From The New Editor via Dean's World:
The New York Times' Carl Hulse reports: (emphasis added)
During four decades of Democratic rule ending in 1994, committee chairmen amassed almost unchallenged authority, often becoming more feared and influential than the elected leadership. They were nearly impossible to budge from their perches, and the concept of term limits was unimaginable. In a move that caught some new Democratic chairmen by surprise, House rules pushed through by the Democrats this week retained the six-year limit on chairmen imposed by Republicans, but the leadership reassured lawmakers they would revisit the restrictions when there was less attention focused on the dawn of the Democratic era.
So, ya know, when no one's payin' attention, we'll change the term-limit rule back to the way it was when we last ran da House...
Got it? Democratic chairmen were surprised that term limits were retained - that means not only do they want to go back to the old ways of doing business, but they are presuming their majority will last another 40 years. How's that for arrogance? And then to top it off, the hopelessly corrupt Democratic leadership is assuring the chairmen that once people aren't paying attention, they'll go ahead and change the rules back to pre-1994.
Any of you Democrats out there starting to be sorry that you won? If the first 100 hours are any indicator, a GOP win of 50 seats in 2008 will be difficult to prevent.
Posted by Mark Noonan at January 8, 2007 09:10 AM
Track
del.icio.us
digg it
IM
Facebook
Comments
I am absolutely thrilled the Democrats took both chambers of Congress.
(Ed note: the rest of this comment went entirely off topic - we are looking for people to defend or oppose what the Democrats are doing, not make long-winded posts about how they feel).
Posted by: Wade at January 8, 2007 11:26 AM
How can the democrats be taken seriously about cleaning up washington when William Jefferson is still in office? Its power at any cost for the democrats.
Posted by: tom at January 8, 2007 12:34 PM
Well, personally I would wait a little longer than a few hours to judge the Dems' performance (And I'm not sure what you're so upset about, the fact that they decided to keep term limits?). But here's what really matters about 2008: we will still be in Iraq. Iraq is Bush's war, therefore a Republican war. That's all that really matters.
Posted by: Wyckyd Sceptre at January 8, 2007 02:03 PM
The American people cleaned up congress by booting out the worst of the republican slime. Jefferson's measly $90k pales in comparison to the billions of dollars in dirty money shuttled around by the republicans. Remember, oil companies have been writing energy legislation for the entire time Delay was majority leader... What was the final count of republicans who resigned/plead guilty to corruption charges in the last congress? I can't even remember.
Posted by: Mike at January 8, 2007 02:03 PM
It seems Nancy Pelosi is slowly morphing into Tip O'Neill.
Posted by:
Carl at January 8, 2007 03:22 PM
What exactly are you upset about? Last week you thought the Democrats wouldn't keep committee chair term limits. Turns out, they did. I would have assumed you'd be happy and credit the Democrats for a job well done. Somehow, though, you feel this is a bad thing. (Are you now against term limits? Or are any and all Democratic actions automatically bad?)
In the spirit of bipartisanship (which I know is suddenly important to all you right-wingers), shouldn't you at least acknowledge that the Democrats kept a good rule regarding committee chairmanships?
By the way, why are you still making predictions regarding elections? Before the mid-terms you were wildly off-target with your predictions made ONE DAY before the elections. Now, you're making predictions about elections almost TWO YEARS in the future. Shouldn't you just stop with the absurd predictions?
Posted by: steveGA at January 8, 2007 04:50 PM
Mark,
You may agree that both parties tend to do most of the "back door" deals when no one is watching.
Unfortunatley it's true. The Independants just can't make up their minds.
As I've understood it, TLs are good when you want the politician and bad when you don't, however, we've seen the bad with Byrd, Spector, Kennedy et al, and because of the lack of TLs, we've created a government that is devoid of "new blood" in some states/districts. The fact that the Dems didn't even pick up on it, shows their lack of attention to detail.
It gets sticky when we find a politician that makes sound decisions and performs ample research rather than simply throwing down the vote that appeals to his/her constituency and those that are good examples of how long-term politicians should act are few. Unfortunately, many of those that should never have been in power, are in power today.
Additionally, without TLs, there seems to be more of an innate sense of manipulating the vote by listening with the palm rather than the ear....but you didn't hear it from me.
Oh, I've already mentioned Duke, but I need to include Willaim Jefferson to be fair.
Gotta be fair and balanced don't ya know!!
Hey did, I mention William Jefferson had $90 in da frige?
Posted by: navydad at January 8, 2007 05:10 PM
Jefferson is probably a crook, but he still hasn't been charged with a crime yet. He did lose his chairmanship. I'm sure most national democrats would like to see him go, but sadly he was re-elected by the voters in his district.
As far as the term limits on the chairmanships, it sounds to me that the democratic leadership is smart enough to keep some of the good things the republicans were doing rather than going back to what got them kicked out the last time. I also think its better for the country for the chairmanships to rotate.
Posted by: Casper at January 8, 2007 06:32 PM
Casper
Are you joking here?
"Jefferson is probably a crook,"???
We're the Duke Lacrosse players "probably innocent" before your buddies Jesse and Al condemned them to the gas chamber before they even had a DNA test? What about Tom Delay?
WJ had $90k in da frige!!!! Wake up!!! Worse yet, he doesn't deny receiving the graft.
He also received a standing O at the last black Caucus rally...puke!
There is no way that the majority of Dems want to see him go, in fact, I'll be willing to bet another Morton's steak dinner that they strap themselves to him all the way under the bus.
He's an African American and like Rev Al or Susan Estridge's brother, they can say or do almost anything they please without the oversight that they claim has been non-existant with GW.
Posted by: navydad at January 9, 2007 10:31 AM
1. So, proof of Democratic corruption is that they've actually enacted the limits you support? If they ever actually repeal the limits, you might have an argument (I don't think the limits are a great idea), but for now, the charge seems to be "The Democrats have done something I think is a great idea, but I suspect they'll change their mind later."
2. Jefferson received little support from his party, and was attacked by much of the blogosphere, both left and right. he held on to power by the most dastardly, underhanded method possible: winning an election. Is it seriously being argued that he should be booted from office before being convicted of a crime, because we "know" he is corrrupt? Can the majority party refuse to seat the minority party members it "knows" to be corrupt? Sweet jeebus all of you ahte due process, law and democracry!
Posted by: someguy at January 9, 2007 11:28 AM
Order Matt and Mark's book on Amazon or Barnes and Noble
I am absolutely thrilled the Democrats took both chambers of Congress.
(Ed note: the rest of this comment went entirely off topic - we are looking for people to defend or oppose what the Democrats are doing, not make long-winded posts about how they feel).
How can the democrats be taken seriously about cleaning up washington when William Jefferson is still in office? Its power at any cost for the democrats.
Well, personally I would wait a little longer than a few hours to judge the Dems' performance (And I'm not sure what you're so upset about, the fact that they decided to keep term limits?). But here's what really matters about 2008: we will still be in Iraq. Iraq is Bush's war, therefore a Republican war. That's all that really matters.
The American people cleaned up congress by booting out the worst of the republican slime. Jefferson's measly $90k pales in comparison to the billions of dollars in dirty money shuttled around by the republicans. Remember, oil companies have been writing energy legislation for the entire time Delay was majority leader... What was the final count of republicans who resigned/plead guilty to corruption charges in the last congress? I can't even remember.
It seems Nancy Pelosi is slowly morphing into Tip O'Neill.
What exactly are you upset about? Last week you thought the Democrats wouldn't keep committee chair term limits. Turns out, they did. I would have assumed you'd be happy and credit the Democrats for a job well done. Somehow, though, you feel this is a bad thing. (Are you now against term limits? Or are any and all Democratic actions automatically bad?)
In the spirit of bipartisanship (which I know is suddenly important to all you right-wingers), shouldn't you at least acknowledge that the Democrats kept a good rule regarding committee chairmanships?
By the way, why are you still making predictions regarding elections? Before the mid-terms you were wildly off-target with your predictions made ONE DAY before the elections. Now, you're making predictions about elections almost TWO YEARS in the future. Shouldn't you just stop with the absurd predictions?
Mark,
You may agree that both parties tend to do most of the "back door" deals when no one is watching.
Unfortunatley it's true. The Independants just can't make up their minds.
As I've understood it, TLs are good when you want the politician and bad when you don't, however, we've seen the bad with Byrd, Spector, Kennedy et al, and because of the lack of TLs, we've created a government that is devoid of "new blood" in some states/districts. The fact that the Dems didn't even pick up on it, shows their lack of attention to detail.
It gets sticky when we find a politician that makes sound decisions and performs ample research rather than simply throwing down the vote that appeals to his/her constituency and those that are good examples of how long-term politicians should act are few. Unfortunately, many of those that should never have been in power, are in power today.
Additionally, without TLs, there seems to be more of an innate sense of manipulating the vote by listening with the palm rather than the ear....but you didn't hear it from me.
Oh, I've already mentioned Duke, but I need to include Willaim Jefferson to be fair.
Gotta be fair and balanced don't ya know!!
Hey did, I mention William Jefferson had $90 in da frige?
Jefferson is probably a crook, but he still hasn't been charged with a crime yet. He did lose his chairmanship. I'm sure most national democrats would like to see him go, but sadly he was re-elected by the voters in his district.
As far as the term limits on the chairmanships, it sounds to me that the democratic leadership is smart enough to keep some of the good things the republicans were doing rather than going back to what got them kicked out the last time. I also think its better for the country for the chairmanships to rotate.
Casper
Are you joking here?
"Jefferson is probably a crook,"???
We're the Duke Lacrosse players "probably innocent" before your buddies Jesse and Al condemned them to the gas chamber before they even had a DNA test? What about Tom Delay?
WJ had $90k in da frige!!!! Wake up!!! Worse yet, he doesn't deny receiving the graft.
He also received a standing O at the last black Caucus rally...puke!
There is no way that the majority of Dems want to see him go, in fact, I'll be willing to bet another Morton's steak dinner that they strap themselves to him all the way under the bus.
He's an African American and like Rev Al or Susan Estridge's brother, they can say or do almost anything they please without the oversight that they claim has been non-existant with GW.
1. So, proof of Democratic corruption is that they've actually enacted the limits you support? If they ever actually repeal the limits, you might have an argument (I don't think the limits are a great idea), but for now, the charge seems to be "The Democrats have done something I think is a great idea, but I suspect they'll change their mind later."
2. Jefferson received little support from his party, and was attacked by much of the blogosphere, both left and right. he held on to power by the most dastardly, underhanded method possible: winning an election. Is it seriously being argued that he should be booted from office before being convicted of a crime, because we "know" he is corrrupt? Can the majority party refuse to seat the minority party members it "knows" to be corrupt? Sweet jeebus all of you ahte due process, law and democracry!