Republicans shut out of stimulus conference negotiations

[BigRob]

i am not talking about the regular aspects of how congress works.

I am talking about not even bringing a bill to committee at all or not even inviting the opposing party committee members to be in session.

When the minority party can't even see the bill before the day of the vote they can't even make a comment on it for the nation to hear. Is that the way things should be run.

You can fast track legislation (and Republicans do this too) that shuts out much of any floor debate, and keeps those not on the committee uninvolved. That is a regular aspect of how Congress works.

The democratic party used to be the party of championing free speech. Today they wish to stifle it in multiple ways.

Do not get me started on the flaws of Democrats. I am Republican, but we have plenty of flaws of our own.

Liberals on college campuses shut out conservative speech regularly.

Liberals have a huge majority of the main stream media, public radio, as well as all media in general. Yet the leadership actually favors the so called "fairness doctrine."

I agree, but as I understood it Obama hinted he was not interested in seeing the Fairness Doctrine come up.

Say something politically incorrect and it is the liberals who throw a fit and try to shut down the speech instead of making a counterpoint.

Agreed.

We expect liberals to be the champion of this cause and somehow they have become the enemies of it. And not out of some desperation caused by being in minority but because they have the power.

I am not sure I agree with the premise that using your majority status means you are stifling free speech. Republicans had the ability to vote on the matter, hold press conferences on the matter, etc etc, and they did a good job with it all (I think). I think the claim that members did not have time to know what was in the bill is a bit bogus myself, and if they did not then they should fire their staff.

When I worked for a Senator, you damn well had better read and figured out what a bill meant so you could brief the member before the vote took place. Even if it was 800 pages, divide it up to a staff member per section. It goes quickly.

 

[Dr.Who]

You can fast track legislation (and Republicans do this too) that shuts out much of any floor debate, and keeps those not on the committee uninvolved. That is a regular aspect of how Congress works.

The point of the OP was that this is not a regular practice of congress. That this goes beyond how congress works.

If you think a secret and one sided meeting never happened then say so. If you think it did happen do you think this is a regular part of how congress works?

Congressmen Boehnor: ‘Not One’ Member of House Has Read $787 Billion Stimulus Bill.

http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=278983

The reasons that they did not read it: the thousands page bill was sent to their offices hours before the vote.


Do not get me started on the flaws of Democrats. I am Republican, but we have plenty of flaws of our own.

I agree, but as I understood it Obama hinted he was not interested in seeing the Fairness Doctrine come up.

letting that see the light of day would be a mistake for him. But appointing three leaders of the FCC who all favor the fairness doctrine will ensure that it is enacted be it law or not in one way or another.

I am not sure I agree with the premise that using your majority status means you are stifling free speech. Republicans had the ability to vote on the matter, hold press conferences on the matter, etc etc, and they did a good job with it all (I think). I think the claim that members did not have time to know what was in the bill is a bit bogus myself, and if they did not then they should fire their staff.

The premise of the op is that they went beyond the powers of the majority party.

 

[BigRob]

The point of the OP was that this is not a regular practice of congress. That this goes beyond how congress works.

If you think a secret and one sided meeting never happened then say so. If you think it did happen do you think this is a regular part of how congress works?

Did Republicans get shut out of the Conference? Yes. That is not up for dispute. What I am saying is that the majority party using the rules available to them to stifle debate on bills they want to see fast tracked is not unique to this Congress, in my opinion.

Is it fair? Probably not. Does it violate the rules of Congress? No.

Congressmen Boehnor: ‘Not One’ Member of House Has Read $787 Billion Stimulus Bill.

http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=278983

I think this is not factual and is a propaganda statement.

The reasons that they did not read it: the thousands page bill was sent to their offices hours before the vote.

Was it less than ideal. Yes. The staff however should be able to handle. I believe that "no member" read the bill, but I refuse to believe that no staff read the bill and then briefed their respective member. If they did not, that is a testament to a poor staff.

letting that see the light of day would be a mistake for him. But appointing three leaders of the FCC who all favor the fairness doctrine will ensure that it is enacted be it law or not in one way or another.

Fair enough, we will have to see how it plays out.

The premise of the op is that they went beyond the powers of the majority party.

I don't think that they did. Do I like it? No. But I do not think it violated any rules of Congress.

 

[Dr.Who]

Did Republicans get shut out of the Conference? Yes. That is not up for dispute. What I am saying is that the majority party using the rules available to them to stifle debate on bills they want to see fast tracked is not unique to this Congress, in my opinion.

Is it fair? Probably not. Does it violate the rules of Congress? No.



I think this is not factual and is a propaganda statement.



Was it less than ideal. Yes. The staff however should be able to handle. I believe that "no member" read the bill, but I refuse to believe that no staff read the bill and then briefed their respective member. If they did not, that is a testament to a poor staff.



Fair enough, we will have to see how it plays out.



I don't think that they did. Do I like it? No. But I do not think it violated any rules of Congress.

As far as I know it was not illegal.

What I asked for was an example of Republicans attempting to deny the democrats of the very ability to participate in any way and then comment on the legislation.

I just don't think the republicans work that way. I would add that I don't think the democrats worked that way in the past either.

I think this goes beyond what is normal.

 

[BigRob]

As far as I know it was not illegal.

It is not.

What I asked for was an example of Republicans attempting to deny the democrats of the very ability to participate in any way and then comment on the legislation.

I gave two examples that could fit this mold to an extent. Real ID and the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act less so, but who was going to dare oppose the President after 9/11? Rahm Emanual's comments are ridiculous of "never let a crisis go to waste" but politically they have some truth. In a crisis (much like 9/11) the majority party can pretty much do whatever it wants. We did it following 9/11 to an extent (a bit less so perhaps given the dynamic of the Senate), and they are doing it to us now.

I also think no one denied the Republicans the chance to comment, multiple press conferences were on TV where they talked about their views on the issue.

I just don't think the republicans work that way. I would add that I don't think the democrats worked that way in the past either.

I think this goes beyond what is normal.

I am not here to say this is a good thing, or that I like the method it was done, but I think it is a bit far fetched to claim that Republicans never tried to ignore the Democrats and simply pay lip service to them by allowing them to make floor comments. (The Republicans were able to speak on the floor about this bill as well)

 

[Dr.Who]

It is not.



I gave two examples that could fit this mold to an extent. Real ID and the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act less so, but who was going to dare oppose the President after 9/11? Rahm Emanual's comments are ridiculous of "never let a crisis go to waste" but politically they have some truth. In a crisis (much like 9/11) the majority party can pretty much do whatever it wants. We did it following 9/11 to an extent (a bit less so perhaps given the dynamic of the Senate), and they are doing it to us now.

I also think no one denied the Republicans the chance to comment, multiple press conferences were on TV where they talked about their views on the issue.



I am not here to say this is a good thing, or that I like the method it was done, but I think it is a bit far fetched to claim that Republicans never tried to ignore the Democrats and simply pay lip service to them by allowing them to make floor comments. (The Republicans were able to speak on the floor about this bill as well)

I appreciate your sincerity but naming the real id and the patriot act is not the same as showing how the pubs locked out the dems. how were the dems denied participation? Having the greater amount of control is one thing, not sending them a copy of the bill in a timely manner, having a secret meeting about it, then bringing it to the table later is really not allowing for participation. Letting them speak at the table while making sure that they are unprepared is not participation and letting them hold press conferences on a bill that they have not seen in it's entirety is not participation.

It seems that P. Obama promised us transparency, that the bill would be posted on line five days prior and what we got was that not even the opposition congressmen got to see the 1000+ page bill more than a few hours before they were expected to vote on it. P. Obama has said that he is trying to make this bi-partisan but the actions of the dems is not only the reverse it goes beyond normal control of the process.

If you show me that the pubs locked out the dems in some way I won't be surprised cause I have no love for them either, but it appears to me that the dems presently in power have a love for reducing the amount of free speech that goes around in any way they can figure out to do that. It appears that this control of the very marketplace of ideas has gone beyond what we have seen before.