"House Dems aren't taking "no" for an answer."

[babylonsister]

GOP shuts down Sandra Fluke (again)
By Steve Benen
-
Wed Feb 22, 2012 8:00 AM EST


Last week, the House Oversight Committee, led by Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), held a one-sided hearing on contraception access, featuring an opening panel of five conservative men -- and no one else. Democrats on the committee had invited a witness, Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke, but Issa refused to allow her to participate.

House Dems aren't taking "no" for an answer.

In case it wasn't already apparent how politicized women's health has become on Capitol Hill, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) announced Tuesday that a Democratic panel will meet this week to hear testimony from just one witness: Sandra Fluke, the woman who House Republicans refused to let testify at their hearing on the birth control rule last week.

Pelosi announced that the House Democratic Steering & Policy Committee will meet Thursday at 10 a.m. to discuss women's health. A senior Democratic aide said it is common practice for party leaders to use that committee to cast a spotlight on overtly political matters.

"We've used the Steering and Policy Committee as a place to highlight what the Republicans ARE NOT doing with their hearings," the aide said in an email.

There was, however, an unexpected twist yesterday afternoon. The Democratic Steering & Policy Committee's hearing will be held in the House Recording Studio, in order to help broadcast the event, except in this case, it won't be seen by anyone outside the room. According to House Dems, the Republican-controlled Committee on House Administration has refused to allow the hearing to be televised.

In other words, the House GOP blocked Sandra Fluke from testifying at a hearing last week, and now they're apparently blocking Sandra Fluke from testifying at another hearing this week.

And what is it, exactly, about Fluke's perspective that has Republicans so concerned? The law student wants to share the story of a classmate who lost an ovary due to an ailment that could have been treated with birth control.

Here's a video of Fluke, sharing a perspective the House GOP apparently doesn't want you to see:

http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/22/10476406-gop-shuts-down-sandra-fluke-again

[snot]

1. Why don't the Dems also hold a similar hearing where it CAN be televised?

They could easily livestream or UStream it.

And why are they limiting themselves to just one witness?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

2. Good suggestion. And maybe they'll get around to that. But please remember

Pelosi's actions and not just her words, or the words of those who speak for her.

I used to have more confidence in her.

Isn't she the one who, after being elected Majority Leader publicly took impeachment off the table? Isn't she the one who effectively protected Dick Cheney by obstructing Dennis J. Kucinich's (D - OH) efforts?

She is beholden to her big-money contributors, not us. If they want to have a live-streamed meeting, Pelosi and those working with her will arrange it. Doing so would be good for the country. Let's hope that her big-money contributors agree.

[snot]

3. I agree; and it's partly why

I'm v. frustrated with the Dems.

Yes, they should object to GOP obstruction. But for years now, their efforts to overcome it have been weirdly ineffectual.

(Which, to my mind, means that the rest of us need to do MORE.)

[AnotherMcIntosh]

4. I, too, am frustrated by many who apparently have more collective power than Democrats

in D.C. who still value some FDR principles.

One of the best tricks holding such power in the Senate is to claim - contrary to what we can see with our own eyes on C-SPAN - that the Republicans have been holding filibusters. Just like being able to look at an emperor whose tailor who has told him that he now has a new and wonderful set of clothes, we can look at the Senate proceedings and see that no filibusters have been held. Not one. For any of us that point that out, the answer parroted by many is that the procedure of not holding filibusters (but merely counting whether there may be sufficient cloture votes) is the new procedure.

It's a great trick. One of the greatest because so many are willing to accept this "new" procedure and excuse the inaction from the Senate Democratic leadership. But who are you going to believe? Those who say that nothing signifigant that we really want can be accomplished because there have been Republican filibusters? Or your lying eyes?

[great white snark]

5. So Republicans are not extending debates to block votes?

Must be my lying eyes.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

8. Or your imagination.

[savalez]

6. Harry Whittington, is that you?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

9. So you're a name-caller. I'm now selecting the ignore button. Bye.

[savalez]

10. It was a legitimate question.

Harry took full responsibility for getting shot with a shotgun by Dick Cheney. He even publicly apologized to Dick.

So I thought I'd ask.

[BlueCaliDem]

15. And I'm frustrated by people who complain the Republicans are NOT filibustering

because they haven't seen it on C-Span. Puh-lease.

Here. Perhaps this will help inform you why you're so wrong.

By threatening a filibuster, the shrunken bloc of 41 GOP senators has just enough members to prevent a vote, requiring Democrats to make concessions to pick off a few moderate Republicans.

Reid has heard the calls. But his answer will surely disappoint: Sorry. It can't happen.

Reid's office has studied the history of the filibuster and analyzed what options are available. The resulting memo was provided to the Huffington Post and it concludes that a filibustering Senator "can be forced to sit on the [Senate] floor to keep us from voting on that legislation for a finite period of time according to existing rules but he/she can't be forced to keep talking for an indefinite period of time."

Bob Dove, who worked as a Senate parliamentarian from 1966 until 2001, knows Senate rules as well as anyone on the planet. The Reid analysis, he says, is "exactly correct."

To get an idea of what the scene would look like on the Senate floor if Democrats tried to force Republicans to talk out a filibuster, turn on C-SPAN on any given Saturday. Hear the classical music? See the blue carpet behind the "Quorum Call" logo? That would be the resulting scene if Democrats forced a filibuster and the GOP chose not to play along.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/23/the-myth-of-the-filibuste_n_169117.html

It only takes 41 Senators to filibuster, and only ONE Republican on the floor to hold it. If the Democrats don't have 60 votes to vote for cloture, the mere threat of a filibuster with 41 members strong is enough to stop everything in its tracks.

I hope I've been able to help clear up that confusion for you so you'll now be able to bring things into perspective.

However, I hope when the 113th Congress convenes in January next year, and assuming the Democrats still hold the majority, Reid will revisit the filibuster rule and revise it. He should've done it last year after he barely won his seat.

[s-cubed]

11. I would think the Dems want her testimoney to be part of the record.

If it's not in a committee setting, it wouldn't count as testimony.

[BlueCaliDem]

14. Exactly! eom

[drynberg]

7. HEY, WAIT A MINUTE...

shouldn't the defenders of the USA Constitution be aware of the First Amendment? OMG we have become an "avocado republic"!

[bottomofthehill]

12. Very Easy Answer

Have the Senate Democrats call her to testify. The Senate Rules Committee (under the control of Democrats) , not House Administration Committee (under control of the Republicans) decide what goes on in their Committee rooms and Recording Studio.....

Senator Bernie Sanders has the ability to bring her to his Health Sub-Committee

[NICO9000]

13. I've been saying this all over the Internets the past couple of weeks

And I think I have to keep saying it:

Who really thinks that alienating 51% of the population is a winning strategy? Even all but the most brainwashed repug women have to be scratching their heads.