Daschle the obstructionist at it again

[Kilmer17]

Now he refuses to relinquish power in the committees thus stopping the work of Govt to suit his own political agenda.

Imagine if 6 years from now (not going to happen in 2) a Dem wins the WHite House and Bush refuses to leave and continues to act as the President. Meeting foreign leaders, setting agenda, proposing a budget. Can you imagine the outrage?

One of the strongest facets of our Govt is the peaceful transfer of power. If Daschle et al continue this I see no reason not to arrest them for attempting to overthrow the Govt. That is EXACTLY what they are trying to do.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56802-2003Jan14.html

With tax cuts, a huge spending bill and possible war stacked up on its agenda, the Senate plunged yesterday into a paralyzing partisan fight over funding and office space for its committees.

It had taken the Senate only a week since it reconvened with upbeat pledges of bipartisan cooperation to return to the same old fractiousness with which it wound up its work last year.

Viewing the conflict through sharply different lenses, Republicans said the Democrats' tactics were "tantamount to an attempted coup," as Sen. Rick Santorum (Pa.) put it, while Democrats said they only wanted fairness in the distribution of about $50 million to run 20 Senate committees for the year.

Until the dispute is resolved and the Senate passes a new "organizing resolution" for its committees, new senators will not get committee assignments and Democrats will stay on as chairmen even though Republicans won control of the Senate in last November's elections.

As a result, hearings, including one scheduled for yesterday on the nomination of Tom Ridge to head the new Department of Homeland Security, were put off, apparently because the Bush administration did not want to testify before Democratic chairmen. Ridge was rescheduled for Friday. Delays are also threatened for action on spending bills left over from last year.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) attempted to speed the GOP takeover by filing a resolution dealing with committee chairmanships and Republican members but not funding. Democrats objected, and Minority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) said they would filibuster the proposal if necessary. Meanwhile, talks between Frist and Daschle were continuing, and Frist said last night they were "very, very close" to an agreement.

The whole thing was beginning to look like "sandbox silliness," said Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.).

"People will look at this and ask what in the world is going on," said Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.). "The Senate ought to be able to organize itself."

It appeared the Senate itself might pay a price for its squabbling. Frist warned yesterday, as he has before, that the Senate will not be taking its customary mid-January recess next week unless it resolves its organizational dispute and deals with the 11 spending bills for the fiscal year that began last October. Chances of meeting those conditions appeared slim.

Until the last Congress, organizing resolutions were rather routine affairs, confirming the selection of new chairmen and appointment of new members. But the election of an evenly divided Senate in 2000 gave rise to a power-sharing arrangement under which committee funding was evenly split. When Vermont Sen. James M. Jeffords left the GOP in mid-2001, giving Democrats control of the Senate by one vote, the funding division was changed only slightly in the Democrats' favor.

In the current dispute, Democrats argue that the funding division should reflect the existing 51 to 49 party breakdown in the Senate, just as it reflected the narrow split two years ago. Republicans say the majority party always got two-thirds of committee funds before the last Congress and that the Senate should return to this split.

Republicans quickly sought to cast the dispute in a broader light, accusing Democrats of trying to reverse the results of the November elections. "A shameful power grab," said Sen. George Allen (R-Va.).

The GOP circulated an e-mail summary of a Jan. 2 Democratic staff meeting and contended that it showed Democrats had plotted an impasse. Democrats said the e-mail simply stated the obvious: that a dispute was likely and delays were possible.

Many Democrats tried to change the subject to other issues, such as President Bush's tax cut proposals. Several of them, in a parody of the "Leave No Child Behind" school bill that Congress passed last year, referred to the tax measure as the "Leave No Millionaire Behind" bill.

[Canyonero!]

Not to mention that Daschle has re-introduced the RAVE Act that Biden tried to get past last year. Instapundit's run down on it is pretty accurate:

This sounds like a joke, but it isn't. Last year, the Department of Justice and the DEA tried to prosecute concert promoters in New Orleans under the federal "crackhouse law." That law makes it a felony to maintain a building or facility for the purpose of drug consumption. Traditionally, the law has been applied to places that are, well, crack houses. But — calling glow sticks and bottled water "drug paraphernalia" — then-U.S. Attorney Eddie Jordan attempted to jail three New Orleans concert promoters by reasoning that (1) people come to raves; (2) people who come to raves sometimes use drugs; (3) concert promoters must know this (especially in light of the presence of "drug paraphernalia"); and so, (4) a rave must be an event that takes place "for the purpose of drug consumption" under the law.

:doh:

[@DCGoldPants]

While I agree with your point here. You are OBESSED! Do you scan all the internet sites for dirty news about your enemies while ignoring the ones about the people you support? I'm getting this vision of a person clipping articles from newspapers and using rubber cement to wallpaper his house with.

How come you didn't post any articles about how the Repubs think Bush's new Stimulus plan sucks? I mean, not that strong support from your own peeps? That's weak!

Its only a few weeks into the new session and everybody...I said EVERYBODY...both parties are still struggling to get organized. Jesus.

[Art]

Bufford,

This is over the top. The Dems refuse the passive transfer of power we've enjoyed since winning the Revolutionary War. This is nearly criminal behavior at worst, and petty, dead-end ignorance at best.

Comparing this type of thing with the fact that not every Republican may think Bush's stimulus plan is the best is hardly an uplifting or even competent argument.

[gbear]

I'm actually curious as to what anybody thinks about the ACTUAL SUBSTANCE of the arguement.

The Dems and the Republicans agreed to split the funding 50/50 when that was the Senate composition. Then when the Dems took over, they agreed that from then on the spliting of funds should correlate with the composition of congress.

Now the Republicans are saying their majority is good for 2/3 of the funds regardless of the actual compostion of the senate. Note, that's not what they pushed for when they were the minority party.

I'll bet none of the Republicans on this board think that's money grubbing or an attempt to take more than their share. No, of course not, the Republicans will harken back and say "We're going back to how it's always been done." Of course that always is only if the last few years don't mean anything to anyone. But why let facts get in the way?

This is all just petty politics with heavy emphasis on the petty. Nobody is going to think more or less of either side than they already do as a result of this issue. To me, it's just more of the Republicans wanting different rules when they have the majority vs. when they don't.

[@DCGoldPants]

I didn't compare anything. Re-read the post. I agreed. It was the 1st thing I said. Then I went off on why he's just hunting for news on one side. Lets not be stupid here and think that things don't happen with both parties. I'm not defending anybody in Politics. Both parties are garbage.

Lets re-read my point together.

While I agree with your point here. You are OBESSED! Do you scan all the internet sites for dirty news about your enemies while ignoring the ones about the people you support? I'm getting this vision of a person clipping articles from newspapers and using rubber cement to wallpaper his house with.

How come you didn't post any articles about how the Repubs think Bush's new Stimulus plan sucks? I mean, not that strong support from your own peeps? That's weak!

Its only a few weeks into the new session and everybody...I said EVERYBODY...both parties are still struggling to get organized. Jesus.

Note that I didn't compare the Stimulus package to Kilmers post, just that its current news and kind of important right now. Actually, just focus on the 1st paragraph and forget the rest. Maybe that'll help.

[dchogs]

i'm siding with gbear here. seems like the republicans want to have their cake and eat it too. the new "format" was fine when they were in the minority, but not when they are in the majority. come on already. partisan politics at its best.

[Art]

Gbear,

This is ludicrous.

When the Senate was tied, even though the Republicans technically had the majority, they agreed to an unprecedented power sharing.

The difference between right now and when Jeffords moved parties to swing the actual advantage to the Dems is that the VOTERS selected the present makeup of the Senate in this case, and in the other, it was RINO scorned fiat that changed the makeup of the Senate.

If McCain and another RINO switch parties, I would expect a similar sharing of the power until the next election cycle. When the voters speak, the rules ought to be different than when there's a change based on members switching parties.

And, you know what, Gbear, in 2004 if the Dems take back the Senate 51-49, they should get the rewards. Period.

[@DCGoldPants]

If things keep up this way, they just might win it back in 04. Just to start this dumb cycle again.

[JackC]

Art and Kilmer,

Your crying makes you look petty. When someone disagrees with the Right wing why do they get called obstructionist or unpatriotic? If the GOP learned to compromise we would all be better off. The senate rules allow for the tactic employed by the democrats so too bad if you on the right don't like it.

Who's to say who is the real obstructionist? I'm sure if the GOP would come off their 2 to 1 bs the new leadership would go through.

Either way it's called negotiations not dictation by the majority even if they have that huge 51-49 advantage!

[gbear]

Art, where was that distinction when it was the Dems leaving the Dem party?

Also, your justifying the difference seems a bit revisionist being aplpied now. It comes across as trying to justify not wanting to play by the same rules you expected the other party to abide by.

Why do you think a party should get preferential treatment or funding becasue a member switched parties? Last time I checked, we elect people not parties. No Art, I think it's your arguement that is ludicrous.

[Art]

Gbear,

In the WHOLE of history, the rules have been the same. Right up until the Senate was tied 50-50 and the Republicans agreed to a power sharing scheme, though they didn't have to. It seemed fair and right. When the Dems took over, the agreement was still in place, and was adjusted.

Now, the voters have spoken AGAIN. This time the Republicans are completely in charge and should have the same rules applied to EVERY SINGLE PREVIOUS session of Congress after an election has enjoyed. Period.

Again, if the Dems had a 51-49 advantage, they should absolutely expect the same Senate guidelines to be installed. The power sharing was a grant by the Republicans during a 50-50 Senate. As usual with Republicans, we give something and the Dems want to make it eternal. That's not how it works.

And, it's not how it would work if the voters put the Dems in charge.

[Art]

Jack,

There's never been negotiation in the history of the Senate over the breakdown of budget for various committees. The only time this has EVER happened is with a 50-50 tie and the Republicans in control and we agreed to share power in an unprecedented way for the majority party.

This has backfired on us obviously. Now we've had another election cycle and we won an unprecedented mandate during an off year election in a sitting President's term, and the Dems refuse to go back to the rules that have guided the Senate in every previous session.

I don't expect the liberal robot among you to actually chastise your leaders for this ignorance and stupidity. Unlike you, I actually have the capacity and have shown the willingness to question some of the things my party does. You guys don't. That's your weakness.

[gbear]

yet again..whole of history..right up until the compromise agreed to two years ago. That was my point. A compromise was agreed to by BOTH parties, but now it's not in the Republicans interest so ... they want out. Of course...

Please tell me why you think the Dems were obligated to give a split after Jeffords switch? Again, we elect people not parties. The Dem majority was no less legaly binding than the Republican one is now.

[Art]

The compromise was worked out to reflect the will of the voters in electing a split Senate for the first time in history. I knew at the time how stupid the agreement was, and was critical of it then because I know how Dems operate. The Republicans in an attempt to be fair gave more to the Dems than had ever been given before by the party in power. Now the Dems want to ignore the history of the Senate again, despite the will of the voters putting the Republicans back in power.

This is typical of the liberal. I can assure you, as a Republican, I wouldn't support my party in this same effort. The rules of the Senate have always been followed. The Republicans expect it to go back to the way it was for every other majority party in the history of the every elected Senate. It's not all that hard.

[@DCGoldPants]

I wonder if you'd be saying that if the majority didn't change.

[gbear]

You only talk of the compromise when the Senate was split 50-50.

I refer to the later compromise after Jeffords switched when the Dems had a majority. They didn't have to agree to split the funds. Instead, both sides agreed that the compromise under the 50-50 where the funds were split based compostion of the Senate should continue. Only now, it doesn't benefit the Republicans to base funds on the composition of the Senate, so they now want to go back to what was before their interests were the minority.

What a shock that is. It's time to change the rules again because the republicans can't get everything they want under the rules they agreed to last time. My 6 year old niece does this with board games too. I just assumed most people grow out of it. How childish.

Talk about pupets though, you refer to us as pupets of a liberal Dem party that support them no matter what, but you ignore everything to support the Republicans on this.

Did I mention this was petty politics at it's worst where niether side would think more of the other side as a result of it?

[Kilmer17]

Wow, look what I started.

Bufford, if those issues are of such importance to you please feel free to start a discussion on them. I bring up the issues that I see as important. Feel free to ignore those if you dont think they are worthy of your input.

What would the Dems have said if the GOP had refused to turn over any power after Jeffords switched?

This is obstructionist and political at it's core.

The Dems lost, the GOP won. It's time for the Dems to stop crying like little ****es and get on with the business of Govt.

Jack, what's petty is the Dems pulling a stunt like this. It's like the little punk in grade school who would threaten to leave and take the football with him if he didn't get to be the quarterback. It's not petty to demand the Dems to respect the voteres and the Constitution.

[gbear]

hmmm, maybe I missed that part of the constitution where it talks about the funding in question. Kilmer, maybe you could point me to it?

What have the Dems done to thwart the Constitution? Try to get the Republicans to honor the agreement made when the Dems had a majority, and look at how the Republicans squack.

As I understand it, the Dems haven't done anything outside fo the rules of the Senate much less the Constitution. To my knowledge, this is no different from a filabuster. It's annoying to the other side, but it's hardly unconstitutional as you claim.

As I recall, there was a lag when Jeffords switched sides before the Dems could get a vote to change leadership as well. It only lasted a few days (as I suspect this will). In fact, I believe that lag was also due to arranging funding. That's all from memory though and could be wrong.

[redman]

Originally posted by gbear

You only talk of the compromise when the Senate was split 50-50.

I refer to the later compromise after Jeffords switched when the Dems had a majority. They didn't have to agree to split the funds. Instead, both sides agreed that the compromise under the 50-50 where the funds were split based compostion of the Senate should continue. Only now, it doesn't benefit the Republicans to base funds on the composition of the Senate, so they now want to go back to what was before their interests were the minority.

Actually, I believe that this is wrong. The funding is worked out for two years at a time, in other words, for the entire time until the next election. Jeffords switching mid-term was irrelevant to this as the breakdown and compromise had already been worked out.

[fansince62]

what we all need is some detail from the insiders.....

heard Sen Allard (R-Colo) on the radio yesterday. even conceding he has a biased (i.e., Republican perspective), he did make a few points:

- he sits on the Select Intelligence committtee and states that there is definite and sensitive evidence from well placed sources INSIDE Iraq's government vis WMD; sensitive enough that folks would die if revealed. your choice on whether or not you think an elected Senator would lie about this.

- he also stated that there was a lot of hardball politics (much of it that held legislation hostage) played by Daschle behind the scenes while majority leader. this is washington dc politics so I don't begrudge Daschle or the Repubs if they employ the same tactics.

[Kilmer17]

I am not talking about funding. I am talking about the committee assignments.

So it's just a filabuster? How loud would the Dems have screamed if the GOP had held a simple filabuster after Jeffords switched?

The people of the US voted the Dems out of power, it's time for them to take their medicine and step down.

I am actually suprised that ANYONE would defend their actions. BUt I was also suprised when people defended Clintons lies and deceit.

What if the GOP decided to keep Dems off of every committee? There's no rule or law that says they have to appoint anyone to a committee. What if the GOP decided to close debate on every bill and issue? They could do it. All perfectly legal. How loud will the Dems scream?

One last point, this wasnt the result of searching and scanning the net for right wing ideology. This was from the bastion of liberalism the Washington post.

Just because it's legal doesnt make it right.

[JackC]

Originally posted by Art

Jack,

There's never been negotiation in the history of the Senate over the breakdown of budget for various committees. The only time this has EVER happened is with a 50-50 tie and the Republicans in control and we agreed to share power in an unprecedented way for the majority party.

This has backfired on us obviously. Now we've had another election cycle and we won an unprecedented mandate during an off year election in a sitting President's term, and the Dems refuse to go back to the rules that have guided the Senate in every previous session.

I don't expect the liberal robot among you to actually chastise your leaders for this ignorance and stupidity. Unlike you, I actually have the capacity and have shown the willingness to question some of the things my party does. You guys don't. That's your weakness.

Not True,

The Democrats must have made a deal when Jeffords switched parties. You my friend are the biggest partisan I've ever seen. The sad thing is I bet you think you're fair.

[JackC]

"The will of the Voters?"

You just made me shoot Pepsi out of my nose Art! LOL! The GOP couldn't care less about the will of the people! Remember the 2000 election or did you forget that one?

ROTFLMAO!

[gbear]

Redman,

Check out Kilmers article to start the thread. Funding was changed after jefford switch. It is not unchangable for two years.

Kilmer,

the Republicans could do this. It would be political suicide, but I guess they could. It would really make them appear partisan. The point is that there was an agreement to try to be less partisan in the funding. The Republicans were okay with this when they were the minority, but now they're not. It's just an example of the republicans changing the rules when they don't suit them. It's more partisan politics. It's what I've come to expect from them.

That said, I'm sure they will get their way over time. They do have the majority. Heck, even your article said it was only a matter of time. The Dems had a delay when we got the majority too. The rules of the Senate allow for stalling. There are actually good reasons for protecting the minorities and our government was set up with this in mind.

Fan Since 62,

I agree. It's hard to know what was killed behind the scenes. I don't follow closely enough to know that. From the outside though, I find it hard to get upset by this article that states the Dems are trying to get the republicans to play by the same funding rules they played by when the Dems were in the majority.