- A NOVA perspective on Virginia politics -
Unbelievable. We're a supposed majority in the state senate and we give away control of two committees to the minority party?
posted by Riley @ 2/07/2006 10:24:00 AM
what are they thinking. wait they are not thinking.
I asked a friend of mine down there about this.She told me that it was done by moderate republicans in order to keep conservatives from gaining any power in the committees.If this is true, it's pretty sad!
I'm all smiles...
This is what we get when we don't support our candidates. I find it interesting that they gave Herring the local gov't and social services committee and that now dems control this committee. I bet there will now be all kinds of interesting social services legislation that we will see coming out of this committee. It sure looks peculiar to me to put a Dem majority on this particular committee when so many other committees have large republican majorities. Can you say "payback" for helping the moderates keep Potts?
Membership of the rehabilitation and social services committee:Chair: Hanger, Emmett W., Jr. Membership: Miller; Marsh; Lucas; Williams; Ticer; Puller; Wagner; Cuccinelli; O'Brien; Deeds; Devolites Davis; Locke; McDougle; and Herring Do you see any patterns here in which Republicans are on this committee and why the "leadership" might want a Dem majority?????
Oh and one more thing, I just remembered something... A certain member of the "leadership" says he "doesn't believe in "vendettas"", oh really? Could this be considered "punishment" to certain conservative members of the Senate???? So much for everyone "getting along".No those "moderates" never ever try to work against "the far far far right" Any adjustments on who is "Group A" and who is "Group B" TC???
While maybe not as strident, I think giving a majority to Dems on this committee also is intereting:Local Government Chair: Quayle, Frederick M. Membership: Marsh; Lucas; Martin; Hanger; Newman; Ticer; Whipple; Reynolds; Puckett; Puller; Ruff; Cuccinelli; Obenshain; and Herring.
Bob Twigg resigns from Loudoun Times Mirror --Leesburg Today is reporting Loudoun Times Mirror Executive Editor Bob Twigg, husband of BJ Webb and stepfather of an announced candidate for Leesburg Town Council will resign from the paper.Democrats are blogging he never gave them a fair shake in Leesburg. In the eastern part of the county, that seems ironic.While Bob Twigg improved the look and scope of LTM, the papers coverage of Dick Black, Mick Staton, and Eugene Delgaudio was absurdly and unprofessionally biased. This Twigg/Webb family production covered the recent elections with all the objectivity Forbes magazine brought to the Steven Forbes campaign.We're better off that he's gone from this role.
rtwng extrmst, calm down before you hurt yourself.Senate rules guarantee at least 3 committees to a senator, I believe. The GOP is simply allowing Democratic majorities on two of the least influential committees in order to maintain its dominance on Finance, Commerce & Labor, etc. "She told me that it was done by moderate republicans in order to keep conservatives from gaining any power in the committees.""Involved," I wouldn't take everything your "friend" says at face value. Martin and Newman have power in the committees. They seem pretty conservative to me.
I think we came out lucky on this one. If the Democrats only have a majority in Local Government and Rehabilitation & Social Services then that is just fine. He could easily have been put on P & E or Agriculture and Conservation or Education and Health or Courts of Justice and this would have happened. Instead, he gets Local Government, Rehab, and General Laws and Technology. Those aren't exactly the most powerful committees in the Senate. The committees with the larger Republican majorities he never would have, nor should he have, been placed on because they are for the most experienced senators, in my opinion. A freshman senator halfway through session on Finance, Rules, Transportation, Courts of Justice, or Commerce and Labor? It's happened, but that doesn't mean it should. Like I said, it we lost the majority, but so far no chairmanships have been lost, on those two then I think we're okay. Rtwng extrmst is right, though, we have to support our candidates way more and hope that 2007 doesn't lead to even more losses of the majority.
J. Sarge,The whole advantage of being in the majority is that your party has control over committees, and legislative leadership positions.Republicans are not even close to losing our advantage in the other committees. We even have an entire 11-4 & 10-5 advantage in a couple committees. If you can see a strategic reason for the Republican Party to give up control of two Senate committees to the Dems, please explain it to the rest of us.
Involved-You are incorrect.I asked an elected offical in Richmond who told me "Every senator has 3 committees. We have larger numbers on other committees so they get more on those"
TC,Perhaps you could answer my question then.Name any of the strategic reasons for the Republican Party to give up control of two Senate committees to the Dems.... especially when it is unnecessary.
The reasons are...Senate rules.
Involved, I can probably answer that. It may be different than TC's answer, but here's mine:The strategic reason is that they didn't want to put him on any of the other "more important" committees. We're a week away from crossover.
I read that individual state senators didn't want to give up any of their assignments on committees where we have overwhelming majorities to balance out these other committees. As a result, since none of them would move over to fill the slots on those committees, the only option was to hand the majority over to the minority.Dipsticks.... What a bunch of Jeffords.
I'd be interested in seeing which other committee memberships changed. It sure seems illogical to me to give Dems a large voice on even a "less important" committee. This still appears to me to be a way of muting some of the more junior Senators who may have had differences of opinion with other members of the "leadership". It seems pretty clear to me that 10-5 and 11-4 majorities are pretty safe to add a dem to. They could even have added a senior Dem that is more conservative to the "more important" committees in order to avoid a total reversal in the "less important" ones. It will be interesting as I said before to see what kinds of legislation do and do not come out of these committees now that the majority has changed.TC, as far as I can tell there is no Senate rule that says you have to give majority vote to the minority party on committees. There should have been a way around this. My suspicion is the results were more tied to ego's in the "leadership" and their own personal agendas than to a true strategy to have Republican Leadership based on Republican ideals in the Senate.
What are you going to do, ask a senior Republican to take a dive off of Finance so you can keep control of R&SS??? Good luck. You think you have problems with senior Rs now. . .
the issue here seems to be inertia on the part of Rs who don't want to give up seats. Apparently there's no one with a big enough bullwhip to make them jump to a new committee. I agree with those who minimize the significance of this - the Rs maintained their hold on the important committees without the wasteful feather ruffling that would have attended a wholesale realignment.Can't see any internal GOP conspiracy in all this. Just big egos and resistance to change.
J. Sarge,Point well taken, but that is the problem. Too many egos and not enough willingness to "do the right thing" for the party and the commonwealth. And if these committees are so unimportant, why not just give them in totality to the dems and staff more Republicans on the "important" committees? If it's one thing I've seen in the Senate, the Dems will use whatever power they have to "stick it" to the Republican Party. I have no doubt that these committees (important or not) will see many party-line votes bringing some interesting legislation to the fore. Meanwhile Republicans on the committees will effectively be without a voice.
You heard it here first, rtwg. I'm predicting fewer than 5 strict party-line votes (all Rs v. all Ds) in this committee. I could well be wrong, but that's the number I'm going with for now. We'll see.
J. Sarge,If there's even one party-line vote then Republicans lose. How is this advantageous for anyone other than Democrats?
If the leadership thinks a bill won't make it out of one of those committees, the leadership can simply assign the bill to another committee where it will get out.If a bill makes it out we don't want, we can vote it down on the floor.However, what makes you think that the leader of the senate isn't HAPPY to have democrats have more control of these committees? Maybe Herring is more his liking than a republican?
Anon,Your final paragraph proves my point exactly. This only benefits Democrats.The reason why you have your party in the majority in committees is to stop bad bills from making their way to the floor.There's no question - This gives Democrats more power.
J. Sarge, Not sure if you're still reading this thread, but check this out:http://www.connectionnewspapers.com/article.asp?article=61855&paper=61&cat=110"Last week, my bill requiring medical personnel and others to report the pregnancies of girls under the age of 15 failed in the Senate Committee on Rehabilitation and Social Services on a 7-7 party line vote. All of the Democrats voted against it and all of the Republicans voted for it."That's 1 and counting...
I have three to go!
Post a Comment
View my complete profile