure as a leader? Mistaking folksy charm and a slantwise grin (which came to look more and more like a smirk as the debacle rolled on) for hardheaded commmon sense is like imagining coloured hubcaps would make a used car go faster.

    I’d suggest the next president, apart from any personal considerations revolving around race or sex (which should be irrelevant by now, but I doubt they are), should have a good understanding of current affairs around the world. I mean the world we live in, not the the dream world of Republicansugarplumland. He or she should be respected by the rest of the world, not just a bit more than 50% of Americans – you might not think that’s important, but the rest of the world LOATHED George Bush from the starting gun. He or she should be a good, confident public speaker, but not slick. He or she should have a respected background in business, law or some other notable profession; not a pampered rich boy/girl who hasn’t a clue what it’s like to work for your money. Expertise in brush-clearing should not count.

    In short, warning signs are so termed for a reason. They were all present in 2000 and 2004, but were largely ignored. Largely enough, anyway.

  • On the list of whacking the egregious offenders, top of the list has to be Halliburton. Destroy them. As in kill the company. Wipe it out. Of course, a side benefit will be removing Dick Cheney’s millionaire status as his financial settlement with the company becomes worth nothing.

    Another one is Blackwater. Make the owners wish they were the ones turned into barbecue on that bridge in Fallouja in 2004.

    This is popular stuff for which there is no downside, since the public sees these guys as thieves to start with, and whacking them whacks the Republican Party and puts the corporate whores on notice they’re on thin ice.

  • If the Democrats behave like the Republicans, I will not vote for them in ’08.

    Since technology has changed, then perhaps Congress should as well. It would be refreshing if Pelosi spoke weekly about important bills, what the Dems were trying to do to pass the bills, what the impediments were. If she did this without obvious partisan bias, it would win over voters. Talk about who is supporting and opposing the bill and why. Government is opaque – with secrets, with wordiness, with money. True debate would be such a welcome change.

    As for impeachment – Bush deserves it but the country doesn’t. So much is wrong which needs immediate attention. Revenge is a luxury I don’t support.

  • That “The Right was Right” site is pretty darn good. I would agree with a couple of those points as serious policy. I don’t know if you could raise the minimum wage to $25.00/hour, but that would be about right for what it was in terms of buying power in 1967, when it was a worthwhile standard. It used to be that the minimum wage was not supposed to be just rock bottom – it was supposed to be enough that a person could work a normal work week and support themself decently, while being able to take advantage of opportunities to advance themselves. It used to be in 1967 that a person could have a minimum wage job and afford a place to live that wasn’t a slum – nowadays the minimum wage, if you got to work 40 hours a week (which you can’t) wouldn’t even pay for half of a slum apartment if you spent every dime on rent, forget food and the rest.

    Oh, and promoting Fair Trade over Free Trade and ending the race to the bottom would be popular economic policy. Whacking the Walton Family should be a high priority. Let them go live in their bomb shelters.

  • The best revenge would be to drain the swamp so that it no longer can support the culture of corruption. Hold investigations leading to K-street containment, cutting out earmarks, campaign finance reform, term limits, non-partisian ethics probes, oversight, and balancing the budget would help insure that we don’t get the democratic version of the one party plunderers.
    Close down the crack house so we don’t also get addicted.
    The best revenge is real reform.

  • Republicans believe in the family unit led by the strict father who knows what’s right and punishes transgression. Those who believe in nurturing families become Democrats. Like wayward children, they’ve been begging for attention through punishment my transgressing for years, and I say let the punishment begin. Most Republican statements are studies in projection, and one of their most common comments about the Middle East is something along the lines of “those people only respect strength.”

    They’re not talking about foreigners, they’re talking about themselves. I say grind them down for a year with every nasty little trick they played, making it clear each time why it’s happening, and that if they play nice like grownups, the 111th Congress will consider treating them like grownups.

  • RepubCo considered Dems to be far less than irrelevant. Dems were/are, (to them), trashy impediments to be shunned, denigrated and shat upon. That’s too much trouble to go to for something that’s irrelevant.

    The black and white paint is going to have to be put away. It’s a complex game that’s being played. Dem leadership is going to have to be at the top of it’s game in observing the players on all sides, rebuilding essential oversight while letting chips fall where they may in the name of ethical gov’t. and explaining to the public what they are doing and why.

    RepubCo can be part of the process to the degree that they want to be part of the solution. Dem leadership must determine what the solution looks like and then be a pit bull in making a commitment to that path that is as unwavering in it’s aspirations for honest, positive gov’t as RepubCo was unwavering in it’s efforts to corrupt and undermine the foundations of America at every turn.

    Beyond legitimate accountability for misdeeds, what was done by RepubCo is done. But if they want to play the same old games, true irrelevancy should be their fate.

  • The Dems best strategy now is to keep the Republicans demoralized and divided. And the best way to do that is – allow responsible Republicans to have a meaningful role in drafting and passing legislation.

    Hear me out here. The outrages that Taibbi and others have documented had the effect of uniting Democrats as never before. Carter couldn’t do it, Clinton couldn’t do it, Reagan & Bush Sr often reached across the aisle and had a core of conservative Dems on their side, but it took the quasi-fascism of Bush Jr, Frist, and DeLay to produce the unprecedented degree of unity we’ve seen the past few years, which helped to paralyse the Repub agenda and, now, has defeated them. So the key now is to prevent the same thing from happening on the other side.

    Remember, Bush is at 31% approval. A lot of last week’s victory was due to general dissatisfaction at Repub leadership – not on any specific issue, but on all of them. A number of Repubs, esp northeast & midwest, won by narrow margins and are now scared sh–less of ’08, when turnout is likely to be higher.

    Dems have to offer these guys the chance to cross the aisle and support reasonable things like more accountability. Involving them in committee mark-ups and giving them the chance to submit floor amendmants is a good way to help them do that. It may make the process bumpier in the short-term, but would be one step towards cementing a long-term Democratic majority.

  • And we’ve got to have a nationwide system of balloting that is accessible, easily understood and verifiable beyond question combined with voter fraud rules that have real sharp teeth.

  • &y, in the first comment, has submitted an article that is really quite an eye-opener…that bad, huh?

    The Republicans have a natural advantage in all aspects of politics as a result of having no ethics- lie, cheat, slander, mislead, mischaracterize, ostracize, belittle… that’s been their game from the beginning, and their tactics will never change. I hope we never stoop so low as to emulate their example. Rightfully, they should be marginalized, but that also would eventually be our fate when positions are again reversed.

    So, fix the problem to make the system less susceptible to abuse when the pendulum swings back. Reverse the rule changes to reinstate the procedures that made the Congress a more civil and democratic institution in the past, and restore a voice to the minority party in affecting legislation. The Congress as it now functions is controlled by the leadership, and is no longer the deliberative body that it was originally intended to be. The result is that bad legislation can be rammed through by unscrupulous ideologues in leadership positions. Fix it, and then, by all means, find some other way of getting even.

  • I think we have to remember that the Republicans don’t think they did anything wrong. They think they lost locally and that most of that was because some of them were taking bribes, abusing women and being gay.

    What have they always done? They’ve twisted every rule to be obstructionist. Every right the minority gets, they will use it to generate power to their noise machine which is not the least bit chastened. They haven’t played politics the last 15 years, they’ve tried to destroy the very notion of politics or any other kind of honorable dissent. They’ll whine and yell and their noise machine will raise the decibels and the MSM will go along. Just like always before. Like I said, nobody in this fucking town is ever wrong. I hope the Dems have sufficent body armor because it going to an explosive 110th.

    I was just thinking that Rove used to be Bush’s brain. Now he’s that new asshole the electorate tore Bush. That keeps Rove and Cheney employed “doing the nation’s business” on the optimistic rug.

  • I had another thought on this. The Dems should stand firm by the repub rules, unless the repubs agree to bring back the fairness doctrine to broadcasting. If the repubs want fairness, they should have to give to get.

  • It will be hard for the Republican talking points people to protest if we don’t immediately go back to a more moderate stance. I think we should consider how these kinds of people abuse things and hold it over them for a few months as we pass some things we care deeply about.

    They should experience what it’s like to be treated like that, in any case, because these people aren’t really capable of putting themselves in other peoples shoes, or else they wouldn’t be such bullies.

    We don’t want them to draw the conclusion that we’re a bunch of wimps and they can treat us with contempt from the minority and manipulate us at will.

    So we show them we’re tough, we do what needs to be done, and then we bring the system back to more-or-less what it was before these bullies came in, with new safeguards to make sure that these rules can’t be changed so easily again.

  • I like what Steve in the comments said:

    “We must never forget what these thugs have done to our Nation; to our fellow Citizens; to our International Standing; to our Planet.

    And sometimes, “not forgetting” means “not forgiving.” Allowing people to go unpunished for blatant violations of both specific codified laws and pre-established rules of conduct is to set legal precedence for it to be done—again, and again—and yet, again still.”

    Progressives are traditionally painted as always on the side of the criminal, never the victim.

    We’ve been the victim, in this case, yet we want to simply forgive the criminal, instead of punishing him.

    Society cannot function if there is no consequence for criminal behavior.

    We’ve taken impeachment off the table. What else will we take off the table? Are we really on the moral high ground if we decide not to prosecute criminal behavior?

  • I really really want revenge. I want the Republicans demoralized & humiliated, with every insult and slight of the last six years magnified and returned to them a hundredfold. However, that isn’t the way to go.

    I’m tempted to say, publicize a lit of priorities covering all the needed corrections from the Bush Era – no torture, habeas corpus, Iraq, K Street reform, putting teeth in the Geneva Convention, warrant-less wire-tapping, bankruptcy, no-bid contacts in Iraq, funding more alternate energy research, re-establishment of oversight, a certain number of sane judicial appointees (to match the number held open in Clinton’s time), paper trails on voting machines, etc., etc., etc., and then and only then fixing House and Senate rules and practices to be fairer to the minority party, hopefully scheduled for Spring and Summer 2008. Meanwhile, work with Republicans who behave responsibly. However, the danger here is that it could get too easy to continue down the Republican path, leaving us no better tnan them. For example, if we don’t kill the K Street project, the temptation to just take it over and run it for us will be irresistible.

    (The system just ate my comment, too: copy before you paste.)

  • Ther GOP is no longer the party of Lincoln. Chafee, that is. It’s important to remember the differences between Lincoln Chafee and Joe Lieberman and to delve into why they’re both so undeserving of their respective fates.

    If you don’t want to know what I have to say on the subject, at least read the explosive op-ed piece written by Chafee in today’s NY Times about a 2000 meeting between Cheney and moderate Republicans.

  • As much as I think Congressional Republicans deserve to be treated like crap, they represent nearly half of the American populace and those people have a democratic right for their representatives to be real participants in the legislative process. The way the Republicans have acted in the House and elsewhere for the last 12 years is behavior more suited to a dictatorship than a democracy and it isn’t the way I want this country to be in the future. If Democrats respond by acting in kind, the United States set up by our founding fathers is gone forever.

  • Looks to me as if everybody wants the Republican dirty tricks stopped and fears that they’ll keep at it, to the detriment of those for whom we worked and cheered so hard, as well as ourselves and the country.

    Bush is already challenging Democratic resolve, and the fate of John Bolton is their first test. Bush may be able to make him a deputy representative to get around the Democrats’s certain rejection of him, and then it’s back to the old tricks again if they get away with it unscathed.

    I’d say that any dirty tricks that the Democrats can head off, that’s for the best. But they can’t prevent all Bush’s dirty tricks, such as acting unilaterally (signing executive orders to get his way, for instance), but they can and should raise holy hell if he does and talk about his failure at bipartisanship…

    Democrats must be VERY cautious, and I think they will be. They surely know who they’re playing with and have been slapped down enough to not forget it. The junior conservative Democratic senators need to stay in line, since some things may come up where their wishes just cannot be honored until later.

    And we will all need to be patient. If the Democrats keep America apprised of what’s going on, it will stand them in good stead when delays are due to obvious Republican attempts to throw wrenches into the spanner. We’ll know it, and so will America.

  • Er, I think the correct term is “spanner in the works” or “wrenches into the gears”.

    Anyway…

  • Screw ’em on the big things.

    Be gracious on the unimportant things.

    We can have it both ways now.

  • We’ve taken impeachment off the table.
    ————————————————————Catherine, 1:53 pm

    Actually, the exact wording, to-date, has been centered around the idea that “We wouldn’t impeach Bush for Bush’s mishandling of Iraq.”

    No one said we wouldn’t impeach Cheney for his crimes centering around war-profiteering, or his blatantly-unconstitutional shadow-government construct, or his lies, thefts, and obstructions of justice.

    No one said we wouldn’t impeach Bush for “issues other than Iraq.” Let’s see—we might start with plotting to overthrow the Constitution; there’s still that nasty little Common Article Three to the Geneva Conventions; the possible issues governing the run-up to 9/11 and the resultant deaths of thousands of non-military Citizens—this list just gets uglier as we go along—eh?

    No one said we wouldn’t agree to extradite the both of them to the Hague for war crimes.

    Not impeach over Bush’s mismanagement of Iraq? Iraq ia small potatoes, when compared to other issues of our—and Herr Bush’s—time….

  • Lots of great points in here. I think the “reciprocity” model is the best way to go; I also think that a few symbolic ass-kickings are called for, and the fact that we can take a lot of those measures–punishing Big Oil, grilling Halliburton and Blackwater and Big Pharma–with something like two-thirds public support, makes it what Big Swinging Dick might call a “no-brainer.”

    The congressional Democrats have to recognize exactly what they have here: they aren’t popular, but their proposed governing agenda is exceptionally popular–way more so than what The Newt had to offer 12 years ago at this point, I think.

    Stick to that agenda; use investigations and the subpoena power selectively but forcefully to isolate the crooks from their power base and funding sources; and keep all the sharp elbows off-camera, and we have the chance to lock in a majority two years hence.

    In a sense, the stakes for the next two years could be the chance to kill off the Republican Party as it’s currently constituted: if the Democrats govern effectively and with strength but not vindictiveness, I wouldn’t be surprised to see the left-most third of today’s Republicans switch parties or go Indy, leaving just the Southern theoligarchy/crypto-fascist wing.

  • First, great article &y @#1. It really shed some light on the arcane rules of governing and how the GOP took advantage..

    I definitely like the thoughts of many here especially taking the attitude that the GOP has acted like petulant, greedy children. With that in mind, the good parent instills discipline, responsibility and accountability/consequences. That should be the focus of the Dems with the new Congressional makeup. I’ve said it here before, the Dems should DO THEIR JOB. That means oversight. Each committee should welcome the GOP members to join with them in stamping out corruption, waste and illegal conduct.

    I think framing it in terms of are Dems acting like the GOP or differently is playing on GOP terms, a constant Dem downfall. Any time a GOP’er says the Dems are taking advantage or acting out of spite, the Dem response should consistently be “WE ARE DOING OUR JOB.” If that seems like payback, well, then, tough.

  • A week ago, I’d have said: “let’s apply Cheney’s advice (GFY) to all of them”. Now, I think I agree with the rest of you; we need to be stern but not vengeful, because building is more important than destroying.

    I also think that ml (@33) is brilliant:
    “It would be refreshing if Pelosi spoke weekly about important bills, what the Dems were trying to do to pass the bills, what the impediments were.”

    Not only would it bring the process more into the open but, if it were to become a regular feature (“This week on the table”) on TV, it might get people more interested (as well as more educated and more engaged) in the political process’ nuts and bolts. I would just hope that such weekly “windows into the Congress” would happen on Mondays, not Fridays

    But, even if we’re not vengeful, we need to keep a beady eye on them all — even those who *seem* to be co-operative. Repubs don’t seem to have learnt *squat* from the Tuesday’s drubbing. In today’s WashPO there are two side-by-side articles about the potential Presidential candidates. One article, written by Joe Trippi, is about Dem side, the other, by Ed Rogers, about the Repubs.

    What was especially interesting, at least to me, were the general summations of each article. Trippi says that any Dem wanting to be elected at the primary, will have to offer new ideas on issuess. Quote:
    “To get the chance to lead the nation in meeting the challenges of the next decade — globalization, energy, health care, terrorism — the winner will need to break out of the ideological box and stop defending the ideas of the past”

    Ed Rogers sees the chances of the Repubs coming from a different direction. After spending too much time offering advice to Dems (where’s your Grandma, Ed? Maybe she needs a lesson in egg-sucking), he comes back to Repubs and says:
    “One year from now, anyone who isn’t a front-runner will face certin death unless he or she can alter the dynamics with bold gambits or flashy gimmicks”

    Smoke and mirrors are what’s needed; ideas aren’t necesary at all. Which is why we need to keep them in our sights at all times. And why getting the word out and educating the public should be considered *urgent* (once again, ML’s idea is *brilliant*)

  • Even if the Republicans themselves deserve no better treatment that the Democrats have received, the country deserves better than that. If the public views the Democrats as no better than the Republicans, it won’t be long until they meet the same fate on some future election day.

    Of course, this doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be a few up-or-down votes…

  • I believe a lot of American voters cast their ballots for Democrats precisely because they expected them to punish the Republicans. After all, the electorate has no real power to punish lawbreakers; simply the power to elect those who will act as the strong arm of chastisement.

    The notion of increased transparency is a good one, but there’s no reason the Democrats can’t transparently push positive issues that would be good for the country while simultaneously bitch-slapping the Republicans in any number of little ways. Being a politician is their full-time job, which means they have lots of time for multitasking.

    If Dick Cheney’s punishment is going to be enforcement of a reduced voice in foreign policy, while still getting to retire with his Halliburton millions (I read somewhere that his first-year tax cut was around $80,000.00): O death – where is thy sting?

  • And Democrats should lengthen the workweek for Congress!

    As it is now, Tuesday through Thursday is just not long enough to participate in committee work or fully discuss bills and vote on them. Why not give Congress every other weekend off (Friday through Sunday) and have done with it. The other weeks they can work five days a week like everybody else does.

  • The middle way: just enforce the rules as written. For example, if a Republican files notice of a filibuster, don’t just take it as read. Make him do it the old fashioned way — stand in the Senate and talk. Leave and an immediate cloture vote will be taken. Another example: eliminate anonymous holds.

    Oh, and turn out the lights on Sensenbrenner. Just once.

  • The American people did not throw out the Republicans because they weren’t playing by the rules or being nice to Dems, they threw them out because the Republicans are dangerous.

    We should not change the rules, unless the Republicans make a case for why THEIR rules need to be changed, and then we should leave the rule changes for the lame-duck session of 2008 (if that happens, I don’t think it will).

    The American people picked the Dems because they want the problems that face us solved, and getting that done will be much less likely if we allow the Republicrooks to use the OLD rules to slow us down. If we give them an inch, they will take a mile, and we don’t have time to allow that to happen. Sure, work with the moderates as much as possible, but we should use the rules the Republicrooks developed, not expect them to change their stripes if we let them have more power. If they bitch about us doing to them what they did to us, ask them to formally propose the changes to THEIR rules, and tell them we’ll get around to it as soon as we’re done cleaning up the mess they made.

    We have SERIOUS problems that have been made WORSE by the Republicrooks inaction or corrupt actions. Above all else, the establishment of a verifiable, transparent voting system should be a priority. After that, global warming should be issue number one. Both of these are important to a huge majority of Americans, and we should see global warming as a threat to our very existence, because it is. All the ramrod tactics the R’s perfected should be used against them, because these two issues are that important.

  • After scanning comments, I think I’m in the minority here, but I say #2.

    We were all incensed by the way the GOP fixed the game in their favor. If the Dems turn around and do the same thing, then they are no better. And by proving that they are the bigger people and better at actual governance, the Dems can hold onto the majority — and maybe even the White House — in 2008.

    Sure, payback can be nice, but actual good governance is better.

    • Comments are closed.