FReepers FReakin over Pelosi Erasing Gingrich Fairness Rules..Good one!

[monmouth]

Pelosi Erases Gingrich's Long-Standing Fairness Rules
Human Events ^ | 5 January 2009 | Connie Hair

Posted on Monday, January 05, 2009 10:54:23 AM by Clinton's a liar

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi plans to re-write House rules today to ensure that the Republican minority is unable to have any influence on legislation. Pelosi’s proposals are so draconian, and will so polarize the Capitol, that any thought President-elect Obama has of bipartisan cooperation will be rendered impossible before he even takes office.

Pelosi’s rule changes -- which may be voted on today -- will reverse the fairness rules that were written around Newt Gingrich’s “Contract with America.”

In reaction, the House Republican leadership is sending a letter today to Pelosi to object to changes to House Rules this week that would bar Republicans from offering alternative bills, amendments to Democrat bills or even the guarantee of open debate accessible by motions to recommit for any piece of legislation during the entire 111th Congress. These procedural abuses, as outlined in the below letter obtained by HUMAN EVENTS, would also include the repeal of six-year limit for committee chairmen and other House Rules reform measures enacted in 1995 as part of the Contract with America.



(Excerpt) Read more at humanevents.com ...

[billyoc]

1. Every last shred of that ghoulish "Contract on America" should be burned

and the ashes sent into space.

[monmouth]

2. Definitely....n/t

[MajorChode]

20. If you read the history of the "Contract on America"

Most of it was DOA anyway. Very little of it got passed and even less of it concerned supposedly conservative principles like fiscal responsibility. It was never anything more than a dog and pony show.

[jmowreader]

43. The only thing in it that got passed intact was the Line Item Veto

and the fuckers took it to the Supreme Court for nullification the second President Clinton used it.

[DainBramaged]

3. They either ride the train or sit on their hands at the platform

They are KAPUT and it's about fucking time they are.

[TahitiNut]

4. "Elections have consequences."

I don't recall which GOPher said that, but whatever goes around comes around.

On edit: It seems, according to DU, it's most famously attributed to McCain.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5019627

[gratuitous]

6. I remember hearing that in the last few years

I also remember hearing "Get over it" and "You lost. We won." So unless the GOP repealed the Doctrine of Turnabout is Fair Play, I just have a couple of things to say.

Oh, and the Democratic majorities in both the House and the Senate are greater today than they ever were for the Republicans, and the Republicans weren't shy about claiming some kind of mystical-supermajority-status-that-can't-be-challenged-or-questioned during those years. So I might even have one more thing to say.

[MiniMe]

7. That was Barbara Boxer when Inhoff tried to act like he was the chairman of her committee

[TahitiNut]

14. Yes, but she was throwing McCain's words back into Inhofe's face.

Too many missed that context, imho, and took her words at face value and ignored the irony.

[MajorChode]

23. I doubt if even Inhofe got it

The man truly lives in his own fantasy world.

[TahitiNut]

24. Quite frankly, I don't think Inhofe is either smart enough or imaginative enough to have fantasies,

"Appetite" is more like it. :shrug: He's an imbecile.

[Joe Chi Minh]

9. Since when did Gingrich believe in fairness? Difficult to imagine any

American politician less likely to be associated with it.

[immoderate]

18. From Human Events? Isn't that a right wing rag?

I agree with you -- Gingrich is not associated with fair practices that I am aware of. I don't see how the Republicans could have been less accommodating when they were in charge. Sounds like intense whining to me.


--IMM

[Joe Chi Minh]

37. Human Events? Sorry. You lost me there.

[immoderate]

38. The OP references Human Events.

It's a conservative publication. I might be misreading it.

--IMM

[Joe Chi Minh]

39. No. I think someone else mentioned it, upthread.

[immoderate]

40. My eyes must be deceiving me then.

--IMM

[awoke_in_2003]

32. He believes in fairness...

in the same way that "War equals peace" or "freedom equals slavery"

[Joe Chi Minh]

41. And bombing villages is the way to save 'em from Commonism!

[Giant Robot]

5. Weren't these the same people

Cheering for the "nuclear option" when the Democrats were in the minority?

There's a lesson somewhere in this....

[RufusTFirefly]

8. Bon Cop/Bad Cop?

This is a fascinating development.

I'm hesitant to give Ms. "Impeachment is off the table" credit for anything, but could it be that Barack and Nancy are playing a little good cop/bad cop?

She wields the blackjack while Obama calls for bipartisanship and remains "presidential"?

[Froward69]

10. "Ill quote you

as being Misquoted"... Our friend and Philosopher ~ Groucho

I can see that too... I think it is dismantling/repairing conservative damage from the ground up.

[Joe Chi Minh]

11. I love that scenario. Must remain "presidential". I hope Barak gives Nance

a good ticking off!

[Gold Metal Flake]

12. "...amendments to Democrat bills..."

I like how they snuck that in there.

[whathehell]

13. Good on her!...It's about time the Dems started playing hardball

and not Tweety's kind!

[opihimoimoi]

15. Yup...good on her....Tear down that Newt contract...it was a failure....it cost him his job

[FriendlyReminder]

16. Screw 'em all. The people have spoken and they just need to deal with it.

[orleans]

17. okay--so i'll give her a bit of credit for this

unless it's too good to be true...

basically--i still can't stand her and her inaction.

[alfredo]

19. What Repiglican likened bipartisanship to date rape?

[ccinamon]

21. Grover Norquist

heres a link: http://www.thenation.com/blogs/bivens_outrage/699

[alfredo]

30. He's the one. Grrrrr

[MajorChode]

22. The pugs know as much about "fairness" as a pig knows about Sunday

When the rules are abused, they cease to be productive.

[crimsonblue]

25. Two things

First, this article is from a prototypical winger tabloid. Very little of what they print has any validity, verifiability, or relevance. I'm about 50/50 as to whether this reporting is anywhere close to accurate.

Second, iff this is true, I still doubt it. Pelosi has shown herself to be nothing short of worthless. She has hand-wrung herself numerous times and passed bullshit bill after bullshit bill. I do not believe she is mentally or physically capable of exercising good leadership. Everything she touches turns to shit. Pelosi needs to be ousted from the speaker position, and be replaced by Waxman or Wexler.

[sofa king]

26. Ahem. Just like the GOP did, 2003-2007?

http://www.yuricareport.com/Corruption/RogueRepublicanBillsUnconstitutional.htm
http://www.yuricareport.com/Corruption/RepublicanOneParty.html#anchor776970

Starting in 2003, the Republicans famously began excluding Democrats from the appropriations conference committee, the group which justifies the House and Senate versions of spending bills so that they match. They did the same with the energy bills of 2004 and 2005. They intentionally did not inform Democratic committee members about the times and locations of meetings and hearings, and happily chirped about "locking out" the Democrats.

Sometimes, the Republicans even paid off their buddies by inserting language after the bill was already passed.

In the meantime, the GOP has proven itself to be a criminal operation from top to bottom, and virtually every ill America suffers today was exacerbated by criminal Republican behavior when they ran amok during the darkest of the Bush Years. So yeah, a taste of their own medicine isn't only justifiable, it is goddamned effing necessary in order to run the criminals out and start to fix what ails America.

[Wednesdays]

29. Wasn't Conyers and others forced by the pugs to hold meetings in the basement?

I'd say they're getting off rather easy.

[calimary]

34. I'm glad. About time she started sticking it to them.

I STILL believe, firmly, in the "taste of their own medicine, see how they like it" school of management of republi-CON assholes. Maybe they should see how it is to be on the receiving end of the bully pulpit for awhile.

For myself, I do NOT see why we have to be so fucking conciliatory to them. Them? THEM of ALL people? THEY are the ones whose utterly fucked world view and policies and jerky, selfish, short-sighted, mean-spirited, greedy, deceitful political philosophy BROUGHT US TO THIS ABYSS. THEY gave us this colossal failure of a "pResident" - shoved him down our throats is more like it - and backed him to the hilt while he lied, stole, cheated, and repeatedly broke the law and violated the Constitution he swore on a Bible to PRESERVE, protect and defend. Just exactly what about the first verb in that trio did you not understand, george you rat-bastard fuckstick? In my mind, ANYONE with an "r" by their name should be told, firmly, to SHUT UP AND GO SIT DOWN OVER THERE IN THE CORNER AND QUIT BELLYACHING AND MAKING TROUBLE. They've HAD their turn. They've HAD it their way. They almost literally held guns to our heads and forced the issue for almost eight years!!!

And look where we are as a result. Look what they've done. Look at the results. Look at the proof that's in the pudding as far as the eye can see - around the whole world, even. It's the track record, stupid. After the track record they assembled over the last two terms, I don't think ANY of them has the right to say PEEP - about ANYTHING. They need to go to the BACK of the line, and STAY there and SHUT THE FUCK UP while we adults take charge once again and start to fix everything they've broken and otherwise royally fucked up. Seems to me they've forfeited ANY opportunity even to BURP without permission from some Democrat. I'm not the least bit interested in ANYTHING that a single one of them has to say about ANYTHING. And the Dems should take that attitude - en masse. Play bad cops so Obama can come along and throw them crumbs every so often and be good cop. Make 'em CRAWL and BEG and SUFFER.

[sofa king]

36. Hear, hear!

I completely agree with you. Generally I try to avoid "controlling the message," which is just a euphemism for dishonestly steering the debate. But in this case, it's a clear use of similar tactics to achieve exactly opposite objectives: the Republicans used them to break the law, defy the Constitution, and enrich their benefactors; the Democrats are waving the very same voodoo doll around in order to box out those same Republican criminals and try to fix what they screwed up.

The Democrats would be wise to make that distinction, clearly, but to do so they would have to actually admit that they are treating the Republicans as what they are: gangsters.

[Old and In the Way]

27. Basically, Pelosi is not going to let the Republican Obstructionists recommit legislation

back to committee where they can stonewall it. They are going to have make their change requests while the bills are on the floor. Sucks to be them.

[StreetKnowledge]

28. About Time!

The GOP whizzed all over us for six years. Guess what, suckas? Now the shoe is on the other foot, and we're gonna enjoy shoving it up your asses. Get used to it. You want to beat up on us? Guess what happens with us in charge......

[backscatter712]

31. Suck it, rethugs!

Reduce the rethug voice in the House, and we'll have far more bargaining power.

The rethugs in the Senate might be able to filibuster, but if anything is to be done at all, Senate bills must go through the House, and the House can demand concessions from the Rethugs.

[Fire Walk With Me]

33. " Gingrich Fairness Rules "

:rofl:

[Hawkowl]

35. I'm stunned

Did Pelosi receive a spine implant recently? Can we implant one in Reid?

[jmowreader]

42. Hang on for a second, I have a question about this freeper's post...

The only way we are going to be able to get anything done in the next two years is if we put a muzzle on the Republican Party. Even the Republicans know this, which is why they're so hell-bent against it.

The question is: you mean there's a problem with rendering the Republican minority inert?