It's become clear that under the curernt system of Calvinball for Republicans, parliamentary procedure is simply artifice. I never heard of motions to recommit until the Democrats took the House; all I heard, from high level officials even, was how the Republicans had the majority and that was all that mattered. If Democrats won, liberals would have committee chairmanships and the Speaker's gavel, and be able to set the agenda. Yet, now we frequently hear the words 'motion to recommit', which is apparently a new and fearsome procedural roadblocks to Democratic efforts to pass legislation. Something similar is true in the Senate, where it now suddenly takes 60 votes to pass anything, though it did not prior to 2007.
The rules are simply a crutch for members who don't want to pass good laws and don't want to stop bad ones. The question is not about rules, but about how willing members are to make it uncomfortable for other members they have to see every day. That's why Here's Atrios has a good suggestion for Chris Dodd and the telecom bill.
[Dodd] can put a hold on this, and then take the case to the public. I don't know why Democrats think they need to stand with Mr. 24%, but it's time for other Democrats to make them defend why they feel the need to do so.There's a kind of "everything is a behind closed doors deal" from which a compromise emerges dynamic, which is fine when it achieves something but not fine when it fails.
Dodd would infuriate some of his colleagues in the Senate, and they would retaliate. But over time, as other liberals stepped up and used these procedures in very high profile ways, the culture of institution would change to one more conducive to civil liberties.
STATE BLOGS
