The Democrats just don’t like being in the minority:
The dispute highlights how rapidly relations between Democrats and Republicans have deteriorated in recent months. Virtually shut out from legislating and chafing over repeated procedural slights, House Democrats have adopted combative tactics to draw attention to what they see as Republican heavy-handedness.
By any standards, today represented a low point in the history of congressional comity. Democrats accused the GOP of running a police state; Republicans recounted how one Democratic member of the panel called a Republican colleague “you little fruitcake” in the midst of the standoff.
The blowup occurred as the panel began to mark up a wide-ranging pension bill sponsored by Reps. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Benjamin L. Cardin (D-Md.). The changes narrowed the original bill, but retained most of its key provisions.
Bwahahaha. And the best part is the jackasses have gerrymandered so much for racial and political purposes that the Democrats will probably be in the minority for a LONG time.
DANEgerus
the only tactic available in the House to a minority is obstructionism so the Dummocrits do exactly that…
Living-fossilized bully Fortney “Pete” Stark (D-CA) called an (R) a ‘fruitcake’ but did that anti-gay slur get reported? HELL NO…
Because the whorish media only plays to the childish claims of the Donks who they worship…
How bad is the idea of allowing the ‘people’ a chance to save more for retirement? Sounds kinda liberal huh? Kinda? So the collectivist socialists of the Donks tried to block it…
So if the (R)’s ran their ‘asses’ over this time it was a pretty good thing.
Glen
John,
With all due respect, you’re exactly wrong on this one. Squelching debate, allowing no time to study legislation that members are supposed to vote on, and calling the cops over name-calling? (A sin Republicans are well versed in.) I wouldn’t put up with this nonsense if the Democrats did it; you shouldn’t either.
Note to DANEgerous: “fruit” and “fruitcake” have nothing to do with one another. My father (who was of Stark’s generation) used the term all the time: “you’re nuttier than a fruitcake.” And as a gay man, I know the difference all too well. If you’re going to conjure an instance of “left-wing homophobia,” be more sure of your material.
John Cole
Glen- The Democrats don’t want to debate anything- they want to delay and impede. They do not have the votes, so they just want to try to use parliamentary procedures and delaying tactics- it really is all they have,
And quite defending Fortney- he is a colossal ass regardless of what was said.
Jonas
This was not about Democratic obstructionism. The Republicans didn’t let the Democrats VOTE on this piece of legislation. I think we all agree that no member what party you belong to, you should be allowed to vote!
The Mighty Reason Man
DANE-
“but did that anti-gay slur get reported? HELL NO…”
As an addition to what Glen said about confusing “fruit” and “fruitcake” (especially when it comes from a man of Stark’s generation), yours would be a much more valuable contribution to the discussion if you actually read the news every once in a while:
“Rep. Pete Stark, a bombastic Democrat and 30-year veteran of the House, exploded in a profanity- filled tirade, calling a Colorado Republican a “fruitcake“”
– San Francisco Chronicle
“You little fruitcake, you little fruitcake, I said you are a fruitcake” [in big bold letters set aside from the text of the article]
– CNN
“By their account, Mr. Thomas had no choice but to call the authorities, to restore order when Mr. Stark, 71, threatened Representative Scott McInnis, a 50-year-old Republican, and called him “a wimp” and “a fruitcake.””
–NY Times
“Dem. To Rep.: ‘You Fruitcake!'” [headline, plus video]
– CBS
“Republicans recounted how one Democratic member of the panel called a Republican colleague “you little fruitcake” in the midst of the standoff.”
– Washington Post
The Mighty Reason Man
Cole-
“The Democrats don’t want to debate anything- they want to delay and impede. They do not have the votes, so they just want to try to use parliamentary procedures and delaying tactics- it really is all they have”
Yes…and that is different from the minority party in every other parliamentary body in history how, exactly?
You DO remember that Newt Gingrich was a congressman before 1994, right?
John Cole
Mighty Reason Man- Which is precisely my point- they are whining about conditions Republicans had to deal with for forty years.
Andrew Lazarus
I think, frankly, that this is very unlikely. The kind of small and petty behavior here, springing the new bill, not allowing the Democrats to read it, and ignoring objections to “unanimous consent” just doesn’t strike me as the style of Tip O’Neill or the other leading Democrats of that era. Frankly, those Democrats were probably generous to the minority party because that they would stay in the minority forever without any real intervention. Not only did the Democrats misunderestimate Bush, they misunderestimated Gingrich.
The Mighty Reason Man
Cole-
Tip O’Neill regularly had drinks with Reagan after business hours. Such a cordial relationship with the other party’s leadership wouldn’t be possible if the Dems treated the GOP minority the same way.
David Perron
This was not about Democratic obstructionism. The Republicans didn’t let the Democrats VOTE on this piece of legislation. I think we all agree that no member what party you belong to, you should be allowed to vote!
Do you think this ought to apply to judicial appointees as well? Just curious.
John Cole
I agree that relationships have deteriorated, but you are losing your mind if you claim it is all because of mean Republicans. From my vantage point, Democrats have gone insane. And if you had told me ten years ago that the Democrats would think there was someone worse than Reagan, I would have laughed in your face. But look at the demonizing rhetoric the Democrats have employed since the Bush campaign started in 2k.
FWIW- Bush made plenty of overtures to Democrat leaders- who promptly shit on him every chance they get. Democrats did not respond, because it was more useful for them to remain bitter and outraged about the 2k election.
And if you think Tom Daschle and George Mitchell were simple gentleman, you have lost your mind.
The Mighty Reason Man
Perron-
“Do you think this ought to apply to judicial appointees as well? Just curious.”
Clever, but I’m sure you see the distinction between using a legitimate parliamentary tactic dating back to before any of us were born to prevent a vote, and trying to sneak a vote through that the opposition hasn’t had time to review, and perhaps even when the opposition is out of the room.
If I handed you a legal document, would you sign it without reading it?
Cole-
While most of my friends would agree with you that I am losing or have lost (you aren’t clear on which it is) my mind, it’s for entirely different reasons than you suggest.
Bush’s “overtures” consisted of trying to railroad them into agreeing with whatever he wanted in the name of bipartisanship. They weren’t buying, and so, resenting the attempted con, got a bit cranky. You would too.
“From my vantage point, Democrats have gone insane”
And while I respect your right to have such an opinion, I’m sure you’ll recognize my equally valid right to adamantly disagree with you.
“But look at the demonizing rhetoric the Democrats have employed since the Bush campaign started in 2k.”
People who live in glass houses populated by the likes of Limbaugh (both of them), Coulter, DeLay, Hannity, Scarborough, etc. shouldn’t throw stones, my friend.
And I’d like to remind you of some of the rhetoric tossed at us evil Democrats, especially since 9/11. You know, the whole “unpatriotic” “treasonous” “America-hating” “pro-Saddam” “socialist” “pussies” thing.
I could go on, but you seem to have not lost YOUR mind to such a degree as to be unable to see my point.
John Cole
People who live in glass houses populated by the likes of Limbaugh (both of them), Coulter, DeLay, Hannity, Scarborough, etc. shouldn’t throw stones, my friend.
And I’d like to remind you of some of the rhetoric tossed at us evil Democrats, especially since 9/11. You know, the whole “unpatriotic” “treasonous” “America-hating” “pro-Saddam” “socialist” “pussies” thing.
I haven’t employed that rhetoric, so I am not sure why I should even have to address it.
The Mighty Reason Man
Cole-
“I haven’t employed that rhetoric, so I am not sure why I should even have to address it.”
Because we aren’t talking about YOU, we’re talking about the GOP, just as “But look at the demonizing rhetoric the Democrats have employed since the Bush campaign started in 2k” wasn’t in reference to ME, but to the Democrats.
You can’t accuse the Democrats of something, and then try to duck the identical return accusation against the GOP by denying that you yourself have never done it.
Or rather, you CAN, but that wouldn’t be very honest, now would it?
The Mighty Reason Man
Obligatory apologies for the double post.
(and would you consider enabling HTML tags? I hate having to capitalize entire words for emphasis, rather than italicizing them)
John Cole
I thoght they were enabled already.
The Mighty Reason Man
If HTML tage are enabled, this should be in italics.
And this should be in bold.
The Mighty Reason Man
Nope, looks like no tags allowed, John. (and now the links in my post up near the top don’t work anymore either, but I swear they did earlier…weird).
John Cole
I had tags checked, then unchecked it. I have it fixed now. I think the reason they do not show up is because the font is so small in the comments section. If I knew how to make it bigger, I would.
David Perron
Might he reason, man:
I wasn’t addressing what the Washington Post covered, just the comment made by Jonas. Sorry if that was confusing; I thought if I quoted what he said that would prevent such confusion. Oops.
It appears there were some violations of parliamentary procedure, there. I’m not sure what the House rules are on what happened, but I’d think a rule violation would be enough to drag the bill back into session. But what do I know?
On the other hand, the rules of Congress should be (or already are) “protect yourself at all times”, as in boxing. Never turn your back on your opponent, because then he is fully entitled to kidney-punch you until you fall down. Even given that, though, this looks pretty bad. For both sides of the aisle.
Glen
John,
Off-line yesterday; the PC was SNAFU’d (less pleasant than a trip to the lake)… Mighty Reason Man, however, made most of the points I would have.
On Stark’s site, he apologises for his excesses. I’ve seen nothing from the other side, nor do I expect to. As MRM noted, we’re way past the time when Tip and Ronnie would bend a few elbows: it’s scorched earth all the way.
As far as “overtures,” that’s got to be one of the biggest laughs of the era. “Bipartisanship” has become a rehash of an old joke: how do you say f*** y** in Los Angeles: trust me. Ask conservative Democrat Max Cleland, or moderate Republicans Snow, Collins, or Chafee (technically on Bush’s side of the aisle).
A minor point: if “ass-ness” were a crime, about 80% of D.C. would be in jail. Though my Dark Side could enjoy that, I don’t confuse it with governance.
Andrew Lazarus
As best as I can tell, Bush’s so-called overtures have always been how to arrange our unconditional surrender in a friendly, gentlemanly way, in the style of Lee and Grant. Frankly, I don’t see our situation as that dire yet. Can you name a POLICY initiative on which Bush showed any interest in compromise? On the contrary, precisely the way in which he was “elected” led him to govern as if he had won a tremendous mandate, in order, I suppose (1) to get over that Florida embarrassment as soon as possible and (2) until 9/11, to deal with the possibility that with better ballot design, his window of opportunity was small.
Maybe we’ve been reading our Grover Norquist: “Bipartisanship is date rape.”
David Perron
I invoke the Florida corollary to Godwin’s Law.
1) Irrelevant
2) Irreparable
3) Incorrect
4) How do you eat solid food with that stuck in your craw all the time?
Andrew Lazarus
David, speaking of irrelevant, why didn’t you manage to find one of the overtures Bush made?
Dean
Andrew:
Depending on your definition of “overture,” I think it’s safe to say that the Education bill was created with the help and “advice and consent” of Teddy Kennedy.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2001-06-14-schools.htm
You may not LIKE the bill, but it’d be hard to argue that Teddy is not a liberal, or that he didn’t have a role. And that was a pretty major piece of legislation at the time (arguably the first major piece of the Dubya Admin).
Andrew Lazarus
You’re right; I’d forgotten the Educatuion Bill. I think it’s both the first and last example.
David Perron
Sorry, Andrew, I completely forgot that I’d volunteered to do so. If you’ll be so kind as to point out where I did, I’ll get right on it.
Nick
Correct me if I’m wrong, but the timeline here went:
1) Republicans introduce 90 page bill at midnight.
2) Republicans demand a vote on it first thing the next morning.
3) Democrats try to stall the procedures in order to avoid being forced to vote on a bill they haven’t read.
4) Republican gets consensus to vote on the bill by not allowing Democrat to vote.
5) Democrat calls Republican “fruitcake”.
It’s funny how only items 3 and 5 show up in your post, don’t you think? “member of the Bush kool-aid crowd” indeed.
HH
So does “c—sucker” count as a slur?