Friday, January 13, 2006

Senate rule changed to protect Potts

The State Senate adopted this rule change amending and readopting Rules 8 (f), 10, 19 (c), 20 (a), 20 (g), 20 (l), and 26 (b) of the Rules of the Senate, relating to changes in party membership, additional committee staff, and chief patrons.

Should any Senator, during his term of office, cease to be a member of the political party of which he was a member at the time of his election, or by self-declaration as confirmed by a two-thirds majority of the members elected to the Senate, or through other conduct as confirmed by a two-thirds majority of the members elected to the Senate, he shall be deemed, thereby, to have forfeited all Committee memberships to which he may have been elected. Changes to the rule are in italics.
That's right, it was too close a call for Potts the other day, so this rule was amended to give him that extra cushion before Bolling came in as Lt. Gov. The final vote on this rule was only opposed by Cuccinelli, Martin, Obenshain, O'Brien with Mims not voting. Three amendments by Cuccinelli were rejected.

18 Comments:

At 1/13/2006 05:02:00 PM, Anonymous NOVA Scout said...

It's worth noting that the vote was 35-4.

The much-abused Senate Leadership seems rather deft at keeping the ferocious-looking lions primly perched on their little chairs. Some folks may wish they were in another line of work, but all have to admire their consummate skill. Interesting spectacle.

Now, what was that nice man, Mr. Tate, talking about jsut a bit ago?

 
At 1/13/2006 05:04:00 PM, Anonymous bushwick bill said...

Yep, its sure great we Republicans control the VA Senate. I'm almost glad Colgan is my Senator. Better an open and honest Democrat than a Republican like Chichester.

 
At 1/13/2006 05:24:00 PM, Anonymous ZB said...

So, out of curiousity, does this mean that for the many Republican bloggers who have declared war on the gang of four (Potts, Chichester, Hawkins, and Quayle), they now must expand the war to every Republican Senator except for Cuccinelli, O'Brien, Martin, and Obenshain?

 
At 1/13/2006 05:46:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think the Republicans should thank EVERY Senator except Cuccinelli, Martin, O'brien and Obenshain. The public perception is growing that the Party has become mean, overly-partisan, and out-of-touch with the concerns of the people. Time to move on and deal with some real issues like transportation...

 
At 1/13/2006 06:05:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I couldn't disagree more with the last post ... thank goodness for those four, especially for Cuccinelli, for trying to retain some means, however tattered they now are, of party unity. Being a Republican in Virginia is losing its meaning more and more everday.

 
At 1/13/2006 06:10:00 PM, Anonymous NoVA Scout said...

It's not losing meaning - it's changing meaning. Let's hope that it's gaining meaning.

 
At 1/13/2006 06:11:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

Four Senators who could stand up for honor. Four Senators who could stand up for keeping one's word. Four Senators with the modest amount of humility to recognize that they and they alone are not entitled to dictate what is a Republican.

The narcissism of the 35 is astounding

 
At 1/13/2006 06:11:00 PM, Blogger Involved said...

I agree with Not Gretchen Bulova on this subject.

19 Republican State Senators- Winners

Why you might ask? Why would the losing 19 be the winners? Why wouldn't Russ Potts be the winner? The answer is simple. The 19 Senators may have lost in the short-term but they could win in the long-term. Not only will there most likely be another vote on the Russ Potts issue, which those 19 Senators, + Ruff, +Bolling will likely win, but they have now found 4 weak links in their membership. Four members they can target for numerous crimes against the party, including the tax increase of 04'. They have more ammunition to attack these members in 07' primaries and these 19 have wedded themselves to their base. It could work out to be the perfect storm for these Senators.

I also agree with Bushwick Bill. I'm a conservative, but I'd rather have an honest Democrat in office instead of any of these three traitors.

The term republican has just become an even weaker classification.

 
At 1/13/2006 06:43:00 PM, Blogger J.Sarge said...

As has even been stated by Victoria Cobb of the "Family" Foundation, Bolling as LTG has no impact on this question because his tie-breaking function is not permitted when it comes to Rules of the Senate. For a little backstory, check http://new-dominion.blogspot.com/2005/12/story-behind-number-4.html.

The narcissism of the 35 is astounding

James, I find it hard to fault the Democrats for much here. I don't know what they did that was so narcissistic.

Are you calling out Sen. Newman? There's an unprincipled liberal...

 
At 1/13/2006 10:33:00 PM, Blogger Riley, Not O'Reilly said...

I don't fault the 15 of the 19 GOP senators who voted to strip Potts of his chairmanship, but voted for this rule. The rule had to be passed to govern senate business and unfortunately it was amended to include this odious provision. I'm glad a handful cast this protest vote against it, but the ship had already sailed on Potts this year.

 
At 1/14/2006 01:10:00 AM, Blogger criticallythinking said...

If the new rule really is exactly as printed in this post, I don't quite get it.

The new clauses were added with "or"s, which means they are additional ways to remove a person, and don't modify the original method for removing a person.

So how does this change anything? It simply looks like any time now a minority of the majority can find some mischief that the minority would like to help them with, that group can now vote to declare members of the majority party to NOT be republicans.

And oddly, if republicans ever get to be 2/3rds of the senate, this rule seems to suggest that they can vote that every democrat is stripped of their democrat party affilication.

Which just seems like a very weird rule to have, but still doesn't seem to change the original rule, under which I am imagining they were trying to remove Potts.

It does beg the question, how does a Senator "cease to be a member of the political party"? the first new "or" clause says 'or by self-declaration", suggesting that a person can simply announce he isn't a republican anymore, but you need a 2/3 vote to comfirm it. So how did you used to "cease to be a member".

The chair (Bolling) could rule that by running as an independent, Potts ceased to be a member of the political party, under the original clause of the rule, and therefore is not subject to the new additions.

Then I think the same majority which would be voting Potts out would vote on the chair ruling.

Not that I expect this to happen, this is the Virginia Senate after all. I think they all didn't WANT to have this fight.

 
At 1/14/2006 02:53:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why do you people keep on misrepresenting the Senate rules?!!! Bolling does not have a vote in these organizational matters at all. He only has a vote when their is a tie vote in the Senate on legislation; that vote does not extend to who are committee chairman. Period. Period. Period.

 
At 1/14/2006 05:13:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

nova scout 6:10 said " It's not losing meaning - it's changing meaning" --- Thank you for admitting the truth. Were it that other self-styled "moderates" --- really Liberals who recognize the poison that is admitting the character of their beliefs --- were so honest.

And anon 2:53 --- I agree with you as to Bolling. Let's not overestimate his role. I supported Bolling over Chairman Sean because I've been paying the latter's bills for years. But let's not give him undue credit where he has no effective role

 
At 1/14/2006 08:29:00 PM, Anonymous NOVA Scout said...

Actually, James, I'm a self-styled conservative. So are you. That's about all we have in common, apparently. No reason to believe my taxonomy is less correct than yours. Plus I have a longer track record. That's not your fault - I'm older. But it's not for you to decide that a forty years of support for conservative causes makes me a liberal just because I think your view of things threatens the political success
of my Party.

If I'm incorrect that we are watching an evolution of meaning in the Virginia GOP, a gainful change of meaning, then we are doomed to further defeats. I'd rather win than lose.

 
At 1/14/2006 11:03:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

nova scout 8:29 said "Actually, James, I'm a self-styled conservative." nova scout 6:10 said "It's not losing meaning - it's changing meaning." I'm reminded of an old Star Trek episode, where Harry Mudd is held hostage by a group of androids, and human control is regained by posing a logical conundrum. The head android is told that "Everything Harry tells you is a lie." And then Harry says, "I am lying to you." The androids head virtually explodes.

But never mind. We only have your self-representations --- consistent, to be sure --- about your track record, because you hide your identity. Less dishonorably than those who post utterly anonymously, but only marginally so. But there are plenty of individuals who call themselves "Conservatives," but on various issues either: (1) pursue Liberal ends; or (2) oppose real Conservative values and attack other Conservatives for standing up to Conservative values. If hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue, then pretensions to conservatism is the tribute that Liberalism pays to winning political ideas. I can think of quite a few self-proclaimed "Conservatives" who fail miserably to advance or even abide by Conservative principles when in a position to do so. It's (M. Stanton) Evans' Law: When our friends are in a position to be useful, they're no longer our friends.

To be sure, there is value in winning over losing. But it's only if winning results in meaningful and positive change. If the GOP wins but continues to grow government unnecessarily/continues to increase the government's take on our income/permits Liberal judges to change societal values in ways that can't win in the legislatures, then it's an empty victory, to be sure.

It's the difference between a political party which stands for and advances a set of principles, and one which is merely a vehicle for political power. I have always equated the former with the modern GOP, and the latter with the Democrats. Once again, you advance a vision of a GOP which, so far as I am concerned, is more like the Democrat Party. Color me surprised.

 
At 1/14/2006 11:45:00 PM, Anonymous NOVA Scout said...

Short and to the point, as usual, James.

 
At 1/15/2006 07:40:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

nova scout, I learned, years ago in dealing with union lawyers, that rebutting nonsensical, bald assertions takes more time and space than simply pulling those assertions out of a bodily orifice.

How's that for short and to the point?

 
At 1/15/2006 10:14:00 PM, Anonymous NOVA Scout said...

Wouldn't want you to do the latter. Not very hygienic. Not sure you have accomplished the former. Keep trying, man. Effort couts for something.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home