Democratic Legislative Leaders Disgrace Themselves
This calls for my second Casey Stengel quote in less than a week:
The secret to being a successful manager is to keep the players who can’t stand you away from those who haven’t made up their minds yet.
Scott Goss has a fascinating story which, unfortunately, he has butchered again. More on that in a sec, but first the lede:
Senate leadership (that’s Dave McBride and Nicole Poore, for those of you not up to date on your miscreants) is calling a caucus for the day after the General Election to choose the Senate leadership team. It is possible, even probable, that the same is taking place in the House, but the story is so poorly written that it’s impossible to tell for sure. Goss writes that the House is doing the same thing, but he only quotes two Senate members and one Senate candidate in the article. If it’s true, we can add career miscreants Pete Schwartzkopf and Val ‘Our gal PAL’ Longhurst to the list.
Unfortunately, Goss has used passive verbs without ever identifying who is calling for the caucus or caucuses. “…(A)re being asked to choose their future leaders”, and “…are being called to Legislative Hall” are the phrases that alleged journalist and blogging critic Goss uses. How about just telling us who the fuck is calling for the caucuses? Is it both the House and the Senate? Is it both the D’s and the R’s? I mean, Jeezus.
(Deep cleansing breaths). There are only two reasons why leadership would push for this: (1) they’re trying to put pressure on those not even elected yet to commit to supporting them; and (2) they’re seeking to forestall any challenge to their positions. That’s it. Let me just say that it’s unconscionable for leadership to implicitly threaten those who are in close races for office. IMHO, that in and of itself should disqualify them from being in leadership. Unfortunately, what you have is a House leadership team that has governed its caucus through intimidation for years, and a Senate leadership team whose incompetence is only exceeded by the corruption of its Senate Majority Whip, who has her transactional eyes on yet another prize.
I can’t recall this tactic ever being employed before. The unwritten tradition is that the legislators talk to each other informally at Returns Day and get a sense of who might want to run for what. A caucus generally follows a couple of weeks later. There’s no hurry. As long as the caucuses have elected their leadership by the time the General Assembly convenes, everything’s fine.
Dropping this stink bomb onto its members and would-be members just days away from the election is political malpractice. Bryan Townsend said it best:
“We are less than a handful of days away from one of the most critical elections in our country’s history,” said state Sen. Bryan Townsend, D-Newark, who is facing a challenge by Republican Daniel Kapitanic. “I think everyone’s focus should be entirely on that and anything that distracts from the campaigns is unfortunate.”
What’s unfortunate is the fact that the legislative ‘leaders’ responsible for this have their positions. Get together, take some time to talk it out, and then replace them.
Hi, El Somnambulo,
I must’ve missed the first Casey Stengel quote. Was it “Can’t anybody here play this game?”?
Yep. I used that in the piece about Helene Keeley’s new job.
Yes! House leadership has called for a caucus the day after the elections over my objections. It is as horrible an idea as it sounds and shows a certainty of arrogance and lack of consideration toward “ALL” caucus members. It HAS been historically been scheduled and held after Return Day and the inevitability of coercion. intimidation and promises (bribery) ruling the moment are more or less guaranteed to be effective again. I have not heard any of my fellow Dems. objecting to this farcical tactic except to acquiesce. But after six years of such abusive techniques I imagine the “abused” spouse syndrome is kicking in.
Representative John Kowalko
I think it is less likely to hold in the Senate. First and foremost, there is officially no designated leadership for any of the caucuses following Election Night until the caucuses select them.
Election Night marks the official end of the legislative session. Those not returning leave the payroll the next day, those who are elected for the first time go onto the payroll. The finite terms for the leaders are over.
The Senate D Caucus, in other words, is not obligated to show up for a caucus called by leaders who are no longer leaders. There are likely to be two attorneys in the Senate D caucus and one in the Senate R caucus. I’m pretty sure they’ll concur with my analysis.
This fact is ALSO one of the reasons why the process has been informal. Take the temperature of the Caucus at Returns Day, see when everyone will be available, and THEN schedule a caucus.
I’ll say it again: The only reason why the heavy-handed leadership is doing this is to try to protect their own positions. It may work in the House where Stockholm Syndrome has set in.
I’d be surprised and disappointed if it happened in the Senate. I mean, a leadership trio of McBride, Poore and Walsh? It’s an attempt to make sure that there is no progressive representation in a caucus with a lot of progressives in it. I think it’s doomed to fail.
What happens if people just don’t show up for the first caucus meeting? Does it go on without them? What’s a quorum?
I second these questions.,
I have chosen to not show on one prior occasion and the band played on. That’s what comes with choosing to play a piano in a marching band.
Rerp. John Kowalko
A little birdie told me that there is a potential challenge to leadership in the House D caucus. No wonder the Dynastic Duo is looking to forestall that possibility.
Pete and Val damn well better get Mike Ramone’s vote after they shielded him from ethics charges.
Good questions. Don’t think it matters in the House since all of the fight has gone out of the opposition to Pete ‘n Val.
But I’d be hard-pressed to see 50% or more of the senators showing up just b/c McBride and Poore said so. Assuming, just for argument’s sake, that Paradee gets elected, but neither Sturgeon or Baker do (I think they both do, but stick with me), that’d still be 11 D’s in the Caucus. The only three certain to come are the three who appear to be seeking leadership positions. Paradee, Hansen and Townsend are already on record as opposing the meeting. You can almost certainly add Lockman and, one would hope, Brown to that list. I think McDowell would be another. Sokola has already said he doesn’t think the meeting should take place. That’s seven right there. That leaves Ennis who, regardless what you may think of his politics, is as fair-minded as they come. Oh, and among the people they’re browbeating are Sturgeon and Baker. YOU do the math.
I think we are fortunate this made the News Journal at all. We should count our blessings. Although he didn’t name names, the current leadership are the only ones this could possibly benefit. For first time elected officials it’s a “welcome to the General Assembly” moment.
Still wondering how many have to stay away to make this caucus not a caucus.
Anybody know?
jason330 – Unless there is some house rule about this isn’t a majority of the house democrat caucus all that is needed to hold a meeting? So if you used the current number (25, right?) than they need at least 13 people to come. And, Val and whoever is going to be whip would need all 13 to support them to be majority leader and whip. Pete needs 21 to become speaker on the first day of session whether that number comes 100% from the caucus is irrelevant.
In Delaware we’re governed by small time scoundrels & half-wits. Never forget this.
They aren’t successful on their own. They do the bidding of capital interests. It’s the only way people would pay attention to them.
John Carney isn’t fit to wash my car.