Democratic Infighting

[JaJae]

Here's a first..
Democrats Blaming Each Other For Failures - washingtonpost.com

Democrats Blaming Each Other For Failures

By Jonathan Weisman and Paul Kane
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, December 13, 2007; A01

When Democrats took control of Congress in January, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) pledged to jointly push an ambitious agenda to counter 12 years of Republican control.

Now, as Congress struggles to adjourn for Christmas, relations between House Democrats and their colleagues in the Senate have devolved into finger-pointing.

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.) accuses Senate Democratic leaders of developing "Stockholm syndrome," showing sympathy to their Republican captors by caving in on legislation to provide middle-class tax cuts paid for with tax increases on the super-rich, tying war funding to troop withdrawal timelines, and mandating renewable energy quotas. If Republicans want to filibuster a bill, Rangel said, Reid should keep the bill on the Senate floor and force the Republicans to talk it to death.

Reid, in turn, has taken to the Senate floor to criticize what he called the speaker's "iron hand" style of governance.

Democrats in each chamber are now blaming their colleagues in the other for the mess in which they find themselves. The predicament caused the majority party yesterday surrender to President Bush on domestic spending levels, drop a cherished renewable-energy mandate and move toward leaving a raft of high-profile legislation, from addressing the mortgage crisis to providing middle-class tax relief, undone or incomplete.

"If there's going to be a filibuster, let's hear the damn filibuster," Rangel fumed. "Let's fight this damned thing out."

In the past few weeks, the House has thrown wave after wave of legislation at the Senate -- on energy, Iraq war policy, the housing and mortgage crisis, and middle-income tax cuts offset largely by tax increases on the wealthy.

Most of it has died quietly, a predetermined fate that both sides could foresee before the first vote was cast. Yet they went ahead anyway. Just last night, the House, for a second time, passed legislation to stave off the growth of the alternative minimum tax, to be paid for by a measure to stop hedge fund managers from deferring compensation in offshore tax havens. Like the previous House version, it has virtually no chance of passing in the Senate.

Officially, House Democrats blame Senate Republicans, who have used parliamentary tactics to block even uncontroversial measures. But they are increasingly expressing public frustration with Reid and Senate Democrats for not putting up a better fight.

House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) called it a "hold and fold" strategy: Senate Republicans put a "hold" on Democratic bills, and Senate Democratic leaders promptly fold their tents.

Asked about his decision on government funding, House Appropriations Committee Chairman David R. Obey (D-Wis.) groused to the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call: "I'll tell you how soon I will make a decision when I know how soon the Senate sells us out." Senate Democrats have fired back, accusing Pelosi and her liberal allies of sending over legislation that they know cannot pass in the Senate, and of making demands that will not gain any GOP votes. Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) noted that, this summer, Reid employed just the kind of theatrics Rangel and other House Democrats are demanding, holding the Senate open all night, pulling out cots and forcing a dusk-till-dawn debate on an Iraq war withdrawal measure before a vote on war funding. Democrats gained not a single vote after the all-night antics.

"I understand the frustration; we're frustrated, too," Bayh said. "But holding a bunch of Kabuki theater doesn't get anything done."

As they wrap up their first year in control of the entire Capitol since 1994, Democrats are trying to prove that they can be an equal partner to Bush. But their first 11 months have been politically and legislatively brutal, with congressional approval ratings dropping this week to 32 percent, a notch below Bush's 33 percent, according to the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll. Their support plummeted as the liberal base grew outraged over the Democratic inability to counter the president on any war issue, while moderates and centrists looking for bipartisan kitchen-table accomplishments instead saw partisan gridlock. The disputes have at times taken on starkly personal tones. In closed-door bicameral leadership meetings, Pelosi has questioned Reid's intentions on issues such as war funding tied to troop withdrawal timelines and an alternative minimum tax fix that is fully funded by tax increase offsets, suggesting that his words have not always matched his actions.

Reid has let his own frustration show. After Republican senators accused Pelosi of lying about her intentions on a comprehensive energy bill, the majority leader offered a backhanded defense.

"I can't control Speaker Pelosi," he said on the chamber floor. "I hope everybody understands that. She is a strong, independent woman. She runs the House with an iron hand. I support what she does, but no one needs to come and tell me I didn't keep my word."

Reid, the son of a hard-rock miner from a tiny, rural Nevada town, and Pelosi, the daughter of a mayor of Baltimore who married a multimillionaire and moved to San Francisco, have little in common on a personal level. They have what several lawmakers and aides describe as a formal, all-business relationship, one that involves little personal chit-chat when they sit down for their weekly meetings on Tuesday evenings.

Some days Reid and Pelosi get down to business and quickly settle cross-chamber disputes, but other times it requires a different touch to deliver certain messages. After Tuesday's Senate Democratic leadership meeting, Reid dispatched deputies to inform Pelosi that the Senate would not stand for the latest offer to eliminate earmarks, as well as all war funds, from a year-end omnibus spending package.

One of those instructed to talk to Pelosi was Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), a fellow Bay Area liberal who is a close friend of the speaker's and engages her in a personal way that Reid never does.

While many House Democrats see Reid's decision-making process as mercurial, one Senate Democrat suggested that some lawmakers might confuse Reid's tone and brevity with lack of respect.

"When Harry's done talking, the conversation's over. Boom," the Democratic senator said, mimicking someone hanging up the phone.

A top aide said that Reid and the speaker have a "natural frustration" because of the limitations they face within their chambers, but that both blame Senate Republicans, who have routinely forced Reid to round up 60 votes -- to prevent a filibuster -- on everything from a contentious immigration bill to popular ethics legislation. Even on the best of days, Democrats hold just a 51 to 49 majority in the Senate.

"We understand the speaker can pass bills only with Democratic votes. And we know she understands the Constitution and the closely divided Senate requires Senator Reid to pick up 20 percent of Senate Republicans just to get a vote on something, let alone pass it," said Jim Manley, Reid's spokesman.

The 60-vote threshold has become the flashpoint for the intramural Democratic dispute.

Senate Democrats contend that their House counterparts simply do not understand the modern Senate when they badger Reid about holding all-night filibusters. In a series of 20th-century changes, Senate filibusters became a thing of the past. Rules pushed by senators seeking to pass civil rights legislation allow filibusters to be thwarted if 60 or more members vote to cut off the debate. As long as the minority party has 41 votes, it no longer has to hold the floor and talk a bill to death.

Republicans, who spent 12 years in similar battles, are just enjoying the spectacle.

"Just let 'em stew for a while," said soon-to-retire Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott (R-Miss.), a veteran of the GOP's own squabbles.

Even the Democrats aren't blaming Bush anymore.

I don't agree with filibustering bills constantly to prevent a vote. I think some filibustering is fine to get some debate going, but eventually there should be a vote. So I don't give the Republicans a pass on their behavior.

However, most liberals on this board said it was the "duty" and "responsibility" of the minority party to filibuster everything. Going back on that now would be hypocritical.

Regardless of whose side you're on in all of this it's becoming abundantly clear that the Democrats are screwing up. Even if you remove Bush's veto from the equation the Democrats have failed to lead and failed to govern.

[7960]

it goes to leadership........pelosi sucks and shouldn't have been put in charge.

[DosEquis]

Its a combination of the leadership sucks and the "majority" they have is really only enough majority for the chair seats. They can't pass anything because they need to sway a dozen or so republicans in the senate, while at the same time getting the Ben Nelson's and Joe Liebermans to stay consistent with the party.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

Its a combination of the leadership sucks and the "majority" they have is really only enough majority for the chair seats. They can't pass anything because they need to sway a dozen or so republicans in the senate, while at the same time getting the Ben Nelson's and Joe Liebermans to stay consistent with the party.

The Republicans have people like Hagel as well who consistently cross party lines on key issues. But yes, the majority by the Dems isn't a lot. And a lot of the Dems they do have are Blue Dog Democrats who don't always agree with the leadership.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by JaJae

The Republicans have people like Hagel as well who consistently cross party lines on key issues. But yes, the majority by the Dems isn't a lot. And a lot of the Dems they do have are Blue Dog Democrats who don't always agree with the leadership.

I think what it boils down to is their inability to take responsibility for their own actions. It falls in line with the 'blame everyone else first' mentality.

For example, look at the trends associated with a Republican charged with wrong-doing...they typically resign or step down in an attempt to not harm the others in the party. However, it seems as though when a Democrat is in trouble with the law, they attempt in every way possible to blasme someone else in an attempt to hold on to their power.

This mentality will ultimately hurt them as a whole, and I feel it already has. They won't remain in charge of Congress for long, despite the fact that their margin of power is small. This is an ample opportunity to show the American people they can work across party lines...but they refuse to, and they are failing miserably.

[Thorgrim]

So far in this first year of the 110th Congress, there have been 72 motions to stop filibusters, most on the Iraq war but also on routine issues like reauthorizing Amtrak funding. There were 68 such motions in the full two years of the previous Congress, 53 in 1987-88 and 23 in 1977-78. In 1967-68, there were 5 such votes, one of them on a plan to amend cloture itself, which failed.

NY Times Advertisement

The GOP has filibustered more in less than a year than the Democrats had in 2 years combined, they are breaking every record for obstructionism

Yes, progressives should filibuster very important things, like life-term judicial appointments of radicals when there are 10 other deeply conservative judges to pick from in each instance...or say all the Republicans + Lieberman wanted to invade Iraq (tie breaking vote is Cheney)...the Democrats passed LOTS of GOP legislature in the Senate when they were the minority party

[Rouger2]

The democrats should have understood what was going to happen and not promised so much. They need to put their attention on electing more democrats and wait untill after the election to pass their bills.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Rouger2

The democrats should have understood what was going to happen and not promised so much. They need to put their attention on electing more democrats and wait untill after the election to pass their bills.

Why should millions of dollars of tax payers dollars be spent to let them sit and do nothing for 2 yrs until they get more Democrats in office? I think that's quite a wasteful idea...

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

So far in this first year of the 110th Congress, there have been 72 motions to stop filibusters, most on the Iraq war but also on routine issues like reauthorizing Amtrak funding. There were 68 such motions in the full two years of the previous Congress, 53 in 1987-88 and 23 in 1977-78. In 1967-68, there were 5 such votes, one of them on a plan to amend cloture itself, which failed.

NY Times Advertisement

The GOP has filibustered more in less than a year than the Democrats had in 2 years combined, they are breaking every record for obstructionism

Yes, progressives should filibuster very important things, like life-term judicial appointments of radicals when there are 10 other deeply conservative judges to pick from in each instance...or say all the Republicans + Lieberman wanted to invade Iraq (tie breaking vote is Cheney)...the Democrats passed LOTS of GOP legislature in the Senate when they were the minority party

why bring up a year (1977) to show the few amount of filibusters, when one party had a 60+ majority?

also I have no problem with filibusters, I think they are a great tool at slowing the federal government down. Which I don't think it done nearly enough.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Why should millions of dollars of tax payers dollars be spent to let them sit and do nothing for 2 yrs until they get more Democrats in office? I think that's quite a wasteful idea...

having them in office but powerless is still cheaper than if their legislation was passed.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

I think what it boils down to is their inability to take responsibility for their own actions. It falls in line with the 'blame everyone else first' mentality.

For example, look at the trends associated with a Republican charged with wrong-doing...they typically resign or step down in an attempt to not harm the others in the party. However, it seems as though when a Democrat is in trouble with the law, they attempt in every way possible to blasme someone else in an attempt to hold on to their power.

This mentality will ultimately hurt them as a whole, and I feel it already has. They won't remain in charge of Congress for long, despite the fact that their margin of power is small. This is an ample opportunity to show the American people they can work across party lines...but they refuse to, and they are failing miserably.

I think they do much better in public opinion when not in power. Complaining without responsibility is a Democrat Party strongpoint. I suspect a major wave of Democrat Party victories in 2008 will be a much harder sell than they have planned for!

[nbiggershaft]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

So far in this first year of the 110th Congress, there have been 72 motions to stop filibusters, most on the Iraq war but also on routine issues like reauthorizing Amtrak funding. There were 68 such motions in the full two years of the previous Congress, 53 in 1987-88 and 23 in 1977-78. In 1967-68, there were 5 such votes, one of them on a plan to amend cloture itself, which failed.

NY Times Advertisement

The GOP has filibustered more in less than a year than the Democrats had in 2 years combined, they are breaking every record for obstructionism

Yes, progressives should filibuster very important things, like life-term judicial appointments of radicals when there are 10 other deeply conservative judges to pick from in each instance...or say all the Republicans + Lieberman wanted to invade Iraq (tie breaking vote is Cheney)...the Democrats passed LOTS of GOP legislature in the Senate when they were the minority party

winner

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

The GOP has filibustered more in less than a year than the Democrats had in 2 years combined, they are breaking every record for obstructionism

Good for them right?

[garbagemanlb]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Good for them right?

I can't help but wonder if you felt that way when the Democrats used that power? Or is obstructionism a one way street?

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by garbagemanlb

I can't help but wonder if you felt that way when the Democrats used that power? Or is obstructionism a one way street?

I didn't, I said so in this thread and others. However, those being critical of the GOP filibustering had a different tune. I was just wondering if that's changed. From this thread and others it seems some people have a different opinion of filibustering now. It's especially prominent on other sites like DailyKos.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by JaJae

I didn't, I said so in this thread and others. However, those being critical of the GOP filibustering had a different tune. I was just wondering if that's changed. From this thread and others it seems some people have a different opinion of filibustering now. It's especially prominent on other sites like DailyKos.

Citations would be helpful

I know you are implying that Democrats filibustered all the time, completely got in the way of the GOP...and now they're getting a taste of their own medicine...

If only it were so

The Democrats in 1994-2006 had the GOP passing multiple pieces of major legislation every cycle, they selectively used their filibusters so carefully that when the GOP actually aired ads attacking the Dems for filibustering, there was only one issue: judicial nominees to the circuits

Of which, in every case, they had dozens upon dozens of well qualified, staunch republican judges with deeply conservative judicial records...but they weren't happy unless the absolute most Bork-like judge would get appointed...always had to be the most radical

I don't see how you can compare them

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Why should millions of dollars of tax payers dollars be spent to let them sit and do nothing for 2 yrs until they get more Democrats in office? I think that's quite a wasteful idea...

Perhaps you would prefer hundreds of billions to another country which will never appreciate it, to tens of billions in government expansion with things like the dept. of homeland security. I think that is far more wasteful in both tax money but more importantly some lives of our young people.

Democrats are not perfect by any means...they have their morons.. but the republican party is in far far worse condition.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

Perhaps you would prefer hundreds of billions to another country which will never appreciate it,

It's hard to really agree with something like this, as saying 'a country will never appreciate it' is really a matter of opinion and cannot be proven.

to tens of billions in government expansion with things like the dept. of homeland security. I think that is far more wasteful in both tax money but more importantly some lives of our young people.

Surely government expansion is not something that concerns you, as the Democrats want nothing but government expansion?

I want many of the government departments abolished.

I think it's pretty safe to say that when there are bodies sitting in a political office who's job is to run the country, but don't do anything for a period of years, that it's wasteful. I'd be more than happy if they spent their time getting rid of some laws or ways to spend money, not doing nothing.