Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
I forgot to mention this in my post about meeting Michelle Bachmann. While I was standing there waiting to get a picture with her, she was bragging to her followers around her that the House Republicans had kept bringing up pointless amendments. "We brought up an amendment to delete page one of the bill, then another one to delete page two of the bill, and on and on. Anything to delay and disrupt the bill from passing," she told the guy in line in front of me.
The other thing that they did was try to bring the entire process to a halt by objecting to every single speaker asking unanimous consent to have their full remarks placed in the Congressional Record. This is an absolutely routine request and it is always granted to any member of either party. It allows a speaker to make brief remarks on the floor and then place a longer, more detailed statement into the Congressional Record.
So every time a Democrat speaking in favor of the bill would begin their remarks with the normal "I ask unanimous consent to be allowed to revise and extend my remarks," a Republican would stand there and yell "I object" over and over and over again. Basically, they acted like a bunch of five year olds, stomping their feet and screaming at the top of their lungs for attention. Here's the video of them doing this:
Politics
Comments
Yep, they're trying to make sure our government can't function.
Just like al Qaeda.
Posted by: Raging Bee | November 9, 2009 9:31 AM
It's a wonderful game, isn't it? Too bad we don't have a tradition like in Britain where yelling and cat calls are an art form.
Of course, when the Rethuglicans do it it's a Constitutional right and when it's done to them it's censorship.
Posted by: Doc Bill | November 9, 2009 9:34 AM
Wow! What a sad display.
Posted by: The Science Pundit | November 9, 2009 9:42 AM
Don;t you just wish a bailiff would walk over and smack them over the head? Ladies and Gentlemen, the College Republicans of 1990; let's give 'em a hand.
Posted by: Julian | November 9, 2009 9:52 AM
I guess that, if anyone who was responsible for that ever claims they are for free speech, you can just point them at that video and ask them if their definition of 'free speech' is 'I am free to speak, but anyone who disagrees with me can shut the hell up'.
Posted by: Zmidponk | November 9, 2009 10:03 AM
So, having done all this and failed, are they going to give up these tactics? Or double down?
Or did they fail? Despite their continued resistance to its passage, is the final bill so full of concessions and gifts to the insurance industry that the Republicans might as well have won? Then again, only that ongoing opposition makes me think the bill might still be worth something. But I can't imagine that single payer would've been any harder to pass than this mess.
Posted by: Nemo | November 9, 2009 10:05 AM
This headline from MSNBC will cause a few irony meters to overload: GOP says Dems put agenda ahead of country.
And any that survive will explode from exposure to this quote from GOP chairman Michael Steele: "You can no longer dismiss people by sitting on your cell phone when they're talking to you or calling them un-American or making them feel like you don't give a heck about what they're concerns are. That's what the voters laid on the table this year."
Would it be possible, with any amount of drugs, surgery, or cranial trauma, for these people to have LESS understanding of their own actions?
Posted by: phantomreader42 | November 9, 2009 10:14 AM
None of this would be that bad if they had well-reasoned objections to the provisions of the bill in the first place. But it basically boils down to, "we're opposed to it because we're trying to re-take power in 2010."
Posted by: Paul Lundgren | November 9, 2009 10:39 AM
When Bachmann was in the Minnesota House she did the same thing. Kept repeatably bringing up bills or amendments that were either pointless or never had a chance of passing in an attempt to prevent the House from passing legislation she didn't agree with. Needless to say many of her bills had to do with stripping gays of rights or to prevent gay marriage.
The woman is clearly nuts but people like my brother keep voting for her.
Posted by: yoshi | November 9, 2009 10:41 AM
Ed: Not to put too fine a line on this, but in meeting Michelle you had one job and one job only: Find out and report whether she goes commando. What the hell do you think ScienceBlogs are for?
Posted by: kehrsam | November 9, 2009 10:56 AM
Imagine the feigned outrage fromt he Republicans if the Democrats pulled these stunts.....
Posted by: The Other Lance | November 9, 2009 10:59 AM
So you now have documented proof that Michele Bachmann honestly made a factually-accurate statement, in public, and still you go around criticizing her.
Why are Teh Bloggers trying to destroy our country?
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | November 9, 2009 11:00 AM
I saw the above clip yesterday. It's pathetic.
I'll also give the House Dems whose time these GOP asses kept objecting over credit for keeping their composure. I doubt I would have shown the same degree of restraint. I probably would have just told the objectors to shut the fuck up (in those words).
Posted by: CHV | November 9, 2009 11:40 AM
Dock their pay.
Posted by: Andrea | November 9, 2009 12:04 PM
The Republicans were competing for bonus dollars from the health care companies.
or
The health insurance companies had announced a contest for 'best pettifogger'*, prize was $500,000.
*That is a word I don't get to use very often.
Posted by: Gilgamesh | November 9, 2009 12:28 PM
Please explain to me the reasoning behind any representative being allowed to revise and extend what they say in the congressional record.
Shouldn't the record record what they actually said rather than what they wished they'd said?
They could ask for a written long statement to be appended to the record, but being allowed to revise seems very odd.
Posted by: Chris' Wills | November 9, 2009 12:42 PM
Is there no speaker that makes unruly people sit down or has them removed from the house?
Posted by: steve | November 9, 2009 12:46 PM
Steve @ 17:
I agree that John Dingle is way too polite in the clip above.
People get floor time allotments on the House and Senate to make statements without being harassed by others. Thus, constantly objecting to such statements seems to fly in the face of that idea, and Dingle should (IMO) have insisted that those who could not follow a sense of simple decorum to leave the chamber.
Posted by: CHV | November 9, 2009 12:58 PM
I don't get why they ask for unanimous consent when they don't have it.
Posted by: TheDude | November 9, 2009 1:00 PM
The odd thing about this situation is that the House is meeting as the Committee of the Whole here. Normally that means that they are operating under a Special Rule, which ordinarily would waive objections to the request to modify and extend remarks. For some reason, the Health Care bill's Rule didn't contain that provision.
It is really past time to stomp on the GOP here: Abolish the filibuster, streamline House Rules to stifle all minority activity and apply the DeLay "hammer" rules for lobbyists. There's no sense treating them as adults if they can't act like adults.
Posted by: kehrsam | November 9, 2009 1:41 PM
Chris' Wills #16:
My knowledge in this area is weak, but, as I understand it, it's to do with simple practicalities. If every representative were forced to say, in full, everything they want to say, they would quickly run out of time, or this would take an extremely long amount of time to carry out. This allows them to make a brief statement, outlining what they want to say, then place a longer, more detailed statement into the Congressional Record. As far as I am aware, this is understood by all, so such a request is normally made and granted perfunctionarily, no matter who is making it, although technically anyone can object to it. As this video shows, certain people used this fact to try to disrupt the proceedings by simply repeatedly objecting to such a request, if the requester supported the bill.
Posted by: Zmidponk | November 9, 2009 2:59 PM
Wow,
this is worse than what goes on in the House of Commons in Ottawa, at least there the speaker seems to have no problem slapping unruly MPs down.
Posted by: Michael | November 9, 2009 3:12 PM
In addition to what was said @21 it allows their staff to walk things back if they've said something stupid or mispoke. Like if they wanted to congratulate a school for their distict on something and named the wrong school. If they reference a news article, the news article can be included in the Congressional Record.
While, stuff in the Congressional Record is "on record," it's not the most widely used source of information.
Posted by: katydid13 | November 9, 2009 3:29 PM
Notice the objectors are generally the same folks claiming they're being silenced by some imaginary totalitarian force.
Posted by: Ryan | November 9, 2009 3:36 PM
Proof that Rethugricans are objectionable.
Posted by: Rob Jase | November 9, 2009 3:55 PM
Did you see Krugman's column today? It's kind of on the same subject.
Posted by: BaldApe | November 9, 2009 6:05 PM
The Democrats could learn something from this. It'd have been nice if they'd been even half this committed to stopping the evil things the Republicans were doing under Bush.
Posted by: Miko | November 9, 2009 6:18 PM
@Paul #8
Yeah and if we don't keep on calling them out on it, they'll actually be successful.
Posted by: mxh | November 9, 2009 6:39 PM
Kehrsam,
We don't want to change the system because our current "opposition party" is abusing the system to override the established majority. That could, quite likely, be the worst thing we could do. We don't want a streamlined system where a simple majority can pass through whatever legislation they want, no matter how poorly considered, structured, or developed that legislation is. We do need to expose the hypocrisy and destructive antics of the GOP so these legislators (to use that term VERY loosely) can be voted out in the next election. Personally I think these efforts fit very well into the post from a few days ago where Ed listed the polls and the standings of the parties in the minds of the people.
IMO the Republicans are increasingly close to a complete, self-destructive, meltdown. My hope is that they don't take the rest of us down with them.
----------
Miko,
The Democrats couldn't do things like this, see back when Bush was in power, we were involved in a war, our country had been attacked and it was the duty of every good American to stand behind the president 100%. Failure to do so was, obviously an attack on our troops and would be pointed out to everyone by the good, honest, and fair and balanced people at Fox News. Now since President Bush was so successful in the war on terror, and the closely, and obviously linked war in Iraq that freed the Iraqi people and got all of those WMDs away from Osama Bin Laden and punished Hussein for the 9/11 attacks, we could go back to politics as usual. Because the wars are over, Obama can be more correctly scrutinized.
Really, all of this is the reason why Bush is the greatest president we've ever had.
[/end sarcasm]
Wow, I threw up a little in the back of my throat just thinking that way, let alone trying to type it. I have a lot more respect for Poes now... ;o)
Posted by: dogmeatib | November 9, 2009 7:13 PM
As someone who's studied Robert's Rules a few times I kept wondering why Dingel didn't just call in the Sargeant at Arms and have the offending members removed.
Posted by: Tony P | November 9, 2009 8:53 PM
Checks dogmeatib's sarcasm meter on kersham's post. Dog, you might want to recalibrate after watching that video up there...
I think we could safely go further than Tony P.'s suggestion, I think reinstating some good dueling protocols would be a good thing. Then we can go back to having the more objectionable ones replaced faster (we'd eventually run out of professional politicians one would hope). There is of course is excellent historical precedent for duelling while in office. This would be arguably more entertaining than Bachman, and the deficit could be cut by selling it on pay-per-view.
Posted by: rsm | November 9, 2009 11:36 PM
There is a nagging voice in my head that keeps saying that if the situation was reversed, the Republicans would thoroughly condemn this sort of tactic.
Posted by: G.Shelley | November 10, 2009 8:49 AM
THE GENTLEMAN FROM TEXAS IS OUT OF ORDER
I want that on a T-shirt or something
Posted by: Glenn Davey | November 10, 2009 10:19 AM