Comments on: House Rules Changes: Be Careful What You Wish For

By: loud_one

loud_one — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 17:59:04 +0000

In regards to the house, party affiliation should be eliminated. The job of a Representative is to voice the will of his/her constituency. My Congressman is a Republican and voted 100% with the Republican majority. No one can tell me the people of my Congressional district support all Republican measure 100% of the time.

Additionally the job is to REPRESENT THE MAJORITY WILL of the People. That is why House representation is based on population.

It is called the House of Representatives not the HOUSE OF NANNIES for a reason.
The Senate has the job of acting in the best interest of the State.

I realize these are idealistic goals. But aren't goals a good to aspire to, right?

By: EEllis

EEllis — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 22:47:10 +0000

In reality the filibuster has been used for just about everything. The complaint from the republicans was that the democratic minority refused to give a vote to judicial appointments, instead they fiibusted. The nuclear option that some republicans discussed was only to prevent the use of the filibuster to prevent votes on judicial appointments. Any other restriction of the filibuster is far beyond anything the republicans discussed, and didn't try ti implement. The use of the filibuster should not be limited.

By: elrod

elrod — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 19:40:02 +0000

Big difference between the nukular option in the Senate and streamlining rules in the House. Nobody doubts the majority in the House has total control. What the GOP did in the last Congress was reveal Pelosi's ineffectiveness at using her majority status. She's learned her lesson.

The Senate is a different animal. Frankly, Reid should make GOP filibusters a lot harder than they are right now. The last Senate filibustered more than any other Senate in history. The filibuster is supposed to be for special legislation, not routine laws.

By: GeorgeSorwell

GeorgeSorwell — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 17:36:31 +0000

I've been under the impression that in the House (unlike the Senate, where 40% of the members can filibuster anything they don't like into oblivion), the majority vote carries the day.

Do you have any examples of some pieces of legislation stopped by the difference between “promptly” and “forthwith”?

By: JSpencer

JSpencer — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 17:29:51 +0000

I'm not a fan of rule changes that would limit the powers of the minority, afterall, what goes around comes around. That said, I believe the democrat minority in congress for the first 6 years of this century often created thier own limits – something I don't expect the republicans to emulate. One other comment: After the arrogant and miserable performance by the republicans during their rule, it's quite amusing to see them worry about the possiblity of liberals wielding too much power.

By: superdestroyer

superdestroyer — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 17:10:56 +0000

Huckabee is a fool who has zero chance of being president. He would combine the worst parts of social conservatism with big spending, nanny government.

If blacks were knee-jerk liberals, they would be more moderate than they are now. There are almost no programs outside of Defense and criminal justice that blacks do not support and since most blacks support race based reparations, they are much more extreme than the average knee jerk liberal.

By: Manchester2

Manchester2 — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 15:58:49 +0000

Did you watch the video of Huckabee and Stewart that Joe Windish posted? Huckabee has an excellent chance of being the next GOP President. He's conservative, but manages to put across a warmth that crosses generation, if not, he wouldn't be a repeat guest on shows like Stewart's, with a younger demographic. And the “non-white” demographic you mention, Superdestoyer, is not knee-jerk liberal. If anything, it's just the opposite, but this was successfully masked in the 2008 election because of economic concerns.

By: superdestroyer

superdestroyer — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 15:23:12 +0000

The difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is that the Democrats know that they have demographic changes on their side. Why should the Democratic care for one second about the Republicans when the Democrats know that no conservative party can survive in a country where half the children in kindergarten are non-whites.

By: Pelosi To Change The House Rules Against Minority? : Stop The ACLU

Pelosi To Change The House Rules Against Minority? : Stop The ACLU — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 13:49:27 +0000

[...] Jazz Shaw takes a Moderate stance, and has some good points Queen Nancy should [...]

By: Pelosi To Change The House Rules Against Minority? » Pirate’s Cove — Shiny!

Sat, 03 Jan 2009 13:48:43 +0000

[...] Jazz Shaw takes a Moderate stance, and has some good points Queen Nancy should consider. Sphere: Related [...]