Breaking News
Unemployment Over 10%

Elections Have Consequences

January 2nd, 2007 14 Comments

The Republicans are begging for mercy.

Posted in Politics |
« The Twilight Effect
They Don’t Know How Dumb They Sound »
Both comments and pings are currently closed.

14 Responses to “Elections Have Consequences”

  1. mdhatter says:
    January 2, 2007 at 3:51 pm

    Mr Kettle is looking awfully black.

  2. Dugger says:
    January 2, 2007 at 3:53 pm

    So was Pelosi begging for ‘mercy’ when she made the same proposal.

    And how about that culture of corruption issue in the House. Jefferson, Murtha, Hastings. Now Conyers. Wait. I know. Like Pelosi’s proposal. Its only newsworthy when Republicans are corrupt.

  3. mdhatter says:
    January 2, 2007 at 4:00 pm

    Dugger, stop apologising

  4. Oliver says:
    January 2, 2007 at 4:16 pm

    Well if this was 1980-something, you would be relevant, but… no.

  5. Nimrod Gently says:
    January 2, 2007 at 4:18 pm

    Given that Pelosi’s original proposal a) wasn’t put forward less than two months after a thorough and humiliating defeat in a national election, and b) wasn’t very much like the new version, I should say that she wasn’t, no.

  6. Wilbur says:
    January 2, 2007 at 5:12 pm

    And Dugger, if this proposal is just like Pelosi’s proposal in 2004, then I assume it would be okay with you if Pelosi treated this one exactly the same way that Dennis Hastert treated hers? i.e. one-way ticket to the circular file?

    Republicans only care about “minority rights” when they are in the minority.

  7. Dugger says:
    January 2, 2007 at 5:25 pm

    Wilbur

    yeah buddy

  8. Wilbur says:
    January 2, 2007 at 5:43 pm

    Dugger, glad you agree, and of course you meant to agree with my whole statement, including the bit about Republicans only caring about minority rights when they are in the minority.

    Democrats, on the other hand, tend to care about minority rights as a matter of principle.

    Like the issue of DC represenation: Repubs have been fighting voting rights in DC for decades, because they know DC voters would tend to elect democratic reps. Dems are willing to let the repbus have another seat in Utah if they support a voting rep for DC. Politically it’s a wash, but dems support it because taxation without representation is wrong.

    Principle: give it a try sometime.

  9. Dugger says:
    January 2, 2007 at 5:54 pm

    Wilbur,

    Please. Democrats are human and have their share of crooks. Both parties have principals that in the abstract are noble and virtuous. And both parties compromise those principals. I betcha I’ve been around this world a lot longer than you and I’ve met plenty of good and bad on both sides. The ones I worry about most are those who think their (either) side has the monopoly on good and wisdom. Then ‘macro solutions’ or ‘final solutions’ become morally possible for them. When that happens watch out.

  10. z adura says:
    January 2, 2007 at 6:41 pm

    Dugger, what the heck are you talking about? The last 12 years of Congressional rule has been defined by a Republican party that acted like they had a “monopoly on good and wisdom.” There was no dissent – they crushed it both with rules and bullying actions.

    I fully support the idea of a Minority Bill of Rights, but I would certainly understand if Nancy Pelosi rejected it. And I at least expect you and Denny Hastert to see the irony in proposing it.

  11. Diamond LeGrande says:
    January 2, 2007 at 8:08 pm

    The Democrats should obviously adopt a Minority Bill of Rights, as someday the Republicans will be in the majority again. And, let’s face it, the Republicans having a majority means that they will abuse it the second after the networks call the House for them. This will prevent some abuses for a few weeks before the Republicans rewrite various ethics rules, when this will go away unnoticed when the Republicans let its Speaker serve from Death Row.

  12. Rheinhard says:
    January 3, 2007 at 12:42 am

    I would agree that the Democrats should enact rules changes to insure the minority party isn’t totally locked out.

    But not quickly.

    Simply put, it’s a Pavlovian thing. The R’s need to remember that it can be done to them before they can reasonably be brought to heel.

  13. JWG says:
    January 3, 2007 at 10:15 am

    Pelosi Proposes Minority Bill of Rights

    Washington, D.C. — House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released the following statement today on the Minority Bill of Rights, guidelines for how Democrats think the House of Representatives should operate:
    [...]
    - Bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full, and fair debate consisting of a full amendment process that grants the minority the right to offer its alternatives, including a substitute.

    Shorter Pelosi: “Never mind!”

  14. Dugger says:
    January 3, 2007 at 10:30 am

    zadura,

    I say. I say, son. Pay attention, son.

    OKBIME if Pelosi turns it down. Goes with us losing.