The Democrats Should Not Give Republicans A Voice In The House
| January 9th, 2009 | Crossposted from Blog By BarryRadley Balko declares Nancy Pelosi a “hack” because in 2004, she proposed a “bill of rights” for the minority Party in the house; but now that the Dems are in power, Pelosi is locking the Republicans out in the cold.
But Randy’s post, although it quotes a good chunk of the 2004 article, didn’t quote the article’s essential second paragraph:
In keeping with the general atmosphere of the House these days, aides to Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) said he will not respond to the two-page proposal from Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).
What Pelosi proposed in 2004 was a mutual laying down of parliamentary arms, so that the parties could revert to (say) Ronald-Reagan era levels of partisanship. This was, of course, a self-serving offer for the party that was out of power — but not an unreasonable one, since both Democrats and Republicans, if they want long careers in Congress, can reasonably expect to be spending some time out of power. And if both parties could agree to this, our system might be better off.
Republicans rejected Pelosi’s offer. To expect Pelosi to abide by it now is to expect Democrats to unilaterally disarm. Why should Pelosi agree to a “Republicans can beat up on Democrats all they want, but Democrats will always play nice” rule? That’s not fair, and that’s not what Pelosi was suggesting in 2004.
Posted in Elections and politics

January 9th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
It’s “Radley” Balko. You might want to change that.
Good point tho.
This comment was written by ryan.Report this comment to the moderators
January 9th, 2009 at 7:11 pm
Thanks, Ryan. Correction made!
Barry
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
January 10th, 2009 at 11:41 am
Well, one thing they should keep in mind is that they probably should preserve some way to do something the next time they find themselves in the kind of situation they were in during 2004.
From David Brin’s suggestions for the Democratic Congress:
This comment was written by Doug S..Report this comment to the moderators
January 10th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
The problem is, precedents are not permanent, and are not binding. The Democratic majority has no means of setting any rules that a future Republican majority would be in any way compelled to respect.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
January 12th, 2009 at 9:11 am
There is no way that Speaker Pelosi and the leadership will want to do this, now that the GOP is reduced to an irksome nuisance. Still, please think about it. Just giving them the right to grill a few people won’t let them do much mischief to an open and honest and competent Obama Administration.
Unless, of course, Speaker Pelosi is not planning to operate as openly and honestly as Obama’s supporters suppose. In which case she does have something to fear, and is treating this proposal accordingly.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
January 13th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
Ahhh Ron…. what would Alas be without your unfounded innuendos and not-so-subtle and baseless accusations?
It’s almost as if you’re planning a secret coup to take over all the governments of the world and masterminding a way to personally commit 100,000 crimes-against-humanity while you do it, instead of just shilling for the Republican party.
(See how silly it sounds when other people do it to you?)
This comment was written by MisterMephisto.Report this comment to the moderators