Gregg Slams Democracy as “Strong-Arm Tactics”
The country faces some large problems. Some of these problems the U.S. Senate may, but also may not, address through the budget reconciliation process that allows for majority rule. Since the congress is afflicted by a minority that seems dedicated to not working on these problems, there’s growing interest in using the reconciliation process. Judd Gregg is displeased:
Republicans are howling about the proposal to expand health coverage and tax greenhouse gas emissions without their input, warning that it could irrevocably damage relations with the new president.
“That would be the Chicago approach to governing: Strong-arm it through,” said Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), who briefly considered joining the Obama administration as commerce secretary. “You’re talking about the exact opposite of bipartisan. You’re talking about running over the minority, putting them in cement and throwing them in the Chicago River.”
Two things. One is that it’s not at all clear how “irrevocably damage[d] relations” would differ from the status quo. This is one reason, perhaps, why it’s not customary for a defeated minority to immediately move to a posture of relentless obstruction. By adopting such a posture, you give away a bargaining chip.
Second, the idea that passing legislation my majority rule is some kind of mafia stunt is absurd. This is how bills pass in the House of Representatives, in the parliaments of the United Kingdom and Canada, in the state legislatures of the vast majority of American states. It’s how student council worked in my high school. It’s how New Hampshire town councils make decisions. You’re not talking about “running over” the minority, you’re talking about taking a vote in which the majority wins and the minority loses. That’s how we pick Senators! Judd Gregg doesn’t need 60 percent of the vote to stay in office.
35 Responses to “Gregg Slams Democracy as “Strong-Arm Tactics””
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
March 18th, 2009 at 10:55 am
Republicans are howling about the proposal to expand health coverage and tax greenhouse gas emissions without their input, warning that it could irrevocably damage relations with the new president.
Given that a total of zero Republican in the House voted for the stimulus, what would be worse relations exactly? A negative amount of votes?
Those clowns make absolutely no sense.
March 18th, 2009 at 11:00 am
How much of Obama’s really contentious policies (climate change, health care) would fall under budget reconciliation? You still need 60 votes to wave an objection which is a de facto vote on the policy. Unless you’re actually arguing these policies qualify under budget reconciliation, which would be absurd, you’re going to need 60 votes.
March 18th, 2009 at 11:10 am
This (passing laws with a majority vote) is how bills pass in the House of Representatives, in the parliaments of the United Kingdom and Canada, in the state legislatures of the vast majority of American states. It’s how student council worked in my high school. It’s how New Hampshire town councils make decisions.
It’s also how almost every single bill passed the United States Senate, until very recently, when Republican Filibuster Inflation turned the 60-vote requirement from a rate event brought out only in the most dramatic circumstances to the day-to-day order of business.
March 18th, 2009 at 11:11 am
One point of correction, Matt.
The larger cities of New Hampshire may have town councils, but all the smaller ones have Selectmen. And apparently, having watched a few meetings on public access when I lived there, they don’t do majority rule. They do wakefulness rule. Every meeting I’ve seen is an exercise in parliamentary minutia until the last Selectmen still awake after a two hour debate over proper Robert’s interpretation get’s to make the rule.
Swear to GSD I once watched them debate whether a particular motion should contain a definite or indefinite article for an hour and I turned it off still having no idea what the issue at hand was.
March 18th, 2009 at 11:13 am
You’re talking about running over the minority, putting them in cement and throwing them in the Chicago River.
The bodies go in the lake, Judd.
March 18th, 2009 at 11:18 am
Adolphus,
I assumed Matt meant “Town Meetings,” and just doesn’t know the terminology.
Since Town Councils and Boards of Selectmen are both executive boards, and he’s talking about passing laws, and he had previously listed a bunch of legislative bodies in that list, he clearly meant the legislative body in New Hampshire towns, the Town Meeting.
March 18th, 2009 at 11:27 am
Anyone else want to join me in donating cement?
March 18th, 2009 at 11:28 am
It makes sense that Republicans who insist on Herbert Hoover fiscal policy would fixate on Herbert Hoover era Chicago. Try hitting fast forwarding your ideas 80 or so years and join the rest of America in the 21st Century.
Note: I’ve heard Mainers tell jokes about building a bridge off the coast of the Atlantic so they wouldn’t have to go through New Hampshire to drive to Massachusetts. I never really understood what was so bad about NH but hearing Judd Gregg ramble on I can see why avoiding that kind of odious bullshit would merit a giant public works program.
March 18th, 2009 at 11:28 am
The other silly thing about Senator Gregg’s remark is that Chicago politics is about reconciling a multiplicity of interests. There’s a little something for everyone. Our characteristic vice is corruption, not strong-arm tactics. Obviously there are counter-examples, but as a rule the machine thrives by trying to be everyone’s friend. Do you need a job, a zoning variance, a bike lane, a parade permit? Don’t count on getting everything you want, but city government wants you to be happy. I suspect the only thing Gregg knows about Chicago, or perhaps the only thing he thinks his constituents know, is Sean Connery’s speech in The Untouchables.
March 18th, 2009 at 11:30 am
It’s cute how they use names of American cities as epithets. “San Francisco” means gay and “Chicago” means criminal.
March 18th, 2009 at 11:33 am
When in reality Spike, Chicago is way more gay than SF.
March 18th, 2009 at 11:35 am
More to the point isn’t this the same guy who applied to, and was accepted for, the ObaTeam?
Barry, Barry, Barry…
March 18th, 2009 at 11:37 am
This is a case I’ve brought up before, and it seems relevant here.
March 18th, 2009 at 11:39 am
Spike – So true.
Add “New York” means Jew. “Disneyland” means the 330,000 people in Anaheim. “Las Vegas” is means sin. “Hollywood” means gay, Jew, and elite.
March 18th, 2009 at 11:43 am
Once again, a Republican disparages millions of people by insinuating that they are corrupt by virtue of their locality. Chicago may have a reputation, popularized by mediocre Oscar snuff, and it’s one we may often speak of with ironic pride. But in the discourse of actual, live politics, it’s terrible form to disparage a city where millions live. If a northern Democrat were to refer to some place in the South as having racial problems (a well-documented fact of American political history), he would be raked over the coals. But you can hate all you want on a major American city, so long as it’s in not in the former Confederacy and is reliably Democratic. Oh, and never ever say a bad word about rural or small-town America. Nothing untoward ever happens there. It’s only big-city folks that are reliably sinful, degenerate, and corrupt.
The closest thing I’ve seen to tolerating this kind of discourse coming from the other direction was calling W a cowboy. But given his taste in haberdashery and his well-publicized brush-clearin’ sessions, he invited that comparison (though I’ve seen no evidence that he knows how to ride a horse).
March 18th, 2009 at 11:44 am
““That would be the Chicago approach to governing: Strong-arm it through,” said Sen. Judd Gregg”
If only. Obama needs to tap his inner Daley a little more often. Although, as Paul noted above, we prefer to co-opt, rather than run over (or dump in the river?!) political enemies in the City That Works.
March 18th, 2009 at 11:46 am
“(though I’ve seen no evidence that he knows how to ride a horse)”
Although, according to his wife, Bush does know how to jerk one off.
March 18th, 2009 at 11:47 am
Once again, a Republican disparages millions of people by insinuating that they are corrupt by virtue of their locality.
Remember Sarah Palin’s constant whining about how Democrats were attacking “Real America?”
Everything Republicans accuse Democrats of, they are either doing themselves and attempting to cover their tracks, or they intend to do, and are attempting to head off criticism.
EG, “I know you can’t criticize anything about Obama without being called a racist, but…” is almost always followed by something racist – which will, itself, be followed by an accusation that Obama and his supporters are playing the race card.
March 18th, 2009 at 11:49 am
I want to know what Gregg thinks about running over the minority in the California prop 8 vote.
March 18th, 2009 at 11:50 am
“That would be the Chicago approach to governing: Strong-arm it through,” said Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), who briefly considered joining the Obama administration as commerce secretary. “You’re talking about the exact opposite of bipartisan. You’re talking about running over the minority, putting them in cement and throwing them in the Chicago River.”
Ummm…OK?
March 18th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
I happen to live within the city limits of Chicago (near Northside). I actually like it very much. Sure, it’s got its problems like every major city, and the potholes get pretty bad around this time of year, but for the most part, things run pretty smoothly. I have no problem with Obama using the Chicago approach to governing.
March 18th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Re “You’re talking about running over the [Republican] minority, putting them in cement and throwing them in the Chicago River.”
————–
I’m confused –why would this be a bad thing?
March 18th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
Didn’t Clinton and McCain already try the Chicago pol shtick? It’s like an endless loop of moranic talking points.
10 Socialist
15 terrorist
20 Muslim
25 Chicago
30 Goto 10
Committed by swarthy papists. I’m sure this will be an effective line of attack against Al Smith.
March 18th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
Can someone explain to me why Judd Gregg was ever the nominee for Official Administration Jizz Mopper, let alone Secretary of Commerce?
March 18th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
Everything Republicans accuse Democrats of, they are either doing themselves and attempting to cover their tracks, or they intend to do, and are attempting to head off criticism.
====================================================
And vice versa
March 18th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
the idea that passing legislation my majority rule is some kind of mafia stunt
===========================================================
I was going to point this out as another typo, but it is “your” majority now!
March 18th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Think of the pollution, man- and just when they’ve been trying to clean the river up a little bit!
March 18th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
LaBonne,
How about this:
March 18th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Judd Gregg seems to be enjoying his new role as Deputy Senate GOP Asshole, though being understudy to Jim DeMint can’t be that great.
March 18th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Now we’re talking. And since these people are already thoroughly rotten, composting would take much less time than usual!
March 18th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
so, in other words, we can expect gregg and his party to consult democrats and get their input before nominating the next GOP presidential candiate?
When republicans offer NO VOTES on Obama initiatives that then PASS (despite acknowledging his sincere efforts to include them), they get no future consultations as they have shown that they are irrelelvant to the process.
March 18th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
All we are saying, is give pieces a chance.
April 9th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
The style of writing is quite familiar to me. Have you written guest posts for other blogs?