Why Do Republicans Fear A Democratic Takeover of The House of Representatives?

[Prakosh]

Here is why the Republicans are so concerned with a Democratic takeover of the House of Representatives. And it has little to do with Nancy Pelosi or her San Fran Liberal Ways—whatever those might be.

According to a source familiar with the way the House has functioned under the Republicans, things have changed drastically from what they used to be. Before the Republicans took control of the House in 1994, bills were worked up in committee and then brought to the floor of the House for a full House debate on the bill before an up or down vote was contemplated or taken. If it appeared that a bill would not get the votes or would not have the votes necessary to pass then no vote would be taken. This is the way most of us think about the House working if we think about it at all. But The Republicans changed all that. Immediately upon taking control of the House under Gingrich the basic methodology of the House changed. That is they changed the rules; and not just the ethics rules either. They basically changed the way the House operates. No longer are bills ironed out on the floor of the full House in the heat of a full or healthy debate. The Bills are trotted out for an up or down vote only; there are no additions and no subtractions possible by the other party. The bills are created by the majority only with no input from the other side. The minority party can do nothing but insert speeches or comments into the Congressional record, but no debate occurs, and the majority party authors all bills.

If you remember an incident a year or so ago when the Democrats were removed from a particular room where legislation was being discussed, that incident was a rebellion against this kind of one-party rule. In that incident some Democrats got the pension bill quite late and had no time to read the bill before the scheduled up or down vote. They took the bill to the library to read it; the Republicans burst in, the lights were shut off and the Sargent-at-Arms was called to have the Democrats forcibly removed. This was a national story at the time; the man who called the Sargent-at-Arms and Capitol Police was William M. "Bill" Thomas. Here is how Common Dreams reported the event:

"The seeds for the dust-up yesterday, the most vitriolic in years in the House, were sowed the night before when Thomas circulated the Republican draft of the pension bill shortly before midnight and scheduled a vote for the morning. When Democrats arrived yesterday for the committee's deliberations, they demanded more time to study the bill. They went to the committee library behind the main hearing room, leaving Stark to prevent the Republicans from engineering a unanimous voice vote.

With Stark mounting a rearguard action, the rest of the committee Democrats discussed the bill.

In the main committee room, Stark insisted that the bill be read word for word, a rare tactic that would give his Democratic colleagues in the back room time to discuss their strategy. The bill's reading infuriated Republicans, eager to vote and leave town for the weekend.

According to the Democrats' version of events, Thomas's staff summoned a Capitol police officer, who told them that a ''disturbance'' had been reported and ordered the Democrats to leave the back room. The Democrats refused to budge."

Thomas later made a tearful apology for summoning the Capitol Police and having the Democrats removed from the library.

At the time I couldn’t understand what had happened now I understand it more clearly. The bills in the House much like this bill, which can run to over a thousand pages, have generally been given to the Dems either the night before or just before the vote, and they do not even know what they are voting on because they haven’t had time to read the bill. So not only have the House Dems been generally locked out of any conferences or deliberations on the bills but they are not even allowed time to read the bill once they finally have it. The Republicans have created the monster and now they fear they will be eaten by it.

For Complete Common Dreams Version of Events

For Other Versions of This Story

 

[Care4all]

yes, i remember this clearly... i was so upset...and really realized how corrupt the repubs in office really were....

i have felt for years now that any and all american democrats lost ALL OF THEIR REPRESENTATION with the republican majority...not by our founder's plan for the minority, but because of these recent republican's rule changes, and their arrogance that came with their power!

go out to vote today, vote democratic, let's kick these corrupt repubs out of office, it is our only hope!

Editorial
The Difference Two Years Made
Sign In to E-Mail This Print Save

Published: November 5, 2006
On Tuesday, when this page runs the list of people it has endorsed for election, we will include no Republican Congressional candidates for the first time in our memory. Although Times editorials tend to agree with Democrats on national policy, we have proudly and consistently endorsed a long line of moderate Republicans, particularly for the House. Our only political loyalty is to making the two-party system as vital and responsible as possible.

That is why things are different this year.

To begin with, the Republican majority that has run the House — and for the most part, the Senate — during President Bush’s tenure has done a terrible job on the basics. Its tax-cutting-above-all-else has wrecked the budget, hobbled the middle class and endangered the long-term economy. It has refused to face up to global warming and done pathetically little about the country’s dependence on foreign oil.

Republican leaders, particularly in the House, have developed toxic symptoms of an overconfident majority that has been too long in power. They methodically shut the opposition — and even the more moderate members of their own party — out of any role in the legislative process. Their only mission seems to be self-perpetuation.

The current Republican majority managed to achieve that burned-out, brain-dead status in record time, and with a shocking disregard for the most minimal ethical standards. It was bad enough that a party that used to believe in fiscal austerity blew billions on pork-barrel projects. It is worse that many of the most expensive boondoggles were not even directed at their constituents, but at lobbyists who financed their campaigns and high-end lifestyles.

That was already the situation in 2004, and even then this page endorsed Republicans who had shown a high commitment to ethics reform and a willingness to buck their party on important issues like the environment, civil liberties and women’s rights.

For us, the breaking point came over the Republicans’ attempt to undermine the fundamental checks and balances that have safeguarded American democracy since its inception. The fact that the White House, House and Senate are all controlled by one party is not a threat to the balance of powers, as long as everyone understands the roles assigned to each by the Constitution. But over the past two years, the White House has made it clear that it claims sweeping powers that go well beyond any acceptable limits. Rather than doing their duty to curb these excesses, the Congressional Republicans have dedicated themselves to removing restraints on the president’s ability to do whatever he wants. To paraphrase Tom DeLay, the Republicans feel you don’t need to have oversight hearings if your party is in control of everything.

An administration convinced of its own perpetual rightness and a partisan Congress determined to deflect all criticism of the chief executive has been the recipe for what we live with today.

Congress, in particular the House, has failed to ask probing questions about the war in Iraq or hold the president accountable for his catastrophic bungling of the occupation. It also has allowed Mr. Bush to avoid answering any questions about whether his administration cooked the intelligence on weapons of mass destruction. Then, it quietly agreed to close down the one agency that has been riding herd on crooked and inept American contractors who have botched everything from construction work to the security of weapons.

After the revelations about the abuse, torture and illegal detentions in Abu Ghraib, Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay, Congress shielded the Pentagon from any responsibility for the atrocities its policies allowed to happen. On the eve of the election, and without even a pretense at debate in the House, Congress granted the White House permission to hold hundreds of noncitizens in jail forever, without due process, even though many of them were clearly sent there in error.

In the Senate, the path for this bill was cleared by a handful of Republicans who used their personal prestige and reputation for moderation to paper over the fact that the bill violates the Constitution in fundamental ways. Having acquiesced in the president’s campaign to dilute their own authority, lawmakers used this bill to further Mr. Bush’s goal of stripping the powers of the only remaining independent branch, the judiciary.

This election is indeed about George W. Bush — and the Congressional majority’s insistence on protecting him from the consequences of his mistakes and misdeeds. Mr. Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 and proceeded to govern as if he had an enormous mandate. After he actually beat his opponent in 2004, he announced he now had real political capital and intended to spend it. We have seen the results. It is frightening to contemplate the new excesses he could concoct if he woke up next Wednesday and found that his party had maintained its hold on the House and Senate.

 

[Blackflag]

Probably because Nancy Pelosi is retarded.