|
In the April 24th edition of the Concord Monitor the headline stated; "Disgruntled Republicans Talk Coup."
First things first there is an old saying in politics never attack the king unless you have the strength enough and the willingness to kill him. There is no way that 60-80; even if well intended, men and women have enough strength to take down the king. The King is king because of the deals he made with members from both parties.
One only has to look across Rep's Hall, and is it very clear that there are years and years of knowledge experience and leadership abilities that are just being wasted every day. The Republicans failed to realize that a coup was underway in their own party. While most were more concern about getting reelected, the side and back room deals were being cut, overwhelming the old guard, leaving them in the dark.
The current Republican leadership team is almost like a parliamentary type government where numerous small groups are provided the opportunity, for an example, with the creation of new committees to provide them with far more political weight then their numbers justify, in return for their votes to form a leadership coalition. Coalitions rarely work long-term because the small groups quickly realize that they have far more power that they thought and the King is forced to give up more and more power just to stay in power. Small groups rarely understand starting a revolution is far easier than forming a new government.
The minority leader never told the majority of her party that she would walk up to the well and refuse her party's nomination and then move to close nominations, this for what, her pick of committee assignments. It is highly unlikely that minority leader could muster enough backing to have any influence in any coup. This unlike the former minority Rep Craig who convinced everyone to vote party line on the first ballot and then having the minority play a major role in electing the Speaker.
We as the minority can complain as much as we want but we have blood on our hands, we had 102 votes and Rep O'Brien didn't have 201 votes. (Rumor has it he was his party nominee by less than 15 votes)We did nothing and O'Brien only needed at best 151 votes or less than 40% to be elected. We failed to display leadership, we remain silent; plus since we sold our votes so cheaply the first time, what value would they have now. We will never know if he could have gotten to 201.
A second important fact worth remembering, in war and politics, if someone will betray their friend for you, it would only be a matter of time before they betray you for a higher price.
Politics is a very dirty game and anyone who thinks otherwise will get hurt and hurt badly. It is important to remember the words of John Steinbeck. "Power does not corrupt. Fear corrupts, perhaps the fear of a loss of power." Some people will do whatever is required to gain power, but that is nothing compared to what they would do if they feared losing that power.
In the April 22nd edition of the New Hampshire Democratic House Notes, former State Rep Splaine wrote, referring to the Republicans, "Changes in the their own leadership can be made. Agendas can be thrown out in favor of approaches that serve than hurt people."
While I agree with Mr. Splaine's comments that changes in leadership can be made, I totally disagree with his view that "Agendas can be thrown out in favor of approaches that serve than hurt people." There is no way, no how, that forcing a change in party leadership would benefit the people of New Hampshire; if we voted out the speaker, who would replace him, the deputy speaker or the former speaker. The speaker was a master chess player; he put someone as deputy who couldn't challenge him, he had the former speaker stand up and say he wouldn't accept the position of speaker and he appointed as majority leader someone who would so grateful for the status he wouldn't think of risking his position by challenging the Speaker.
If we voted out the speaker and replaced him with someone else how could the new speaker trust the chairs and vice-chairs after all a number of them fearing for their positions did what they were told to do. Some have serious creditability issues. In a crisis you want people who will stand up and are upfront, not someone who goes along to get along. It would take weeks to create a team that the new speaker could trust. We have about eight weeks to get the budget passed; someone would have to captain the ship. Who worry about the people of New Hampshire during this period?
Plus what do you do with all those small groups that have lost their spotlight, their ability to think they are more important and more knowledgeable then everyone else? You can't fire them like you can in a hostile take-over; the best you can hope for is for them to just sit there quietly. However, it is highly likely that they would cause as much discontentment as possible. Maybe they will take lessons from the now current speaker when he was a back-bencher. Without question some would do whatever possible to bring the House to a halt; kind of like refusing to increase the debt ceiling.
If the people of New Hampshire think we are fools now, just wait if there is an attempted coup or even a vote of no confidence. While the people of New Hampshire are wondering about how the budget cuts will affect their standard of living, whether they will still have jobs, or how much the state will cause their local tax rate to increase, we would be acting like a bunch of spoil kids in the park fighting over who will get to pick sides; this as the sun go down.
A coup would be a really bad idea because it would allow the speaker and his leadership team to avoid taking the hit for the major cuts; whoever became the new speaker and whoever assumed leadership positions would be held responsible for the final budget.
The most effective way to deal with the current problem, the best way to look out for the interest of the people of New Hampshire would be the formation of a third caucus, what I would call for a better term the "Common Sense Caucus" made up of men and women who would be willing to put New Hampshire first, party second. Men and women who can take the time and decide just what are our core values, what programs that we believe define us as a state, programs that we must find funding for; Programs that we would be willing to stand up and fight for.
Fifty or sixty men and women may not have the power to conduct a successful coup but they could have the power to limit the power of the king; requiring him to lead by a set of rules. If one doesn't believe so I recommend that they take out their history book and read about a little place named Runnymede and that piece of paper called the Magna Carta. After all you don't have to kill the king to get him to look after the welfare of all the citizens of New Hampshire.
|
