Republicans see the ability to force tough votes — which they avoided in the majority by stifling Democratic alternatives — as having two potential benefits: It can put vulnerable Democrats on record with positions that might not be popular at home, or it can fracture the untested Democratic majority. Mr. Blunt noted that even senior Democrats who served in Congress when Democrats held control had no experience dealing with a relatively thin, 16-seat majority that will not allow many lawmakers to avoid tough votes.
Democratic leaders said that in the spirit of a new beginning, they have every intention of allowing Republicans the kind of legislative opportunities that Republicans regularly denied Democrats. “Democracy is a risk,” said Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, the incoming majority leader. “And democracy is about alternatives.”
This should hardly surprise anybody. The GOP behaved like children when in power and they show every sign of carrying right on with more of the same. If anything the Republicans’ minority position will inflame the victim complex which has fueled the worst aspects of rightwing behavior over the last umpteen years.
Zifnab
I’ve read rumors on Kos that Pelosi plans on restoring minority powers to the Republicans come January. I pray these are only rumors. ‘Pubs should have to buy back their position in Congress every step of the way as they are forced to fix all the shit they broke.
Tim F.
That is the point of the quoted article. It is sadly touching that Democrats are determined to give back everything that the GOP stripped from them even though the Republicans have flatly stated that they will abuse every new power they get. It’s like rooting for a hockey team that plays nice even when the refs aren’t looking.
Myrtle Parker
This is laughable. Roy Blunt had every opportunity to make Democrats suffer *tough votes* when they had majority power. How well did that work out for them again?
These childish threats should just be laughed at.
Shorter Roy Blunt:
TenguPhule
Tell me about it. Why do the Democrats have to be the sane adults in the room? Just once, I’d like to see them doing the screwing instead of being screwed by the jerks on the other side of the aisle.
The Other Andrew
Doesn’t that cut both ways? Stem cell research is popular, the war in Iraq is not…
les
And once more Blunt demonstrates he is a fitting heir to Delay. What an a**.
Dave
I’m of two minds on Pelosi giving the minority more power. I do think we need to start sewing this country back together, however, while these assholes are still around, I don’t know if now is the time to be adults. Of course, if not now, when? When do we draw the line and say enough, or will this continue to escalate into a Hatfield and McCoy type feud with no end in sight.
mrmobi
Me too, Dave. I also think it is time to start taking the institution back toward being a more cooperative workplace. If the Party of Torture insists on trying to fuck the new majority at every turn, we can always put the screws to them later, but part of me wants to get medieval on their lying, corrupt asses.
Zifnab
It’s not even that. Republicans, having been forced from the halls of power, are going to go all commando with the guerilla warfare. They’ve already taken every opportunity to fuck the country upon leaving, specifically so that when the shit hits the bottom of the hill, they can scream “Democrats shat it!”
Given more power, Republicans will just try to derail the system even more. It’s like tossing a corrupt cop off the beat, but letting him keep his gun. It’s like quiting drugs, but giving your new cellphone number to your drug dealer. It’s like apologizing after Dick Cheney shots you in the face.
I mean, at this point you’re just begging to be treated like crap.
Steve
First of all, these people are dreaming when they talk about taking back the House any time soon, so I don’t really care. Maybe if they all get up and loudly proclaim that Bush’s plan to send more troops to Iraq is a crazy idea and they’re excommunicating him from the party, maybe then they have a shot. Until that day, the mere presence of Nancy Pelosi in the Speaker’s chair isn’t going to make the word Republican any less toxic.
Second, I really doubt Pelosi and Hoyer are being complete chumps here. They’ll get their pound of flesh for all the procedural abuses of the Republican majority, but living well is still the best revenge. You’re running half of the most powerful legislative body in the world, and you have to get past the attitude that “they were meanies to us first.”
If you govern like grownups, people will notice. I was actually excited to see what the Republican majority would do in 1994, until Newt and friends showed that they cared more about getting revenge on the Democrats than about promoting an actual agenda. People elected the Democrats to do something different and better, not simply play the exact same games with the roles reversed.
The Other Steve
Mega ditto’s!
Tsulagi
I’ll agree with Pelosi. They need to become the House of Representatives and Adults. I’d start off the new Congress in that tenor and try hard to keep it that way. Payback would be sweet, but the country’s business comes first. However, I wouldn’t forget their past six years of acting like entitled brats like the farting one in the Oval Office.
I’d set a real light pull on the trigger. They start jacking around and I start turning off lights and microphones as they did. Something they’d understand. They want to act like children trying to start food fights, maybe make them start punching a time clock to prove they’ve been present for a full five-day workweek instead of their accustomed two days. For these guys, I think Pelosi needs to adopt a spare the rod and spoil the child attitude when needed. They’ve earned it.
Punchy
Ok, I’ll bite. What the fruck does “KMBA” stand for? Is that like NIMBY, POA, or MILF? Hasta.
Steve
The “K” stands for “Kiss.” Does that help?
Dave
KMBA.
It used to be a category too, I guess that changed.
just sayin
Whisting in the dark. The majority has far more ability to force “tough votes”, and the Dems have the advantage of an agenda that’s generally popular when honestly presented.
Bring it on, Blunt.
mycat
Bring it on, is my reaction, too. I mean what tough votes is he talking about? “Reforming” Social Security? Bashing gays? Blocking access to birth control and abortion? Banning stem cell research? The more the Republicans clarify their agenda, the less support they will have. So let’s have those tough votes so the public can see exactly what the Republican party stands for!
Bruce Moomaw
The proper solution would be for the Congressional Dems to agree to treat the Republicans properly ONLY if the associated rules are imposed in the form of a Constitutional amendment, so that it would be difficult and probably impossible for the GOP to return to their foul previous way of doing business when they regained a majority in Congress. Simply announce that the Republicans will be treated exactly the way they treated the Dems, UNTIL they help pass such an amendment. (But then, I think this country urgently needs about 20 amendments to its ridiculously overpraised Constitution, although none of them would necessarily involve the Bill of Rights.)
Jon H
It’s daft to just hand it back.
Let the GOP earn it. Various privileges would be very useful, non-pork bargaining chips that would help get legislation passed.
Zifnab
It’s not like we’ve been such big supporters of upholding the existing amendments. And even a Constitutional Amendment doesn’t do much good if there’s no one to enforce it. We can always revisit the good old dead-of-midnight two-hour long fifteen minute votes the Republicans loved to hold back in ’04 and ’05. I’m confident there existed rules against these type of shinanigans, but the only person who could enforce them was the Speaker, who was typically the worst Republican of the lot.
While enforceable reform is probably off the table, I do like the idea of timeclocks. Nothing says, “I’m wasting your taxpayer dollars” like a nice long track record of never showing up to work. Any other high visiblity rules modifications – requiring all bills to be finished and available online 48 hours before a vote, demanding earmarks be visible before and after a final vote – could also go a long way towards bringing accoutability back to Washington. From where I’ve been sitting, the best watchdogs in the country typically come from innocuos academics with too much time on their hands and an obsession with fine print.
Bruce Moomaw
The whole point is that there should be ways to enforce such rules OTHER than the Speaker. As in so many other ways, the consequences of the Framers’ disastrous fantasy that they could and should keep political parties from coming into existence at all have come home to roost — in this case, through their belief that Congress should therefore be entirely allowed to set its own rules for behavior. A set of behavioral guidelines that could be taken to court — up to the Supreme Court — and legally enforced would be a very useful backup.
Zifnab
Which works until you check the Supreme Court line-up. Oh look, it’s all Republicans, all the time. How do you think Alito and Roberts are going to rule on ANYTHING the Democrats bring up? Frankly, the SCOTUS has better things to do with its time than decide on the minutia of parlimentary procedure anyway.
What the Congress (and for that matter, the President and the SC) really need is significant minority status. I miss reading about the good old days when the VP was on a completely different ticket than the Prez and you had Adams and Jefferson keeping each other in check. Likewise, if the Speaker required a 60% vote of confidence to be sworn in, you wouldn’t have the absolute partisan hackery that takes place on Capital Hill every two years.
The Founding Fathers were wise enough to divide power among the branches so someone could watch the watchers. We all recognize that we’re living in a two-party system. We should structure our government accordingly like the Founders did before us.