The House Rules Committee. People usually call this one of the most important House committees out there, which is in my opinion untrue: it simply is the most important House committee. The reason that I say that is because the Rules committee has ultimate control over how and in what way a bill is presented and debated; add that to its ability to dictate appropriate amendments leads to an effective result of Rules being the gatekeeper for House legislation. The membership is deliberately skewed heavily in favor of the majority party (currently over two-to-one), and majority party membership on that Committee is at the discretion of the Speaker of the House. In other words, if a Member of Congress disapproves of the way that the Rules Committee operates, the only way to show disapproval is to vote for somebody else for Speaker of the House.
The Democratic vote to re-elect Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House for the 111th Congress was 255 For, 1 Not Voting. Every action – and every flawed piece of legislation – that made it past the Rules Committee since then is thus the responsibility of those 255 Members of Congress who authorized giving control of the American legislative agenda to Speaker Pelosi.
And that is why there is no such thing as a “conservative” Democratic politician. That first vote defines all the rest.
Moe Lane
Crossposted to Moe Lane.
Steve Maley
KnightsofMalta
I'm not so sure I buy this argument.
jeffreywturner (Diary) Thursday, May 13th at 1:18PM EST (link)Don’t get me wrong, I think you are right that there are no conservative Dems left in Congress, but not for this reason.
The reason I say this is because of the implication of this argument on RINO’s.
If you are going to say that voting for Pelosi as Speaker automatically makes you liberal, then you have to say that voting for Boehner automatically makes you conservative. Accordingly, all of the liberal Republicans who voted for cap & raid, etc. can get off saying “hey, I voted for Boehner to be Speaker, what more do you want”.
Don’t you remember that this was the argument Specter always used over in the Senate? He used to say he was a loyal Republican simply because he caucused with them. His favorite line was “the most important vote you will ever take is the organizational vote”.
I am not trying to let these blue-dog/lap-dog Dems off the hook, I am just saying this isn’t a fair argument, unless you are willing to let RINO’s make the inverse argument, and I am not.
“Life is too short, can’t we all just eat pork and kill some terrorists?”
Which is why he's right
Neil Stevens (Diary) Thursday, May 13th at 1:39PM EST (link)The RiNO argument is way overblown most of the time.
RiNO is like Neocon. People tend not to use it any correct or meaningful way but to refer to somebody the speaker disagrees with.
RS contributing editor, technical administrator, and “a hardy variety of crabgrass.”
Read the RedState Posting Rules
Unlikely Voter: Poll Analysis, Election Projection.
“I rejoice that America has resisted.” – William Pitt, the Elder
I disagree, obviously.
Moe Lane (Diary) Thursday, May 13th at 1:39PM EST (link)It would be reasonable for a Democratic voter to not vote for a liberal Republican for the same reasons that a Republican voter should not vote for a conservative Democrat: the parties are divided on ideological lines, and that’s the way it is. But nothing in that post argues that a Democrat /Republican should not expect more than the bare minimum of liberal / conservative voting from the appropriate Members of Congress.
The Kim Kardashian of blogging.
Check out my blog at http://moelane.com/.
http://moelane.com/filthy-lucre-filthy-lucre/
http://twitter.com/moelane
My (combined) wish list.
So, can we call the liberal Republicans liberals?
jeffreywturner (Diary) Thursday, May 13th at 2:06PM EST (link)n/t
“Life is too short, can’t we all just eat pork and kill some terrorists?”
Not enough As in AaaaaaaaaMEN!!!!
E Pluribus Unum (Diary) Thursday, May 13th at 1:58PM EST (link)Which is why a party switch is considered so traitorious — by either side. It is also why the question of ‘Who would Charlie Crist caucus with’ is an item that deserves a public commitment, long before election day.
Kill the Terrorists
Protect the Borders
Punch the Hippies h/t IMAO
hahahaha
jeffreywturner (Diary) Thursday, May 13th at 2:09PM EST (link)You want a commitment from Charlie Crist on something?
That would be worth about as much as wooden nickel.
“Life is too short, can’t we all just eat pork and kill some terrorists?”
Well, not so much "want" a commitment from Crist
E Pluribus Unum (Diary) Friday, May 14th at 1:27PM EST (link)I just want him to go on record well before an election as to who en intends to caucus with. Not that I would ever believe him.
But it goes like this:
–If he states publicly that he is an indie who will caucus with the Repubs, then the bulk of all those Democrats who are polling for him now will run straight back to Meeks. It’s likely he would pilfer some votes from Rubio (possibly even enough to split the vote and get Meeks in), but Crist would come in a sad third place.
–If he states publicly he is an indie who will caucus with the Dems, then he splits the Dem vote, probably coming in second behind Rubio.
If he states a commitment either way (regardless of which), he has no chance of winning. If he keeps his mouth shut, he’ll be widely reviled for it, but might have a chance to win in the general.
Kill the Terrorists
Protect the Borders
Punch the Hippies h/t IMAO