The Democrats don;t intend to allow Republicans to participate in the first few days of this Congressional session:
As they prepare to take control of Congress this week and face up to campaign pledges to restore bipartisanship and openness, Democrats are planning to largely sideline Republicans from the first burst of lawmaking.
House Democrats intend to pass a raft of popular measures as part of their well-publicized plan for the first 100 hours. They include tightening ethics rules for lawmakers, raising the minimum wage, allowing more research on stem cells and cutting interest rates on student loans.
But instead of allowing Republicans to fully participate in deliberations, as promised after the Democratic victory in the Nov. 7 midterm elections, Democrats now say they will use House rules to prevent the opposition from offering alternative measures, assuring speedy passage of the bills and allowing their party to trumpet early victories.
And I agree 100% with this decision. While this will give the cheerleaders on the right some early cannon fodder (“See- the Democrats are no different!”), this can be completely countered with the simple statement- “Hey- we are just using your rules.” Politically, it might be damaging to the Democrats in the short run, but the alternative is to let the Republicans participate early on, defeat or screw up all the initiatives the Democrats plan to pass, and have the Republicans then claim the Democrats didn’t change anything.
So shut ’em out. Let them sit on the sidelines, pass your bills and fulfill your promises, and then, after the dust has settled, let the Republicans play ball. Maybe, by then, they will appreciate the fact that the Democratic practices for debate are the better alternative to the past 6 years of one party rule, and will not use the Democratic willingness to work with the opposition as a weapon.
ThymeZone
These are Dems after the heart of ThymeZone: Kickin ass and takin names.
It will take years to undo the damage done by the Potatohead Party. Whatever we can do in the first few days, let’s git er done.
Mr Furious
Yup. I agree wholeheartedly.
capelza
Hmm..part of me winces because they are doing exactly what the GOP did, but then I remember reading the GOP plan after the election was to NOT cooperate (anyone remember this?) so, yeah…welcome to being hoisted on your own petard, GOP.
Hopefully, a little while standing outside looking in will make that bi=partisanship thingy look pretty good.
I was hoping that the recent reflections on Gerald Ford might remind some politicians of how it used to be.
Mr Furious
Er, with John and TZone.
p.lukasiak
While this will give the cheerleaders on the right some early cannon fodder (“See- the Democrats are no different!”), this can be completely countered with the simple statement- “Hey- we are just using your rules.” Politically, it might be damaging to the Democrats in the short run, but the alternative is to let the Republicans participate early on, defeat or screw up all the initiatives the Democrats plan to pass, and have the Republicans then claim the Democrats didn’t change anything.
This assumes that the American people were not merely aware of, but actually objected to, the rule changes implemented by the GOP when it took over Congress. But it wasn’t the GOP’s rules that Americans rejected two month ago, it was the policies (and corruption, and lack of oversight) that resulted from those rules.
In fact, given that the rules do make it much easier for one party to pass legislation, and given the fact that the public favors the Democratic agenda, the Dems should exploit the GOP’s rules to the hilt, and get as much done for the American people as the GOP got done for its corporate owners.
Zifnab
So long as they’re acting benevolently, we get to enjoy two years of benevolent Democratic Dictatorship (which, given the alternatives, sounds very marketable). Of course, power corrupts. I hope I don’t need to point back to the past 230 years of US History to illustrate how one-party rule eventually fucks up the country.
These rules are toxic in the long run, and I hope Dems repeal them in time. But not before extracting their pound of flesh from the disgusting little maggots that implimented them, first.
It’s also worth noting that, in politics, the best revenge is ruling well.
les
Not a chance in hell.
chopper
you should rename this blog ‘comity central’.
hah! i kill me!
dreggas
Heh, let me see, the republicans build the ultimate whipping post to be used on the opposition replete with bull whips and other torture devices in the guise of rules changes and they want to whine when they’re the ones tied to the post being mercilessly flogged?
They can find my sympathy between shit and syphillis in the dictionary. They made their bed and should lay in it a while at least until they’re screaming “Thank you Ma’am, may I have some more” (Ma’am since it’s Ms Pelosi as speaker).
I always said that anyone elected who makes whatever law and rules changes should think about what would happen when the opposition had the reins. In their hubristic arrogance of believing in a “permanent republican majority” these asshats were blind idiots.
I am usually a pretty nice guy and root for the underdog but I am going to really enjoy watching them fall on their spears.
Paul L.
I do not remember the many calls for Bipartisanship from the Republicans. Or any campaigning on it.
So in the future, I can just ignore calls for Bipartisanship from both sides?
BTW, do not forget the filibuster. I can guess that many liberals will be changing their minds on the so-called “nuclear option”.
I can also ignore any idiot who brings up Bush’s “I’m a uniter, not a divider” line.
Sam Hutcheson
I can also ignore any idiot who brings up Bush’s “I’m a uniter, not a divider” line.
From what I’ve seen of your posts here you ignore anything that doesn’t conform to your previously held partisan bias anyway, so I fail to see where this will be any different. In the meantime, it’s kind of funny to here certain elements complain about divisions and divisiveness when “their team” has been working the faultlines of American discourse with crowbar and sledgehammer for decades.
Reap what you sow, kiddo.
s/
Jake
Even this peace-loving hippycrat knows that when dealing with a swaggering bully one can’t “play nice,” until the bully has received a smacking.
Provided the smacking is not of an extended duration and administered for defense or to bring the bully in line and not revenge, no one should have a problem with it. Except the bully and his friends and who cares about those little snots?
On a more pragmatic note:
Yep, and if the Democrats break their word to boost the minimum wage, will the average American object?
RSA
I was thinking along the same lines as p.lukasiak. In general I don’t think the public is concerned with process so much as it is with policy and results.
And on bipartisanship, Bush got elected twice based at least partly on his (largely unfounded) reputation to be able to work in a bipartisan fashion.
Zifnab
As the filibuster was only going to be abolished for voting on judges (because we ABSOLUTELY NEED AN UP OR DOWN VOTE RIGHT NOW!!!!), and the President appoints the judges, not the Senate, it seems that we won’t have to worry about the “nuclear option” for a while, when Bush’s nominees can just get blocked by the Dem’s Senate Majority flat out.
But feel free to beat that strawman.
Punchy
Hey, Paulie! The “nuke option” was for judicial nominees ONLY. It was never for the elimination of filibusters for legislation.
But don’t let facts and reality get in your way. Just keep on spreadin’ the lies and bullshit. Sore losers, indeed.
ThymeZone
Nah, take pride in it. Bush HAS united us. Against him, but still.
SeesThroughIt
Yeah, that’s me as well. On one hand, I would really like to see grown-ups run Congress, stop these little games of petty bullshit revenge (perhaps call the Congressional equivalent of “no backsies”), and just do some fucking work (despite the pathetic mewling objections to doing some work that Jack Kingston offers up).
But on the other hand…you made your bed, you stupid fucking Republicans. Now lie in it. In fact, go lie in it for a while so things can actually get done.
However, I do agree with Zifnab’s entire post. If the plan truly is to shut out Republicans for the first 100 days (as opposed to Repubs shutting out Dems for, you know, six years) in order to pass their promised legislation, and then let the Repubs back in afterward, I can go along with that. But I do worry about the Dems getting too used to shutting Repubs out and pushing the “OK, you can come join us now” date back another hundred days…and another…and another…until they just become the Republican Redux.
Tsulagi
I’ll agree with that. If the champions of honor and integrity cry “See- the Democrats are no different!”, weren’t they the model to aspire toward? The Dems can show they are different by allowing the other guys to play in less than six years.
Steve
This post is about the rules of the House. There is no filibuster in the House.
I agree with this decision by the Democrats, although I’ll be disappointed if the practice continues after the 100 hours initiative is completed. I don’t have any mushy desire for bipartisanship but I think fair procedures are a benefit in and of themselves, even if they’re not a voting issue. It’s important for the Democrats to run the government like grown-ups rather than sink to the level of the least common denominator.
Zifnab
If they complain, maybe we should just point out it’s not the Dems’ fault they can’t win a few elections.
Elvis Elvisberg
This is fine to start off with, but it should change relatively soon.
The fact is, Democrats are better at morality and better at governance than Republicans.
Let’s not let that slip away.
The determined partisan polarization of the past ten or so years led to formerly sane Republicans holding their tongues as the Bush administration and GOP Congress launched assault after assault on conservative ideals. Let’s defuse things.
Lee
I remember the Republicans also making the same statement how they were going to be a pain-in-the-butt if they had a voice in the House. Good for the Democrats for putting them in timeout.
The Republicans need to remember that elections have consequences ;)
Steve
Here’s a cute story about how Republicans have picked up a 2004 Pelosi proposal for a “Minority Bill of Rights” – which Hasert flatly refused to even let the House consider – and are now urging the Democrats to agree to it, apparently with no concept of shame whatsoever.
Punchy
Accurately delineated.
SeesThroughIt
Yeah, I just read about that, too. It’s not just shame that Republicans have no concept of–irony’s on the list as well.
However, I think Pelosi should pass her original 2004 proposal–not the Repulican one. And she should pass it after 100 days.
OCSteve
Raising the minimum wage and cutting interest rates on student loans doesn’t do much to help those middle class voters they are trying to woo back (and keep). It’s the middle class that put them back into control, on a trial basis. I’d call both of these feel-good efforts with little actual results (for the middle class). Fixing the AMT and figuring out a way to prevent tuition increases would go a lot further here. PAYGO of course.
The federal government is not currently disallowing research on stem cells. Note the dishonest phrasing: “allowing more research on stem cells”. They are going to allow it? As in right now there would be more research if only Congress would allow it? If they want to increase federal funding for it on the other hand, I have no problem with that as long as it is PAYGO.
“tightening ethics rules for lawmakers” – now that is my big one. That is the single most important promise to me. I’m losing hope on that fast though. If Pelosi does not scuttle Conyers’ appointment as Judiciary Committee chair then they will have lost me already – in the first 100 minutes.
SeesThroughIt
Agreed, though I don’t know that I can accurately say I’m “losing hope” because I never had a whole lot of hope to begin with. Ethics is just one of those issues that politicians like to talk tough about but never really do much about because at the end of the day, they’re talking about restricting themselves. And what politician wants to do that?
Zifnab
I don’t know what state you’re in, but damn near every middle class family I know of keeps a firm eyeball on student loan interest rates. Money is a key factor in if/when/how you go to college.
And the federal government is disallowing funding of stem cell research with the harshest possible language. Universities receiving taxpayer subsidies, labs that take federal contracts, and research groups that do government research cannot even use equipment or lab space that has $1 of taxpayer money sent into it when they do stem cell research. You need completely seperate facilities devoted entirely to stem cell research and funded exclusively without any form of federal investment to do the proper research. But you’re right. If you want to grow stem cells in your basement, there’s no law against it. So long as its not a government basement.
DoubtingThomas
Best line of the day!
Steve
Uh, why? Because Conyers had someone from his district office do his babysitting or whatever? If this is your “higher standard” for the new majority, you might as well drop the pretense that you ever intended to give them a fair shot in the first place.
Zifnab
I have three words for you OCSteve. James F. Sensenbrenner.
~link
~link
Yeah, but that Conyers, he’s a total menace.
Bruce Moomaw
The best thing to do is for the Dems to publicly announce that they will use the same brutally exclusionary rules that the GOP used on them — UNTIL a Constitutional amendment is passed requiring properly fair procedural rights for the minority in Congress; something that the GOP will not be able to rescind again once they do get back into the majority in Congress. The Framers’ decision to let Congress entirely set its own rules of behavior freely was yet another disastrous consequence of their central gargantuan mistake: their belief that political parties should and could be kept from coming into existence in the US at all. We have been paying for that one, in innumerable ways, ever since — starting with the fact that they based the original system for choosing the President and Veep with it, and as a result the nation came within 3 days of self-destruction as early as the 1800 Presidential election.
While I’m on that subject: it’s alo long past time to de-partisanize the Justice Department with another Constitutional amendment requiring a Congressional supermajority to confirm — and, at intervals, reconfirm — the Attorney General, and either also requiring this for other top Justice officials or giving the Attorney General the ability to veto the President’s choice of them.
Dave
I know we have a POTD, but I’d like to nominate this as the Line of the Day (LOTD). Brilliant.
demimondian
Welcome back, OC. What’s the issue with Conyers? I don’t know of any, offhand.
Dave
Paul of course wouldn’t know this, since I highly doubt he’s ever read the constitution.
Dave
Oh probably something about accountability and investigations. Things the GOP doesn’t like.
James F. Elliott
100 hours. 100 days would be practically the whole year’s session (what did the last Congress work for, 115 days or something?). I for one want to see legislation that forces Congress to work as much as the average person has to work.
As far as I can tell, the Republicans want the Democrats to play by the rules the Democrats wanted to play by for the last six years just so they can fuck with the Dems’ agenda.
Mike
And it is up to us to make sure they do that, but for now, the Rethuglicans need to take a well-deserved timeout.
Especialy since they have already threatened to not play nicely.
ThymeZone
Amen.
And on stem cells, OCS: I agree that the phrasing you speak of is misleading. But isn’t it also misleading to try to pander to “right to lifers” by pretending that the Bush approach actually protects stem cells?
If you get my drift. I just think that bathos-feelgood politics is for the birds no matter who is doing it.
capelza
This is the thing. In a nutshell. Had they, collectively, taken the election to heart, and thus the voter’s voice, then they might have been had room to whine.
How stupid of them was it to speak so openly about not cooperating? As a poltical choice.
mrmobi
Good one, SeesThroughIt.
How else would they have hired Stephen Colbert to do the White House Correspondent’s Dinner last year, giving us one of the very best (and funniest) satirical performances of 2006?
Satire is on the list as well.
TenguPhule
I for one want to see legislation that forces Congress to work as much as the average person has to work.
The Democratic schedule for 2007 has em working 40 hours a week.
Naturally the GOP is up in arms about this hardship. After all, think of their ‘families’.
Tsulagi
Not to pile on OC, but if there is federal money available for medical research, I do have a problem with denying it to forms of stem cell research based on political reasons rather than scientific.
The 1954 Nobel Prize for Medicine was awarded for development of the polio vaccine. That vaccine was developed by using cultures of fetal kidney cells. Fetal tissue. If the loony ass Dobsonites and those that suck up to them were in power back then and held onto it, manufacturing walking canes might today be a growth business.
If there is ever a cure for cancer or AIDS found, most likely it will have greatly been aided by government funded medical research. Keep religion and politics out of that process.
OCSteve
None, I’m afraid :(
Of course money is a key factor. But honestly, I don’t think a rate of 6 or even 5 vs. the current 6.8 (Stafford Loan) will be the make or break decision for that many people. Knock it down 2% even. On average total borrowing of $42,000 that’s less than $1,000 per year over 4 years. If that is your make/break point then you really better not go as tuition is going to rise a lot more than that over the same time period. So I think efforts/money directed at keeping tuition down would be more effective.
Charges coming from senior aides that they were asked to work on his re-election campaign and the campaigns of 2 other people are a little more than babysitting. Its illegal, period. The so called ethics committee lets him off without making any determination on wrongdoing, he promises to be clearer in his instructions to his staff, and that’s it?
Give them a fair shot? I want them to hold Congress to the highest possible standard as promised. It was my hot-button issue. To me that means the people you put on these committees need to be squeaky clean. Zero taint. I was hoping for better, I was hoping for real change, that’s all.
Absolutely. It’s all BS. I just prefer they tell me they want to increase federal funding for this and how it will be paid for or where the matching cuts will be rather than make it sound like some rule or legal change and I’m on board.
ThymeZone
Rational politics! Maybe you’ll start a trend ….
Zifnab
Ok, I’m going to go out on a limb and assume you were as disgusted with the displays of illegality perpetrated by the Republican Administration as I was.
But, in the interest of fairness, you’ve got to pitch out an alternative. Who’s more squeeky than Conyers that the Dems could seat in his place? Screw seniority, who’d be your fantasy pick for Judiciary Committee chairman?
We did this with Murtha/Hoyer Majority Leader debate, and TZ kinda crapped out on coming up with an alterative (no offense TZ). Who would be the Gerald Ford of the Democratic Party that could be tapped to take the position?
ThymeZone
Does that mean I’m no longer full of crap?
Heh.
OCSteve
I’m right there with you. I’m just tired of one side representing it as killing babies and the other side insinuating that magical cures are right around the corner if only those nasty repubs weren’t blocking the research (and it’s always spun as not allowing it rather than not funding it).
If the Democrats get increased funding passed (responsible funding) and want to eliminate the funding restrictions zifnab pointed out above I’ll applaud them.
Steve
Are we talking about the same thing?
I’m glad the Ethics Committee took action. I guess I don’t agree with you that he should be doing jail time or demoted to changing the House trashcan liners or whatever. For years now I’ve been complaining about the Republicans spending all kinds of taxpayer funds on partisan political activity, to no apparent effect, so I’m hardly going to view the relatively minor charges against Conyers as the end of the world.
It seems like you’ve constructed some kind of utterly unattainable ethics standard for Democrats – “I thought they were going to be purer than Caesar’s wife!” – and once they slip up in the tiniest way, whoops, throw the bums out! It’s a bit of a silly charade, that’s all I’m saying.
OCSteve
It cost them my vote.
That’s a fair question, and I would have to give it some thought. I’m not up to speed on my new Dem overlords…
But to turn that around, doesn’t it sort of imply that the chances of nominating a qualified Democratic with no whiff of ethics problems would be difficult? I mean I admit that I assumed that it would be a relatively easy thing to put up someone who is A) qualified and B) squeaky clean.
You gave me the option on seniority so heck – pick a freshman who hasn’t had time to get themselves into trouble yet.
DoubtingThomas
I’m currently reading Doris Kearns Goodwin’s “Team of Rivals”, a marvelous read that so reminds me of today’s politics.
A political Boss of the time from Pennsylvania gave the definition an honest politician. “An honest politician is one who when he is bought, stays loyal”.
Seems like nothing has changed, no?
Krista
Is it oh-so-wrong of me to be giggling about squeaky-clean taints in the middle of what appears to be a really civil, great left-right discussion?
OCSteve
I’m not saying he should be run out of congress. All I’m asking is that when it comes to important positions within the power structure; find someone with no ethics questions in their background or hanging over them. It just makes me less optimistic when they start out this way.
And for everyone pooh-poohing these allegations, the complaint was that he used taxpayer paid resources inappropriately over a period of years:
-To have his son tutored by his legal counsel during working hours.
-To have his children picked up from school by staffers and babysat in his offices.
-Used a staffer as a nanny, ordering her to live in his home and care for his children for 6 weeks while his wife attended law classes.
-To have his staffers work on his campaign, his wife’s campaign, friends’ campaigns.
-Allowed a staffer to run her law practice out of his offices.
The allegations were made by senior staffers. Documentation was provided to the ethics panel. One staffer wrote to the panel, “I could not tolerate any longer being involved with continual unethical, if not criminal, practices which were accepted as ‘business as usual’“. These allegations were not made in revenge after staffers were fired – staffers reported it and resigned rather than be associated with what was going on.
Now, you folks here want me to accept that this is no big deal? That these complaints should not disqualify someone from chairing the House Judicial Committee? That I’m making up impossible standards? Its now OK to use taxpayer money for these purposes? These allegations are not just violations of House rules – they are also potentially criminal. His fellow Congressmen gave him a pass, I don’t have to, and I wouldn’t expect you to either.
OCSteve
Krista: Actually, squeaky-clean taints sounds pretty hot.
ThymeZone
I’m gonna lean with OCS on this one. I don’t think arguable ethics is the same as something more important: The appearance of impropriety.
I think when public officials flirt with the ethical line, even when they are technically well within the (detestable) “no controlling legal authority” boundaries, they are basically flipping off the people.
Yeah, my behavior may look fishy, but FUCK YOU, people, it’s all perfectly legal.
Call me picky, but that ain’t good enough for me. And if Dems can’t find anyone to do a job out of 230 people who doesn’t have that kind of baggage, then they really don’t deserve to be in charge any more than the Potatoheads did.
SeesThroughIt
I think that’s pretty much the only way to pick somebody squeaky-clean. And yes, I’m aware of just how cynical that is.
Also: I too giggled at the “zero taint” thing. It’s pretty much unstoppable.
Steve
I don’t get where you got to “It’s now OK.” Of course it’s not OK. I just think it’s quite silly to hold this up as a drop-dead litmus test for the new Democratic Congress – either they dump John Conyers or that’s it, the Democrats are dead to me!
You have a Congress where legislators routinely slip earmarks into bills that personally enrich themselves and their families to the tune of thousands upon thousands of dollars. And, by the way, it’s the Democrats who propose to do something about that abuse, which yes, I see as far more egregious than anything Conyers did, and it’s the Republicans who not only don’t care about it but have greedily slurped at the trough lo these many years. But if babysitting is your defining issue, then so be it.
I, like everyone here, would prefer to have a government run by angels. Yet election after election, we’re presented with a choice between the same two parties. Oh well. I don’t think we help the country by giving either side a free pass just because they’re “our team,” but neither do we help matters by insisting on a mythical purity to the detriment of greater issues. Because whichever party wins the 2008 elections, under the OCSteve test they’re guaranteed to be dead to him within the first week as well, and the same goes for 2010, and 2012, and beyond. That just seems like an odd way to go through life.
ThymeZone
I wouldn’t. Angels are mythical. I would settle for real people who, faced with a choice between doing something technically legal because they can, and doing something more mundane and without even a hint of appearance of impropriety, will choose the latter for the reason that it’s the right thing to do.
I think it marginalizes good people who would make those good choices by suggesting that we are asking for “angels.”
That’s the Tom Delay defense. That’s the No Controlling Legal Authority defense. That’s a lawyer’s argument.
That’s the whole point: That doesn’t have to be good enough. Angels are mythical dead people. Strict attention to ethics and appearances doesn’t require dying and getting wings. It just requires caring more about the public trust than about the stuff one can get away with.
Krista
Man…and I thought I was weird.
Krista
Exactly. And really, in this day and age, being ethical isn’t just the right thing to do, it’s the smart thing to do. As we’ve all seen, if you’re NOT ethical, it’s going to come out eventually….
demimondian
I hate to be a crypto-Rethugligan, but I’m afraid I’m with OCS and TZ here, too. I don’t know whether what Conyers did was legal or not, but…it wasn’t something I like seeing.
Pooh
Like Steve, I’m going to try and not let the perfect be the enemy of the good/moderately less bad.
TZ, this
sounds nice and all, but I think it’s completely ahistorical to expect, given that it’s held true for no government, ever, of which I’m aware. Something to strive for, surely, but we go to the first 100 hours with the…
ThymeZone
Nonsensical. “Government” is not a monolith. It’s a collection of many people doing many things. Whatever people do, some of those people are going to be doing it, from heroic deeds to criminal acts and everything in between.
And the idea that there cannot be good, or ethical government, is just a perversion of the “everybody does it” idea. No, everybody doesn’t do it. No, all government is not corrupt. Or inept.
The suggestion that people in government can’t be asked, expected or trusted to do the right thing is basically just another version of the old punch line, “People are no damned good.”
Ain’t buying it.
Zifnab
That was my first thought too… except even freshmen Congressmen tend to have a fair amount of mud on their shoes.
I know we’re going for a clean Congress, and you’re right, Conyers needs to get his act together, but he’s got a track record on the Judiciary Committee. He’s got friends. He’s got political capital. Where a fresh face would still be learning to walk, Conyers can move mountains.
If this was a case of $90,000 stuck in a refrigerator, I’d be right with you. But turning your Congressional Staff into your housecleaning service… I just can’t muster the willful indignation that you can after the past 6 years. Call me calloused and cynical, but I’m willing to tolerate that degree of corruption in my Congressmen if its going to get me real, bare-knuckle investigation on Bush.
And who knows, maybe you’re right. Maybe now’s the chance to clean house, while the Dems are still whipped and haven’t grown their balls back yet. But… the Republicans are playing hardball. Loading freshmen congressmen into ranking slots will not only engender EXTREME party disunity (making a Dem majority practically worthless), it’ll leave us weak and soft against the right-wing smear machine.
If you’ve got a problem with Conyers, tell it to him in his primary. A nice stiff challenge from an outside-the-beltway pretty boy who toes the line is the sort of thing that keeps your house clean. Denying him the seat he’s been frothing at the bit over for the last 12 years doesn’t do you any favors. At least not that I can see.
jake
This one in particular made me gag:
Sure, this is still at the allegations stage but I know that if these charges were levelled against a Republican I would at want the guy to keep his head tucked way into his shoulders until the investigation was complete. That means no committee chairmanships, even boring geek cootie committees everyone hates, and certainly nothing as sexy as the Judiciary.
Is this unfair after all of the Republican dirty tricks (and IMs)?
Who cares? Any elected official who didn’t pick up on the “We’re sick of S.O.P” memo the voters sent late last year is too clueless for a mother’s tears.
Steve
I didn’t realize I was on the other side of the “was it something I liked seeing” debate. I guess I lose that one.
The question is not whether we approve of Conyers’ behavior, or whether we should give it a free pass. The question is not even whether the behavior is so serious that it should warrant the removal of his committee chairmanship (for the record, this option assumes Nancy Pelosi has absolute power, which she doesn’t).
The question is whether the Democrats’ failure to remove his committee chairmanship for this transgression is so devastating a failure that it warrants us withdrawing our support for them as a governing party. No one has persuaded me that that isn’t an utterly silly position.
Mike
Uh Jake, I hate to break it to you buddy, but after 6 years, Bush getting selected, and 9/11, the Rethuglican leadership was in hip deep to all sorts of shit and I guarantee you after it was worse than using a staffer as a babysitter. I bet the staffer was making more than a babysitter too.
No, I am far more concerned with the war-profiteering going on and I want John Conyers to dig in deep and find some of this shit out. I too would like these guys to be “Cleaner”, but I understand that it takes someone a little dirty to get rid of the big piles of shit left behind by the outgoing crowd.
This is why I support divided government. It should not ever be allowed to get to this level ever again. I want to two parties to fight it out, expose each others dirty laundry early rather than later.
demimondian
You know what could make me feel better about it? I’d love to know how many ethics complaints have actually been filed against sitting Representatives (averaged, if you will, against length of service.) I don’t know if Conyers is merely being stupidly exploitative (because I don’t think anybody thinks he was right in doing what he’s done) or if it’s unusual. If it’s in the normal run of business, I can tolerate it…very, very uncomfortably.
Steve
The Ethics Committee has been non-functional for several years now, owing to procedural gutting as well as the infamous “ethics truce.” Sen. Obama actually had a great idea that would restore some teeth to the ethics process; I’d really like to see the Democrats adopt something like that. Click the link if you’re a process junkie and care about stuff like this.
Jake
I originally read: I bet the staffer was making the babysitter too.
Wouldn’t surprise me though…
Paul L.
Enjoying the taste of your foot?
The filibuster is a Senate rule. It is not in the US Constitution.
Note to pass a law, a bill has to pass the Senate and the President.
RWB
I think the Democrats should allow the minority bill of rights come to a vote on the condition that it only take effect the next time the leadership of the house changes hands. We would then see if any Republicans support it on principle and also see how confident they are of regaining the House anytime soon.
Pooh
I have to ask if you even read what I wrote.
demimondian
I’m puzzled, then, Paul. I take it that you knew that the Senate and the House set their rules independently, then why did you raise the issue of the filibuster at all? This is a thread which is quite explicitly about the House, after all. Do you have evidence that the filibuster is at risk in the Senate?
Jonathan
How about having it take effect after the 2008 elections?
Paul L.
I was pointing out just because the Democrats use the house rules to “pass” their grand plan in the first 100 hours that it still has a way to go in becoming the law of the land.
Robert Byrd – The Byrd Option
Steve
Paul L. clearly has no clue what he’s talking about, he’s functionally incapable of anything beyond cut & paste. Process geek that I am, I could literally debate the history of the filibuster for hours, but someone who can’t function beyond regurgitating what he finds on right-wing blogs isn’t worth the effort.
Perry Como
You know what I really, really love. Republicans playing the victim. Even with control of both houses of Congress, the Supreme Court and the White House they played victims. Now that they’ve lost control of Congress they kvetch about how they are being left out of the process. They changed the rules to make sure that the Democrat minority couldn’t do *anything* in the house, and now the Republicans are bitching on how unfair the Dems are when they use the REPUBLICAN HOUSE RULES.
Fucking victim ass ninnies. And yeah, that means you Paul L.
Perry Como
Paul L. Says:
You forgot the granddaddy of all filibusters. Strom Thurmond. Equal rights, bitches!
demimondian
Hmm. Paul, that does not sound like a change of rules, merely a parliamentary interpretation. (And, yes, there’s a difference. The ability to offer amendments is not the same thing as the ability to debate amendments, and is not covered by the same piece of the rules.) (Oh, and this kind of argument about the rules is exactly what arguments about the rules are supposed to be: technical and arcane. There’s no piece of pilpul too trivial to count in parliamentary rules debates.)
Basically, _The Wall Street Journal_ pulled a fast one. If that’s their “most analogous case”, then they were as crooked…well, as crooked as they usually are.
SeesThroughIt
I think there should be a minority bill of rights just on general principle, but I have to admit…this would be a pretty sweet bit of political gamesmanship. And you know the wingers would never sack up.
Urinated State of America
Better source than a 9-month old story in the Moonie Times?
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Conyers_accepts_responibility_for_alleged_ethics_1231.html
The House ethics committee concluded its three-year inquiry into incoming Judiciary Chairman John Conyers on Friday, voting to take no punitive action against the Michigan Democrat but warning him not to use Congressional staff for any campaign or personal purposes in the future,” Susan Davis reports for Roll Call.
“The inquiry was self-initiated by the ethics panel following news reports in December 2003 that Conyers had on multiple occasions demanded his Congressional staff do both political work outside of their official duties as well as personal errands and favors for the lawmaker and his wife, such as babysitting and tutoring his children,” the article continues.
However, The Hill notes, “The finding by the ethics panel could spark debate, and perhaps eclipse, the first week of the incoming-Democratic majority’s plans to change the House ethics rules, as well as raise questions about Conyers’ standing to chair the Judiciary Committee.”
Excerpts from text of House ethics committee statement regarding Conyers:
#
During the course of their inquiry, the Chairman and Ranking Member asked for and received information, including documents, from several sources, including Representative Conyers. Committee staff also interviewed witnesses regarding the allegations. In the course of providing information to the Committee, Representative Conyers acknowledged what he characterized as a “lack of clarity” in his communications with staff members regarding their official duties and responsibilities, and accepted responsibility for his actions. Representative Conyers also provided the Committee with documents indicating that he had begun taking steps to provide clearer guidance to staff regarding the requirement that campaign work and official work be separate. After reviewing the information gathered during the inquiry, and in light of Representative Conyers’ cooperation with the inquiry, we have concluded that this matter should be resolved through the issuance of this public statement and the agreement by Representative Conyers to take a number of additional, significant steps to ensure that his office complies with all rules and standards regarding campaign and personal work by congressional staff. Representative Conyers has agreed to the following conditions:
Prohibiting his personal congressional staff (other than his Chief of Staff) from performing any campaign-related work, including work done on a voluntary basis, during the 110th Congress, unless the staff member takes a paid position on his campaign while on leave without pay status and obtains prior written approval from the Committee.
Informing staff members in writing of the prohibition set forth above against the voluntary performance of campaign work.
Distributing a memorandum to each member of his personal congressional staff which clearly sets forth all House rules concerning (1) the performance of campaign and other non-official work by congressional staff members and (2) the prohibition against the performance of any campaign-related work being conducted in either his congressional or district offices. Additionally, this memorandum will explicitly state that the performance of campaign or other non-official work by staff members may not be required as a condition of their employment.
Directing that meetings of his personal congressional staff be held annually in which the House rules concerning staff participation in campaign activities are discussed and explained. In addition, a description of these rules will be made a part of the orientation for all new staff employees.
Continuing to maintain the detailed time-keeping system initiated by Rep. Conyers during the course of the Committee’s inquiry.
Requiring that all members of his congressionalstaff attend a briefing conducted by Committee counsel on the application of, and compliance with, applicable House rules concerning the performance of campaign and other non-official work by congressional staff members.
Provided that the above requirements are complied with, this matter will remain closed, and the Committee will take no further action on it.