In case you’re wondering what overconfidence by the Republican-controlled Congress will look like, Denny Hastert’s refusal to bring the intelligence reform bill up for a vote because it can’t pass on Republican votes alone is a good place to start. I don’t think that everything the 9/11 Commission recommended needs to be adopted, but you know, it just might be in the public interest to have a discussion about what they proposed. What’s Hastert afraid of?
The Stakeholder notes that if the bill doesn’t pass today, it may never pass. They have a form you can fill out to send to Hastert and friends if you think they need to hear a dissenting voice or two.
I think he’s angling for re-election as Speaker. He technically works for the Republican caucus, so if he can’t show he can get a majority there…
I actually oppose the bill as it stands right now for pulling military intelligence too far outside the control of the military. But my objection is dwarfed by the overall need for reform, so I bow to passing the bill as is rather than making it better.
How is it overconfidence?
Key leaders think there are bad provision in the bill (Binkley seems to agree with their objections in part). Some of those leaders were frozen out of the reconciliation process. They shouldn’t have been, and have thrown their weight around. The last minute negotiations on those provisions are going to produce a much better bill.
Hard to fault that process. I would think good government types would like that. And yeah, the majority is crafting the legislation to their liking. That’s what majorities get to do. Is that what you’re calling overconfidence?
Anyway, it’s odd to want a public discussion, BUT to advocate passing the bill today (or it may never pass). We’ve been discussing the bill a lot since our dissenters gummed up the works. So if discussion is what folks want, they should be pleased. Is the discussion important to you, Charles, or the bill? I can’t figure your position out from this post.
As an aside, Binkley, am I reading you correctly that you oppose provisions of the bill but support its passagee? Surely that’s what you meant, which I would read as supporting the bill, not opposing it (although you say you oppose the bill, right before you say you support its passage).
Very confusing, all of this.