The British are coming! The British are coming! - Should we get our guns (won't work with these hawks), consult Machiavelli, or just read 1984 again.
Yesterday I did a post entitled "GOP Tightens Grip on House (this post is about the U.S. House; but less drastic tightening has been in the works in the Ga. House as well)."
After posting the post, I had to correct myself. I read yesterday's PI, and then did another post entitled "Never let it be said that the state GOP let the GOP in the U.S. House of Representatives get ahead of it in the tightening department," in which I said I would not have added the parenthetical about being less drastic tightening that has been in the works in the Georgia House.
That was because of the PI's report of much tighter controls that may have been on the opening day's agenda.
The PI article did not adequately prepare us for what was coming. And who would have known. Some were expected. Others, let's just say that to have been adequately prepared, rather than reading PI I should have been reading George Orwell's 1984.
To read about the changes in the Senate, see the discussion of the new Senate rules in a 01-10-05 article in the ajc (wherein it is reported that Sen. Minority Leader Robert Brown (D-Macon) declared from the well. "This process seriously and unnecessarily limits debate on the floor," and "The Rules Committee becomes the rulers.").
As accurately summarized in one sentence by Khristen Wyatt in a 01-10-05 AP article, compared to the changes in the House, the changes in the Senate from last session were "less dramatic but still significant."
The biggest surprise of the opening session with regard to rules came in the House where Democrats declared the changes would give unprecedented power to Speaker Richardson, with the biggest fight concerning the creation of hawks, legislators to be named by the Speaker who can jump into committee votes at the Speaker's direction.
Republicans said there would be three or four such hawks, and that these lawmakers could be called to a committee only when another member was absent or to make the lawmaking process more efficient. Democrats howled, saying the hawks would effectively allow Republican leadership to force any bill through, even when regular committee members object.
Who can better tell relate what a big change this was than Baxter & Galloway, who in their 01-11-05 PI relate just how it will work and is intended to work:
For Democrats in the General Assembly, the first robin of spring is a killer
Picture a hawk swooping down from a great height, his claws balled for striking and his eyes locked on a fat Democratic pigeon.
One could argue that this is what bipartisanship has always looked like from the top. Only the pigeon has changed.
The difference is that Republicans have just given that image a formal, predatory place in Georgia's political lexicon.
In both the House and Senate, Republicans on Monday devoted their inaugural sessions to adopting a series of operating rules that ensure the new Democratic minority will be kept firmly under thumb. Most colorful was the creation of "hawks" by House Republicans.
If any House committee gets out of line, if Democrats come close to winning a point, House Speaker Glenn Richardson will be able to appoint a hawk — or two or three or more — to fly into the meeting and tip the vote to the Republican side.
This alone makes Richardson the most powerful House speaker ever to tread on red clay, declared Democrats who once withered under Tom Murphy's fish-like gaze. "If they ever lose a vote, they ought to be ashamed of themselves," said state Rep. Tom Bordeaux (D-Savannah).
Richardson reiterated the Republican promise of moderation. "I promise I'm not going to abuse this," he told reporters after he'd finished a heavily scripted morning.
Robert Highsmith, the governor's former legal counsel, helped Republicans write new rules for the state Senate two years ago. You can presume he had at least an early look at the rewrite of the House rules, though he won't say. He likes the idea of hawks.
"If the majority will is about to be thwarted, this is a very clever way to prevent this from happening," Highsmith said.
He and other Republicans argue that this is transparency. One never knew when, behind closed doors, Murphy or Terry Coleman twisted arms, they argue. "This way, everybody will see it happen. Everyone will know it happened," Highsmith said.
_______________
With both chambers cemented under GOP control, Republican leaders vowed a short session marked by more openness than under Democratic leadership. Richardson said the term would be done by spring break, and that lawmakers would focus what he called his four "core values." Those were to reduce the size of government, strengthen family values, reduce taxes and encourage personal responsibility.
All that sounds fine, and is what we were promised by Richardson soon after Nov. 2.
But the hawks? This is taking control to a new level, something way beyond to the victor go the spoils.
When you have complete control, there is a certain arrogance and sense of entitlement that can develop. Besides the idea of hawks being stupid -- give me a better word for it and I will use it -- it represents political overreaching, arrogance and entitlement.
As stated by Rep. Tom Bordeaux, "If they ever lose a vote, they ought to be ashamed of themselves." Why, because they can't lose. Why even send thing to committee?
And for goodness sake what in the world is wrong with persuasion and showing a little leadership by persuading other legislators to see things your way? According to the Republicans, this is doing away with transparency.
As noted in the above PI article, "One never knew when, behind closed doors, Murphy or Terry Coleman twisted arms, they argue. 'This way, everybody will see it happen. Everyone will know it happened.,'"
If we Democrats will play our cards right and let the voters know that by such action, Richardson has disinfranchised their representatives if he or she disagrees with the Czar, such action should ultimately cause a voter backlash.
The challenge of control, and in this case complete control, is using good judgment, and being ever mindful of how your use of such control will be perceived by the electorate.
Does the Speaker not know that the pendulum is always swinging? When it does complete its cycle, and the Democrats regain the state House, it is my hope and desire that rather than continue such silliness, that we restore a modicum of democracy to our legislative process.
After posting the post, I had to correct myself. I read yesterday's PI, and then did another post entitled "Never let it be said that the state GOP let the GOP in the U.S. House of Representatives get ahead of it in the tightening department," in which I said I would not have added the parenthetical about being less drastic tightening that has been in the works in the Georgia House.
That was because of the PI's report of much tighter controls that may have been on the opening day's agenda.
The PI article did not adequately prepare us for what was coming. And who would have known. Some were expected. Others, let's just say that to have been adequately prepared, rather than reading PI I should have been reading George Orwell's 1984.
To read about the changes in the Senate, see the discussion of the new Senate rules in a 01-10-05 article in the ajc (wherein it is reported that Sen. Minority Leader Robert Brown (D-Macon) declared from the well. "This process seriously and unnecessarily limits debate on the floor," and "The Rules Committee becomes the rulers.").
As accurately summarized in one sentence by Khristen Wyatt in a 01-10-05 AP article, compared to the changes in the House, the changes in the Senate from last session were "less dramatic but still significant."
The biggest surprise of the opening session with regard to rules came in the House where Democrats declared the changes would give unprecedented power to Speaker Richardson, with the biggest fight concerning the creation of hawks, legislators to be named by the Speaker who can jump into committee votes at the Speaker's direction.
Republicans said there would be three or four such hawks, and that these lawmakers could be called to a committee only when another member was absent or to make the lawmaking process more efficient. Democrats howled, saying the hawks would effectively allow Republican leadership to force any bill through, even when regular committee members object.
Who can better tell relate what a big change this was than Baxter & Galloway, who in their 01-11-05 PI relate just how it will work and is intended to work:
For Democrats in the General Assembly, the first robin of spring is a killer
Picture a hawk swooping down from a great height, his claws balled for striking and his eyes locked on a fat Democratic pigeon.
One could argue that this is what bipartisanship has always looked like from the top. Only the pigeon has changed.
The difference is that Republicans have just given that image a formal, predatory place in Georgia's political lexicon.
In both the House and Senate, Republicans on Monday devoted their inaugural sessions to adopting a series of operating rules that ensure the new Democratic minority will be kept firmly under thumb. Most colorful was the creation of "hawks" by House Republicans.
If any House committee gets out of line, if Democrats come close to winning a point, House Speaker Glenn Richardson will be able to appoint a hawk — or two or three or more — to fly into the meeting and tip the vote to the Republican side.
This alone makes Richardson the most powerful House speaker ever to tread on red clay, declared Democrats who once withered under Tom Murphy's fish-like gaze. "If they ever lose a vote, they ought to be ashamed of themselves," said state Rep. Tom Bordeaux (D-Savannah).
Richardson reiterated the Republican promise of moderation. "I promise I'm not going to abuse this," he told reporters after he'd finished a heavily scripted morning.
Robert Highsmith, the governor's former legal counsel, helped Republicans write new rules for the state Senate two years ago. You can presume he had at least an early look at the rewrite of the House rules, though he won't say. He likes the idea of hawks.
"If the majority will is about to be thwarted, this is a very clever way to prevent this from happening," Highsmith said.
He and other Republicans argue that this is transparency. One never knew when, behind closed doors, Murphy or Terry Coleman twisted arms, they argue. "This way, everybody will see it happen. Everyone will know it happened," Highsmith said.
_______________
With both chambers cemented under GOP control, Republican leaders vowed a short session marked by more openness than under Democratic leadership. Richardson said the term would be done by spring break, and that lawmakers would focus what he called his four "core values." Those were to reduce the size of government, strengthen family values, reduce taxes and encourage personal responsibility.
All that sounds fine, and is what we were promised by Richardson soon after Nov. 2.
But the hawks? This is taking control to a new level, something way beyond to the victor go the spoils.
When you have complete control, there is a certain arrogance and sense of entitlement that can develop. Besides the idea of hawks being stupid -- give me a better word for it and I will use it -- it represents political overreaching, arrogance and entitlement.
As stated by Rep. Tom Bordeaux, "If they ever lose a vote, they ought to be ashamed of themselves." Why, because they can't lose. Why even send thing to committee?
And for goodness sake what in the world is wrong with persuasion and showing a little leadership by persuading other legislators to see things your way? According to the Republicans, this is doing away with transparency.
As noted in the above PI article, "One never knew when, behind closed doors, Murphy or Terry Coleman twisted arms, they argue. 'This way, everybody will see it happen. Everyone will know it happened.,'"
If we Democrats will play our cards right and let the voters know that by such action, Richardson has disinfranchised their representatives if he or she disagrees with the Czar, such action should ultimately cause a voter backlash.
The challenge of control, and in this case complete control, is using good judgment, and being ever mindful of how your use of such control will be perceived by the electorate.
Does the Speaker not know that the pendulum is always swinging? When it does complete its cycle, and the Democrats regain the state House, it is my hope and desire that rather than continue such silliness, that we restore a modicum of democracy to our legislative process.
posted by Sid Cottingham | 6:03 AM
2 Comments:
"Why even send thing to committee?"
That gets to the heart of it. If they're just going to rubber stamp everything, why even have a state Legislature? Why not just have Speaker Richardson work out of a corner office next door to the governor and call himself the Legislative branch?
This whole "Hawk" thing really bothers me--and would even if the Democrats had introduced it. It's kind of depressing, actually.
Post a Comment
<< Home