Senate eyes closing caucuses for speed

Senate eyes closing caucuses for speed

By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer
27 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - New Democratic and Republican leaders, trying to break Senate gridlock, are planning secret "bipartisan caucuses" to speed up business.

The plans were disclosed Friday, even as a Congress still under Republican control was being accused of being a "do-nothing" institution. It would establish a precedent expanding the kinds of "executive sessions" that up to now have been relatively rare, so that lawmakers can work better together.

It's the brainchild of incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and has been endorsed by his Republican opposite number, Sen. Mitch McConnell (news, bio, voting record) of Kentucky.

The rules governing the meetings have not been finalized, according to Reid spokesman Jim Manley. But it is likely that many of the meetings would be closed to the public, he said.
(snip/...)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061208/ap_on_go_co/senate_secret_meetings

I guess we'll find out soon enough.

:sarcasm:

It is nice to see that our Senators are ready to sell us out without a question.

While the concept of moving things along through bipartisanship is appealing, is there a real need to keep more secrets in our government? Seems by keeping it closed, it just leads to more of keeping the people of the US out of the loop.

dammit...I want my country back...

They are going to have to make some unpopular decisions (raising taxes among others) that they don't want the media sniping their every comment about and setting the stage for a difficult 08.

If a senator doesn't have to be accountable for what he says or does, both his opponents and his supporters can't drag him through the court of public opinion for voting or speaking in an unpopular way (more troops in Iraq anyone?).

It's disgusting.

Who pays their salaries?

Or... have they privatized government already?

things that we bitched about BEFORE the elections? That the repubs held closed door meetings. Now the dems and repubs are gonna shut everyone out.

Whatever.

No way.

what a f'n letdown.

Senators who want to work with the Democrats. They are afraid they'll get voted out in 2008. If the meetings are secret, no one will know who the Republican turncoats are.

the repubs who are about to turn on *, demand his resignation to prevent his impeachment, WILL need to meet behind closed doors just to get the ball rolling.

The repubs who forced Nixon to resign did not hold public meetings with their dem counterparts before making that decision.

This may bode well for us yet.

(Unless, like with Nixon, it comes with a guarantee that * not be prosecuted afterward.)

Dec 8, 2006

WASHINGTON - The first thing the new, Democratic-led Senate will do next year is meet in a closed "bipartisan caucus" to help set a more pleasant tone than the relentless backbiting of the Congress now heading home, party leaders said Friday.

Far from lawmakers conducting business in secret — as open-government advocates warn — the meeting would serve only to sweep away grudges and smooth the way for more action, the leaders said.

"We won't always agree but can sit down, side by side, and forge consensus on the issues important to the American people," incoming Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said in a joint statement with his Republican counterpart, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

McConnell said, "Republicans intend to be as cooperative as possible to help the Senate get off to a good start next year."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061208/ap_on_go_co/senate_secret_meetings

Nothing beats killing someone with kindness.

I give mad props to the people who got this one going.

Do unto others, and all like that.

I congratulate our folks for this. They're better people than I am.

in public?

Something about this stinks. If there are "deals" made, I want to know all about them.

to be held before they reconvene Congress on 01/04. I think it's a good idea for the DEMS to set the tone and lay out the new rules to the game before they go live on TV.

For the last 8 years, the Repugs would hold private meetings all the time and the Dems were never invited.

Why can't they "set the tone and lay out the new rules" in the open for EVERYONE to see?

This new transparency would be refreshing to the country and might bring back some respect for the institution.

I have high hopes and confidence in our newly elected dems..... BUT I want to see what they are doing.

What happened to "open government".

I want to know the positions of my representatives & senators.

If they are taking unpopular positions, so be it. Let the constituents be the judge.

This really smells.

If there are baseless accusations, grudges, personal insults or slights, body odor issues, or other petty obstacles to overcome, I don't think that needs to be public. I wouldn't read more into this than is there.

Check things out in private first before putting someone on the spot publicly, as George does constantly with foreign leaders. It's a little bit like... diplomacy.

I think they all know now that Chimpy and Cheney are unfit and need to be dealt with in a bipartisan manner.

The fact is Republicans don't negotiate, it's not in their nature.

but it's always better to take the high ground when you can, especially when you know your opponent will only make more of an ass of himself in the process.

the Republicans will take this as a sign of weakness. Total war is the only kind of politics they can conceive of.

If they did this in public it wouldn't work, because everyone would feel the need to play to their base, to satisfy their benefactors, to maintain their 'public image'. The Republicans wouldn't be able to agree with the Democrats on any points, because it would be repeated ad nauseum in the RW echo chamber. The Democrats wouldn't be able to be tough on the Republicans because it would be repeated ad nauseum in the so-called MSM. No one would be able to be rude, or blunt, or diplomatic, or threatening, or pointed about anything or to anyone. No one would be able to be forgiving. No one would be able to be honest. No one would be able to say what they REALLY think.

If the cameras were on, they would only be able to 'play' to the cameras and the audience.


I think this is an excellent idea. I hope it helps.

And I don't even think that it will be that nasty. I think this is a State of the Congress address, with a bit of orientation, with a bit of poking fun at the Republicans and the old status quo thrown in along with a joke about the drapes.

I don't think this is about negotiating anything, so those in the thread who think the Republicans don't play or negotiate have nothing to fear. This isn't about that. This is about the lay of the land, because there's a new sheriff in town. (Yay!)

Also, I think that there will be a fair amount of, "We don't want to see you guys bickering like children. Please remember you are in Congress and work and act accordingly. Don't MAKE me pull this car over!"

before their respective bases, then who are they representing?

I was raised to be distrustful of government... no apologies. IMO, a secretive government doesn't serve democracy at all.

Look at the bush administration. Is that how we want the Democrats to act?

I don't think so.

My earliest 'public' memory is of JFK's murder...and a mother who believed LBJ was behind it all. I lived thru and remember everything that happened in the 60's. I watched and paid attention to it all. I doubt you're any more distrustful than I am of government and what it can or will do.

With that said - Tell me honestly:

Do you always say EXACTLY what you think, without self-censorship or care, at all times, anyplace? Aren't there times that you are more cautious and circumspect BECAUSE you know others can see and/or hear you? Have you ever NOT said something in public to someone because you didn't want to hurt or embarrass them, or make them angry - or all of the above? I'm sure you realize that how someone reacts sometimes depends upon where and in front of who it is said?

There is a maxim in employee/employer relations: Reward and Praise in public; Reprimand or Punish in private.

This is NOT a case of 'secretive government' hiding what they do from all of us. This is a case of a group of people who have to work together, and who need to come to an understanding with each other. They have to clear the air. They have to speak frankly and without reservation.

And this is not really such a new thing. It wasn't until the advent of CSPAN - only about 25 years ago - that we were able to see day to day operations of the Congress without the filter of journalists. Those journalists didn't report every snit and argument, they didn't tell us every one of the nasty details, or the results of every meeting. The idea that their every single meeting had to be open and reported and viewable by the people came with the CSPAN era, the Watergate and post-Watergate era.

This a far cry from the criminally secretive acts of the Bush administration.

I want our government to be open and accessible to the people as much or more than all of us here at DU. But I also understand that in (very limited) certain situations, they should be able to have closed meetings. I'm ready to give our Democratic leadership the benefit of the doubt in this, given that it has been announced and the purpose explained. If they start doing it all the time without justification or announcement, if we start seeing suspicious activity or legislation, THEN I'll get angry.

edited to add: The OP snips suggest this as being a new and regular part of Senate business. However the story at the link reports this as a one-time meeting - which is how I read the story originally, and why I responded as I did. I stand by my opinion in that case - but if it were to become standard operating procedure on a regular basis I would NOT be as approving!

and give the Dem leadership a bit of slack on this.

I think the OP story might have been edited between the time it was posted and when I read it; the headline has changed from caucuses to caucus, which is significant. One vs an unknown plural number.

The Heritage Foundation spokesperson doesn't like it, so that inclines me to be more supportive of it as well. :)

I can see your point. Very well said.

Ms. liberty, after 6 years of watching republicans aid and abet that criminal in the oval office, this bit of news wasn't exactly what I expected. I regret reacting so harshly. But I don't trust the republicans & believe they will abuse any Democratic attempt at working in a bipartisan manner.

It would have been easier for me to accept this had it been said by Nancy Pelosi. I don't mind saying that after the bankruptcy bill, the "gang of 15" re: judges and almost every other senate event last year, I've come to have a higher regard for the House, at least far more than the senate. I can count the number of senators I trust on one hand and prefer they operate senate business in public while attached to a lie detector.

Let's see how this goes. I hope you are right.

And I really don't trust the GOP any farther than I can throw the lot of them. We've been used and abused by the Republicans every time they've had any power, and this time has been the worst.

I'm hoping that now our Democrats have control again they'll rule with an iron fist inside a velvet glove - and on behalf of we the people. But it's up to us to hold their feet to the fire, too. I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt right now only because I have to. I've been disappointed in them over these last 6 years as well, and the main reason I've held on is the knowledge that we've been in the minority, and have had no power; not even enough power to successfully filibuster.

God help them if they screw us, though!!!

that Republicans can be trusted- or that they can work with them to enact progressive legislation, then I reckon that they deserve what they're going to get.

IMO, they need to treat Republicans EXACTLY as they were treated- marginalize them back to the fringe where they belong- and shelve every corrupt and irrational amendment they propose.

That's what wielding power means when you're dealing with these types of people- it's the only thing that they respect. Unfortunately, the Dems just don't know how to do it- they'll keep on legitimizing and enabling them, which is the main reason that they've been losing for so long.

Republicans must be laughing all the way to the bank about this. What a bunch of suckers- that's no doubt what most of them are thinking.

When they get control again and hold their secret little pow wows, they'll remind the people of the secret meetings the Democrats held.

The Democrats need to work for all the American people. They were not voted in by a landslide this last election to legitimize republicans.

Did this story change? Your snips report a story that suggests this will happen more than once, or on a regular basis, however the story at the link reports this as a one-time event.

What's up with that? I'm not being critical of you - I'm just confused on this!