Tuesday, September 30, 2008
|
|
The Argument for a Free Congress ...
|
|
Posted by:
Matt Lewis at
4:57 PM
|
JERRY: Hey, do you know what the Whip does?
KRAMER: What whip?
JERRY: The Whip. In the Senate, in the House.
KRAMER: Well, you know in the old days, when the senators didn't vote the way that the party leaders wanted 'em to... they whipped them.
... A lot is being written and talked about today regarding the failure of Bush, Pelosi, and Boehner to lead.
This is ironic, inasmuch as many of the same people who are criticizing the lack of party discipline today have in the past excoriated Republican leaders for heavy-handed internecine tactics -- and for genuflecting to Bush.
So here are a few a questions to consider...
When it comes to how Congress is to behave, do we want to go back to the days when Republicans were "good soldiers" who took marching orders from House Leadership and the president? Or do we want a free Congress who exercises their Constitutional independence from the Executive Branch? Lastly, do we want to go back to having arm-twisting party leaders tell Members that if they vote wrong on a bill, they are "off the Appropriations Committee!" -- or whatever?
Lastly, should we put a premium on simply getting bills passed? If so, Lyndon Johnson was pretty darn effective at that, too ...
|
|
Umm, Matt, you forgot to mention Newt's whipping.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/30/report-gingrich-st abbed-b_n_130487.html
ormer House Speaker Newt Gingrich was working aggressively behind the scenes to defeat the Wall Street rescue plan minutes before he himself released a public statement in support of the package, NBC's Andrea Mitchell reported on Tuesday.
Gingrich was whipping up votes for the opposition, Mitchell said, apparently without the knowledge of the current GOP leader, John Boehner, who was responsible for recruiting enough support from his caucus to help ensure the bill's passage. Ultimately, the GOP was only able to rally roughly a third of its members.
"Newt Gingrich," she said on MSNBC, "I am told reliably by leading Republicans who are close to him, he was whipping against this up until the last minute, when he issued that face-saving statement. Newt Gingrich was telling people in the strongest possible language that this was a terrible deal, not only that it was a terrible deal, it was a disaster, it was the end of democracy as we know, it was socialism -- and then at the last minute [he] comes out with a statement when the vote is already in place."
Indeed, as Mitchell noted, shortly before the bill's failure, Gingrich "reluctantly" came out in favor of its passage: "Therefore, while I am discouraged at the final collapse of the Bush Administration, and frustrated by the Democrats' passion for the taxpayer's money, I would reluctantly and sadly vote for the bailout were I still in office." |
|
[Or do we want a free Congress who exercises their Constitutional independence from the Executive Branch?]
Yes, please. A LOT more of this, please.
The people who complain about party leaders not leading are generally the ones who enjoy a rubber stamping Congress that falls in line behind the President.
Not I. I'm rather happy they tanked the bailout effort. Now they can hopefully take some time, deliberate, get some additional independent expert advice and craft a better bill that does more than throw money at the problem.
Not that they'll actually, you know, DO that. But they might.
And pigs might evolve wings and fly. |
|
|
I didn't soil my computer monitor by actually check out the link to huffington but just by linking the site you have lowered your seriousness factor by 7 points on a 10 point scale. Let us not forget that Newt is no longer in the House and has no real influence there. Although, as I have said, if he did have something to do with it failing, GOOD. |
|
while the Dems LED, you mean. Is there ANY dignity left in the GOP? Bohner whines that the reason they voted against the bill is because Dems were mean to the GOP leadership that got us into this mess.
And forget trying to tie Democratics to the same boat anchor as the corrupt GOP, Abramoff scandal-style. It doesn't fly. And it certainly can't hold water. |
|
|
|