dc_dux

Thats quite a (mis)interpretation of the House (not Senate) rules! In fact, what the Pelosi rules do is limit the process for sending a bill back to committee or limiting the number of amendments on the floor -- to prevent those tactics being used to stall a final vote on a bill. Think about it...if the minority party (the Republicans) could keep proposing an unlimited number of amendments on the floor, no bill they dont like would ever be passed.

How soon some forget the Hastert rule, where under the former Speaker Dennis Hastert, no bill could be considered in the House w/o having the support of the "majority of the majority (i.e. the majority of Republicans)....which effectively eliminated any possibility of bi-partisan bills that had both Democratic and Republican support, but not the support of a majority of Republicans.

One of Pelosi's first acts was to end the Hastert Rule. If she hadnt, Bush would never have gotten Iraq war funding after 07 because the "majority of the majority" never supported it. Those funding bills passed in 07 and 08 with a majority of Republicans and a minority of Democrats.

So please, STOP with the nonsense of Pelosi having "stricter rules than even the hardest Republican."

The economic recovery bill had something like 200 proposed amendments in the House. Pelosi and the Republican majority leader agreed to limit the number of amendments brought to the floor for a vote to around 15....a mix of both Democratic and Republican amendments.

Bi-partisanship does not mean an equal vote. It means having a voice.

Obama has given the House Republicans far more opportunities for participation in crafting the bill, including many of their tax proposals, than Bush ever did with Democrats on any major piece of legislation. The Senate Republicans will now have their chance.

But in the end, lets not forget who the voters put in the WH and gave a larger majority to in Congress.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire