Being out of power really is making the Dems loony. Of course, they were in power for so long they still can't quite get used to the idea that they're no longer the majority party, and they continue to believe that they were entitled to rule forever. Even nine years after losing the House, they still don't know how to act like a minority and behave themselves.

Sheesh.

This might be symptomatic, or it might be basic. I think it's basic: a Democratic need to pick a fight that will allow them to take a Moral High Ground stance. Since there are precious few issues that offer that opportunity to the Democrats at this time, and the public has rebuffed them stingingly about the war, they're getting cranky and irrational.

2004 is going to be one hell of an interesting election.

I'll take the dissenting view: it's entirely appropriate to be angry at being forced into a vote on legislation you haven't had a chance to read. The Dems may be having trouble adjusting to minority status, but the other side of the coin is that the Repubs are having trouble adapting to majority status. DeLay in particular is systematically making enemies where he doesn't have to, and it will come back to haunt him.

You think the Democrats never did that to Republicans, Andrew? People in congress rarely read the legislation they vote on anyway. Do you think they read the budget? I can tell you they don't. If they're lucky, their staffers do.

This is just donkeys whining and having a tantrum while being treated no worse than they ever treated the elephants when they themselves were in power for decades.

I especially liked the part in which "each side accused the other of debasing Congress as an institution." Imagine!

...debasing Congress as an institution...

Yes, shocking and unimaginable. Why it's almost as unthinkable as debasing the Jerry Springer Show as an institution. Of course, if Jerry wins election to the Senate next year, there may be little difference.

Regarding the anonymous followup to my comment: No, of course I don't think the Dems never did that to the Reps, nor is there anything in what I wrote that would justify that inference. The issue is whether the Dems have reasons to be pissed, and they do, just as the Reps had reason to be pissed when the Dems pulled this kind of BS. Listen, you have two choices: either tit for tat or take the high road. If tit for tat, there is nothing wrong with what the Dems did, since that's the sort of thing the Reps did when Dems pulled this kind of crap. If take the high road, then it's the Reps who are in the wrong, since they were the ones who attempted to prevent reading of the bill, called the cops on the dems (which, incidentally, they had no right to do), and forced an end to the reading of the bill without consent of the Dem who was still present (which is a violation of House procedures). There you have it: either it's no big deal because everybody does it, or the Republicans are in the wrong for violating House rules, calling in police when they had no business to do so, and forcing a vote on legislation which members (or their staffs) hadn't had a chance to read. The Democrat's offense is simply a bit of political grandstanding to bring attention to the rules violation.

Ideally, our elected representatives would act like adults, but if they don't it's unreasonable to place the blame solely on one party unless that party really is solely to blame, and in this case, it's unambiguously a bipartisan cess pit.

Regarding the point about reading the legislation: So what? if the rules say you get to have it read before you vote, then that's what they say. The Chair of the committee chose to act in violation of the rules, as other Republican House members have admitted. The good news coming out of this story is that there are some Republicans who are speaking out against an obvious abuse by members of their own party. That's taking the high road, and it's exactly what we should demand of our leaders.

Sorry, the (accidentally) anonymous posting was mine.

And I should add, Andrew, that my point was that when the donkeys were doing these kinds of things, and worse, to the elephants, I don't recall the latter engaging in these kinds of antics.

Until Newt Gingrich came along, they knew their place... ;-)

> The Chair of the committee chose to act in
> violation of the rules, as other Republican
> House members have admitted. The good news
> coming out of this story is that there are some
> Republicans who are speaking out against an
> obvious abuse by members of their own party.

Sounds like the smart thing to do. Indeed, it seems Thomas has offered a tearful apology.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37469-2003Jul23.html?nav=hptop_tb

Ways and Means Chairman Apologizes to House


By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 24, 2003; Page A01

Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas (R-Calif.) tearfully apologized on the House floor yesterday for asking Capitol Police officers to evict Democrats from a committee room Friday, as Republicans worked to quell bad publicity stemming from the fracas.

The extraordinary public admission -- Thomas broke down in tears as he addressed a hushed chamber usually reserved for policy debates and state speeches -- capped a week of quiet damage control by GOP leaders. Furious at the thought of handing Democrats a public relations win, top Republicans have spent hours in closed-door meetings lecturing senior members on proper decorum.