E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Madame Speaker, we hardly knew ye.
The gains that House Democrats made in the last two cycles -- winning the majority in 2006 that began Nancy Pelosi's historic tenure in the speaker's suite, then enhancing their margins in 2008 -- are likely to be swept away Tuesday in a tsunami that makes those two elections look like ripples on the Capitol Reflecting Pool.
If it happens, the effect on President Obama's agenda will be immediate and profound -- and the much maligned "broken" system of Washington politics and policy is likely to get more contentious and invidious before it gets better, if it is to get better at all.
The president's party would be in the minority. And as both Pelosi and her apparent successor, John Boehner, know from years of bitter experience, to be in the House minority is to be virtually powerless to influence and shape legislation. When you're talking about holding the majority in the House, you're talking about controlling everything -- from committee investigations and the recycling regimen in House offices, to which bills will even be considered for debate on the floor and what is served for lunch in the cafeteria.
There is no give and take, no horse trading with the minority over much of anything. Democrats would be utterly impotent, unable to advance the president's agenda.
"The best system is to have one party govern and the other party watch." That was the philosophy of running the House set forth by 19th Century Speaker Thomas Reed that is still adhered to today, much as it has been through most of the history of Congress, regardless of which party is running things.
What the minority can do
Virtually the only way for the minority to make an impact is to maintain party discipline, to present a united front and draw a party line on big votes. After all, within the parameters of conventional political practice, they have nothing to lose and everything to gain by doing so. The object is to trip up the opposition and regain power, because we are the good guys and they are the bad guys. No in-betweens.
The majority does not have that luxury, and is therefore forced to twist arms and break some china within its own camp in order to demonstrate that they can function. That forces compromise -- a dirty word to doctrinaire supporters -- and it results in internal fissures and factions.
In keeping with this, any individual piece of major legislation, regardless of its particular merits, must be opposed by the minority. Look at the infamous late-night, three-hour Medicare prescription-drug vote as an example. The bill, pushed by President Bush and Republican majority leadership, established an entire new (and also unpaid-for) benefit under Medicare. Let's be honest: The legislation was something that Democrats had long sought, and -- donut hole or no donut hole -- has turned out to be popular among seniors.
But for weeks, minority Democratic leaders worked tirelessly to keep their troops against it. When the vote finally came, one Democrat, Rep. David Wu of Oregon, spent almost two hours on the floor in what appeared to be a trance-like state, staring up at the tally board without slipping his voting card into the machine. At his side was a parade of Democratic colleagues beseeching him to vote "nay."
With so many Dems voting against the measure, and with the hardest of the hard-core conservative true-believers defying their president and leaders by refusing to support it, chaos ensued on the Republican side. In the end, only a 4:00 am phone call from the president himself resulted in the switch of two GOP votes from NAY TO YEA, and the unfunded entitlement passed as dawn broke. It was ugly and even scandalous, and to this day conservatives lament both the bill and the process that led to its adoption.
Last year, Boehner was making his way to the chamber as the House prepared to vote on the stimulus bill. Walking past a group of reporters, Boehner brought the tips of his forefinger and thumb together to form a zero, indicating with a measure of pride that not one Republican would cross party lines and vote "yea." Many of the Democrats who did, some vulnerable and under pressure from leadership and the White House, are now paying a political price.
Why rancor is the norm
So the incentive is toward partisanship. Party-line discipline is a viewed as a virtue in your U.S. House. Ask yourself: Why do you think they call the party vote-counters "whips"? Rancor is nothing new. Promises of procedural and systemic reform, put forward by Pelosi in 2006 and now by Boehner, have thus far have turned out to be unattainable at best and a canard at worst. And bipartisanship? A chimera that in the end only serves to raise expectations to unattainable levels and disappoint those who believed in the promise to begin with.
So what does any of this mean for 2011? The last time, when the House (and Senate) were infused with conservative firebrands and the White House occupied by a Democrat, was 1995. The immediate result was two government shutdowns, maneuvering and tantrums, a president compelled to remind the world that the Constitution made him relevant to the process, and to declare that the era of big government was over.
This time, a Republican-led House would try to significantly alter Obama's agenda on issues like immigration, energy, taxes, and education. Divided government could deepen partisan divisions over the next two years on those and other issues.
But some who have seen it before think that conditions might be ripe for compromise. "When you have Republicans in Congress and a Democrat in the White House running for reelection in two years, both of them have a need to show the public that they can get the job done. Not just in fighting and scoring political points," says Don Baer, who served as President Clinton's communication director at the height of the Republican Revolution.
Republicans took the blame for the shutdowns, especially after Newt Gingrich implied that it happened out of personal pique. He and other GOP leaders were asked to ride in the back of Air Force One as part of the American delegation to the funeral of Yitzhak Rabin, an arrangement Gingrich perceived as a presidential snub.
It can get better
But it did get better, eventually. With a seat at Gingrich's leadership table, Republicans take their share of credit for welfare reform -- a twice-vetoed measure that President Clinton eventually signed -- and a balanced budget. Both were the result of hard-fought compromise.
"I think the main thing that Republicans learned in 1995 is that governing is hard," says former GOP Rep. Bob Walker, a close Gingrich confidant. "It's one thing to stand on the outside and criticize; it's another thing to have to win every day in the Congress and to actually move legislation."
But actually moving legislation means compromise, and compromise is bound to anger the bases of each party. Liberal resentment toward Bill Clinton still lingers for his "triangulating" approach to governing -- casting Democrats as a hurdle to overcome, not an ally to fight alongside. For their part, conservatives are likely to fight any accommodation made with Obama.
And, of course, there's the Machiavellian notion, shared privately by many Hill Democrats, that the Obama White House wouldn't mind seeing them lose control of the House. Bill Clinton himself recently said that a GOP takeover would have a political upside for President Obama, giving him a foil going into 2012.
"I think it would increase his chances of being re-elected," Clinton said on CBS's "Face the Nation," adding, "Whether it would be good for the country or not, I don't know."
'Change' elections were always part of the Founders' plans
One last word: First Read counts more than 100 House seats in play, all about but 10 currently occupied by Democrats. That's a lot, historically speaking. But there are 435 seats in the House. Even if all 100-odd switch, it's still less than a quarter of the chamber.
"The House of Representatives is so constituted as to support in the members an habitual recollection of their dependence on the people," the framers wrote Federalist papers, in support of biennial elections to the House proposed in the newly written Constitution.
"Before the sentiments impressed on their minds by the mode of their elevation can be effaced by the exercise of power, they will be compelled to anticipate the moment when their power is to cease, when their exercise of it is to be reviewed, and when they must descend to the level from which they were raised."
Whether it is Democrats or Republicans surfing a wave, "change" elections were all part of the plan.
Leave a Comment:
Social change refers to an alteration in the social structure of a social group or society; a change in the nature, social institutions, social behaviors or social relations of a society.
Substitute "politics" where appropriate.
Changing from one party back to another changes nothing but the party in power.
If the same solution keeps giving the same results, nothing is gained. A party offering change, while maintaining the status quo, is just more of the same.
The old adage, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" can be turned around to saying, "it's broke, fix it!"
But, then that would take cooperation, something missing in today's political parties. Playing the "blame game" while America goes down in "flames" will not win any awards. Both parties need a rude awakening. Continued in fighting, when social security, unemployment and the war are left waiting, shows where politicians place the important items.
Candidate apathy, a dangerous condition, allows those elected, be more interested in personnel gain versus leading the country away from further disaster.
Republicans are, and likely will continue to be, a wart on the face of decency and humanity.
Mark VanGelder....does that make Dems a festering boil on everyones' a$$ ? I wish y'all (Dems & Repubs) would quit being so blinded by your party affliation.
We need adults to hold the check book. Children will buy everything in the toy store if given a credit card without a limit.
That's not what the Bush administration was telling folks back in 2003-4 when the economy was slowing down. Back then Bush was telling folks to go out and buy, use their home equity and do home improvements, buy, buy, buy, because he needed the economy to pick up in time for the elections, thats why the home loan and mortgage industry started booming, so get off the high horse Warrior, your party promoted the housing bubble. Yes I know about Dowd's and Frank's participation, but their's was climbing aboard the bandwagon, not motorizing it.
Well, Republicans promised to repeal the Health Reform bill and they have always wanted to get rid of Medicare. John Boehner said it is the first thing they will do. Some Republicans want to privatize Social Security. So lets just see how happy every one will be. Most Republican politicians support the states who are trying to have the Health Reform bill declared unconstitutional on the premise that you cannot penalize people for not getting insurance. If this happens Medicare will automatically become unconstitutional because there is a 7% penalty for not signing up for Medicare when you become eligible. This would work out well because they can finally get rid of Medicare without a recorded vote.
Giovanna, you have been drinking the Kool-Aid I presume. The HCR does need to be repealed as it is too flawed to even begin to think about how best to fix it. Those close to SS age and those on SS will not have that benefit taken away by Republicans. I am a few years away from drawing it and quite frankly I would like to be given back what I paid and my employers paid so I can invest it and get a better monthly return for life. The government could not manage its way out of a wet paper bag.
Medicare needs reform. I do not understand why everyone has to go on it at age 65. Do you think that Warren Buffet cannot afford his own medical insurance premiums. Again, folks should be given a choice. I want to run my life and my finances and I do not need the government involved. I am quite capable of making all my choices.
And I have been unemployed for over year and have not taken one cent in government assistance, not even unemployment payments. I save and invested for a rainy day and retirement. Folks go get a life and be responsible for yourself and your families.
It was the Republicans poor leadership that got President Obama elected in the first place. What makes any sane voter think they will do any better with Congress in their control again. I'm NOT that naive.
Nothing is going to change. We're still going to have party-line politics. We're still going to have the blame game. We're still going to have the bickering. We're still going to have the ridiculous posturing. We're still going to have opposite agendas.
Anyone who expects anything different is clueless.
We ought to throw them all out and start over. No doubt the founders of this country are spinning.
that's what we are trying to do ---- eliminate all the incumbents and start over.
Things will change, the republicans who blocked everything they could to sabotage the democrats now have to come up with a plan. We will soon see if their vision for America is to gut all social programs in favor of proping up the militaryindustrialists, and their own special little pork projects. john McCain and Boehner talk a good game, let's see what they produce. Of course now the worst of the financial crisis is over, so it should improve. Instead of being in charge when everything went to hell, they'll now be able to claim they were our saviours like they did the last time a Republican administration presided over the S&L debacle.
Most likely they will cut aid to the veterans. Typical backstabbing behavior. First commit the troops to multiple tours, then stab them in the back when they come home. You think death panels were on the adgenda with health care? wait till you see what the republicans do with granny's medicare. Get ready seniors, the Republicans are coming for your retirement funds and benefits.
ronpal, I admire the intent, but there are too many sheep out there who vote the party or vote for the incumbent because of name recognition and ignorance.
The only plan legislators should have for America is to serve the people. When did "civil servant" become semantically equal to "civil master?"
It all makes me sick, but I am a responsible citizen, so I'll go the polls and participate in the process.
I want to remind everyone that the Republicans, Bush, Cheney, Karl Rove and his other cronies are the ones to blame for much of the ecOnOmic downturn, huge deficit, depression, etc. because of all those deregulations with no safeguards...They have managed to blame the Democrats for the recession they've caused. Before the Republicans took over the White House and Congress, we were in black with surplus. It took them eight (8) years to get us in trouble and they expect the Democrats to fix the problems they caused in two (2) years. Who's kidding who???
BUSH and CHENEY started the IRAQ WAR under the guise of WMD and combat ends:After spending $900 billion dollars ($900,000,000,000) and counting. Do you think that spending this much money contributes to recession.
In addition:
- 4,420 US troops are KILLED
- 31,926 MAIMED OR WOUNDED, 20% of which are serious brain or spinal injuries. (Total excludes psychological injuries.)
- US Troops with Serious Mental Health Problems
- 30% of US troops develop serious mental health problems within 3-4 months of returning home.
- $900 billion of US taxpayers' funds spent LOST OR UNACCOUNTED FOR
- $1 billion in tractor trailers, tank recovery vehicles, machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades and other equipment and services provided to the Iraqi security forces
- $9 billion of US taxpayers' money and $549.7 milion in spare parts shipped in 2004 to US contractors. Also, per ABC News, 190,000 guns, including 110,000 AK-47 rifles I wonder how many of these weapons are now in the hands of the enemy. They could be in Afghanistan by now being used to kill NATO forces. What was all these sacrifices in lives and monies for. The Russians and Chinese are reaping the benefits from all these sacrifices.
The Republicans want to extend the tax break for the rich. They want to extend the tax break to rich companies who outsource their jobs without regard to the welfare of Americans. They only care about their profits. Majority of what you buy these days are made in China.
DO THE REPUBLICANS CARE ABOUT THE MIDDLE CLASS AND POOR....THINK AGAIN GUESS WHO HAS THE FASTEST SUPER COMPUTER.. CHINA.
Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/8618-500202_162-7010780.html?assetTypeId=30&messageId=10017959&tag=contentMain;contentBody#ixzz143clf1o5
Look at your facts. Even before Clinton was out of office, our economy was taking a hit. Manufacturing was slowing well before he left office. Look at the economy when Bush was in his first term. I'll give you this, the wars did nothing for the economy like in the past, it did not increase the economic growth that was expected. Economies are cyclical, deregulation came on the hands of Democrats when they took control during Bush's term. Both Parties are at fault, quit blaming one, it makes no sense when people live in their Republican or Democrat Bubbles. Everybody thinks they know what is best, we are all lost if we continue to rely only at the hands of politicians, most could work their way out of a paper bag.
Yes Dan, the economy was slowing down, but not like it did right after the Bush adminsitration dropped the ball and allowed 9/11 to happen. that's when the economy started hitting the crapper. Add in the Bush wars, now totalling a trillion dollars and you have the financial disaster that hit us in 2008.
Why do people think it is alway the democracts that tax and spend? Take a closer look at the past 3 rebublican presidents and you'll see that they have spent more, much more, than the last three democratic presidents.
Trickle down economics never trickled down to me. "Read my lips, No new taxes" didn't work. Deregulation and less government is what got us in this mess.
For anyone reading this, wake up.
The Republican will not do a thing for all Americans!! They will only help themselves and BIG Bussiness. Nothing will change.
Seriously, how have you been helped in the past two years? If you still have your job, you are lucky. If you have your own home, you are luckier still. And think about this, when your healthcare is mandated to you, and all have to have it, what's going to keep those premiums from going up and up? When liability had to be on all autos, the cost didn't go down. And still people drive without it. Who determines whether you should be fined if you don't have healthcare? I don't like anyone telling me what I have to do with my money. And I don't care for any politician that doesn't put this country first! Especially one that won't say the Pledge of Allegience and didn't even know how many states are in this country, until someone told him. Scarey! Nobody expected BO's administration to repair all the wrongs of the past, but to keep adding to them isn't helping anyone either. How far under the bus do we want to make this country fall? I think she's way worth salvaging, and a little opposition helps keep things honest.
Barbara:
I understand your sentiment; however, did you read what you wrote carefully. You stated, "I don't like anyone telling me what I have to do with my money". For real...how much money do you make in a year (rhetorical question, no answer required) and how much do you get to keep in that same year? If in your mind the answer is anything but 100%, then guess what, someone told you what to do with your money. If you earn a paycheck, someone tells your employer to deduct payroll taxes and each year you file a claim to determine whether they took too much or too little. If they took too little they tell you that you owe the US government. And if you fail to pay, they either garnish your wages or levy penalities which add up to huge $$$ over time.
If you go to the store to buy mundane things like groceries, clothing, books, etc., you are told to pay a sales tax. I doubt if the cashier asks you at check-out whether or not you'd like to opt out of paying the sales tax; it just gets added in and you pay it, begrudingly or not.
If you own a home, in order to keep and maintain that home you are told what to do with your money. You pay property taxes to keep the county from placing a lien against it; you buy homeowner's insurance if you carry a mortgage (because the lender mandates it); you pay utilities to keep the home running (water, electricity, sewage) unless you live on a self-contained system (well, solar powered grid, etc.) and for each of those utilities you pay additional taxes.
If you drive a car you are told what to do with your money. Again if you have a loan against that vehicle, the lender requires at a minimum liability insurance coverage and for newer vehicles you are required to carry and show proof of comprehensive insurance coverage. In most of the US, if your purchase a car you are required to pay sales taxes. If you own the vehicle you are required to register the vehicle within the state where you claim residence annually and take a look at the bottom line and you'll see that some of that registration fee is for taxes (some for service that you make not even use). So, please tell me in which of the scenarios that I previously mentioned are you not being told what to do with your money?
I am not 100% enamored with President Obama (or any human being for that matter because we are all flawed); however, just as leaders before him he has made mistakes (some by listening to those around him whose agendas were not 100% honorable; and some by not listening more carefully) and he quickly began to realize that it is one thing to "politic" on an issue, it is quite another to actually make change.
For everyone sitting on these forums, spouting about this, that or the other, thinking that they have all of the answers, I have one question for you. Why aren't you throwing your hat into the ring? It's easy to quarterback from the sideline and remember hindsight is always 20/20. Unfortunately, looking into the future is mostly always partly cloudy or cloudy. If governing were that easy, many of the people who have made and/or continue to make a difference in the lives of those around them daily, would have thrown their hats into the ring.
As to the president saying or not saying the POA, many people refuse to say it because of religious reasons. And have you ever watched the TV show Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader? A lot of America's finest and supposedly brightest have failed to show that they are smarter. Yes, this president as have all of his predecessors has flaws and do things that make us not agree with their thinking. But if you are deluding yourself that you are not being told what to do with your money on a daily basis you are dead wrong.
Once again, I will say...A little bit of gridlock helps to keep the stupidity in check. America first!
Barbara,
The stupidity will be totally unchecked with the fox ruling the House of Representatives hen-house.
Nothing will change if gop gets control;gop gets blamed and dems take back congress in 2012 lol.gop won't get enough votes to over-ride obamas VETO
Won't need the veto. They will be just like the last 2 years and not do anything. They will propose a bill and then vote against it even if they are for it! Like the votes against small business tax cuts! They are after all the party of no!
Every one needs to remember, after the election tomorrow if we elect republicans, when we start loosing 600,000 jobs month again there is no going back, there is no do overs in elections. We'll be stuck loosing 600,000 jobs a month for at least 24 months. Think about it that's 14 million more jobs lost. BTW: they won't have any unemployment insurance either.
Hey Foxy,
Hate burst your bubble but stock markets go up when Democrats are elected not Republicans. On average markets are higher after Dems are elected than after Repubs are elected after one year in office. The biggest exception being Obama after fighting the Repub's great Recession.
You need to get a real statistics book and not one printed by FoxNews.
LL
Historically the best years in our country is when the power in our government is split. Think Ronald Reagan with a democrat controlled congress. Think Bill Clinton with a Rebuplican controlled congress. Our nation performs better, sure there is gridlock, which translates into well thought out legislation, not out of control policy making. I am looking forward to see what kind of Presdient Obama will be........a leader or a whiner. It can be done, I am a fan of Clinton because of his skills as a leader during his tenure with Republicans in charge. Sure he took a hit from the base but we were in a much better position economically.
It would be a great tragedy for America when Republican and Tea Party lunatics and extremist carries forward the Corporate agenda. It is unfortunate that American people have been manipulated by these lunatics in the midterm 2010. But ultimately sense will prevail all Tea Party extremist and lunatics will be booted out of the Congress in 2012.
Which party has employed the "gridlock"method for the last 22 months since winning the majority. A simpleton can figure that one out.
now or never,
Republicans voted against everything even on bills they might have proposed themselves like small business tax cuts. They keep saying that tax cuts for the wealthy stimulate jobs. Well, we've had those low taxes and we have no jobs and a huge deficit to show for it!
slimsignet::that when he talks about Republicans in that way, he's talking about and alienating a substantial bloc of the American people?
And when you talk about liberals and Dems you are doing the same thing.
You know I am so feed up with all of this that I am ready to say the H*** with it all. Let the Republicains have it and when we are a third world country you all can keep blaming anyone but your gods
bjbutterfli
He's alienating people that can't think about problems and solutions just have an ideology that holds back progress to fix anything.
How about this: We, the People of the United States of America, hereby FIRE the ENTIRE GOVERNMENT and instead instate high degree certified historians, librarians, scientists, firemen, peace officers, military, doctors, teachers and other well qualified citizens in making decisions that are relevant to both the United States of America as well as the rest of the world.
The only thing that will change if the repubs take over is that the government will now get even LESS done.
Now they will just have more power to say NO.
Our system is broken and it won't get any better until we rid ourselves of this polarized government that is designed to and loves to work against itself!
Blame the polarizing president for that. Also, last time I checked, NO is a good thing. 65% of Americans agree.
The polarization started with the GOP.
Rightly said polarization started with the GOP and hatred started with Tea Party Loons.
I think the age of the two party system is coming to an end. Both Reps and Dems argue over the same crap and little to nothing ever gets accomplished. Even though I don't agree with a lot of the policies that GW or Obama pushed for, at least they tried to make some changes. That's more than we can expect from both the house and the senate. Both the house and the senate have become nothing more than a vote for sale organization with our money.
The BEST thing that can happen in government, as the Founders planned, is that the branches of the government's efforts to pass legislation would be totally stalemated. The reason the Founders planned for each branch of government to be able to VETO the other branches of government's actions is they wanted them all to be impotent to act, leaving the common citizen to govern himself. A Democrat in the White House, a Republican House of Representatives and Senate would be the BEST thing that could happen tomorrow.
The BEST thing that can happen in government, as the Founders planned, is that the branches of the government's efforts to pass legislation would be totally stalemated. The reason the Founders planned for each branch of government to be able to VETO the other branches of government's actions is they wanted them all to be impotent to act, leaving the common citizen to govern himself. A Democrat in the White House, a Republican House of Representatives and Senate would be the BEST thing that could happen tomorrow.
I repeat which party has employed the "gridlock" technique during the last 22 months of having the majority? The Dems had no boundary lines that they would follow. They simply did away with that. Again, a simpleton can figure that out too.
But the Dems haven't had a majority for the past 22 months. What all you right wingers forget is the new Senate filibuster rules. A party needs 60 votes in the senate, not a simple 51 majority. The Dems haven't had 60 votes since Scott Brown got in.
BTW, if you are a fan of going "constitutional" as so many suddenly seem to be, you must also be calling for repeal of the senate filibuster rules, as they are clearly not what our founding fathers wanted.
Kevin1616,
I think you answered your own question the dems are not against honest big companies!
this sounds like a bunch of kindergarteners who can't get their way. if you don't like they way things are going you are suppose to get together like the adults you are supposed to be and fix it! instead of everybody bi......., get you behinds in gear, and do the right thing ask the americans what the need. not what you think you want. so stop pretending obama is the problem. the simple fact that no one wants to admit is that you really don't want an african-american being the president. so grow the f...... up. you are causing more problems than solutions...............
That is such a biased comment, "the simple fact that no one wants to admit is that you really don't want an african-american being the president." when in truth the only reason the fool was elected was because he is black. all the gays, stars, and blacks voted on him for that simple fact. If they were to have read his policies, no sane person would have voted for the man. Ignorance did this to our country right now. The "Change" he claimed he was going to give was not for the better. Look at the Oil Spill in the Gulf this past summer. The man was too ignorant and self absorbed to accept help from the start trying to prove a point- that he could handle the matter on his own( and failed miserably i might add)- and look where that got the south. Thousands of jobs were lost because he let the spill spread and continue for so long before admitting defeat. That is pure IGNORANCE. You can personally thank him for those jobs lost and the extreme damage to the ocean and marine life.
Wow! So Obama got in only because he is black!?!?! I don't think I've come across a more racist statement in years. And "gays, stars and blacks" make up 53% of the voting population? You really believe that, or are you just bad at math?
And wasn't the industrial spill in the Gulf the responsibility of the company that caused it? Isn't it BP's problem that they need to fix? How does this fall upon Obama? Had he jumped in right away and used our resources (which we don't actually have) you racists would have been blaming him for unnecessarily spending US taxpayer money!