We agree. Cool!

>I won't speak for John, but when I started this thread I mentioned the trend of the Dem party changing the rules after the fact. Both parties change the rules for their own advantage when they attain control, however, the current trend is to not care about the existing rules and change them after they've run against them. Pay-go, Colombian free-trade and the Democratic Party Primary (particularly concerning Florida and Michigan) are examples.
>
>The Republican party is not immune by any means. I remember them trying to change their rules to allow Delay back after he was indicted. Of course their constituents rose up to demand the rule stays in place.
>
>>You didn't single out the current Congress? Was it some past Democratic Party and Speaker Pelosi you were referring to?
>>
>>>It's pretty obvious she did it to avoid alienating trade unions in an election year.
>>>
>>>In fact, many labor issues had been negotiated into the proposed treaty. Several Democrats were in favor of the treaty, including Rep. Rangel (D) from NY ... not exactly a conservative.
>>>
>>>About rules changes, I didn't single out the current Congress, did I?
>>>
>>>
>>>>This is a tough issue to paint in partisan terms. Playing games with arcane legislative rules is not a new art, nor is it limited to one party. You can't point the finger at Democrats when it comes to fillibusters, to use one example.
>>>>
>>>>I haven't seen any mention of why Pelosi did what she did. She viewed the trade pact with Colombia as another step in the flight of American jobs to countries with lower labor costs. This is not an issue that seems to particularly concern people who own companies, but it does concern people who work for companies. Or used to.
>>>>
>>>>>That's what worries me - there could be repercussions on other treaty negotiations going forward because it makes us look untrustworthy.
>>>>>
>>>>>This was a good treaty - it's unbelievable that Pelosi and others played politics with it. I'm getting a little sick and tired of the current Congress changing rules as it fits them.
>>>>>
>>>>>>Changing the rules after the fact seems to be a trend with this bunch. However, this time it is not simply affecting a house vote's timing or the Democratic primary, this time they're damaging the ability of the President (office not current occupant) to engage in good-faith treaty negotiations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"The Democratic Party's protectionist make-over was completed yesterday, when Nancy Pelosi decided to kill the Colombia free trade agreement. Her objections had nothing to do with the evidence and everything to do with politics, but this was an act of particular bad faith. It will damage the economic and security interests of the U.S. while trashing our best ally in Latin America."
>>>>>>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120778566399303309.html