Tuesday, January 23, 2007

Pelosi's 'No Compromise' Position

Congressmen are already frustrated over Pelosi's divisiveness. In the "Six for 2006" bills presented by the Democrats, the Dems refused to allow any ammendments in a zero compromise position. Committee members were not allowed to review the bills or propose ammendments to them. Essentially, the bills were ramrodded through.

Nancy Pelosi campaigned with strong rhetoric about problems with partisan politics and the need to work together. It doesn't look like things have improved if the first 100 days are any indication.


Framer said...

My burning question is which will expire first the "100 Hours" or an actual 100 days.

As far as the bills that are being passed, they are pretty thin gruel at best. Most are misguided, but the more controversial, the less teeth they seem to have. They are long on rhetoric, short on action.

Seems familiar somehow. My guess is that Pelosi is just as afraid of Democratic Amendments as Republican ones. The last thing she wants for her new congress at this point is any shred of responsibility, or being on record for something that could possibly turn unpopular. Look for more non-binding carping, because that is what America voted for.

sirocco said...

Ahhhhh ... Republican Congressmen complaining about having the same rules applied to them which they gleefully applied to Democrats when they were the majority.

There's a term for that - hypocracy.

Not that I was likely to feel much sympathy for them anyhow, but when they publicly commented about how they planned to use guidelines the Dem's were discussing to try to actively throw monkey wrenches in the initial Democratic agenda, it was time to step on their throats.

Republicans aren't being subjected to anything more than a taste of their own medicine, and I fully support making them choke on it for a little while. After a month or so, however, the Dem's need to open things up and allow the minority to have a say in the process.

That way, when the R's regain power (which they will someday, it's how these things work) and once more permanently remove any role for the minority party, they will be fully sxposed as the bullies they are.

Framer said...

Republicans came by such behavior honestly, after all they had 40 years to learn under the previous Democratic majority. History did not begin in 1994.

Thing is, Republicans didn't run under the banner of a bipartisan cooperation in 1994, the theme was "they haven't led, we will." Democrats promised a new era of openness and cooperation. It hasn't even lasted 100 hours, (if they can get through the first 100 hours by the next election.) Hypocracy indeed.

sirocco said...

Heh. The rules the Republican's put into place to stifle the input from the minority were far harsher than were ever in place in the years prior to 1994. I'm not saying they weren't limited (they were), but they took it to another order of magnitude.

The Dems did say they didn't intend to let the Rep's interfere with the "first 100 hours" (although they say that until after the election, they also didn't make that "change" until after R's announced their intentions to "abuse" the process). As I have said, I have no real problem with that.

If, however, Dems continue to stifle Republican voice for an extended time (beyond a month, say), then I will join you in lambasting them.

AZAce said...

In contrast:
Congressman Shadegg reports that in 1995 the Democrats were granted plenty of room by the GOP to the tune of 154 amendments to the 24 Contract for America bills of which 48 were adopted on the House floor. As for allowing the normal process of committee review, unlike Pelosi, the GOP allowed 19 of the 24 to go to committee where Democrats proposed 98 ammendments with 9 adopted in committee.

That's bipartisanship.

sirocco said...


That was in 1995, before Delay had managed to completely shut down the process. What were the numbers in, say, 2005?

You and I both know what those numbers are going to look like, and they aren't "bipartisan".