Which came first: the Bush Dogs or House Dem leadership policy?

by: skeptic06

Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 15:25

(The (bipartisan) Incumbents Preservation Act - including gerrymanders and campaign contributions - means that, failing an earthquake, most reps have a job for life. You don't hear too many complaints about that from those in situ.)

But placing the activities of particular reps in the context of the activities and strategy of the Dem House party as a whole is also necessary - and not as a piece of special pleading or attempt at exculpating particular reps.

Yesterday, Mike Lux figured the Bush Dog thing as a balancing act - which, I think, is not a bad metaphor.

He was thinking of the balance to be struck between maintaining (hopefully, boosting) Dem majorities in the 111th and moving the ideology of Congressional legislation leftwards.

I'd say it also applies in considering the role of the Bush Dogs (and other reps whose policy preferences don't match those of the lefty sphere generally) in relation to the priorities of the House Dem leadership.

(The main exception is the discharge petition; but its success rate is tiny.)

On important bills, the Rules Committee (under the Speaker's control) decides exactly how legislation is dealt with on the floor. It can bar all amendments, even amendments proposed via a motion to recommit.

In this way, the House maj leadership has almost complete negative agenda control.

Its control does not, of course, extend to actually passing legislation.

Usually, bills that will not pass are not brought to the floor. Sometimes, bills are brought to the floor to demonstrate that there is no majoritiy for them.

And, on occasion, a bill which commands a majority is taken as a suspension (requiring a 2/3 majority to pass) where the leadership wishes to get an expression of opinion, but not see the bill enacted.

Which brings us to the FISA Farrago. (Earlier pieces here, here and here.)

Now, as every third grader knows, the Founding Fathers drew up a Constitution requiring a high degree of unanimity among the nation's governors before the legal status quo could be changed.

Thus, Congress's  power of the purse. And thus, Bush's need (however pretextual) for Congress to come across with a revision to the FISA legislation.

The Dems in Congress can pass nothing over Bush's veto; but neither can he do more than plead for the legislation he wants.

One side needs a quo, the other side (usually) demands a quid.

Bush asked for the FISA tweak - and the Dems gave it to him for nothing (that I can see).

Strictly playing Devil's Advocate, I ask: how is that the Bush Dogs' fault?

Much has been made of the BDs giving the Dem leadership the excuse of saying we haven't got the votes, thereby undermining any possibility of a leadership stance likely to impress lefty spheroids.

In the case of the FISA tweak, those BD votes came in mighty handy, for a leadership that had already decided to comply with Bush's demand.

It was already a foregone conclusion on the Friday (August 3) that, if it passed any FISA bill, the Senate would pass S 1927 (rather than the Levin bill S 2011).

Therefore, either the House leadership would have no issue to deal with on FISA (if the Senate failed to pass either bill) or it would be put on the spot, in bringing S 1927 to the floor on the Saturday.

If the House failed to pass S 1927, a confrontation with Bush would be triggered all recess long and into the following (Black Hole of Calcutta-like) session.

My belief is that the House leadership would not have thought that would be a terribly productive use of the recess.

They, like the Senate leadership, had their own bill (HR 3356), as well as S 1927, to put forward for a vote.

If HR 3356 passed, that would put the House leadership in something of a pickle: either the House would go on to vote for S 1927 as well (somewhat contradictory, but then, so is politics!) or it would reject S 1927, which would mean no bill before the recess.

The leadership knew they were safe on S 1927 - they just had to neuter HR 3356. (Like I said, not vital but - tidier.)

So - they take HR 3356 as a suspension. That way, any Dem who wants to can vote in favor, and the bill still won't pass!

On S 1927, the function of the Bush Dogs from the leadership's viewpoint was to pass the bill, and at the same time allow as many Dems as wanted to do so the luxury of voting against it.

Not that I'm suggesting that the BDs were doing the leadership any kind of favor with their votes, or that there was any chance that most of their votes might have gone the other way.

But - those votes were instrumental in achieving a leadership objective.

Now, as I wrote on Wednesday, Nancy is badmouthing the bill she had passed and proposing corrective action.

(Yup, Bush is going to sign that bill.)

But - passage of S 1927 is entirely consistent with the Dem strategy of non-confrontation with Bush on national security that has been evident from the start in its handling of Iraq measures.