Pelosi's House the Least Open to Debate Ever

The Washington Post doesn't quite say so, but what else can you conclude?

"BILLS SHOULD generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full and fair debate consisting of a full amendment process that grants the minority the right to offer its alternatives, including a substitute." So promised Nancy Pelosi, now House speaker, before her party regained control of Congress two years ago. That fairness, it turned out, was easier to preach than practice.

When they took over in 2007, Democrats set aside their pledge in order to muscle through their agenda during the first 100 hours; their promises continued to prove hollow in the ensuing months. As with the GOP takeover in 1994 and its accompanying pledges of open debate and fair treatment, Democrats' asserted good intentions yielded to the realities of governing in the face of an opposing party more interested in making mischief than law. Democrats brought more measures to the House floor under closed rules -- permitting no amendments -- than any of the six previous Republican-controlled congresses.

It is often stated as a given that Democrats are more open to debate and discourse (or more democratic) than Republicans are, but of course nothing could be further from the truth. Dems know that if they had to honestly debate their ideas and policies, the country would never elect them. And the majority of their proposals would never pass (even with their majority) if the public knew what was buried inside them.

I would say something about our hypocrite Speakerette of the House, but is anyone really surprised by this? The people of the Bay Area elected her assuming she was a liar and a hypocrite. They didn't want her working with Republicans any more than I want Republicans working with her.

Are you as shocked as I am that someone in Washington would note this, even after the election?