The Democratic Party Could Do A Public Service

Filed in National by on April 27, 2010

We’ve all been watching recently the slow and painful progress of the financial reform bill. Yesterday the Republicans hung together to block debate from even beginning on the Senate bill. Mitch McConnell used his usual dishonesty in explaining why Republicans were blocking the bill:

“A vote for cloture is a vote that says, ‘We’re done listening to the American people on this issue.’ … A vote against ending this debate tonight is a vote that says it’s no longer enough to tell our constituents to trust us. It’s a vote that says this time, we’ll prove it.”

In Mitch McConnell world, starting debate is actually ending debate. Republicans want more time to try to make backroom deals to weaken the bill at the behest of their banker buddies. At the same time they criticize Democrats for backroom deals and lack of transparency. Meanwhile they bash Democrats for being partisan while hanging that bipartisan deal just out of reach. Oh, and McConnell said they should start all over too.

I wish Democrats would really call their bluff. Open the whole process to public scrutiny. I mean the whole process, from writing of the bill to the actual debate, open to cameras and the public. That way, there would be no backroom deals, all the deals would be done under public scrutiny and it would be a learning experience for all Americans. I, for one, would love to see who the lobbyists are the come in and try to influence how the bill is written. There’s a reason these are behind closed doors right now – it’s because they don’t want you to see what happens in the bill-writing process. That’s all the more reason to want to see it. In general, what happens behind closed doors doesn’t make the bill stronger, it makes the bill move toward lobbyist interest and away from the people’s interest.

My fear is that their are too many old-style wheelers-and-dealers still in the Democratic caucus to even consider an idea like this. It’s an idea whose time may come someday.

Tags: , ,

About the Author ()

Opinionated chemist, troublemaker, blogger on national and Delaware politics.

Comments (6)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. P.Schwartz says:

    the “NO” vote was the bi-partisan vote.

  2. Geezer says:

    “the “NO” vote was the bi-partisan vote.”

    I realize this silliness impresses the hell out of you conservaclowns, but all it shows any thinking person is how small and petty you all are. Just as most of your posts here do.

  3. The yes vote was not only the majority vote but was also tri-partisan. Lieberman (I) and Sanders (I) voted yes on Financial Reform.

  4. M. McKain says:

    One wolf in sheeps clothing does not make the flock a multi-species affair. Harry Reid voted no in the end because of procedual matter; he can now introduce another cloture vote when the time is right.

  5. Dana Garrett says:

    “My fear is that their are too many old-style wheelers-and-dealers still in the Democratic caucus to even consider an idea like this.”

    Yep. That’s it exactly.