Norman J. Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute said this:
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 orderâ€â€”so I am not going to say this is a great idea by the Democrats. But even so—is there no shame anymore?
The difference is that when Dems do it, Republicans hit news media screaming about “Slaughter House Rules” (named after Rep. Louise Slaughter, chair of the Rules Committee). When Republicans did it, Dems were not all over media screaming about the “Dreier Dodge,” or whatever.
And mass media repeats whatever Republicans say.
Indeed, hearing Republicans whine incessantly yesterday about the need for an “up-or-down vote” on the Senate bill was especially amusing yesterday. If GOP lawmakers wouldPer allow both chambers to vote up or down on important legislation, procedural alternatives wouldn’t be necessary in the first place.
Per Greg Sargent, way back when the public was divided over Medicare about the same way it is divided now over HCR. But once it went into effect, people liked it.
Also: Nearly 1 in 4 Californians under age 65 had no health insurance last year. If you look at people aged 18 to 65, nearly 1 in 3 had no insurance last year.
When the Obama Administration was attacked for deciding to try the “underpants bomber” in a civilian court, the best defense they could come up with was, “Well this is the same thing Bush did with the shoe bomber.”
Now the Democrats are defending passage of the “health care reform” bill using “Deem and Pass” so that they can pass an ugly bill, one that they may not actually have the votes for anyway, without having to be charged with actually voting for it, by saying that Republicans used the same methods 35 times.
This is the new argument for Democrats. Do they really want to do this? Defend their actions by saying, “We’re just like the Republicans.”
Bill, I disagree with you on this one. “Deem and Pass” was determined by the courts to be constitutional, and the fact that it was used 35 times by Republicans, establishes it as “past practice.” For the Dems to say, No, no, we’re too principled to use it, seems to me a lot like choosing to break up a cement sidewalk with a crow bar, when a jackhammer is readily available.
As for the health care bill itself, who knows what final form it will take? There’s still considerable horse trading going on. About all we really know for certain is that Republicans will vote no, the Blue Dogs will attempt to aid and abet them, and our health care system is on life support. For the Dem leadership, doing nothing is not an option.
I was thrilled to see that Catholic nuns have broken with the bishops and came out for HCR. They are the troops on the ground when it comes to charitable work, whereas the men are all over the corporate side of the “Church”, including the evil Ratzinger, which is a different story, and yet not…
Bill, I don’t know where you get your information, but I’ve heard a lot more complicated arguments from the WH on general and specific terrorism trials than “Bush did it.”
Every indication on the HCR bill is they will have the votes. I expect “deem and pass” to be a moot point. And I certainly do not recall any ruckus, from any quarter, when the GOP used it.
Left Edge,
I just have a quick question for you but couldn’t find an email so had to resort to this. I am a progressive blogger and the owner of the mahablog. Please email me back at [email protected] when you get a chance. Thanks.
Barbara
What’s on your mind, Barbara?
Mr. Natural — I didn’t send the email.
Bill’s right. It’s all about winning now.
Well, Norman Ornstein is an old friend of Al Franken’s. He’s even a character in Al’s book Why Not Me? He used to be on TV a lot and he always seemed a lot further to the left than everyone else at AEI.
That’s really what they’re all about – making up words and slogans.
IOKIYAR. And ditto Jennifer’s comment upstread about the Catholic nuns coming out for HCR. This should knock some wind out of the sails of those who oppose HCR on the basis (realistic or not) of abortion.
“Is there no shame anymore?”
Simple answer to a simple question: NO!!!
Democrats seem to try to keep their powder dry for the important battles – WAAAAY too much of the time.
Republicans believe in shooting, not when they “see the white’s of their eyes,” but when they suspect that someone has eyes. And keep shooting until until they’re dead. You know, the old, ‘Let God sort them out,’ philosophy…
BTW: Good on NORM! I loved him on Franklin’s show. I didn’t always agree with him. But he was smart, prepared, and engaging. And that, folks, is why you NEVER see him on any channels, except rarely. Too much brains, too little spittle!
I can’t say this enough, which means I’ve probably said it too much. The repubs do not care one whit about deem and pass. It doesn’t matter WHAT the dems do to pass the bill, the repubs are going to find some reason to howl about the end of the world as a tactic to manipulate their base and obstruct progress. We can’t change our practices on the basis of their noise machine, or they win. If deem and pass gets the job done, do it.
I suspect that ‘Deem and Pass’ is a reflection of the distain that House democrats have for the payola in the Senate bill. In order to pass it through a normal vote they have to vote FOR the Nebraska deal and all the other crap. Later, they will fix a bunch of that – I hope all of it – in the reconciliation bill.
But for the November election, it will be technically correct for Teabaggers to say he voted for x,y & z – never mind that 30 minutes later those parts were gutted in reconciliation – a lot of these guys don’t want to put their name on the Senate bill – as a matter of principle and politics. I think they are wrong about how it will play out politically in Nov. – but I can sympathize with a desire to put their names on the reconcilliation bill and stand up for health care – while not wanting to sanction the bribes in the Senate bill.
muldoon, I didn’t say that “deem and pass” was unconstitutional or in any way wrong. I am just saying that for the Democrats to defend their actions by saying that “The Republicans did it” leads me to the conclusion that there is perhaps little difference in who I vote for.
I was planning to vote against incumbents, deterred only by the fact that it would mean voting for Republicans. If Democrats are going to base their actions on what Republicans do, then that deterrence is removed and I can go ahead and simply look for “incumbent” on the ballot and vote for the other guy.
joanr16, yes, there were more sophisticated and far better arguments used, and I agreed with all of them. But the most common and most frequently used was, “this is what the Bush Administration did”, and Obama himself used it very frequently.
I’m not happy about the “Deem and Pass” procedure, either, and blame too many House Democrats who lack the spine to go on record for the bill. But if you don’t see a difference in who you vote for, you’re blind. If Republicans were a majority, do you think health care reform would even be on the table? Was it for all those years they were a majority?