Contempt for democracy
Senate Republicans throw a temper tantrum and gum up the machinery
Contempt for democracy
Dick Polman, Inquirer National Political Columnist
Earlier this week, several high-ranking military commanders, all of them currently assigned to U.S. Pacific Command, Strategic Command, and U.S. Forces Korea, boarded planes at their overseas posts and flew half way around the world so that they could testify in Washington yesterday at a long-scheduled readiness hearing conducted by the Senate Armed Services Committee.
The generals arrived on time, only to discover that they had wasted their time. The Senate hearing had been canceled.
Meanwhile, in preparation for a Senate Homeland Security subcommittee hearing, witnesses from the State Department, the Defense Department, and the Government Accountability Office had cleared their schedules to testify yesterday about an issue that's crucial to the U.S. war effort in Afghanistan: our training of the national Afghan police, and the need for greater oversight.
But this Senate hearing was canceled, too.
Meanwhile, the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee was conducting a session yesterday morning on a sensitive issue - homeless military veterans, and what can be done to help them - when the chairman was informed that the session had to be shut down, pronto, scarcely an hour after it had been convened.
These cancellations and disruptions (among others) were not precipitated by bad weather, or a power outage, or a busted water main, or a national emergency. They happened because the Republicans were behaving like toddlers.
Having failed to get their way on health reform, the losers threw a tantrum and refused to let the grownups get on with the everyday business of governing - actually for the second straight day, thus confirming the recent vow by John "Country First" McCain that there "will be no cooperation for the rest of the year."
It's very easy to gum up the Senate machinery out of sheer spite. By tradition, senators agree each day, via bipartisan "unanimous consent," to schedule their committee hearings throughout the day. But if somebody refuses to give their consent, a characteristically arcane Senate rule kicks in: no hearings can be conducted after 2 p.m., and all morning hearings have to be suspended two hours after the Senate has convened.
Senators have rarely invoked this rule, hewing instead to the daily courtesy of unanimous consent. That's the tradition, for both parties; way back in 1960, one political expert called it "institutional patriotism." More recently, Senate scholars Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein wrote wistfully of that bipartisan era: "Senators were intensely loyal to the Senate as an institution; they identified first as senators, rather than as partisans or through their ideology."
But this current Republican crew apparently has no qualms about trashing the place, even if it means undercutting military commanders and Afghan trainers and homeless veterans - all of whom they profess to care so much about. (If the situation was reversed, and the Democrats were pulling this kind of stunt, the GOP would have already assailed the Democrats for being "against the troops.") So why is the GOP pulling this stunt? As the Democratic chairwoman of the Homeland Security subcommittee lamented yesterday, "I don't get it."
Actually, it's not so hard to get. Grinding all this Senate business to a halt is a way for the party insiders to bond with their unhinged outsiders; it's the polite, parliamentary equivalent of screaming impolite epithets at Democratic House members.
Forcing the cancellation of various Senate military hearings, in the service of a hissy fit, is not remotely as visceral as vandalizing various congressional and Democratic party offices, or leaving death threats on a congressman's voicemail, or sending a picture of a hangman's noose to a black congressman, or cutting the propane gas line at the home of a congressman's brother, or threatening the families of congressmen, but it's precisely the same in one key respect. It's a contempt for democracy.
Dick was hoping for the Flash Mobs at Penn yesterday so he could go out there and embrace the exhuberant "youths" and let them know he's not a racist and has the brilliance to understand why they do it and that he's in "solidarity" with them.— tr88- The media noise machine is already cranked up to show the GOP as racists (a la the John Lewis 'n' word incident) violent (as in the brick thrown through Louise Slaughter's office window incident) and now, with Mr. Polman's dutiful assistance, childish. I can see that they are taking orders from the administration to make all opposition look like it emanated from the cesspool of ignorance, hatred and anti-americanism...well done, well done, fellows, David Axelrod is smiling...— Christine
- And by the way, dear "Yesinia, you lost, get over it": It is the constitution that lost with this travesty of a bill. Thank God for Tom Corbett and the other AGs who will pursue this matter through the courts...with our tax dollars! No better use for them.— Christine
- OK, cheese, riddle me this: If, as you say, the health care bill was "rammed through against the will of the people using lies, bribes and corruption," must that necessarily translate into contempt for the process? It appears that you and others suggest that it must. As Mr. Boehner said, "We need to take that anger and channel it into positive change." Please, someone, explain to me how legislative hissy fits translate into positive change. I understand John McCain, who is doing his best Mitt Romney as he tries to fight off a challenge from J.D. Hayworth. Everything he says is for the consumption of the Tea Partiers back home. But does the whole of the congressional GOP have to act this way. If the situations were reversed and the Democrats were in the minority, it would be equally reprehensible. Again, please explain how this is fair to anyone.— HeywoodEm
bags having a hissy fit himself— potus- Making it personal doesn't get anyone very far. That's what Congress is doing right now and look where it has gotten all of us.— HeywoodEm
- Christine - if it wasn't there, the media wouldn't have anything to show. It is what it is. Either denounces your party's reprehensible, criminal behavior or else your silence is tacit approval of it. Like Tom Perriello said - in this country, we handle our political grievances at the ballot box. Apparently today's GOP encourages violence and murder (Palin: take aim at Democrats). Who can justify or defend that, regardless of what congress passes in to law? Is this “Christine Flowers, the lawyer” who is advocated and defending such illegal violence?— LorettaL
- Or as John Dingell, House democrat from Michigan, said we "put the [health care] legislation together to control the people." Chew on that Polman. That is a contempt of democracy.— CD75
- This legislation was NOT "rammed" through. We debated the concepts in the 2008 election, a President and Congress was elected with strong support for passing legislation to cover the millions who have no health insurance, we then debated the legislation in BOTH houses extensively and modified extensively the final outcome. That is EXACTLY what governing is about. Granted our system of checks and balances is partly designed to prevent legislation that doesn't have support from passing -- but it DID have support, by millions and millions of Americans. Plus, it's a republic, not a democracy - sometimes the leaders we elect have to make decisions and implement laws for the "general welfare" that aren't popular with broad swaths of the population - the Iraq war, Civil Rights legislation, the Savings and Loan recovery acts from the early 90s and the economic recovery actions of 2008 (Bush administration, Republican Congress) and 2009 (Obama administration, Democrat Congress). Popular rule just ends up having people vote themselves all the benefits they want and forbidding anyone from taxing them to get it - See California.— brian201
- It's mind boggling that the republicans have to resort to these kinds of antics. When did ensuring the health of your citizens become a bad thing? Why is our country the only large, "civilized" country that doesn't have some system of universal healthcare? Public opinion has spoken republicans, stop pretending you speak for the rest of us. If we wanted you to be in charge we wouldn't have elected Obama and co. And please stop moaning about being lied to, I think that train left the station one "Mission Accomplished" ago.— phillyczech
- Sarah: You bring up the point about cost. And it's a valid point. Question: If it meant that everyone in this country had access to affordable health care, would you (the collective; not personally) pay higher taxes? Or would you agree to a rollback of income tax brackets to Reagan-era levels? Or Nixon-era levels? Or Eisenhower-era levels?— HeywoodEm
dude, bag, your guys lost. When they had power (remember the 'permanent majority) they could have tried to fix helathcare, instead they elimnated low intrest college loans, and started wars. Everyone has thier priorities. So dude, bag, get on with your life. Or leave the country, loser.- Speaking of contempt for democracy---now that Congress has passed the healthcare bill, has Pelosi let them see it?— Falls Ed
- I don't care what side you're on in terms of the health care bill, you can take that up in a legislative way. But shutting down the Senate when people who had nothing to do with that bill have flown half-way around the world to attend a meeting is just plain rude. This is what our country has devolved into. It truly sickens me.— NigeltheMastiff
- sarah, what are you doing after the blog? I think i'm smitten:)— NEPhilly
Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.
ARCHIVES
All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.
- American Spectator
- David Limbaugh
- Free Republic
- Glenn Reynolds
- Hugh Hewitt
- Human Events
- John Hawkins
- Matt Lewis
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Opinion Journal
- Power Line
- Red State
- The Brody File
- The Daily Caller
- Town Hall
- Weekly Standard
- Center for American Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- Daily Kos
- David Corn
- Huffington Post
- Media Matters
- Mojoblog (Mother Jones)
- Open Left
- Political Animal
- Salon's War Room
- Talking Points Memo
- Tapped
- The Democratic Strategist
- The Grey Matter
- Unclaimed Territory
- Andrew Sullivan
- Attytood
- Chi Tribune's The Swamp
- CJR's Campaign Desk
- CNN's Political Ticker
- CQ Politics
- FactCheck.org
- Gail Collins
- Howard Kurtz
- Mickey Kaus
- NBC's First Read
- Obit
- Political Wire
- Politico
- Politics Daily
- Pollster.com
- Real Clear Politics
- The Atlantic Wire
- The Fix
- The Moderate Voice
- The Plank
- USA Today On Politics
- Wonkette
