I side with the Democrats who say to state House Minority Leader DuBose Porter: Forget a legal challenge to the hawks. Let arrogance do its job.
It is a truism to say the hawks will undermine the committee system and make Speaker Richardson too powerful.
As noted by the Dean in an earlier post of today:
"[H]awks" [are] a roaming SWAT team of 'at large' lawmakers charged with quelling dissent and killing any legislation frowned upon by Richardson or Perdue. The 'hawks' will be able to vote on any business pending before any committee, effectively giving the speaker absolute power to kill any bill or silence debate at committee level."
And as noted by the Political Insider in a 01-14-05 post:
"From what we can determine, the Georgia bird-of-prey committee operation may have no equal. In no other state legislature is a Speaker allowed the same, overt leeway to swing votes his way on a day-to-day basis.
"[I guarantee there is no equal. It is dumb. Stupid. Unheard of. No logic. The Czar wants to be a dictator, and his subjects voted to allow him to be such.]"
"But with Democrats a solid minority on House committees, many of them have wondered why the hawk system is even necessary.
"Many Democrats — and a few moderates on the other side of the aisle — have come to the conclusion that it isn't aimed at them at all. That it's designed to keep straying Republicans from breaking ranks and brokering deals with Democrats."
And as stated in a 01-11-05 post:
"Democrats howled, saying the hawks would effectively allow Republican leadership to force any bill through, even when regular committee members object."
"[The hawks] 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."
And finally, the title of my 01-11-05 post, "Gov. Perdue's signature issue: 'Running this government in a more efficient and effective way.' - Hawks, courtesy of Bubba's Czar."
_______________
The title of this post: "I side with the Democrats who say to Minority Leader DuBose Porter: Forget a legal challenge to the hawks."
The basis of this title is that last week House Minority Leader DuBose Porter (D-Dublin) said Democrats are exploring the possibility of a court challenge to Republicans being able to pack committees with extra lawmakers in cases of close votes.
"We think it's necessary to explore the rules at two levels — in the context of one-man, one-vote, and how it undermines the committee system," Porter said.
But as reported in the 01-13-05 ajc, Democrats are divided on whether they should try a legal challenge for fear of it looking like sour grapes.
Certainly the appearance of sour grapges is a concern. An even larger concern to me is what if the Democrats make such a challenge and lose, with the judicial branch saying it will defer the making of legislative rules to the legislative branch.
To me our best course of action is noted in bold above. Bring it to the attention of the voters as the very epitome of arrogance and political overreaching. And in reality, not only is this the best course, but it is probably the only course.
Bubba's Czar is forgetting in his delusion of grandeur that the pendulum is always swinging; and it will swing back. It always does.
As stated in my 01-11-05 post about "comments that come back to haunt:"
"'I hear them crying,' Speaker Glenn Richardson said of his rule on 'hawks.'
"Never forget the pendulum Czar, it is always swinging."
_______________
And in response to a question to an earlier post today, and for those of you into ornithology (as the Political Insider first said; see 01-14-05 post title quoting the the PI column entitled: 'Since the new 'hawk' system was announced by House Republicans, we've been doing a little ornithology'), last week house Speaker Glenn Richardson named his hawks (at least his first three; he indicated he anticipated three, and no more than four).
The three Republican House members with the authority to swoop into any House committee or subcommittee and participate in any vote:
Rep. Tom Graves of Fairmount, who has been a member of the House since 2002;
Rep. Stacey Reece of Gainesville, who also has been a member of the House since 2002; and
Rep. John Lunsford of McDonough, who has served in the House since 2000.
(ajc, 01-13-05.)
_______________
Red-tailed hawks are common in South Georgia. Thus I would know what to look for were any of these Republican hawks from below the gnat line.
But since these are all metro hawks, I am going to be at a loss in identifying the GOP's bird-of-prey when I visit the Capitol next Monday.
Maybe Jim Galloway will be a bit further along in his ornithology studies, and can provide some needed guidance.
As noted by the Dean in an earlier post of today:
"[H]awks" [are] a roaming SWAT team of 'at large' lawmakers charged with quelling dissent and killing any legislation frowned upon by Richardson or Perdue. The 'hawks' will be able to vote on any business pending before any committee, effectively giving the speaker absolute power to kill any bill or silence debate at committee level."
And as noted by the Political Insider in a 01-14-05 post:
"From what we can determine, the Georgia bird-of-prey committee operation may have no equal. In no other state legislature is a Speaker allowed the same, overt leeway to swing votes his way on a day-to-day basis.
"[I guarantee there is no equal. It is dumb. Stupid. Unheard of. No logic. The Czar wants to be a dictator, and his subjects voted to allow him to be such.]"
"But with Democrats a solid minority on House committees, many of them have wondered why the hawk system is even necessary.
"Many Democrats — and a few moderates on the other side of the aisle — have come to the conclusion that it isn't aimed at them at all. That it's designed to keep straying Republicans from breaking ranks and brokering deals with Democrats."
And as stated in a 01-11-05 post:
"Democrats howled, saying the hawks would effectively allow Republican leadership to force any bill through, even when regular committee members object."
"[The hawks] 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."
And finally, the title of my 01-11-05 post, "Gov. Perdue's signature issue: 'Running this government in a more efficient and effective way.' - Hawks, courtesy of Bubba's Czar."
_______________
The title of this post: "I side with the Democrats who say to Minority Leader DuBose Porter: Forget a legal challenge to the hawks."
The basis of this title is that last week House Minority Leader DuBose Porter (D-Dublin) said Democrats are exploring the possibility of a court challenge to Republicans being able to pack committees with extra lawmakers in cases of close votes.
"We think it's necessary to explore the rules at two levels — in the context of one-man, one-vote, and how it undermines the committee system," Porter said.
But as reported in the 01-13-05 ajc, Democrats are divided on whether they should try a legal challenge for fear of it looking like sour grapes.
Certainly the appearance of sour grapges is a concern. An even larger concern to me is what if the Democrats make such a challenge and lose, with the judicial branch saying it will defer the making of legislative rules to the legislative branch.
To me our best course of action is noted in bold above. Bring it to the attention of the voters as the very epitome of arrogance and political overreaching. And in reality, not only is this the best course, but it is probably the only course.
Bubba's Czar is forgetting in his delusion of grandeur that the pendulum is always swinging; and it will swing back. It always does.
As stated in my 01-11-05 post about "comments that come back to haunt:"
"'I hear them crying,' Speaker Glenn Richardson said of his rule on 'hawks.'
"Never forget the pendulum Czar, it is always swinging."
_______________
And in response to a question to an earlier post today, and for those of you into ornithology (as the Political Insider first said; see 01-14-05 post title quoting the the PI column entitled: 'Since the new 'hawk' system was announced by House Republicans, we've been doing a little ornithology'), last week house Speaker Glenn Richardson named his hawks (at least his first three; he indicated he anticipated three, and no more than four).
The three Republican House members with the authority to swoop into any House committee or subcommittee and participate in any vote:
Rep. Tom Graves of Fairmount, who has been a member of the House since 2002;
Rep. Stacey Reece of Gainesville, who also has been a member of the House since 2002; and
Rep. John Lunsford of McDonough, who has served in the House since 2000.
(ajc, 01-13-05.)
_______________
Red-tailed hawks are common in South Georgia. Thus I would know what to look for were any of these Republican hawks from below the gnat line.
But since these are all metro hawks, I am going to be at a loss in identifying the GOP's bird-of-prey when I visit the Capitol next Monday.
Maybe Jim Galloway will be a bit further along in his ornithology studies, and can provide some needed guidance.
posted by Sid Cottingham | 9:29 PM
2 Comments:
my sister is interning for dubose porter this session - you would love her
i sent her your post via email
I might love her, but she sure has some big shoes to fill to match big sis. Tell her to e-mail me.
Post a Comment
<< Home