House GOP: Don't Hurt Us -- Please

Cross-posted at the Brock Log.

TPM Muckraker's Justin Rood has an interesting post on the GOP's victimization.

In a "Dear Colleague" letter circulated to fellow Republicans, three House GOPers are trying to push a "Minority Bill of Rights" -- based on a two-year-old proposal by then-Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). You can read the letter here.

Of particular interesting to North Carolinians is that one of the Republican Congressman hoping for a measure of Speaker-Designate Pelosi's civil nature is Congressman Patrick McHenry.

Rood points out that these requests from the Minority originally surfaced in 2004 in a letter written by Congresswoman (and then-Minority Leader) Pelosi and the cold-shoulder that then-Speaker Dennis Hastert gave as a reply.

An ironic case in point: When Pelosi made her proposal to protect Democrats in 2004, GOP House Speaker Dennis Hastert (IL) refused to entertain the idea, let alone reply to her correspondence.

It's disappointing that the Minority wants to demand rights that they refused the Democratic Minority. It's clear that Republicans can't play the game by the rules they established and are frightened of the political environment they created.

I have to agree with Michael Stickings at The Reaction.

They like to think they're the party of responsibility, the party that believes in pulling oneself up by one's bootstraps, the party that opposes government handouts, the party that rewards initiative and entrepreneurship, but Republicans play the role of the persecuted victim awfully well, so well in fact that victimhood seems to be their default mode.

Indeed, they do play the victim well.

I think that Speaker-Designate Pelosi should entertain the letter and that she should live up to her promises of a more civil House. I can only hope that such a movement would not be viewed as weakness and instead as honor.

Comments

Thank you, A. Yes...

you are right that how the MSM is playing this latest WH spin.

Bush layed down the gauntlet this morning with his letter in the WSJ and did so on the back of new lapdog Patty McHenry.

As Democrats, do we really want to join in the finger wagging (that one was for you, TB - hehehe) at Pelosi? Aren't we buying their BS if we act like we're losing the moral highground before we've even called the first session to order?

Pelosi has given us a very strong agenda for our First 100 Hours. That is our road map, our priority. Robert was right when he brought up the items on this agenda have already been debated and rejected by Republicans. We don't need to pull a Hastert and hold a vote just to get the R's to show their collective ass. We can pass this agenda through the House, throw the dice in the Senate and let the Decider stamp a big fat Veto on more legislation that would dramatically improve the quality of life for working class Americans.

When we work through our 100 Hours agenda, we can entertain Patty McLapdog's tear-soaked letter.

That's not cheating. That's good politics.

Larry Kissell is MY Congressman

How far do you?

You write "How many extra hours do you allow?" None, if the technique is (as I believe) wrong. I feel like you're making my point for me. If it's wrong after 100 hours, why isn't it wrong after one? And what's this about the "original Senate"? I really don't see it as the mandate of a razor-thin and thread-borne majority to craft a "new Senate."

You write "There have to be limits." Robert, there have been limits for over 200 years. The last majority tore these down. Let's put them back.

All: I really do want the Republican caucus to forget to show up for work this week and for the rest of the term. I want the policies the Dems are proposing (and more). But the winner-takes-all game that has been played by the last Republican majority and is now being played by the Democrats is much, much worse than tax cuts, abortion bans, and slave wages. Without the integrity of our democracy, you can kiss the rest of it good-bye. Maybenottoday maybenottomorrow, butsoon andfortherestofyourlife.

You lost me.

My points:
1. As much meaningful debate as wanted.
2. As many responsible amendments as wanted.
3. We decide what is meaningful and responsible.
4. We don't abuse #3.
5. Any attempt to abuse #1 and #2 by the Republicans should be met by an end to debate and closing the bill to amendments.

Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
-me

Exactly Robert.

For example, Bush said he will sign an increase in the minimum wage only if it contains a tax cut for small business.

Now, since Dems said they will only pass tax cuts that will pay for themselves, there's NO WAY they'll add a tax cut onto this package. Bush knows we don't need to add a tax incentive for small business in exchange for the minimum wage hike since the only businesses seriously effected are the local mom-and-pops competing against other local mom-and-pops, not international competitors who can hire workers at a lower rate. Bush doesn't want the increase and will use the lack of tax-cut amendment as his excuse for a veto. If Dems allow Republicans to amend the wage hike, they have to break the pledge of fiscal responsibility to accomplish the first goal of the 100 Hour agenda.

But, if the Dems put the legislation through without nefarious Republican amendment, Bush will have to stand up in front of the voting working class America and explain why he's Vetoing their first wage increase in over a decade.

Larry Kissell is MY Congressman

how many

how many people in the country voted for or against Pelosi? I know that my vote had nothing to do with her or how she would run the house.

HelpLarry.com

"Keep the Faith"

I voted for subpoena power

I didn't give a rat's behind about civility when I cast my vote. I have no problem with Pelosi being polite and long as she's also investigating the crooks and handing out subpoenas.



Robin Hayes lied. Nobody died, but thousands of folks lost their jobs.



***************************
Vote Democratic! The ass you save may be your own.

Civility is not the same

as rolling over for the Repugs.

Definitions of civility on the Web:

formal or perfunctory politeness
politeness: the act of showing regard for others
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

We can certainly be polite as we push through our "first 100 hours" agenda. After that, maybe we can talk about power sharing.

So you're saying that the ends justify the means?

Serious question. Or is it that you believe that democratic procedures that protect the voice of the minority are a bad thing until Friday, at which point they become good things.

What ends and what means?

Everything to be passed in the first 100 hours has been debated and opened for amendment - it was rejected by the Republicans. They had their shot, it's time to bring it up for a floor vote.

After that, debate away, but don't allow them to beat every bill with the ugly stick. Bush wants to tag the minimum wage bill with permanent tax cuts. Is that civility? Hell no.

Anyone who believes that the Republicans are suddenly going to turn over a new leaf deserves to have their freedoms taken away. They can talk, they can debate, and they can even propose legitimate, related amendments - but we cannot allow them to screw up our country anymore than they have.

Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
-me

My comment above (about cheating)

Would fit well here. When you're distorting democracy, you've got to have a better reason than "the other party are bastards."

Sorry, man.

I don't believe Republicans will turn over a new leaf. But no one deserves to have their freedoms taken away. Chill.

"Be the change you wish to see in the world." - Gandhi

Yup. I realized that.

Still. We've got to give them a chance to actually do something before we start ranting about it.

Thanks for the link to the history of the phrase. I knew it was attributed to Franklin, and also knew it wasn't really him.

"Be the change you wish to see in the world." - Gandhi

Pages