Based on the first week of operations under new management, I was discouraged: MTRs were no sooner offered than despatched.

However, something strange has been going on - and a Hill piece sounds the alarm:

Having voted to accept five motions to recommit in recent weeks, House Democrats and Republicans are bickering over the notion that "policy is process."

As a lede, it's pretty hopeless: starting with a perfect participle can never be right, surely? And who cares about bickering - especially over arcane points of Congressional rules?

The phenomenon the piece flags, though, is interesting. Really.

The pattern in the past has generally been that few MTRs pass, usually votes on MTRs are close (or, at least, the House is thoroughly divided thereon) and vanishingly few are turned into enacted legislative text.

But the last five MTRs passed with overwhelming bipartisan support.

The first page of House roll call votes - 99 of them - include nine MTRs which were all rejected.

Then, all of a sudden, on March 7, we get a breakthrough: the MTR on HR 569 passes - and nem con, to boot!   

If you follow through to the Record's transcript of proceedings on the MTR, you'll find that the amendment contained therein was a bit of grandstanding on lobbyists - pretty rich coming from the GOP, you might think, but they're all pols under the skin.

The amendment banned funds authorized by the bill not to be used to pay lobbyists. Something already banned elsewhere in the bill.

So, the bill's managers decided to have the vote and move on.

Then we get the MTR on HR 700. Same amendment, same result.

The MTR on HR 720 is rather different - it's substantive (banning certain felons from being certified for the purpose of working on board ship - very roughly).

Evidently, the text had been sprung on the managers of the bill, and there was a spat across the aisle about the meaning of one particular element of it.

Despite that, the MTR was passed 359-56, with Dems voting 172-54 in favor.

(If they thought the MTR was bad, why did Dems vote for it?)

Then, on HR 985, the whistleblower bill, the MTR repeated language contained in a still-in-force Clinton executive order (on religious discrimination). Again, the MTR passed nem con.

On HR 1362, on government contracting, the MTR banned contracts with universities that did not allow access to military recruiters - building on the Solomon Amendment. Waxman gave a short burst of indignation, but the motion passed 309-114, the Dems split 115-114.

There's a sixth: a MTR on HR 1227, the Katrina housing bill, passed today - no details until tomorrow!

What's up with all these MTRs passing?

The Hill piece offers us this:

House Democratic leaders have let their rank-and-file members vote for Republican-offered motions to recommit because passing the measures did not dilute Democratic bills. It also gave conservative Democrats an electoral boost by allowing them to distance themselves from the national Democratic Party.

Makes no sense: either the MTRs diluted and distanced or they did neither.

Besides, to get a voter to understand the concept of an MTR, whilst at the same time not understanding that an MTR might be used to give a misleading impression to, er, voters - that sounds like Mission Impossible to me!

A mouthpiece for Brer Clyburn - or Conscience Vote Clyburn, as perhaps we ought to call him - puts us wise:

Kristie Greco, spokeswoman for Democratic Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.)., said that the motions have had "a boomerang effect."

"Some Republicans voted to pass a motion banning terrorists from working on U.S. ships, but then voted against the legislation," she said.

Which is like a boomerang how?

The kicker rather confirms to me that the scribe is out of his depth (believe an expert!):

The biggest danger is if rank-and-file Democrats start voting with Republicans on "ordering the previous question," which is a vote to end debate on the rule, said Democratic sources. If Democrats lost a vote on the previous question, Republicans would effectively gain control of the House floor.

If Dems started voting against the PQ, that would be grounds for instant removal to the funny farm!

Think about driving down the highway at 60 miles an hour. Now, you could decide to engage reverse gear. But that would not be a valid choice under any circumstances I can conceive of.

Dems voting against the PQ is on a par of lunacy with engaging reverse at 60 miles an hour.