As co-author of the upcoming book, Caucus of Corruption, I am highly familiar with the inability of Democrats to keep their word, or even show a modicum of decency in their corrupt tactics - so, this comes as zero surprise to me, but it might shock the lefties out there who actually thought at the corrupt people in DC were the Republicans - from Politico (which even though a bit lefty, is becoming invaluable in political reporting):
When Democrats were in the minority, they lambasted Republican tactics on the House floor, reserving particular vitriol for the GOP practice of holding votes open longer than the allotted time in order to round up enough support for victory.
Now in the majority and facing their first close vote with the $124 billion wartime spending bill, House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) is leaving open the possibility that Democrats might extend the vote beyond the usual 15 minutes.
Asked Wednesday night whether Democrats would keep to the time limit, Hoyer paused, then pointed out that many votes can run a few minutes longer for various reasons. Pressed further by a reporter who pointed out that Democrats themselves had often criticized Republicans on this very point, Hoyer said, "It won't be open three hours. How about that?"
"How about 30 minutes?" the reporter asked.
"I won't guarantee it," Hoyer replied.
On their first day in the majority in January, Democrats amended the House rules to mandate that a vote "shall not be held open for the sole purpose of reversing the outcome of such vote."
There is no promise they won't break, no position they won't betray - because any promise they make and any position they hold is entirely tactical and designed for the sole purpose of obtaining and maintaining power...trust me on this, lefties, if your heroic Democrats suddenly found out that being anti gay marriage would secure them more votes than it would lose, gay marriage would have a constitutional ban in place by next week.
Posted by Mark Noonan at March 22, 2007 12:50 PM
Track
del.icio.us
digg it
IM
Facebook
Comments
I really wish both political parties would have some forethought. It was a serious folly for Republicans to not consider and adopt some form of minority rights when they were in power (because no political party is permanently in power). And it's silly the Democrats aren't doing the same thing now.
There is nothing wrong with Democrats keeping the teller machines open since Republicans did it.
IT IS hypocritical for someone to bash that process and then turn around and use it, just as it is to use the process and then turn around and bash someone else using the process you did.
Posted by: wawilliyo at March 22, 2007 01:14 PM
Mark,
This somewhat new for you guys, but I'd get used to it if I were you -- the classic tu quoque argument used to retroactively justify Hastert's malfeasance.
It does look supiciously like Denny pushed the envelope a little harder than Hoyer intends to -- but I reject using logical fallacies to justify a position.
The operative clause now is: "Would the vote be extended for the sole purpose of reversing the outcome of such a vote?"
If so, it would seem to violate the new House rule. If not, then you guys ought to complain to the Speaker and Majority leader -- hope you get recognized!
Lol.
Posted by: Salvelinus at March 22, 2007 01:19 PM
Rock on, Salevlinus. The difference here should be obvious: What the Republicans seem to have for the last 8 years considered fair play in politics, we consider to be horribly over the line, in a way that's in no way a game.
It's not a matter of turnabout being fair play. It's a matter of us being in the right in a way noone with a soul could deny. They never promised this to their constituents, and we certainly don't feel betrayed.
Posted by: Democratically hopeful at March 22, 2007 02:56 PM
Oh, im sorry. Did anyone actually think the Dems were going to keep to their word on anything? I thought for sure nobody would believe they would.
Whooops. Guess Im naive.
LOL
Posted by: AFWIFE at March 22, 2007 03:17 PM
Can we question their hypocrisy yet?
Posted by:
Psycheout at March 22, 2007 03:32 PM
I am somewhat disillusioned by the Democrats, though not over this. As a liberal, i hate the troops and wish them harm, but the Democrats insist on trying to enact laws saying they can only be sent into combat if they are adequately trained and equipped. Thankfully, th Republicans are fighting a battle against such measures
http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?p=129
Dead soldiers are heroes. Living ones are drains on us all, with their fancy veteran's benefits.
Posted by: someguy at March 22, 2007 04:27 PM
Nothing has happened yet. Until there is a 3 in morning vote that no one knows about, handing out tobacco lobbyist checks on the floor to swing votes, or keeping the vote open for hours while someone is being strong-armed, there is nothing here.
Now Republicans show a concern for the future. If Republicans would have been so worried about what might happen when they were in charge, we might not be celebrating the 4th anniversary of the Iraq war.
Posted by: Josh Keaton at March 22, 2007 04:32 PM
wow thats some breaking news Mark
politicians break their promises. Of course, in this case its absolutely trivial - as opposed to your guy who suspends the constitution, refuses to fire those who leak when it hits too close to home, and oversees the greatest natural disaster in decades and fails to provide adequate support..
But hey - i guess as long as it doesn't happen to Mark it doesn't matter
Posted by: kblack77 at March 22, 2007 04:52 PM
"who suspends the constitution"
I know Bush is accused of suspending the consitition but those are just accusations and political speak.. not a fact.
"refuses to fire those who leak when it hits too close to home"
Typical of every previous President
"oversees the greatest natural disaster in decades and fails to provide adequate support."
$150+Billion in funding is in adequet support, which are the estimates for relief required.
Could Bush have done more??? 20/20 vision is always perfect, unfortunately Bush has to rely on others to ensure and react to differnet areas of government.
and what about the levees?? the real problem was always there.. long before anyone ever heard of G.W. Bush
Posted by: DougH at March 22, 2007 05:19 PM
also
"if your heroic Democrats suddenly found out that being anti gay marriage would secure them more votes than it would lose, gay marriage would have a constitutional ban in place by next week."
wow - more breaking news - politicians do things that they think are popular with those they represent... great post
Posted by: kblack77 at March 22, 2007 05:44 PM
But hey - i guess as long as it doesn't happen to Mark it doesn't matter
But hey, I guess if it's a redundant talking point, or an outright lie, kblack's gonna post it.
What are you, kblack--14? Can't you come up with some substantive debate? You're a frickin' parrot, and not very intelligent, at that.
And a supporter of hypocrisy...
Posted by: God is Great--Libs I Hate... at March 22, 2007 06:21 PM
Good post, Wawilliyo. I agree. Foresight would be nice. Leadership, too.
Posted by: Freedom1 at March 22, 2007 07:22 PM
Anyone interested in going to Iraq and fighting the terrorists over there so we dont have to fight them here at home?
Cmon men, lets go kick some terrorist ass and win this great war in Iraq.
Lets go git er done boys......
Posted by: Lomstradamus at March 23, 2007 02:49 AM
Loms,
Obvioulsy by the number of people staying in the military and tose who are signing up for the military... all knowing that most likley they will be going to Iraq.
There are more than enough people willing to go to Iraq and fight.
I can't imagine too many people left in the military, who signed up after 9/11 who didn't sign up for Iraq, still being in the military.
Posted by: DougH at March 23, 2007 11:26 AM
Hey, Lostradumbass, you can shut the hell up!
I can't wait to get over there and start doing some good for America, unlike your sorry ass, sitting on a computer demonstrating your idiocy.
Posted by: Darkslash at March 23, 2007 04:22 PM
Order Matt and Mark's book on Amazon or Barnes and Noble
I really wish both political parties would have some forethought. It was a serious folly for Republicans to not consider and adopt some form of minority rights when they were in power (because no political party is permanently in power). And it's silly the Democrats aren't doing the same thing now.
There is nothing wrong with Democrats keeping the teller machines open since Republicans did it.
IT IS hypocritical for someone to bash that process and then turn around and use it, just as it is to use the process and then turn around and bash someone else using the process you did.
Mark,
This somewhat new for you guys, but I'd get used to it if I were you -- the classic tu quoque argument used to retroactively justify Hastert's malfeasance.
It does look supiciously like Denny pushed the envelope a little harder than Hoyer intends to -- but I reject using logical fallacies to justify a position.
The operative clause now is: "Would the vote be extended for the sole purpose of reversing the outcome of such a vote?"
If so, it would seem to violate the new House rule. If not, then you guys ought to complain to the Speaker and Majority leader -- hope you get recognized!
Lol.
Rock on, Salevlinus. The difference here should be obvious: What the Republicans seem to have for the last 8 years considered fair play in politics, we consider to be horribly over the line, in a way that's in no way a game.
It's not a matter of turnabout being fair play. It's a matter of us being in the right in a way noone with a soul could deny. They never promised this to their constituents, and we certainly don't feel betrayed.
Oh, im sorry. Did anyone actually think the Dems were going to keep to their word on anything? I thought for sure nobody would believe they would.
Whooops. Guess Im naive.
LOL
Can we question their hypocrisy yet?
I am somewhat disillusioned by the Democrats, though not over this. As a liberal, i hate the troops and wish them harm, but the Democrats insist on trying to enact laws saying they can only be sent into combat if they are adequately trained and equipped. Thankfully, th Republicans are fighting a battle against such measures
http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?p=129
Dead soldiers are heroes. Living ones are drains on us all, with their fancy veteran's benefits.
Nothing has happened yet. Until there is a 3 in morning vote that no one knows about, handing out tobacco lobbyist checks on the floor to swing votes, or keeping the vote open for hours while someone is being strong-armed, there is nothing here.
Now Republicans show a concern for the future. If Republicans would have been so worried about what might happen when they were in charge, we might not be celebrating the 4th anniversary of the Iraq war.
wow thats some breaking news Mark
politicians break their promises. Of course, in this case its absolutely trivial - as opposed to your guy who suspends the constitution, refuses to fire those who leak when it hits too close to home, and oversees the greatest natural disaster in decades and fails to provide adequate support..
But hey - i guess as long as it doesn't happen to Mark it doesn't matter
"who suspends the constitution"
I know Bush is accused of suspending the consitition but those are just accusations and political speak.. not a fact.
"refuses to fire those who leak when it hits too close to home"
Typical of every previous President
"oversees the greatest natural disaster in decades and fails to provide adequate support."
$150+Billion in funding is in adequet support, which are the estimates for relief required.
Could Bush have done more??? 20/20 vision is always perfect, unfortunately Bush has to rely on others to ensure and react to differnet areas of government.
and what about the levees?? the real problem was always there.. long before anyone ever heard of G.W. Bush
also
"if your heroic Democrats suddenly found out that being anti gay marriage would secure them more votes than it would lose, gay marriage would have a constitutional ban in place by next week."
wow - more breaking news - politicians do things that they think are popular with those they represent... great post
But hey - i guess as long as it doesn't happen to Mark it doesn't matter
But hey, I guess if it's a redundant talking point, or an outright lie, kblack's gonna post it.
What are you, kblack--14? Can't you come up with some substantive debate? You're a frickin' parrot, and not very intelligent, at that.
And a supporter of hypocrisy...
Good post, Wawilliyo. I agree. Foresight would be nice. Leadership, too.
Anyone interested in going to Iraq and fighting the terrorists over there so we dont have to fight them here at home?
Cmon men, lets go kick some terrorist ass and win this great war in Iraq.
Lets go git er done boys......
Loms,
Obvioulsy by the number of people staying in the military and tose who are signing up for the military... all knowing that most likley they will be going to Iraq.
There are more than enough people willing to go to Iraq and fight.
I can't imagine too many people left in the military, who signed up after 9/11 who didn't sign up for Iraq, still being in the military.
Hey, Lostradumbass, you can shut the hell up!
I can't wait to get over there and start doing some good for America, unlike your sorry ass, sitting on a computer demonstrating your idiocy.