Erratta: (1) Terry Coleman voted for DuBose Porter for Speaker out of friendship & respect; (2) Hopefully votes did not indicate more party switching.
In an earlier post of today I wrote that the 01-11-05 PI provided some of the details of those making up the 18 House members crossing party lines to vote for Rep. Glenn Richardson as Speaker rather than Rep. DuBose Porter, and I quoted the following two paragraphs from the ajc's Political Insider as follows:
"Eighteen Democrats and one independent endorsed Glenn Richardson for House speaker on Monday, including out-going speaker Terry Coleman.
"Most surprising were Douglas Dean of Atlanta and Don Wix of Mableton. Wix holds Roy Barnes' old House seat."
Tonight I saw in The Macon Telegraph that:
"Nineteen Democrats, most from rural districts and members of the new rural Democratic caucus, voted for Richardson. Some 30 crossed over and voted for the new rules.
"One who did not vote for his successor was outgoing Speaker Terry Coleman, D-Eastman, who said he voted for Porter both out of friendship and respect."
I have determined that although former Speaker Terry Coleman was among the Democrats who approved the rule changes in the House, as noted above, he did not vote for Richardson for Speaker.
In preparing this errata post, I went back and reviewed the above-quoted PI and see that the PI has deleted "including out-going speaker Terry Coleman" from the online version of PI (the hard copy did not run this story of the 18). Now the online story only has one paragraph that puts the above two quoted paragraphs together and that now reads as follows:
"Eighteen Democrats and one independent endorsed Glenn Richardson for House speaker on Monday. Most surprising were Douglas Dean of Atlanta and Don Wix of Mableton. Wix holds Roy Barnes' old House seat."
Rep. Terry Coleman, my apologies for the error, and I am glad that you voted for Rep. DuBose Porter.
And while cleaning up mistakes and predictions, hopefully the statement from the 01-10-05 PI reported in my 01-10-05 post to the effect that the number of Democrats voting for Richardson "would indicate the number of rural House Democrats who haven't ruled out switching parties and joining the new regime" will prove to be incorrect as well.
My post of earlier today is now more appropriately titled "Some details of the vote for Speaker Richardson. Most were white, rural Dems who crossed party lines to show bipartisanship."
The crossing of party lines in the Speaker vote was discussed as follows in the following sources:
Kristen Wyatt of the AP described the House Democrats vote for Richardson for Speaker as "a symbolic sign of respect even though a Democrat ran for the job."
Dave Williams of the Gwinnett Daily Post also reports bipartisanship as the reason the 18 Democrats crossed party lines, noting that:
Rep. Bob Hanner, D-Parrott, said he voted for Richardson out of a spirit out of bipartisanship, not out of any interest in changing parties. “They won. They got the majority of the House,” said Hanner. “I think we should work together now . . . not try to be obstructionists.”
Greg Morris, a Democrat who supported Richardson, defended himself: "The majority rules. He's the new speaker, and there's no sense in having a partisan fight the first day. Look, I've got a district to represent, and they expect me to deliver for them."
(The foregoing paragraph about Rep. Greg Morris is from the 01-11-04 PI, and was in my earlier post being corrected herein and was also was in such PI prior to it being corrected.)
_______________
On the issue of the possibility of such votes indicating possible further switches, you go with your gut feelings and instincts folks.
And from the perspective of myself and Baxter & Galloway and other Georgians who feared the worst -- more switching to the Philistines -- what else did we have to go on. Speaking for myself, I sure wasn't around some 130 years ago when such a vote resulting in a GOP Speaker was last taken to see what, if anything, happened then.
And wouldn't it be nice if it didn't happen again for another 130 years. Remember Czar, the pendulum, it is always swinging.
"Eighteen Democrats and one independent endorsed Glenn Richardson for House speaker on Monday, including out-going speaker Terry Coleman.
"Most surprising were Douglas Dean of Atlanta and Don Wix of Mableton. Wix holds Roy Barnes' old House seat."
Tonight I saw in The Macon Telegraph that:
"Nineteen Democrats, most from rural districts and members of the new rural Democratic caucus, voted for Richardson. Some 30 crossed over and voted for the new rules.
"One who did not vote for his successor was outgoing Speaker Terry Coleman, D-Eastman, who said he voted for Porter both out of friendship and respect."
I have determined that although former Speaker Terry Coleman was among the Democrats who approved the rule changes in the House, as noted above, he did not vote for Richardson for Speaker.
In preparing this errata post, I went back and reviewed the above-quoted PI and see that the PI has deleted "including out-going speaker Terry Coleman" from the online version of PI (the hard copy did not run this story of the 18). Now the online story only has one paragraph that puts the above two quoted paragraphs together and that now reads as follows:
"Eighteen Democrats and one independent endorsed Glenn Richardson for House speaker on Monday. Most surprising were Douglas Dean of Atlanta and Don Wix of Mableton. Wix holds Roy Barnes' old House seat."
Rep. Terry Coleman, my apologies for the error, and I am glad that you voted for Rep. DuBose Porter.
And while cleaning up mistakes and predictions, hopefully the statement from the 01-10-05 PI reported in my 01-10-05 post to the effect that the number of Democrats voting for Richardson "would indicate the number of rural House Democrats who haven't ruled out switching parties and joining the new regime" will prove to be incorrect as well.
My post of earlier today is now more appropriately titled "Some details of the vote for Speaker Richardson. Most were white, rural Dems who crossed party lines to show bipartisanship."
The crossing of party lines in the Speaker vote was discussed as follows in the following sources:
Kristen Wyatt of the AP described the House Democrats vote for Richardson for Speaker as "a symbolic sign of respect even though a Democrat ran for the job."
Dave Williams of the Gwinnett Daily Post also reports bipartisanship as the reason the 18 Democrats crossed party lines, noting that:
Rep. Bob Hanner, D-Parrott, said he voted for Richardson out of a spirit out of bipartisanship, not out of any interest in changing parties. “They won. They got the majority of the House,” said Hanner. “I think we should work together now . . . not try to be obstructionists.”
Greg Morris, a Democrat who supported Richardson, defended himself: "The majority rules. He's the new speaker, and there's no sense in having a partisan fight the first day. Look, I've got a district to represent, and they expect me to deliver for them."
(The foregoing paragraph about Rep. Greg Morris is from the 01-11-04 PI, and was in my earlier post being corrected herein and was also was in such PI prior to it being corrected.)
_______________
On the issue of the possibility of such votes indicating possible further switches, you go with your gut feelings and instincts folks.
And from the perspective of myself and Baxter & Galloway and other Georgians who feared the worst -- more switching to the Philistines -- what else did we have to go on. Speaking for myself, I sure wasn't around some 130 years ago when such a vote resulting in a GOP Speaker was last taken to see what, if anything, happened then.
And wouldn't it be nice if it didn't happen again for another 130 years. Remember Czar, the pendulum, it is always swinging.
posted by Sid Cottingham | 9:11 PM
2 Comments:
what do you think of some of the democrats blaming the house lost on coleman for allowing the 595 vote?
Success has a thousand fathers, but failure is an orphan.
Post a Comment
<< Home