Georgia Democrats opt out of Speaker election.
With so many tough issues facing the Georgia legislative session beginning today, Georgia Democrats have opted not to run a candidate for Speaker of the House. In a move sure to be criticized by some, I applaud their interest in moving beyond the political gyrations and getting down to the "peoples' business".
20 Responses to “Let’s Get to Work.”
That's one way of interpreting it.
Although there is always time to gripe about hawks. Which always should be done.
I don't think it has anything to do with "moving beyond the political gyrations" or "getting down to the peoples business.
It was a weak move, by a weak leader of a weak party. In other words, an attempt to save face when at least a dozen in his own caucus would have probably voted for Richardson even if he had run.
"when at least a dozen in his own caucus would have probably voted for Richardson even if he had run. "
And some of the names are?
or the fact that he's running for Gov and didn't want the vote to be something that ends up on a primary opponents mail.
Well, Rural, you can start with Carter, Cheokas, Greene, Hanner, Jacobs, Jones, Shaw - the 6 Democrats who voted for Richardson the last time there was a vote for Speaker back in 2007 (Mike Jacobs voted for him as well but is no longer a Democrat). Black, Hudson, and Parham didn't vote for the Speaker last time, but voted for his Rules.
At that time, Richardson said "The people who voted for me and voted for the (House) rules will get treated very nicely with committee assignments. I only have 110 positions that are plum and plum positions go to the people who say 'Hey, Glen, I have confidence."
In other words, if you want your preferred committee assignement, or if you want your bill to be considered, you vote for me for Speaker and/or vote for my Rules. If not, you won't be able to get anything done. I'm sure the same was the case this year.
So, it would have been better somehow for someone to run and lose? I guess I just don't get it. Democrats are outnumbered. Wouldn't have won. Why waste time and give fuel to future opponents?
Totally agree. But, I also agree with this:
Can we get a new leader already?
Of course, everyone knows he would lose. But a strong leader uses stuff like this to unify his caucus and serves as a test of loyalty and a early demonstration of who may get out of line. A weak leader, like Dubose, knows he has nothing to keep his troops in line, so he takes a pass.
It is also symbolic to demonstrate that this is the opposition party. Do we really want the House Democrats to work together with the Republican leadership to help pass their agenda? If so, why didn't we just vote for them instead?
DuB is pretty weak but for as weak as he is, Glenn is even stronger and with limited pork to give out this year, legislators need to do all they can to curry favor.
Exactly how much more of the people's business is now being done as a result of this? Or did they just go home early?
OK DG,what would you have a weak leader in a weak party (at a weak time and in a weak place, I might add) do? I mean, it may not be wise for a weak leader in a weak party to try to follow a strategy as if that weren't the case.
To paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, you play your politics with the Democrats that you have.
Not even putting up a leader even knowing that they will lose kind of is a "Yeah we suck that bad" move for the other side to take pride in I think. In most parliamentary systems opposition parties still run someone. Just throwing in the towel at the start of it is basically pulling down your pants and bending over.
OK DG,what would you have a weak leader in a weak party (at a weak time and in a weak place, I might add) do? I mean, it may not be wise for a weak leader in a weak party to try to follow a strategy as if that weren't the case.
You make a pretty good case for a new leader, don't you Jerry? That's what some of us have been advocating for a couple of years now. Let's let Dubose run his failed campaign for Governor and let someone else have a chance.
Not disputing that DG. It's just kind of a head banger to say that a weak leader should act more strongly.
So who should run for Speaker for the Dems?
I guess Teilhet would probably be the most obvious choice. Not sure that he has the necessary chutzpah for the job, but would be an improvement over Porter.
I'm sure there are others who would be good if they stepped up.
I meant to run against Richardson.
I saw this on the Kos.
Some serious brilliance on the part of the Dems there.
http://www.dailykos.com/...09/1/13/17122/6402/796/683663
Okay, so you need to come within the razor's edge of majority to pull stuff like this, but it is still pretty slick to get even half of the chairs in a backroom deal.
One has to imagine the TN Dems' caucus meeting went something like this.
go to 5:18 at the absolute minimum.
http://www.youtube.com/...OhlThs9qY&feature=related
Then watch the entire movie. Twice. Then watch the SPanish Prisoner.
It takes brass balls.
I seriously can't give over how big a pair of brass balls my TN Dems had.
http://www.youtube.com/...OhlThs9qY&feature=related
For the general BforD readership: I made $970,000 last year, how much did you make.