A Few Complaints about our Party

#1 (0.00 / 0)

Elwood,

If you can find someone else who wants to spend and/or raise $100,000 for a job that pays $100 on two weeks notice, perhaps you can anoint the Senate candidates instead...

---

by: Andrew Sylvia @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:18:55 AM CDT

Was I not clear? (0.00 / 0)

I don't want ANYBODY anointing candidates.

I want candidates to present their views and credentials to the voters, and have a campaign for the voters' choice.

---

by: elwood @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:22:46 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

You were not clear (0.00 / 0)

You weren't clear, or perhaps not aware of difficult y in finding candidates in New Hampshire state politics.

There are no candidates, or at least, it is unlikely that there will be any without assistance from the party due to these extenuating circumstances.

My assumption is that you wanted the voters to vote for nobody.  

---

by: Andrew Sylvia @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 15:00:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Let me be clear now, then: (0.00 / 0)

My "Was I not clear?" was entirely rhetorical. My meaning was plain. Your "perhaps you can anoint" was a snotty and dismissive rejoinder to a serious post.

The notion that there would be no Democratic candidates in Burling's district is laughable.

---

by: elwood @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 15:36:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Continuing In Clarity (0.00 / 0)

I wasn't aware that your initial post was serious due to its "shock jock" tone. Thank you for clarifying that. In the future, you should probably be more clear in regards to what you want to get out of these posts.

Even if someone is qualified or "on the bench", like in Burling's district, it is extremely difficult to run any sort campaign without plenty of money.

A ballot filler really isn't really a candidate at all, and without a campaign, a candidate is just a ballot filler.

It's hard enough finding people to even be ballot fillers in difficult districts like Gottesman's.  

---

by: Andrew Sylvia @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 15:58:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Even More Clarity (4.00 / 1)

Perhaps the confusion here is the difference between Federal races and state races in New Hampshire.

Due to the knee jerk initial reaction of the first post per the correction that needed to be made, I think elwood may not have understood and assumed the two are the same.

Federal races(and basically the Governor's race, it's still in state, but it's an anomaly) end up in a position that is a profession, something you can make a living from. Granted, the money spent getting those positions is far more than you get in return, but if you could transfer political power into monetary reward, it's understandable how it may be worth running if you believe you're qualified.

With state level races, you're a volunteer, even if you win. It's basically the governmental version of giving blood or donating time at a soup kitchen given the amount of grief you receive in return for the amount of reward.

If ANYONE, especially someone wanting to spend or raise $100,000, wants that responsibility, we should immediately all anoint them. All of them. As much as we possibly can.  

---

by: Andrew Sylvia @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 16:09:02 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm sure glad I have (0.00 / 0)

Andrew Sylvia to explain to the blog readership how easily I get confused, and how ignorant I am of New Hampshire politics.

---

by: elwood @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 17:13:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You're Very Welcome (0.00 / 0)

Glad I could help you and the Blue Hampshire readership.

---

by: Andrew Sylvia @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 17:49:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

One More Thing (0.00 / 0)

Elwood,

(or whatever your name may actually be off the internet)

Will you be putting your name forth as a candidate for anything this fall?

I'd be pleased if you put any weight behind any of the things you say, and i'd be glad to help once I get up to Concord.  

---

by: Andrew Sylvia @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 17:53:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Andy (4.00 / 3)

I've met both you and Elwood... this is silly. Elwood has forgotten more about NH Politics than I, and I suspect you, know.

Hope > Fear

---

by: Mike Hoefer @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 18:10:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Mike (4.00 / 1)

You're right, it is silly. Blogs are one of my big weaknesses, and that is why I try to stay away from them unlike I used to. It's easy to get involved in worthless arguments on the internet.

However, I can't respect someone who attacks others while not subjecting themselves to attacks themselves by hiding their name. I also cannot respect someone who goes on rants without getting the facts straight first(the Lynch Democrat/DiStaso error), and I cannot respect someone who treats someone who will put their time and money into being a Democratic candidate for state office in Concord for little in return as though they were some 19th Century party boss.

Mike, I respect you, and I would like to meet whoever Elwood is and be proved wrong if we can avoid posts like this one in the future, but I currently cannot believe that anyone acts so foolish or disrespectful is more knows more than you or I.  

---

by: Andrew Sylvia @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 19:40:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You're tedious and boring at this point (4.00 / 1)

Elwood is known and respected. Please cease and desist.

The giant finds its gait.

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 20:13:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Don't Try And Intimidate Me (0.00 / 1)

Then why doesn't he use his actual name?

---

by: Andrew Sylvia @ Sat May 24, 2008 at 09:47:59 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

That is his prerogative (0.00 / 0)

And please quit the faux victimization. That weak fallback position is overplayed on this forum. You'll have to get in line with the rest of those that call me bully.

The giant finds its gait.

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Sat May 24, 2008 at 10:06:11 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Andy... (0.00 / 0)

Don't take it personally. Just remember what Parag said at the convention (please don't repeat it here!).

---

by: Ray Buckley @ Sat May 24, 2008 at 10:26:33 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thanks Ray (0.00 / 0)

Please excuse me for going on, this thread hit a nerve with me, I guess I remember now why I stopped blogging.

And don't worry, I missed most of what Parag said anyway. The convention was overwhelming, it was great this year.  

---

by: Andrew Sylvia @ Sat May 24, 2008 at 10:39:57 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

The way the prospect of a Senate primary (4.00 / 1)

melted away with Jeanne Shaheen's entry into the race, especially with the Buckey crowd exiting after they suggested they wouldn't, makes me think this distinction between state and federal races isn't a good enough explanation.

If another week or two were given before this state senate thing was decided, I'd bet somebody would consider giving it a go.

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 18:30:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You say: (4.00 / 3)

It's hard enough finding people to even be ballot fillers in difficult districts like Gottesman's.

Yes, and it's even harder to find anybody when a candidate announces his retirement in one breath, and in the next announces his chosen successor (such as w/ Burling and Houde).  How on earth can you find anybody in those few seconds?

Don't get me wrong - I think the world of Peter Burling, and I have every expectation that Rep. Matt Houde will be a fantastic state senator - he was my rep back when I lived in the Plainfield area and I'm rooting for him!

But the fact remains that there was no viable chance for any Democrat who did not know in advance that Burling was retiring.

Of course none of this stops additional candidates from running - but it certainly sends a signal and it essentially makes one an instant outsider from the party they want to represent.  And that strikes me as discouraging to those who would want to get involved but are not connected to party insiders.

I suspect that's what elwood was getting at in the post. And even if it isn't, that's the concern I have (and I see shared by Kathy S. below).

Wonder if Sununu's fired now.

---

by: Dean Barker @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 18:16:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Misunderstanding? (4.00 / 1)

Dean,

If that's what Elwood meant, that I grossly misunderstood his meaning, and the tone of the post contributed to that.

Also in regards to the other post -- please remember Carol Shea Porter. The insiders endorsed Jim Craig, and look what happened there.

If someone else wants to run for State Senate there, that's great as long as the two candidates don't hurt each other's chances in the general. If Burling or anyone else wouldn't anoint another candidate to a lesser degree excluding major misgivings, that should tell you something about their endorsement.

And you're right in that it's similiar, but it's absolutely not the same, it's like comparing a high school baseball team or a minor league baseball team to the Boston Red Sox. Same game, but the small things are done very differently and for different reasons.  

---

by: Andrew Sylvia @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 19:56:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Open Seats (4.00 / 2)

Are the perfect opportunity for primaries. I two am disappointed that we seem to working in an "Anointment" like manner.

I think folks can file until June 14th. While it certainly takes a huge commitment to the process. One only needs $10 to file, the other 99,990 and come later.

Ideally we would have a deep bench in all of our districts with dems eager to have the chance at an open primary for a senate seat.

It's hard to think of a greater lever on our approach to policy.

Hope > Fear

---

by: Mike Hoefer @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:38:14 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Deep Bench (0.00 / 0)

Agreed there, Mike.

As long as the democratic candidates don't spend money or get nasty at each other, primaries in anything are great.

It's just unfortunate that it's so tough to get anybody to run for anything below governor it seems.  

---

by: Andrew Sylvia @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 17:55:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

And a rapid response (4.00 / 1)

1. In the House and the Senate, retiring incumbents are charged with finding a replacement. Absolutely nothing new here. But if you are going to mention Peter and Dave, you might as well mention Iris as well because she endorsed Mandy. I guess since House member retirements don't usually get much attention and we haven't had many senate retirements lately (none in 2006, two in 2004: Below immediately endorsed Burling and Cohen supported MFC)you may not have noticed. The practice isn't about annointing it is about holding the seat. Significant discussions are held with many people in each situation prior to any announcement.

2. I went back and re-read DiStaso's column. Daphne Kenyon is not quoted as calling herself a "Lynch Democrat". But no matter what label she is given by others, she will be far better than Bob Letourneau.

3. Elwood, I do not want to inflame, so I am not going to go into detail about the leadership resignations. Give me a call if you want.

---

by: Ray Buckley @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:27:13 AM CDT

Thanks (4.00 / 7)

I'm reluctant to put too much weight on DiStaso's column since - to put the best face on things - he seems to have much better sources in the state GOP. You're right: he uses the formulation "is described as" without saying who so describes her.

I maintain my objection to incumbents endorsing replacement candidates for state Senate and House races. If it has a long tradition, it has a long BAD tradition. We have a problem in having no clear positions from which to mount a race for Governor or US Senator. But there are plenty of potential candidates in a state district. The scale should have no thumb on it at the start of a primary campaign.

Thank you for the offer to discuss the leadership changes. But this is already a public issue, and will be discussed in public. I don't want to be in a position of having to honor any confidential information.

---

by: elwood @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:44:00 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I appreciate the irony in my position (4.00 / 1)

on confidential information:

"You can trust Elwood - he works hard to remain ignorant!"

---

by: elwood @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:24:14 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

not a bad signature line at that!! (4.00 / 3)

"But, in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." Si se puede. Yes we can.  

---

by: Paul Twomey @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 14:21:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I wish more reporters took that approach (0.00 / 0)

Nationally, that is. Pardon the interruption of the state discussion.

---

by: JimC @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:36:31 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Number Three (0.00 / 0)

Elwood beat me to the punch I'll post "Diary" here to help consolidate discussion.

Lauren Dorgan reports in the Monitor on the resignation of three (Democratic) lawmakers from leadership positions leadership positions. All three signed a letter opposing a constitutional amendment pushed by Gov. John Lynch.
Concord Rep Jessie Osborn claims a heavy hand

"It was a decision: Either play on the team or resign," said Concord Rep. Jessie Osborne, who gave up her post as vice chairwoman of the Municipal and County Government Committee. "(Given) the choice of speaking out or resigning, I chose my speech."

it gets worse

According to several representatives involved, the dissenting chairmen and vice chairmen have also been barred from serving on conference committees, the end-of-session negotiating groups where senators and representatives hammer out the final language of bills.

Rep Emma Rouse throws Norelli a lifeline

"I really think the speaker has demonstrated extraordinary leadership and has tried to balance the need for teamwork with people's desire to speak up on an issue," Rous said. "I think that here leadership really demonstrates something that's never been seen at the State House before."

Based some volunteer boards/committees I have been involved with I understand the need for members of a group to support the decision of the group once the decision making process has run its course. It seems that concept is in play here.

Norelli said that the members of leadership may vote against another committee's recommendation and can speak out at a closed Democratic caucus, but they may not speak against another committee on the House floor or in public.

On some levels the article seems to be sensationalizing standard Party discipline, on others it seems that Leadership is making an example of those who opposed amendment attempt number 2 in order to pave the way for attempt number 3.

While I hope it is the former, I reserve the right to believe the latter as more information becomes available.

What do you think?  

Hope > Fear

---

by: Mike Hoefer @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:44:21 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

This is Tom Eatonism run rampant (4.00 / 1)

Eaton is notorious for running as a pro-choice Republican then, after being elected Senate President, refusing to cast a vote on the parental notification law - ensuring a long, expensive, pointless fight to the US Supreme Court.

The notion that accepting a committee chair or vice chair position means one:

can speak out at a closed Democratic caucus, but they may not speak against another committee on the House floor or in public.

Is profoundly undemocratic. Especially when applied to a Constitutional amendment.

---

by: elwood @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:49:35 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Sidebar (4.00 / 1)

To this dissucssion, I laughed out loud at Eaton's recent LTE where he tried to take Molly to task for not picking a side in the Middle School imbroglio as after he had not taken a side on that Senate business.


Hope > Fear

---

by: Mike Hoefer @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:09:44 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I go with Elwood on this one. (0.00 / 0)

   While I fully understand the need to have a leadership team that works in tandem on legislative matters, I find it offensive to think that on matters of basic constitutional structure-- inolving the right to equal education, fair and equal taxation, and judicial review-- the democratic party would even contemplate not making it a vote of conscience for all legislators.

    Teri Norelli is a good person and has been a very good leader, but she and her team ought to re-think this one.

"But, in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." Si se puede. Yes we can.  

---

by: Paul Twomey @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 14:32:12 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Paul... (0.00 / 0)

This does not have anything to do with how they voted. It is the letter. The unprecedented letter. Never before has such a letter been distributed. Never.  

---

by: Ray Buckley @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 14:40:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well, I guess it's hard to say without seeing the letter. (0.00 / 0)

   I suppose the letter could be so antagonistic as to make a working relationship impossible, but it is   to difficult imagine so many normally thoughtful legislators signing anything like that.

   So my assumption was that it is a letter that merely takes a position on the amendment. If that is true then I am not sure what the difference is between voting and publicly articulating why you are voting for/against a constitutional amendment. In constitutional decisions of such magnitude I would think we would be all best served by hearing and listening to all points of view.

    That said, I guess my default would be to await more information, and give the Speaker the benefit of the doubt in the interim.

     

"But, in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." Si se puede. Yes we can.  

---

by: Paul Twomey @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 15:27:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

so it seems to me (4.00 / 3)

that if one if a committee chair, the chair cannot speak out against a (democratic) plan from the floor of the house?

So, if one's constituents hate the "party plan", and if that rep strongly objects to it himself- he has to choose between being party of party leadership or  living by his own ideals, or the wishes of his constituents?  

I have heard several reps speak about this and I hear a lot of disappointment.

Elwood- I agree this discussion needs to happen publicly- and thanks for posting.

To silence elected representatives for speaking their own minds does not seem to be very democratic to me.

---

by: Kathleen O'Donnell @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:51:51 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

All in all (0.00 / 0)

The Concord Monitor story - the entire story - is fairly balanced. It is essential that the issue be separated from the action. This not about an amendment it is about the letter.

---

by: Ray Buckley @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:52:34 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's obvious it was about the letter (0.00 / 0)

the problem is that Terie also took a risk by endorsing this personally and speaking on the House floor.

And why weren't others who signed the letter punished?  It really appears as if they went after the lowest hanging fruit here to make an example of someone.

It's time we steer by the stars, and not the lights of every passing ship

---

by: Andy Edwards @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:14:58 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Re read the Monitor story (4.00 / 1)

No one is being "punished". Discussions have been completed with the signers - except for one.

---

by: Ray Buckley @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:23:45 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Upon reading the story (4.00 / 4)

I'm impressed with how Terie has handled this after the fact.  I discussed how I felt about our perceived divide with a few people in leadership who voted for the amendment.  While we still disagree over whether or not it is our duty to fulfill our Governor's desires, I think we were in agreement that this has been difficult for everyone, being in the majority for the first time, and much of our problems were due to misunderstandings and lack of communication.

I'm excited to see what the Democratic-led legislature can accomplish next year having learned many valuable lessons.

It's time we steer by the stars, and not the lights of every passing ship

---

by: Andy Edwards @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 15:28:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

This is (0.00 / 0)

uncomfortably close to Leninist democratic centralism:

Norelli said that the members of leadership may vote against another committee's recommendation and can speak out at a closed Democratic caucus, but they may not speak against another committee on the House floor or in public.

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:05:41 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Split Decision (4.00 / 1)

I agree with Elwood and Mike on the immediate endorsements by retiring incumbents.  While I understand the thought process (continuity, convincing the person to run by promising an endorsement, depressing possible Republican candidates), there may be other people out there who might have been interested whom we will never know about. And it does look like hand picking, although I am sure that wasn't the case. Waiting a little bit doesn't hurt.

On the house leadership positions, isn't it part of the deal that when you accept a chair or vice chair position that you agree not to speak against leadership outside of the committee or the caucus?  Also, from this section of the Monitor article, it sounds like part of the problem was that the letter was publicized:

Chairmen and chairwomen who signed the letter include Reps. Naida Kaen of Lee, Jay Phinizy of Acworth and Susan Almy of Lebanon. More than one interviewed yesterday said they expected the letter to stay within the Democratic caucus and did not know it would be released.

"I was absolutely devastated when I learned that it had been released because I have always considered the information that is shared within caucus to stay within the caucus," said Rep. Mary Stuart Gile of Concord, chairwoman of the Children and Family Law Committee. Gile said she would stay on as chairwoman and would seek re-election next year. She called her own meeting with Norelli "very productive."

If you are a chair or vice chair, and you decide the principle of the issue is such that you want to make your position public, then why not resign from your leadership position before making your position public? That might actually may pack a bigger punch, when you think of it.    

"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt   [I'm an advisor to the NHDP Coordinated Campaign]

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:42:30 AM CDT

"why not resign from your leadership position before making your position public?" (0.00 / 0)

Because then you lose influence, and can't do as much on other issues.

--

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:54:18 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

There may be a legitimate issue with the letter (4.00 / 1)

IIRC, it identified the signers as committee chairs. Since Norelli made a point of making her own speech in favor as a garden-variety rep and not as Speaker, I can appreciate the problem with "showing your badge" when you announce opposition.

BUT Norelli is quoted as saying Caucus rules are much more restrictive: Chairs cannot speak on the floor against another committee's recommendation. That is far too restrictive, IMO.

---

by: elwood @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:13:51 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

what does IIRC mean? (0.00 / 0)

"But, in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." Si se puede. Yes we can.  

---

by: Paul Twomey @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 14:33:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

iirc (4.00 / 2)

If I recall correctly, it means, if I recall correctly.

with my memory, however, that might not be correct!

"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt   [I'm an advisor to the NHDP Coordinated Campaign]

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 14:39:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

gracias--been wondering about that for a while. (0.00 / 0)

I thought it was Interim Iraq Reconciliation Commission.

"But, in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." Si se puede. Yes we can.  

---

by: Paul Twomey @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 15:31:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

We have to remember (4.00 / 5)

that State Reps, whether chairs, vice-chairs or not, are there to represent their constituents first. That's the bottom line.

I get a bit peeved when the press, and now I'm thinking of "Politicker" spins things as giving someone a "slap in the face" because they disagree with a policy.It's not about the Speaker or the Governor. I think Lynch has done many good things, but I'm against an amendment. It doesn't mean I respect his accomplishments any less.

Changing the state Constitution is a big deal, and if elected officials believe it is wrong for the people of the state, they not only have a right, but a duty to speak out--on this or any issue. Making it about a personality or party "discipline" instead of the issue is wrong. People don't even get to be chairs or vice-chairs or Speaker unless they're elected first. And there isn't an endless talent pool, as others have pointed out.

Giving the impression of "punishing" people who have taken on extra responsibility for free is not conducive to encouraging quality leadership, IMHO.

---

by: jbd @ Sat May 24, 2008 at 07:03:30 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Perhaps because... (4.00 / 2)

I fell in love with the NH legislature that Spring morning in 1969 when my 4th grade class toured the State House. Walking on to the floor of the House in my cub scout uniform, I experienced what other little kids must feel walking on the parquet of Boston Garden or the grass at Fenway Park. I was immediately taken. Over the past 39 years I have read and studied everything I could get my hands on rearding legislative process and how democracy functions. I first ran for the House when I was 18 (unsuccessfully), I was hired to work for the House Democratic office when I was 19, and seven years later I was elected on my own. All of my years in the House I was either the ranking Democrat on my committee or the number 2 or 3 Democrat in the House. After 18 years I left and have been working with the state senate the past four years. Needless to say, I am still smitten.

Without serving there, without experiencing the challenges of a functioning understaffed 400 member citizen legislature it is very difficult to imagine what it is really like. I am certainly not diminishing anyone else's beliefs and feelings regarding the issue but after all these years, I have heard such sentiments as have been posted on this thread from incoming freshmen legislators hundreds of times only to witness, as they actually experience the legislative process, how they come to realize how essential the teamwork, the respect of the institution, the protocol and rules are to the success of the process. It is not so black and white anymore.

The NH House is built on the work of the committees. Every successful legislator made their reputation with doing solid committee work first. Speeches on the floor rarely change anyone's mind. It is a very, very huge task to serve in the House and have an expert understanding of all 2,500 pieces of legislation each term - you learn quickly that you have to depend on the committees to do their work, just like they depend on you. Without that respect, that trust - the whole thing is a House of cards.

Jim Splaine was telling the truth, he doesn't accept any leadership roles of any kind because he doesn't want to ever be expected to be part of a team - he does his own thing. And every single legislator has that choice, which is exactly what the discussion with EVERY chair and vice chair was all about. To those who prefer the luxury of being able to say and do whatever they want, they can do that, but those who feel they can serve their constituents and the state better to accept a leadership position they have to respect those who are part of that leadership team. It is all about choice.  

---

by: Ray Buckley @ Sat May 24, 2008 at 07:50:08 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

All well and good but (4.00 / 2)

Neither Norelli nor her defenders have acknowledged the BIG difference between legislation and a Constitutional amendment.

If an amendment passes the General Court it moves on to the ballot. The voters must then decide. For the legislative leaders to be silenced as the public debate proceeds is absurd.

You and others have said that this is all about the letter - and maybe so. But that isn't what Speaker Norelli said - she cited a flat prohibition against chairs and vice-chairs speaking publicly against another committee's decision.

Plenty of legislative bodies function without any such rule at all, even for regular legislation.  

---

by: elwood @ Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:15:57 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

well Elwood (0.00 / 0)

They are not the 400 member - understaffed - unpaid - citizen legislature that has a public hearing, committee vote and floor vote on every single bill that any member of the House and senate introduces that in one form or another meets year round.

I am not criticizing your viewpoint, please attempt to understand the real challenge of the NH House.

And I will say it again...they all chose to be part of a leadership team and they all agreed to being part of the team.

Its just not comparable to a town budget committee.

---

by: Ray Buckley @ Sat May 24, 2008 at 11:58:21 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

If our House were uniquely unable (0.00 / 0)

to function without forcing a choice between speaking honestly to one's constituents and peers, versus fulfilling one of the necessary leadership tasks - then I would reluctantly abandon my position favoring the 400-member citizen legislature. But I don't believe that is the case. I believe the rules are unnecessary.

I won't insult you by asking you to "please attempt to understand" this.

---

by: elwood @ Sat May 24, 2008 at 12:15:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

"Town Budget Committee??" (0.00 / 0)

If you want examples of legislators publicly challenging their party colleagues and committees, and retaining their leadership positions, ask Chairman Lieberman.

---

by: elwood @ Sat May 24, 2008 at 12:25:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

NH House ain't the US Senate (4.00 / 1)

by any stretch of the imagination.

Anyway, the senate situation with the Jr. senator from Connecticut is far different. Without his commitment to caucus with the Democrats despite not being elected as a Democrat, the Democrats would not hold the majority and all that goes with that...

---

by: Ray Buckley @ Sat May 24, 2008 at 12:37:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I Take A Little Exception... (4.00 / 1)

I take a little exception to Ray's characterization saying I'm not "part of a team" by doing my "own thing."  I am part of a team, and I'm a good team player.  I show that often in the State House.  BUT, I don't walk in lock-step behind anyone just because they are in "leadership," whatever that term means.  More on that another time.  "Leadership" has to convince me they're right before I follow behind.  I don't want to step in their doo doo by mistake.

I've never asked to be a chair or part of "leadership" because too often in the Legislative process we do follow others, and I never want to feel I must do so in order to hold onto my "chairship," or car parking spot, or office room.  If I believe our "leaders" or others are wrong I'll take a different path, although I might well be wrong doing so.

Let's hope we always have those out there who will be independent enough to do what they believe is right, not what someone else tells them they must do.

Whether one is House Speaker, Senate President, Party Chair, Majority Leader, whatever, doesn't mean that one is right all the time.  Nor should it mean that he or she or they can expect others to always follow behind.  The best leaders are those who lead by example, and by ideals.  I don't at any time expect others to follow me, but I'll always stick to my ideals.  And people who have the title or role of "leader" always have to keep earning it, and keeping their ego in check.

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Sat May 24, 2008 at 14:42:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You can't get a break, Jim, (0.00 / 0)

I was criticizing you for voting for the amendment so the Governor could make his case to the people - despite your own personal opposition.

Now Ray says you're not "part of the team." (But we know what he means, and it's not a slam in any way.)

Anyhow, you're one of my heroes and often the top exemplar I cite of citizen legislators.

---

by: elwood @ Sat May 24, 2008 at 15:05:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Two sides to every coin Jim (0.00 / 0)

For the sake of time I won't go point by point but I do think it is important that I point out that I have never met a leader who has ever made a decision  on their own, more often than not it is through exhaustive discussion, analysis and compromise...those "who always think that they are right" are the lone wolves whose ego doesn't allow them to consider others opinions and refuse to believe that there are two sides to every coin.

---

by: Ray Buckley @ Sat May 24, 2008 at 15:10:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

What a foolish, smug, self satisfied comment n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: elwood @ Sat May 24, 2008 at 15:16:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not meant to be (0.00 / 0)

but this is not the first time we have disagreed about the true meaning of what I have written, although I try not to make it so personal.

It is  true that I read many, many posts on BH that I would ascribe as being "foolish, smug, self satisfied" but I have known Jim and worked with him Jim for many, many years, we have a great friendship but great differences as well. It was not my intention in any way to to be any of the three, I was simply responding to Jim's dig about ego/leadership/team.

You can insert yourself in out discussion if you want and offer your personal observations and opinions on the tone of our discussion but that doesn't make you right either. You could have simply said " I don't agree" without getting personal. I did not make an attack on anyone, you have.  

---

by: Ray Buckley @ Sat May 24, 2008 at 15:41:02 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It May Be Hard... (0.00 / 0)

It may be hard for some to understand, but I like Ray, and I think deep inside and sometimes deeper than at other times he really, really does like me.  We challenge each other.  And isn't that what politics is really all about?  We agree much more than not, and that's why we're both good Democrats.  We do disagree on a lot of approaches, but that's because he is who he is, and I am who I am.  And I'm better looking though I'm older.  

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Sat May 24, 2008 at 21:15:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

If the problem is (0.00 / 0)

that the letter was publicized and if the Chairs who signed it did not expect the letter to be made public, then why are they being punished?  It seems to me that the real culprit in this scenario is the person who released the letter to the press.

   

"Plus Ça Change, Plus C'est La Même Chose"

---

by: NHFlatlander @ Sat May 24, 2008 at 10:26:24 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Fair points, but #3 is my biggest concern. (4.00 / 1)

1. Incumbents anointing successors is an unfortunate practice but it happens at every level.

2. Every state does this, just like it's done at the national level.  Lesser-known politicians want to associate with popular ones who have broad appeal.  It's annoying because it encourages people not to have their own platforms, but on the other hand, nobody is forced to adopt that label.

3. I don't know the whole story behind the "leadership purges", but this speaks to a bigger problem in the way legislative bodies in this country function, and have functioned for centuries: the presiding officer of a legislative body should not be a partisan post use for partisan means, such as preventing votes on bills proposed by minority members, hand-picking committee membership and leadership, "punishing" members by blacklisting their legislation, and generally acting in an anti-democratic fashion--I thought this was most prevalent in the US House, but I don't think any Speaker in Washington would be able to purge committee leadership for any reason other than a change in the majority party.  

--

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:52:08 AM CDT

Democratic government is still (0.00 / 0)

in its infancy.

---

by: hannah @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 17:48:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Democrats Being Democrats (4.00 / 3)

Well, I think it's fine for Democrats to be Democrats.  Let's welcome that.  And the discussion about all this is good too.  

For myself, I told all the candidates for Speaker as I talked with them last year that I wouldn't even think of asking nor would I accept a "leadership" position, nor did I care where my car was parked, or even what Committee I was assigned to, or what row I sat in, nor would I ask to go to any out-of-state paid-for conferences or trips.

There's a certain freedom to not caring about those things.

I think Terie Norelli is doing a good job as Speaker, John Lynch is doing a great job as Governor, and those who voted on either side of the Constitutional Amendment issue did what they believed they should do.

If some chairs or vice chairs signed a letter opposing the Constitutional Amendment, that's fine too.  It's a wonderful thing to have a conscience.  Mix courage in with it and you've got a good political leader, and we have quite a few.

In the final analysis, each of us represent the people of our district and our state, not some political party or a political position decided by a few people.

And as for people who are control freaks and think they have all the answers about what we as Democrats should do, and want us to walk lock-step behind them to wherever they want us to go, I'll walk a distance behind and maybe slightly aside so I don't step in their doo doo.

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 16:18:11 PM CDT

Someone else was anointed, I worked and won (4.00 / 2)

When our local senator retired in 1990, she anointed someone other than me. I worked my tail off, connected, and won 60-40.

---

by: Burt Cohen @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 19:38:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I Don't Remember... (4.00 / 1)

I don't remember Senator Elaine Krasker supporting someone else, and as the most recent Democrat State Senator to her I remained uncommitted because both you and the other Democrat running in the primary were excellent choices.  But you did work hard and won.  You were an excellent State Senator, and took independent stands and showed courage.  I wish we had many more like that in Concord today -- but we do have quite a few!

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Sat May 24, 2008 at 05:44:41 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

1990 (0.00 / 0)

Former Portsmouth senators Eileen Foley and Elaine Krasker both supported Maryann Blanchard. Their endorsement was the theme of Maryann's campaign for the senate.  Burt talked issues. Burt won...with my help.

---

by: Ray Buckley @ Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:09:19 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Your significant help (0.00 / 0)

Thanks Ray!

---

by: Burt Cohen @ Sat May 24, 2008 at 10:16:35 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thanks... (0.00 / 0)

I am indeed forgetting things.  I vaguely remember now about 1990 -- I know I liked both Burt and MaryAnn, and stayed neutral publicly and privately.  A good person won.  MaryAnn is still great too.  And as I recall, Ray was running the campaign or very much involved?  As I said -- Burt became a very good Senator.  Wish he was in the House now.  

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Sat May 24, 2008 at 11:18:26 AM CDT

[ Parent ]