Norm Ornstein Embarasses The GOP On Its Hypocrisy
As you read the following from noted congressional expert Norm Ornstein, keep in mind that he's no Democratic apologist or spinmeister. Norm is a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, an organization no one could possibly mistake for an arm of the Democratic Party. I'm reprinting the whole thing so no one can accuse me of selectively quoting from Norm's piece.
Hypocrisy: A Parliamentary Procedure
Any veteran observer of Congress is used to the rampant hypocrisy over the use of parliamentary procedures that shifts totally from one side to the other as a majority moves to minority status, and vice versa. But I can’t recall a level of feigned indignation nearly as great as what we are seeing now from congressional Republicans and their acolytes at the Wall Street Journal, and on blogs, talk radio, and cable news. It reached a ridiculous level of misinformation and disinformation over the use of reconciliation, and now threatens to top that level over the projected use of a self-executing rule by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. In the last Congress that Republicans controlled, from 2005 to 2006, Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier used the self-executing rule more than 35 times, and was no stranger to the concept of “deem and pass.” That strategy, then decried by the House Democrats who are now using it, and now being called unconstitutional by WSJ editorialists, was defended by House Republicans in court (and upheld). Dreier used it for a $40 billion deficit reduction package so that his fellow GOPers could avoid an embarrassing vote on immigration. I don’t like self-executing rules by either party—I prefer the “regular order”—so I am not going to say this is a great idea by the Democrats. But even so—is there no shame anymore?
It is still a stupid move
Yes, deeming legislation enacted by adoption of the rule was a sneaky underhanded way to avoid tough votes when the Republicans used the procedure. I am not sure that makes it any less sneaky or underhanded when Democratics use it.
More importantly, using this procedure in this instance is both foolish and demonstrates desperation and lack of confidence. The whole point of the manuver is to avoid media attention and allow members to claim they had never voted in favor of X when in fact they really had voted for X when they approved the rule. That was never going to be possible in this situation. Now instead of casting one vote in favor of the Senate bill, the wavering Democratics get to cast at least 3 and probably 4 votes. The first will probably come on a privileged motion by the Republicans to prohibit the use of "Deem and Pass" which will be spun as a vote on both the rule and the underlying Senate bill. Next will come a vote on a Republican motion to defeat the previous question and return the rule to committee for redrafting. This will also be spun as a vote on the Senate bill. Anyone who objects may want to read the various Democratic press releases from past years when they offered motions to defeat the previous question. Third will come a vote on the rule which even Democratic apologists will have dificulty describing as anything other than a YES vote on the Senate bill. Finally will come a vote on passage of the underlying legislation, which again will be spun as a vote on the Senate bill.
So Demon Pass (as it will shortly appear on the Tea Party signs) may be a legitimate parliamentry manuver for the Democratics but it is also an incredibly stupid one.
Missed the point
I think you miss the point: he's not saying it excuses the Dems, he's saying that it is rank hypocrisy. He could easily write a DIFFERENT editorial condemning the current legislation. That's your goal here, though. Not his.
Are you saying it's a stupid rule to have or it is a stupid rule to use because of the political consequences? If the former, it is no more stupid than the filibuster being used to require a super majority. If the latter, I don't think the public really cares in the long run. I believe the original editorial makes that perfectly clear.
All of the options used to circumvent a majority vote in the senate(filibuster,"demon pass," self execution) are self imposed parliamentary rules and not law. The Constitution, the part probably envisioned by our forefathers, just requires a simple 50 vote majority.
Dude...honestly
Do you want a country where it takes a 60% majority to pass anything? The one thing we know is that bad behavior will escalate each time control passes from one party to another. When (if) Republicans get control, you can be sure someone like my boy Bernie Sanders will tie them in knots. Where does it stop?
So...are 51 votes enough to pass legislation? If not, propose a constitutional amendment. Good luck with that.
Come on-get serious.
"The whole point of the manuver is to avoid media attention and allow members to claim they had never voted in favor of X when in fact they really had voted for X when they approved the rule." Avoid media attention?? You're kidding...right?? The 24/7 news cycle has focused its attention so closely on this process that not even the clothes Pelosi wears escapes scrutiny. But when the substance of an argument is a loser for you focus on process. No will understand anything you say and you'll sound like an expert as a result!!
The modern Republican Party
The modern Republican Party is completely incapable of being embarassed by its hypocrisy. In order to be embarassed, you have to have some sense of honor and/or personal integrity. The modern GOP, and the hacks who run it, have none.
The GOP is a machine for getting and exercising political power. Machines can't be embarassed.
"So Demon Pass (as it will
"So Demon Pass (as it will shortly appear on the Tea Party signs) may be a legitimate parliamentry manuver for the Democratics but it is also an incredibly stupid one."
Like the Red Sox of old, the Democrats always seem be able to come through in a clutch "must lose" situation.
Maybe you should spend more time talking to yourself
No. One. Cares.
If a famous athlete or movie star were to have even a small scandal, "demon pass" would disappear from the news in a minute. The people who don't want the bill to pass are the only ones making a fuss. The news cycle likes fuss, until a better one comes along.
But the vast majority couldn't care less. Dems are right -- Pass the bill, get the "pre-existing conditions" part in force before November...and then stand up and say, "My opponent says that if you're sick, you can't get health insurance." And win.
"Come through in a clutch 'must lose' situation?" That sounds like Bush-Cheney trying to govern. Or run a war. Or save drowning people. Or...well, you get the point.
More House members needed?
Perhaps the solution is to expand the number of House members, from ~430 to 600 or more.. This would make representation more fine-grained, would allow the voice
of the people to be more clearly discerned. Under this
scheme, even a 51% majority on any issue would
politically settle that issue.
If you want to go a little further, try the same in the
Senate. That would mean carving up some states, but
there are some areas that would appreciate finer-grained
sovereignty: northern California, east versus west Texas,
Upper-Peninsula Michigan, tack on Puerto Rico.
Still further, eliminate the Electoral College and make
the election of the President a straight popular vote.
This move would tend to favor cities over rural areas,
which is exactly what's needed in the urban age we now
live in.
In other words, we are getting signals from our political
process that finer-grained representation is needed.