Centerfield

If that really is Hastert's position, it is remarkably short-sighted and highly partisan.

I really wish our Representatives would remember that they are supposed to represent the people NOT their party or special interests! Vain and foolish wish, I suppose, in today's political climate...

The Speaker, as presiding officer of the House, should be aware of the precedents of the House. The Speaker is an officer of the whole House, not the majority party. In fact, Republican Speaker Joseph Cannon was nearly removed in 1910 when insurgent Republicans united with Democrats. A resolution declaring vacant the office of the Speaker is a question of the highest constitutional privilege, and passes by a majority of the members of the House, not a majority of the members of his party. See 6 Cannon's Precedents of the House of Representatives of the United States Sec. 35.

While it would be a drastic thing to do, Speaker Hastert should be aware that it is certainly within the power of the majority of the House, and not the House Republican Conference, to deprive him of the power to obstruct their legislation.

People with small and narrow minds tend to think this way.

I know very little about Hastert, but if this is a window into his political philosophy then I don't like what I see. I will write and tell him that if he wants this moderate independent to even consider voting for Republicans in coming elections he had better become more statesmanlike than this.

Sounds a bit like John C. Calhoun's antebellum notion of a concurrent majority.

The Washington Post says the legislation is "scuttled", misleading readers into thinking that there is no chance of intelligence reform any time soon.

The article omits the key fact that another bill soon comes up for a vote again in less than two weeks, when the house returns to session on Dec 6th.

The article also neglects to mention the legitimate concerns which brought down the previous bill, concerns that it may put the lives of soldiers at risk by going to far in limiting their ability to use real-time military intelligence. There were also concerns about unaddressed urgent immigration security loopholes, like those used by islamic terrorists to perform attrocities on 9/11.

It's quite possible the upcoming bill will be better for national security and America, if so perhaps a two week wait was a good thing. Senators and media portraying legitimate concerns as pure politics, just poisons the air against a rapid and good solution.

Susan,

Scuttling in the nautical sense means to open the hull of a vessel to allow it to sink. That's what the Speaker apparently did to this legislation: he allowed it to sink. The truth is not misleading. It may have been an omission not to disclose that alternative legislation may be considered anew, in which case the omission, not the verb choice, may have been misleading.

In any event, the post here was not about the intelligence reform legislation, but about the Speaker's policy of obstructing legislation for which there's bipartisan support. If the policy is real, it is another example of "majority-within-majority" minority obstructionism. 125 votes is a majority in a 231-member party caucus, but not in a 435-member House. For that matter, it takes 145 members to stop a constitutional amendment from passing with a 2/3s majority or to suspend the rules and pass a bill. Under this alleged Hastert Doctrine, as few as 116 members, a majority of the 231-member House Republican Conference in the 109th Congress, would effectively wield a veto through the Speaker's power to schedule legislation. (For example, clause 5(c) of old Rule X, now clause 2(c) of new Rule XII, allows the Speaker to refer legislation to committees sequentially, ad inifinitum, with each referral requiring an additional committee report or floor motion to discharge.)

"[T]he Speaker of the House is the servant of the House. . . ." 8 Cannon's Precedents of the House of Representatives of the United States Sec. 3383.

I'm curious...does anyone actually think that moderate Republicans will align with Democrats to oust Hastert?

I just don't see that happening.

Even if Hastert is scuttling bipartisan legislation...the backhand of the DeLay Republicans is sure and swift. I can't see moderates putting up much of a fight.

Carla, I am also watching moderates to see how they'll react. For now, I share your view point. They could be waiting for the most effective moment to take a stand.

I doubt if there will be a movement to remove Hastert. He is, after all, quite in sync with the prevailing GOP governing philosophy of win at all costs. And he -- along with DeLay and Rove -- hopes to be building a foundation for a long-term majority.

The national GOP has adopted an approach to governing more appropriate to parliamentary systems than our American constitutional republic. They have become our RULING PARTY for the immediate future.

Susan,

You are quite right. However, a cursory reading will reveal that those issues were not the topic of the post, although they certainly deserve discussion.

Sadly, reading things in the WaPo only raises questions, for me anyway. I wonder what the true story might be. I mean, this might be the whole and true story- you just never know.

Not to defend Hastert, whom I think is an idiot, but let's face it, regardless of the formal duties of the Speaker, it has become a partisan position. Do you think Tip O'Neill didn't operate to advance the Democratic agenda. While the Republicans are probably going somewhat farther than Democrats did, I have no doubt that, in the same position, the Democrats would be trying to marginalize the Republicans. That's not to defend it, but the problem is not the partisanship of the GOP per se, but the size of the GOP majority in Congress. If the parties were more equally balanced, it would be harder for the GOP to try some of these tricks. Carla's point about GOP moderates is important. Whoever the majority party is, there is a lot of pressure for those members to go along. So, even though one might vote for a Republican moderate because you want to encourage the moderates within the party, those people will always be subject to party discipline to some extent. You can't really expect them to cross the party leadership consistently. That's why, as long as the GOP has a significant margin in Congress, GOP moderates aren't really a solution. They can play a balancing role between relatively equally balanced factions, but their influence in a situation where the GOP has a substantial majority (even if it is not filibuster proof) is bound to be more limited as long as the party can bring pressure on them.

MWS;

"They can play a balancing role between relatively equally balanced factions, but their influence in a situation where the GOP has a substantial majority (even if it is not filibuster proof) is bound to be more limited as long as the party can bring pressure on them. "

There's the rub. If they're risk takers (or pushed far enough) they then have significant power. That party pressure may backfire.

Chris,

My point is that you have to look at these people, no matter how well intentioned, in terms of their political self-interest. As the party becomes more powerful and thus more able to punish transgressors from the party line, even the most well-intentioned politician is going to think twice about crossing the GOP leadership. No politician is going to be a risk-taker just for the sake of taking risks. He or she is going to have to see some expectation of benefit. Granted, politicians are likely to depart from the party line on issues in which they perceive the party to be way out of line with their particular district or state. But on issues where there is not a strong counterpressure, they are likely to go along with the party because it's simply easier and they will feel some obligation to support the party when they can. I just think the GOP moderates will have much less influence in a Congress where the GOP majority is much larger.

Tip whipped Democrats pretty hard (having been a whip himself) but as I recall, he got along well enough with Rhodes and Michel when they were Republican leaders. I seem to remember one budget vote in the 1980s when Charlie Stenholm nearly sank the leadership's budget by hiding and not voting--Tip held the vote open for some god-awful length of time so the whip's office could find Stenholm and make him vote. In fact, that may have been the time they adjourned and reconvened to create a new legislative day on the same calendar day so they could resubmit the budget for a new vote. Old Tip new the rules, and a guy who knows the rules is tough to beat--unlike the current House leadership, who seem to like making up new rules as they go along. There are a lot of days I miss Bob Michel and wish he hadn't retired to give Newt Gingrich the speaker's gavel. But that's going back a way.

Just to build on what JD is saying, Tip also got along really well with Reagan. Both men used to discuss how they'd have dinner/drinks together in the evenings sometimes.

Hastert is very narrow minded. He constantly says moronic things. Amazing he used to be a teacher.

Here is an older entry where I discuss this clown
http://withoutaparty.blogspot.com/2004/09/hastert-batting-3rd-in-lineup.html

The only reason to try something like this, is if they want to try to pass things that no moderate person would ever agree to.