Decision ‘08

Bipartisanship? Who Needs It?

Well, that didn’t take long: the newly Democratic House is setting a record, breaking its promises before it even convenes:

As they prepare to take control of Congress this week and face up to campaign pledges to restore bipartisanship and openness, Democrats are planning to largely sideline Republicans from the first burst of lawmaking.

House Democrats intend to pass a raft of popular measures as part of their well-publicized plan for the first 100 hours. They include tightening ethics rules for lawmakers, raising the minimum wage, allowing more research on stem cells and cutting interest rates on student loans.

But instead of allowing Republicans to fully participate in deliberations, as promised after the Democratic victory in the Nov. 7 midterm elections, Democrats now say they will use House rules to prevent the opposition from offering alternative measures, assuring speedy passage of the bills and allowing their party to trumpet early victories.

Nancy Pelosi, the Californian who will become House speaker, and Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, who will become majority leader, finalized the strategy over the holiday recess in a flurry of conference calls and meetings with other party leaders. A few Democrats, worried that the party would be criticized for reneging on an important pledge, argued unsuccessfully that they should grant the Republicans greater latitude when the Congress convenes on Thursday.

Another strike for Nancy Pelosi, and the endless cycle of untrustworthy politicians continues…

5 Responses to “Bipartisanship? Who Needs It?”

1 Fargus Says:
January 2nd, 2007 at 12:20 pm
They made campaign promises of a legislative agenda, and they’re doing what needs to be done to pass it, rather than letting bitter Republicans gum up the works and later claim that the Democrats can’t get anything done. It’s by no means a permanent development; only an assurance that important things like ethics reform, stem cell research, and a minimum wage increase, which enjoy widespread popular support, would not be blocked by the Republicans.
2 Mark Says:
January 2nd, 2007 at 12:36 pm
Hmmm…well, that’s a very charitable explanation for what looks like business as usual. When the Republicans shut out Democrats during their tenure, it was evil, but now, because the Democrats are intrinsically better, it’s good?

Sounds a little, um, lopsided to me….
3 Sean P Says:
January 2nd, 2007 at 2:49 pm
I seem to recall the New Republic accusing the Republican congress of this very tactic in 1995. Funny thing is, while Newt did get a lot of legislation out of the House fairly quickly, it was promptly bottlenecked in the Senate, where the power of the filibuster gave the Democrats the leverage to force floor votes on various amendments, which forced the house leadership to consider the revisions ANYWAY, albiet many months later, since they were now part of the Senate version of the law in question.
4 Gulf Coast Bandit Says:
January 2nd, 2007 at 5:00 pm
Widespread support for a minimum wage hike? Bah, the majority isn’t always right.
5 Wizbang Says:
January 2nd, 2007 at 6:26 pm
Bipartisanship is a Thing of the Past

The Democrats promised to work with the GOP in a show of bipartisanship. Yet they are now backing away from that pledge, just like their pledge to deliver a Congress that’s more ethical than it was under the Republicans: But…