And is it all falling apart now?

You know my recent post noting the new leadership configuration was possibly going to be:
Kenny McNenny - President Pro Tempore
Bob Gray - Majority Leader
Jason Gant - Assistant Majority Leader
Well, not much more than a day later, I'm told this coalition is in danger of falling apart, if it hasn't already. Apparently, some legislators who had their positions set are now talking about running for positions that aren't the ones they'd agreed to seek.

This is not indicative of a crisis of any sort, but what it does is make for a much wilder ride come next Monday. Instead of having factions of conservatives and moderates voting as a block and the outcomes based on seniority and the ideological majority within the caucus, it's going to be a popularity contest that no one is likely to predict.

The complicating factor that many don't realize is that just like a public election, if you lose a GOP caucus leadership race, that's it. You don't get the opportunity to drop down as you could in a constitutional officer race at the GOP state convention.

So if you don't pick wisely, and your peers think in that particular instance that the other guy could do better, or deserves it - you're out. Hence, the drive to settle things ahead of time, so there's a more predictable and controlled outcome.

Sure, someone might have rather been this or that. But if it's the difference between having nothing, and having something, which one would you think is better?


Anonymous said…
I have always disagreed with the rule that does not allow people to roll down to lower offices. If you have a contest for majority leader, and there are two strong candidates, why not let the runner-up be assistant? It seems to me that it prevents the caucus from crafting the strongest leadership team.
Anonymous said…
9:14 your proposed rule violates the law of Machiavellian politics. Allowing the "wounded, yet walking" second place finisher to continue on in stride with the winner "may" produce long term results that are not cosistent with the winner's agenda. Further the winner is hamstrung by having to fight, comprimise, or even pacify #2 all of the time.

A strong leadership team comes from having a unified, strong leadership team who are all on board with the same agenda. As a party, sure all beleive in the same goals, theoretically, but disagree on the objectives. This at time can sideline the legislative agenda.
Anonymous said…
That is true, if the leadership slates ran as a ticket - but they do not. It is entirely possible that the PPT, Majority Leader and Asst would not all be on the same page - especially if a compromise coalition is formed ahead of time.
Anonymous said…
To destroy one's opponent may be the desired outcome of a partisan election so as to:
1) prevent that person from making another run; and
2) display ruthlessness sufficient to deter others from challenging the winner.

But destroying an opponent is not necessarily a goal in a party leadership election, nor is it even likely to happen.

As to a defeated majority leader candidate, 12:28's theory does not hold true here that the winner would have to fight, compromise, or pacify that person any more if the defeated person were an assistant than if that person were out of leadership altogether. The assistant just doesn't wield that kind of power.
Anonymous said…
So those "term limits".
So do you all suppose term limits have a hand in this????
Anonymous said…
I can't believe that Gant could possibly be the best candidate. Is he really that good?
Anonymous said…
Anonymous said…
Roll downs always have been a bad idea and always will be. How can someone campaign for weeks for an office talking about their visions and how they would conduct themselves, get beat, and totally change directions. To me that sounds like somebody more interested in power than leadership.
Anyone considering doing that would be slimy in my book.
That is like saying Billion should have been able to run for PUC after he lost the Gov race.
Anonymous said…
What about Cooper "Hollywood" Garnos for leadership. He's got experience.
Anonymous said…
my money is on gray for pro tem.

and no, this isnt gray posting.

he votes with the conservatives most...but not all...of the time. on some issues he breaks away and joins the moderates.

he is one of only about two people up there, who can get along with all sides of each debate.

Popular posts from this blog

Why should we be surprised?

That didn't take long