Like I said earlier, if you thought election year 2000was fun, you better just strap yourself in for the nonsense we are going to have to endure this year. The Democrats are willing to do or say anything to regain power in Washington. Exhibit A for the day regarding Democratic hijinks was posted below. Here are Exhibits B and C (and remember- this is just FROM TODAY).
One of the real problems for the Democrats is that even in the off-chance that Kerry wins the general election in November, he is going to be hard-pressed to pass any real legislative agenda because the House and Senate, barring an utter catastrophe for the GOP, are going to remain in Republican hands. Should Kerry win, in fact, the Democrats would automatically lose a seat in the Senate, because as the law states, the sitting Governor would choose Kerry’s replacement. This has only been the law for a half-century or so.
The problem, though, is that the Massachussetts governor is Mitt Romney, a Republican, and the replacement Senator would be a Republican. This, for a Massachussetts Democrat, is as close to armageddon as it gets. Thus, a fix must be found:
If John Kerry is elected president, his seat in the Senate would be filled by the winner of a special election rather than a successor picked by Republican Gov. Mitt Romney under a bill approved Wednesday by the Massachusetts Senate.
The Senate voted largely along party lines, 32-8, after a sometimes testy debate pitting the badly outnumbered Republicans, who opposed the change, against Democrats. The measure now goes to the Democratic-controlled House.
The bill requires a special election not more than 160 days and not less than 145 days after a vacancy is created in the Senate. Under the bill, a vacancy is created when a letter of resignation is filed, even if the incumbent senator does not actually resign until a later date. The winner of the special election would serve out the remainder of the unexpired term. Kerry’s term ends in 2008.
Although Romney could veto the measure, the Democrats have the votes to overturn it.
Democrats argue that allowing the governor to appoint a successor is less democratic than a special election, even a quick election.
The governor said he supports having a special election, but he wants to give the candidates enough time — up to nine months — to raise money, hold a primary, debates and then stage a general election. In the meantime, Romney said, he should be allowed to appoint a replacement who could then run in the general election.
Romney has called on Kerry to resign his seat, arguing that he has paid little attention to his Senate duties while campaigning for president.
You have to admire the brazenness, if nothing else.
Exhibit C: Nancy Pelosi’s Minority Party Bill of Rights
House Democrats’ anger at heavy-handed Republican tactics reached a new level yesterday, with the chamber’s top Democrat asking the House speaker to embrace a “Bill of Rights” for the minority, regardless which party it is.
In keeping with the general atmosphere of the House these days, aides to Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) said he will not respond to the two-page proposal from Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).
For decades, the party in power has used House parliamentary rules to limit the minority party’s ability to amend bills and shape debates. But Democrats — in the minority for 10 years after four decades of control — say Republicans have gone to unreasonable lengths in recent years. GOP leaders dispute this, but congressional scholars and even some rank-and-file Republicans agree in whole or in part.
Pelosi’s document, which she vows to honor if Democrats regain the majority, says: “Too often, incivility and the heavy hand of the majority” have silenced Democrats and choked off “thoughtful debate.” She called on the majority to let the minority offer meaningful amendments and substitutes to important bills; to limit roll-call votes to the normal 15 minutes rather than keeping them open to round up needed votes; and to let all appointees to House-Senate conference committees participate in meetings and decisions.
Translation- “We don’t have the votes, but we still want to run shit.”
*** Bonus Flashback- Nancy Pelosi on ‘Civility’ ***
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi lashed out at President Bush on Thursday, saying his Iraq policies show incompetence and the only conclusion to draw is that “the emperor has no clothes.”
“I believe that the president’s leadership and the actions taken in Iraq demonstrate an incompetence in terms of knowledge, judgment and experience,” the California Democrat told reporters at a Capitol Hill news conference.
“As far as we know, Senator Kerry got three Purple Hearts for risking his life in Vietnam and President Bush got a dental examination in Alabama,” Pelosi said.
I wonder what the Vice-President might say to her?
Now they know how the Repubs felt for decades…payback is a bitch, as is Nancy Pelosi.
They’re just “playing the game” and giving the Democrats “as good as they got” – (thanks Oliver!)
Johnny Kerry gets his way. If the rules were rewritten like this for Dubya, Mikey would be running back to the editing bay to put it in his flick and make fun.
You know, many of my friends wonder why I (generally) vote Republican, when I happen to be a libertine libertarian in terms of actual belief. “Wouldn’t it be better,” they say, “to vote with the party that doesn’t stand against every social belief you have?”
Well, there’s a reason I don’t vote Dem, and it’s because being a Dem means you never have to say your sorry. Only Republican like Gingrich and Packwood have to resign after a sex scandal, for Clinton, it was different. Only Republicans need to get UN approval to bomb the hell out of someone. For the Dems, it was no big deal. Only Dems. can accuse their opponents of being unAmerican and totalitarian. If I do it, I have stepped past some line drawn in the sands of civil discourse.
This shit is getting old.
Ah yes, so much better simply to use ad hominem attacks than to address any issue of substance–your attacks on Pelosi’s supposed lack of civility is mind-boggling.
What in the world is wrong with saying that handling of Iraq has been incompetent? Surely that is the case!! Advisers warn–hey, you’ll need a lot more troops. Do Bush et al listen? No, they fire said advisers. Paying Chalabi boatloads of money, and employing morons who pass along top-secret information to him, when he turns out to be an Iranian spy?? Surely that’s the very definition of incompetence.
As for the other statement from Pelosi–I’m even more mystified at your objection. Bush did get a medical exam in Alabama, and Kerry is a decorated war veteran. I’m sorry that you object to a political leader using facts in a speech.
Indeed, that must be a very foreign concept to the GOP (examples like constantly touting that poor farming family set to lose the family farm after the horrible nasty mean “Death Tax,” despite NEVER EVER finding a single family in that situation).
I mean, debate Pelosi on the merits–if you think Bush has competently managed post-war Iraq so that it’s a swell, fine&dandy paradise, argue away. But to describe any attempt at honest criticism as somehow “uncivil” and beyond the bounds of normal political discourse is insane.
The essence of democracy is the ability to criticize our leaders. Pelosi is doing exactly that, and you want to call that uncivil. That is truly amazing.
BTW, before you start going on about the schools!, the schools!, I’d like you to refer to the CPA’s own data which shows electricity, STILL, at levels below where they were last year around this time. Some great progress.
Sure, a lot of the nastiness in Iraq is beyond Bush’s control & it’s hardly fair to toss all the blame on him, but it seems relatively clear & uncontroversial to say that his judgment in choosing who he would & would not listen to (fire) was horrific. Clearly, the folks he put in charge of the post-war Iraq didn’t have a clue, while the folks he fired had it exactly right.
If that’s not a failure of leadership–ie incompetence as a leader–I don’t know what is.
I’m sorry that sounds uncivil to you. But that’s democracy (remember–pretty much now the main reason you’ve got left to defend the whole iraqi adventure). Sorry you don’t like it.
“Clearly, the folks he put in charge of the post-war Iraq didn’t have a clue, while the folks he fired had it exactly right.”
Not clear at all. Unless you wish the perfect to be the enemy of the good.