Bacon's Rebellion

RINOs on Parade

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

For an inside account of what actually went on at the State Senate yesterday when they considered ousting Sen. Potts from his committee chairmanship for having left the Republican party, please read Sen. Ken Cuccinelli’s account.

The State Senate RINOs (Republican’s in Name Only) showed their true colors yesterday, refusing to vote for appealing Lt. Gov. Tim Kaine’s ruling. And what a ruling that was! Kaine held that the Constitution doesn’t allow the Senate to consider any other business—such as enforcing their own Senate rules—during the veto session. How’s this for ducking an issue?

And this is the guy who wants to be our next Governor?

Sen. Cuccinelli’s newsletter only provides the names of the Senators that voted with him in his motion to appeal Kaine’s ruling. It omits the names of the RINOs, which I’m posting below for everyone to see.

Blevins, Harry B.
Chichester, John H.
Devolites Davis, Jeannemarie
Hanger, Emmett W., Jr.
Hawkins, Charles R.
Mims, Bill
Norment, Thomas K., Jr.
Potts, H. Russell, Jr.
Quayle, Frederick M.
Stolle, Kenneth W.
Stosch, Walter A.
Wagner, Frank W.
Wampler, William C., Jr.
Watkins, John
Williams, Martin E.

Those of you that vote Republican, should write down these names and carry them with your voting card.

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

Comments

  1. Paul Avatar
    Paul

    Most of these guys are pretty popular mainstream guys. And they make up a majority of the Senate Republicans.

    Could it be that you and Senator Cuccinelli (who only manages to win by motivating a radical minority of supporters with abortion and anti-gay issues) are the ones that are out of touch with the party?

  2. The Jaded JD Avatar
    The Jaded JD

    Neither Senator Mims nor Senator Stosch were there, so you can’t really attribute to them by implication (as you do here) that they voted to sustain the president’s ruling or that they would have voted to sustain the president’s ruling had they been present. And it’s not like they absented themselves just to avoid this tricky issue. Sen. Mims’s daughter was in surgery; Sen. Stosch was attending a business meeting scheduling long before anyone knew what Sen. Potts was going to run for governor as an independent.

  3. Norman Avatar
    Norman

    Phil,

    We can only guess at the real reason why so many Republicans voted against Ken’s motion.

    But the one on the list who does stick out is Sen. Hanger. He’s voiced his displeasure with Potts a great deal in recent weeks…but when it came time to do something about it, he was MIA.

    If only the Blue Dog had pulled it off in ’03….

  4. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I don’t have time to cross-check right now, but…how many on that list also voted for the tax increase last year?

    I know that my own Senator is on that list, and he voted for the tax hike.

    JB
    Commonwealth Conservative

  5. Paul Avatar
    Paul

    Ok…so these guys clearly aren’t popular in the blog world. But are they actual this unpopular in the real world?

  6. Old Zach Avatar
    Old Zach

    JB,

    I believe the only one on that list who didn’t vote for the tax increase was Frank Wagner.

  7. Paul Avatar
    Paul

    Here are the votes:

    YEAS–Blevins, Chichester, Colgan, Deeds, Devolites, Edwards, Hanger, Hawkins, Houck, Howell, Lambert, Locke, Lucas, Marsh, Miller, Mims, Norment, Potts, Puckett, Puller, Quayle, Reynolds, Ruff, Saslaw, Stolle, Stosch, Ticer, Wampler, Watkins, Whipple, Williams–31.

    NAYS–Bolling, Cuccinelli, Martin, Newman, Obenshain, O’Brien, Rerras, Wagner–8.

    RULE 36–0.

    NOT VOTING–Bell–1.

  8. Paul Avatar
    Paul

    And in the House:House: VOTE: PASSAGE (52-Y 46-N)

    ——————————————————————————–

    YEAS–Alexander, Amundson, Armstrong, BaCote, Barlow, Baskerville, Bland, Brink, Bryant, Callahan, Carrico, Councill, Dillard, Ebbin, Eisenberg, Fralin, Hall, Howell, A.T., Hull, Hurt, Ingram, Johnson, Jones, D.C., Jones, S.C., Keister, Lewis, Marshall, D.W., Melvin, Miles, Moran, Morgan, Nutter, Oder, Parrish, Petersen, Phillips, Plum, Pollard, Reese, Rust, Scott, E.T., Scott, J.M., Shannon, Shuler, Sickles, Stump, Tata, Van Landingham, Van Yahres, Ward, Ware, O., Watts–52.

    NAYS–Albo, Athey, Bell, Black, Byron, Cline, Cole, Cosgrove, Cox, Drake, Dudley, Frederick, Gear, Griffith, Hamilton, Hargrove, Hogan, Hugo, Janis, Joannou, Kilgore, Landes, Lingamfelter, Louderback, Marrs, Marshall, R.G., May, McDonnell, McDougle, McQuigg, Nixon, O’Bannon, Orrock, Purkey, Rapp, Reid, Saxman, Sherwood, Spruill, Suit, Wardrup, Ware, R.L., Weatherholtz, Welch, Wright, Mr. Speaker–46.

    ABSTENTIONS–0.

    NOT VOTING–Abbitt, Putney–2.

  9. laszlo Avatar
    laszlo

    I know Charles Hawkins to be an able Senator and a good person. Looks as if did the right thing. I’m not in his party but I respect him, more than ever now.

  10. Dave Burgess Avatar
    Dave Burgess

    I believe Paul is trying to elude that mainstream Republicans in Virginia are more like the Republican Senators who voted against Cuddinelli’s appeal and I dare say Potts himself. If so, I have to disagree with Paul’s supposition.

    To Paul, I would say that I believe that the House is more mirrored of the general VA-GOP population. Reason being that there are more Delegates than Senators which are elected by smaller chunks of the population. And since the House GOP seems more conservative; I believe that the mainstream VA-GOP is conservative.

    If, and I say again, IF mainstream Virginia Republicans are like those Senators, including Potts (allegedly Republican till he dies), then why is Potts avoiding the more honorable route of a GOP primary run?

    Paul, do you remember in 2004 Potts patron SB 33? The bill was titled, “Primary elections; required for statewide offices of Governor, Lieutenant Gov. & Attorney General.” SB33 required political party candidates for the offices of Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and Attorney General to be nominated by a statewide primary. (The Bill never made it out of committee. See http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?041+sum+SB33)

    Potts feared a convention in 2003 because he knew his district, more conservative than himself, would have voted for Mark Tate, Phil Griffin or Jill Holtzman. The only way Potts could win would be through a primary where he could enlist Democrat support. And that’s exactly what happened.

    During the primary campaign season, Potts never really addressed any conservative themes. He mostly touted his experience and committee appointments. After the primary and now running against Democrat Mark Herring, Potts switched gears and went lock, stock and barrel conservative.

    Potts experiences in public relations and promotions made it possible to successfully fool many Virginians into voting for him on a conservative platform. Because of that successful primary win, I believe that’s when Potts started to think about a run for Governor.

    To pave the way he attempted to make primaries mandatory (SB33) because he would never win in a convention where more politically savvy people would see past the smoke screen he would have to lay to masked his liberal views. At least that could explain “Plan A” were maybe Potts thought the then and now front runner Kilgore would have been kept out of the race because of the GOP phone scandal. Since that didn’t happen, he had to go to “Plan B” which is an Independent run.

    Potts knows running as an Independent he only needs to get one vote over a third to win. He’s banking that there might be enough “liberal” Republicans along with some Democrats that want even higher taxes than the mainstream Democrats that will make up more than a third to get him in office. Else you got to believe he’s only in it for what some to believe to stop Kilgore and help Kaine.

  11. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Paul:

    What is the House vote you posted at 3:48? Certainly the fellows elected to the people’s chamber didn’t weight in on Kaine’s ridiculous ruling?

    Is that the offshore drilling vote or what? I’m having difficulty sorting apples from oranges here.

  12. Paul Avatar
    Paul

    DA Burgess:

    On taxes, you’re probably correct. I think the GOP rank and file are more like the House…albeit a bit more to the left, if you believe the polls in support of the budget last year. Republicans hate taxes, yes, I know. Everyone hates taxes. But most people (even Republicans) are more willing to tolerate them a bit more at the local or state level than at the federal level, especially when they feel their services are being cut.

    Are rank and file republicans obsessed with social issues? Do they fear this gay invasion that the right-wing has dreamed up? Do they love Dick Black and believe every word he says? Many do, but many don’t. That’s where moderate Democrats have an opportunity to peel some away. These “country club Republicans” are socially moderate – and I think there are plenty of them out there. When the Senate stands in the way of the House’s bizarre obsession with sodomy and gays, they’re representing a majority of Virginians.

    Anonymous:

    Those were the votes for and against the 2004 budget.

  13. Steven Avatar
    Steven

    Norman (Thank you — I’m rethinking your blog rating).

    Since most would agree that I can’t read minds and conjuring psychic visions and I’m not the Son of Sabato …

    Here’s the scoop:

    In the summer of 2002, a GOP legislator informed me that Sen. Hanger and other high ranking members (Republicans) serving in the state senate were planning on raising state taxes, which I confirmed through highly placed Democratic sources in Richmond.

    My first reaction: “You’re kidding me?”

    The same informers laid out the 2003 tax-budget strategy for Gov. Warner and his pro-tax Republican allies which I wrote extensively about in my column.

    In the past year, I wrote about that Sen. Potts was considering bolting as an Independent of Governor before it happened. One month ago, insiders in the General Assembly told the Blue Dog that ousting Potts was nothing more than political hay — and this would not happen in a million years because the rules prevented it.

    If you examine the record, the Potts vote is very reminiscent of the 2004 tax-budget vote.

    Over the weekend, General Assembly Democrats informed the Blue Dog that Mr. Hanger might attempt the Independent run because he’s not doing well with the GOP petition drive.

    I trust my sources.

  14. Phil Rodokanakis Avatar
    Phil Rodokanakis

    Paul said: “Most of these guys are popular mainstream guys.”

    I guess, it depends on the color of your lenses. Some of these guys are former Democrats turned Republican only because it was convient to ensuring their reelection–talking about principles!

    As to whether tax-and-spend, big government liberals represent the mainstream of Virginia politics, this is highly debatable. Every time Virginian voters have been given the chance to vote for higher taxes and bigger government, they voted against it.

    These are the same guys that are categorically opposed to enacting a Taxpayer Bill of Rights, like the Colorado model, which would ensure that no tax increases are enacted unless the voters approve it.

    Is this the ideology that represents the mainstream? Certainly not!

    Paul, what you call the mainstream is the out-of-touch, tax-and-spend, liberal extreme.

  15. Victoria Avatar
    Victoria

    I agree with Phil on this. Paul, not all of these guys are mainstream popular guys any more.
    From the rumor mill that swirls around VA politics…

    Blevins, Harry B.—rumored to be retiring after this term… Del. John Cosgrove eyeing that seat

    Chichester, John H.—likewise, in his last hurrah. Perhaps we might see the return of retiring Delegate Albert Pollard.

    Devolites Davis, Jeannemarie—though she’s got the Tom Davis fundraising machine to back her, her underperformance in 03 raised some eyebrows.

    Hanger, Emmett W., Jr.—will certainly face primary opposition… Watch for Delegates Ben Cline, Steve Landes and Chris Saxman to all start weighing their options for 07

    Hawkins, Charles R.—yet another on the retirement track. Look for Delegates Clarke Hogan or Rob Hurt to vie for this one…

    Norment, Thomas K., Jr.—will be challenged again, and should survive it, he still knows how to get back to the right and appeal to his base.

    Potts, H. Russell, Jr.—does this one even need a comment? I don’t think you get any more out of touch with the mainstream, and certainly with your base. Only reason he’s running statewide is he knows he could never beat off the primary challenge he’s facing in 07. one way or another he’s out.

    Quayle, Frederick M.—another in the likely to retire category… might see Del. Terrie Suit make a grab for this one

    Stolle, Kenneth W.- probably safe.

    Stosch, Walter A.—definitely in trouble with the base of the Party, and though he holds a leadership position, may face challenges from one or more Delegates from the area, I’ve heard Bill Janis is working on this one…

    Wagner, Frank W.—probably safe, likeable guy despite a bad vote or two

    Wampler, William C., Jr.—probably fine, but he is worried…

    Watkins, John—should be more worried than he’s appearing… he’s straight out of central casting…

    Williams, Martin E.—also likeable guy, probably safe.

    In the end, all those running in 07 are likely to focus too much on fundraising and not enough at reaching out to their base. If they can get back to the folks who first put them in office, they stand a much better shot of returning…

  16. The Jaded JD Avatar
    The Jaded JD

    To respond to Victoria’s assessment of the Senators:

    Chichester will run again if the anti-tax group tries to pick a fight…he’ll run again just to win one more time, and he will win if he runs.

    Hanger, I believe, is safer than you suggest.

    The only delegate in the 12th who would challenge Stosch is Janis. And doing so would cost him his career in politics–not only would he lose, but there are people who have things to say about Janis and the Senator is the one shutting them up. If Janis challenges, those people are going to act in the Senator’s interest even though the Senator wants them to behave. But, yes, Janis is definitely making the right noises for a challenge.

    If Wampler is worried, he shouldn’t be. I don’t think he is–at least not about his district. (He’s definitely concerned for his constituents, but he’s good like that, and it’s not quite the same thing.) I’ll defer to locals on this one, because I don’t go to SWVA much.

    Watkins may retire. If not, I agree he may draw a challenge.

    On the others, I pretty much agree.

  17. Paul Avatar
    Paul

    Phil: Which ones switched parties? I’m too young to remember that.

    Senate primary challenges are going to be tough…these guys have been raising money pretty early.

    I refer you to VPAP’s fundraising listings. They’ll be updated again in a week or so (the last filing date was April 1st).

    You can almost tell that Quayle and Hawkins aren’t running when you look at the money they’ve raised (not much).

  18. victoria Avatar
    victoria

    Jaded JD…

    You are right on Wampler being safe, as I said before, he is, but he is naturally worried…

    Chichester is tired. Part of his decision will depend on if Kaine loses… plus, he’s already moved down to the Northern Neck…

    Stosch will be challenged, but probably not by Janis—he’s lining up just in case Stosch folds.

    Hanger is not safe. Will be challenged, and depending upon method, will likely lose. Even hearing that the Blue Dog might jump the fence for the I told you so campaign…

    And on another note… where has Kate Obenshain Griffin been? VERY quiet of late… somewhat of a leader in absentia you might say….

  19. Paul Avatar
    Paul

    Say it ain’t so blue dog. We may disagree on tax issues, but that’s no reason to leave the party. I know you don’t agree with the GOP’s recent phase of radical social experimentation legislation…

  20. victoria Avatar
    victoria

    Paul…. The “radical social experimentation legislation??” Are you joking?

    More radical than gay marriage? More radical than liberal university professors grading based on whether students agree philosophically with the professor? More radical than sucking the brains out of a healthy unborn child? More radical than the DEMOCRAT sponsored droopy drawers bill?

    Hello! What is the Democrat’s agenda? Seems to me they have none. What is their plan? Tax and spend more? At least the Republicans were DIVIDED on that issue. Not so for the Dems. When they say tax, the only response is how high?

    Who fought SOLs, welfare reform, juvenile justice reform, minimum mandatories, spending restraint (not cuts, mind you—just simple RESTRAINT)??

    When the Dems get a plan, maybe then you can sell something. Until then, sadly, the world’s greatest political party will only be a distant memory…

  21. Paul Avatar
    Paul

    Victoria:

    You’ll notice that a majority of the Democratic caucus doesn’t support gay marriage. Maybe in your mind they do, but not in reality. A majority of elected Democrats nationally don’t support gay marriage. Personally, I do, but that’s not the issue here.

    Your understanding of the droopy drawers incident is a bit foggy obviously…I suggest you scroll down a month or two on this blog and read up.

    When has the Democratic party “pushed” gay marriage? Gay people certainly have pushed it (I’m not sure why…maybe because they’re (a) gay and (b) want to get married! How insidious of them!)

    Now, with that aside, I’ll agree that the Democratic party often stands for the status quo. This led me to remark, on my blog that the Democrats sometimes seem like they’re a party totally committed to fighting for government bureaucracy and nothing else (and I faulted them for giving teacher’s unions a veto). They’re more “conservative” in the traditional sense of the word. And that bothers me.

    But you’ve changed the subject. I’m attacking the Republicans’ insistence on crossing the line beyond defending “traditional marriage” and trying to enact wholesale discrimination against gay people. I’m talking about Dick Black’s utterly embarrassing public statements that make Virginia seem to outsiders 16th Century Spain.

    I was also talking about demographics…you just threw a bunch of hyperbole back at me. There is no arguing that there are some moderate Republicans, especially in NOVA, who are willing to cross the line and vote for Democrats. Most of them are upper crust and socially moderate. They’re tolerant of gays, don’t like gay marriage, but also don’t like it when politicians pick on the little guy. As Northern Virginia continues to explode in population, Virginia will become more and more moderate. I’m not predicting the rise of the Democratic Party…I mean, look at their pathetic bench. But the state will definitely become more moderate. I stand by that assessment.

  22. victoria Avatar
    victoria

    The state is not becoming more moderate and sorry for the diatribe, a little rant can be a vehicle to conversation… My point is that if the Dems don’t get in the game soon all they will be known for is obstructing.

    Whether we agree on any issue is irrelevant to the larger issue that the nation and the Commonwealth both move forward when a real debate is held. Sadly, your party is not even on the sidelines of the stadium – they are still trying to get off the exit ramp which began back in the 60s. The 60s.

    The “socially moderate” upper crust send in their money and roll their eyes over their Grey Goose n tonic and do not deliver votes. Bush won 97 of the fastest growing counties in the US and got more women, Hispanics and black than ever before to vote R.

    You guys are not losing the social conservatives, you are losing every demographic group save those making under 50k and most people are seeing incomes rise. The clock is ticking and only Hillary! sees the value of immigration.

    It is not about anti-gays or abortion or guns, it is about leading and being strong. You might not like the Bush foreign policy but he is leading and you might not like Warner’s tax increases but he is leading. People elect people who lead and are likeable. They want safe streets, good schools, decent roads and to be left alone – for the most part and if at all possible a little extra coin at the end of the year to buy the GI Joe with the Kung Fu grip for their kid. Note timing of the hated car tax – December 5 due date in most localities…this is not rocket science.

    Since you guys are the party of intellectuals, where are all those great ideas? We could use a few more…

  23. Paul Avatar
    Paul

    Are you drunk? No, seriously. Please debate me when you sober up…

  24. Dave Burgess Avatar
    Dave Burgess

    Victoria. You’ll notice when Paul’s at a loss when he spits out contrary one liners. You had him at “radical social experimentation legislation” and he never regained ground.

    You did real good.

  25. victoria Avatar
    victoria

    Paul, while I might be drunk, sir, tomorrow I shall be sober and you will still have no agenda.

  26. Will Vehrs Avatar
    Will Vehrs

    Victoria, please visit with us more often … we need a little more Churchill around here!

  27. Ken Cuccinelli Avatar
    Ken Cuccinelli

    The reason I sent you the article below is because, so far, it is the ONLY article in all of Virginia to put the Potts debate on Wednesday in its proper context. No other article in Virginia noted that I “set up” the debate that began at 2:25 p.m. on Potts by making a series of very specific parliamentary inquiries two hours earlier.

    Those inquiries were critical to understanding why Tim Kaine’s ruling was not only wrong, but he literally contradicted his earlier rulings from the same day!

    If you don’t know about the earlier parliamentary exchange between Tim Kaine and me, then the Potts debate just looks like the following: 1) I asked for a ruling, 2) Kaine ruled against me, 3) I appealed Kaine’s ruling, and 4) I lost the vote on appeal. It’s much worse than that for Tim Kaine, and the article below brings that fact out.

    What really happened is the following: 1) I made a series of parliamentary inquiries about Article IV, Section 6 of the Virginia Constitution, the section of the Constitution that I knew that we’d be fighting over, 2) Kaine responded by saying that none of the other work that we were doing, aside from Governor’s vetoes and amendments, was “other business” that is forbidden during the veto session under the Virginia Constitution, 3) I went through examples of some of the other things that we were doing, and asked again whether it was “other business” that is forbidden during the veto session under the Virginia Constitution, 4) Kaine ruled that none of the other work we were doing was “other business” under Art. IV, Sec. 6. Two hours later, I continued by 5) asking for a Ruling under Rule 20(a) on Potts, 6) Kaine ruled against me, suddenly saying that such a request was “other business” that was forbidden under Art. IV, Sec. 6, 7) I appealed Kaine’s ruling, and 8) I lost the vote on appeal.

    I don’t know this reporter, but she got the whole story that no one else in the press seemed to get (or maybe they just didn’t want to report it…).

    So please read this article, and then read my comments below. Then you really will know the rest of the story…

    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    Potts keeps portfolio
    April 7, 2005 1:10 am
    By CHELYEN DAVIS
    Kaine halts campaign against GOP candidate
    RICHMOND–Despite his independent campaign for governor and votes by various Republican Party committees to cast him out, Sen. Russ Potts of Winchester will retain his committee assignments and chairmanship in the Virginia Senate.

    That was the result of a rare, but unsuccessful, procedural effort to oust Potts from his committees in the Senate yesterday during the General Assembly’s one-day session to deal with vetoes and amendments by Gov. Mark Warner.

    Sen. Ken Cuccinelli, R-Fairfax, asked Lt. Gov. Tim Kaine to rule on whether senators could take action against Potts, whom Cuccinelli said had forfeited his privileges as a member of the majority party when he began a campaign as an independent.

    Kaine, however, ruled that because the state Constitution expressly forbids lawmakers from taking up any bills or business not related to gubernatorial amendments and vetoes during the veto session, any other business, including a movement to strip Potts of his committee assignments, was not allowed.

    “This is clearly a matter of business that is expressly forbidden,” Kaine said, adding that anyone who wanted to take action against Potts could have done so during the last days of the legislature’s regular session, after Potts had declared his candidacy for governor.

    “There was no attempt when the time was right,” Kaine said.

    Cuccinelli appealed Kaine’s ruling, prompting a rebuke from Republican floor leader Tommy Norment, R-Williamsburg.

    “This is a highly inappropriate motion to be made, requesting to overturn a ruling by the president of the Senate on a constitutional issue that is abundantly clear, and the underpinnings of it are strictly politically motivated,” Norment said. “It is inappropriate. The Constitution is abundantly clear when it comes to business.”

    Cuccinelli had taken some pains earlier in the day to establish that the Senate was doing some business–such as waiving readings of the journal, and other parliamentary procedure–that didn’t expressly have to do with vetoes and amendments.

    “The sudden limited application of the word business flies in the face of what we’ve been doing here today,” he said.

    The Senate voted 27-9 to sustain Kaine’s ruling.

    Cuccinelli later accused Kaine of “ducking” his responsibility, and called the ruling “an extraordinary twisting of the rules and the Constitution to avoid making a hard decision.”

    Cuccinelli said Potts provides “political cover” to some Republicans, because under his chairmanship, the Senate Education and Health Committee rarely passes social legislation, such as bills to restrict abortion.

    Potts told reporters that Cuccinelli and those who lead the Republican Party of Virginia–which has passed a resolution saying Potts is no longer a member–“no more represents mainstream Virginia than the man on the moon.

    “It’s like they’re on Mars,” he said.

    Of the Kaine ruling, Potts said he’d been “confident about this all along, about the good will and good common sense and integrity” of his Senate colleagues.

    The Potts showdown was the most controversial event during a day of dealing with largely mundane amendments to bills.

    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

    Tim Kaine ruled that the third paragraph of Article IV, Section 6 of the Virginia Constitution forbids ANYTHING from taking place during the veto session except the consideration of the Governor’s amendments and vetoes. Specifically, that section says no “other business” shall take place. This clearly refers to legislative business (i.e., you can’t introduce a new bill).

    As the article above notes, I took pains to establish that we were doing all sorts of other things that were not Governor’s amendments and vetoes during the veto session. These included waiving the reading of the Journal, speaking on points of personal privilege, welcoming people during the morning hour, and even waiving the Rules twice to have floor presentations.

    We did all of these things during the veto session, and none of them constituted “other business” according to Kaine, even when I specifically inquired on that point in advance of the main debate.

    Note that during a long series of my parliamentary inquiries, Kaine conceeded to me that the Rules were fully in effect during the veto session, and he further conceded that the Senate Rules were a creature of the Virginia Constitution under Article IV, Section 7, and that that section of the Constitution was entitled to equal dignity with every other section of the Constitution.

    Now, keep in mind that the portion of Senate Rule 20(a) that I was seeking a ruling under requires only a recognition of reality… it isn’t even a motion! The paragraph in question states: “Should any Senator, during his term of office, cease to be a member of the paolitical party of which he was a member at the time of his election, he shall be deemed, thereby, to have forfeited all Committee memberships to which he may have been elected.”

    Notice that the rule is self-acutating. Sen. Potts’ voluntary departure from the GOP by announcing and filing for Governor as an Independent results thereby in the forfeiture of his committee assignments. In theory, it has already happened, but in reality it isn’t implemented until the Lt. Governor (or the Senate by overruling him) formally acknowledges the fact that Sen. Potts has ceased to be a member of the Republican Party. Thus, my request to Kaine was no more than that he recognize reality, namely, that Sen. Russ Potts has ceased to be a Republican.

    Suddenly, when I asked Kaine for such a ruling, everything that wasn’t a Governor’s amendment or veto was “other business” forbidden by the Constitut
    ion… contrary to his ruling only an two hours before.

    And oh what disgruntlement when I challenged the ruling of the Lt. Governor!

    Suddenly those that happily celebrate our majority by noting that, from a Republican perspective, the Lt. Governor’s rulings don’t matter very much because the GOP caucus, acting together, can overrule any ruling with what is euphemistically referred to as “the rule of 21.” It’s called the rule of 21 because you can get whatever ruling you want if you have 21 Senators on your side. That has never suggested to me a hallowed respect for the Senate Rules and the rule of law — in fact, it smacks of that same political partisanship that I heard being decried on the Senate floor…

    As Paul Harvey would say: “… and now you know, the rest of the story.” If you want to get on the email list for The Cuccinelli Compass (where the material for this post comes from), then go sign up at http://www.Cuccinelli.com.

  28. Paul Avatar
    Paul

    Haha! I knew it. I was just kidding though, I apologize… Myself – I had just returned from a happy hour.

    Blogging and alcohol – not a great mix.

  29. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    you are right Senator. Nothing is more thrilling to the citizens of Virginia than arcane parlimentary fights in the Legislature. That’ll show them.

  30. Ken Cuccinelli Avatar
    Ken Cuccinelli

    Anonymous, it is funny that you would go to a blog that has about 29 entries on it and ridicule me for talking about “arcane parliamentary fights in the legislature.” Haven’t you been talking about an arcane parliamentary fight on the web?

  31. Steven Avatar
    Steven

    Instead of lecturing the anonymous ‘Teflon Blogger’ about Virginia parliamentary procedures and proper manners, you should be asking about whether or not there is a ‘Pub-Dem tax cabal of connected special interests lobbyist are brokering influence in the Republican Party and the 2005 Gubenatorial campaign?

    The Russ Potts ‘I hate taxes, but love Virginia more’ campaign strategy is straight out of Lowell Weicker’s playbook in the 1990s. And now his former campaign manager, Tom D’Amore, is running the Russ Potts for Governor campaign.

    It’s noteworthy that Mark Warner’s Alexandria neighbor, ex-Connecticut Governor Weicker, held his state legislature hostage until they approved his tax-budget that instituted the first state income tax for the ‘Constitution State’ — How ironic is that?

    How do you spell political M-E-N-T-O-R?

    Nevertheless the twisted political similarities, since the Warner Democrats have no vision, or discernible philosophy to follow, they can only win when the Republicans have an intraparty discussion that divides them.

    But thank you Senator Cuccinelli for shattering myths with the Potts debacle in the State Senate.

    The floor vote was sort of like the final scene of Gallipoli. Remember, it’s when the Good guys lose — Badly.

    Governor Mollycoddle is campaigning for US Senate against Cowboy George while playing possum with this three-way election — which is now stamped and approved by the state senate pro-tax cabal.

    It’s the frying pan vs. the skillet vs. the easy-bake oven.

    In the ultimate land grab, the Governor’s mansion is up for ‘Tax & Grab’ with Tim Kaine’s plans to exempt as much as 20 percent of a home’s value from real estate assessments vs. Jerry Kilgore’s plans to cap real estate tax assessments at 5 percent per year.

    Senator Russ Potts can play bandit or spoiler, which will it be?

    His future employment depends on it, especially since he will ultimately be facing Republican tough-love in the next election cycle. But throughout Virginia, other fiscal conservatives facing down the pro-tax coalition in future election cycles may need to tighten the lug nuts while their at it.

    The racer is only as good as the pit crew.

    I just hate being right all the time.

  32. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Senator,

    I’ve been involved in this process a long time- more than long enough to remember when you were an activist in Fairfax sending in planted questions to statewide debates.

    And I am probably one of the few people in the Commonwealth who didn’t need to read your post to understand the rule of 21. But as I said I am in the distinct minority.

    Seemingly fascinating articles on legislative procedure aren’t what’s going to win you any votes in the citizenry, talking about issues that matter to real people will.

    I suspect you already knew that. You’ve got a prodigious clip file and I saw your appearance in Fortune magazine a while ago. You were talking about pocketbook issues that matter to the people of Virginia- not just the issues that fascinate the mere handful of folks who drudge through the ice and cold of Richmond in the winter to worry about things like Jefferson’s Manual and Robert’s Rules. (Or for that matter the 12 people here who are have taken to this debate.)

    That’s why I implore you to quit spending your time arguing with folks like me over your parliamentary manuevers and go out and talk about the issues that Virginia families care about. That’s how you’ll win your legislative battles regardless of how Tim Kaine or Tommy Norment vote.

    And if you want Russ Potts to be a non-factor in this whole thing, you and your Republican friends should just quit talking about him.

    It’s only when the GOP’s anger with the Senator from Winchester makes it way into the media does Pott’s get yet another media hit. You all picking fights with him is as they say here “Good Copy”. If you all would just ignore him, he’ll be invisible. Trust me.

    My bet is that he doesn’t get enough valid signatures to get on the ballot. But I’ll let you and the folks in the Obenshain Center deal with that.

    Go fight the important fights. That’s how you’ll elect more Republicans and get more than 8 folks in your caucus to stand up for conservative issues.

    By the way, I’d sign my name, but I have to lobby you, so I’ll remain-

    Anon.

  33. Phil Rodokanakis Avatar
    Phil Rodokanakis

    Anon: I applaud the Senator for what he did. I agree with you that this isn’t the sort of issue that wins voters, but it’s important to the grassroots–the guys that pay attention.

    Presumably, those that frequent this blog are committed political nerds. So naturally, the Senator was speaking to folks that care about such issues.

    Sen. Cuccinelli knows well the issues that matter to the voters. You don’t think that he got re-elected by not knowing the issues, now do you? And you may have forgotten that the entire Warner machine was working to defeat the Senator while his opponent having access to Warner’s checkbook outspent him by leaps and bounds.

    So I’m glad that Sen. Cuccinelli is out there fighting the good fight for us in the State Senate. But then again if you’re a lobbyist as you allude in your post, you probably don’t care about the fights that matter to the grassroots. All you probably care about is promoting whatever position your next client is willing to pay you to lobby.

  34. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Phil, You’re in GREECE!! You should be having a good time, doing the Zorba thing, not blogging on the Rebellion. If you can’t stay away from politics, then try giving the Greeks a little enlightment, preferably over a bottle of ouzo!! Trust me, things won’t be any better back home when you return! We’ll still need you.

  35. The Jaded JD Avatar
    The Jaded JD

    Senator,

    If this post is even alive after so long a period of time, thanks for commenting. I did compliment your setup when the Reconvened Session convened in my coverage of the event Wednesday. But I have two comments:

    1) The rule of 21 was really a rule of 19 Wednesday, because Rule 49 requires a majority of those present to overrule the president’s ruling, and only 37 Senators were present.

    2) I don’t understand why there was a two-hour delay between your prefatory inquiries and the substantive inquiry you made after 2:00. I’d enjoy knowing why you waited so long to deliver the pitch.

  36. Ken Cuccinelli Avatar
    Ken Cuccinelli

    Dear Jaded…

    1) In fact, the “rule of 21” is only the “rule of 20”, as all motions in the Senate must be phrased in the affirmative, thus, the motion was actually to affirm the LG’s ruling. A tie vote defeats the motion, thus, with 37 present, 1 of whom abstained (Potts), we only needed 18, not 19 votes, to defeat Kaine’s ruling.

    2) I wanted to get a quick response to my early parliamentary inquiry, defining “other business” in reverse (i.e., “Mr. President, is waiving the reading of the Journal “other business” under Va. Const. Art. IV, Sec. 6?” Ans: “No, blah, blah, blah”). Then ask some follow up questions, which I did, and then sit on my hands for a period of time so that other “other business” could take place.

    That happened, and I referenced the earlier inquiry in the context of the various items of “other business” that had taken place in the two hours following my initial inquiry. The point was to demonstrate that the LG was making a sudden and selective change in position for the purpose of avoiding ruling on the underlying question.

    p.s. I did note your excellent tracking of the earlier debate. Your level of observational ability was not reflected in the reporting by newspaper articles aside from the one that I included in my earlier post.

Leave a Reply

ADVERTISEMENT