Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Support drops for imprisoning Blagojevich
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Ruben Delgado
Posted in:
* As I told subscribers last week, punishments have been meted out to Republican state Reps. Bill Black and Bob Biggins for their votes for the pension borrowing bill…
[Rep. Black] now goes from one of two deputy minority leader positions to one of six assistant Republican leader positions.
He said his salary will decline “by about $2,500 to $3,000 a month” and he no longer will be the Republican leader on the House floor. […]
Black said some Republicans were angry that he spoke on the House floor after Cross had spoken on behalf of the GOP caucus.
“The mistake I made, and that I feel badly about, is that I have a rule that I will never speak after the Republican leader will speak,” Black explained. “And I did that this time and that was a mistake on my part. As I told Tom (Cross), I don’t know whether I wasn’t focused on the fact that he had already spoken or what. I should have not done that and I apologized to him for that.
Just weeks after the House vote, Republican House leader Tom Cross of Oswego stripped Biggins of his title of minority spokesman for a House appropriations committee. That title came with a $10,327 pay boost, on top of salary and stipends given for committee assignments, of which every General Assembly member has at least one.
That sort of bullying partisanship is among the things that voters find distasteful about politics, no matter what party it comes from.
* The Question: Were the demotions of Black and Biggins the proper punishment? Explain, please.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Jun 14, 10 @ 11:40 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Support drops for imprisoning Blagojevich
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Ruben Delgado
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
In addition to the punishment distastefullness–
What also is distasteful about it is that they can invent some leadership postion and tack on ten grand in pay.
I now declare myself sooper-dooper electrical engineer. Now where is my 10 Grand raise??
Disgusting!!!
train111
Comment by train111 Monday, Jun 14, 10 @ 11:44 am
Answer the question, please.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Jun 14, 10 @ 11:45 am
To answer the question–No, the punishment wasn’t fitting. It’s all petty political gamesmanship in a time where the state is flat broke. Biggins and Black should have to answer to their constituents only (even though neither will have to this election cycle) and not to some self proclaimed party-line enforcers.
train111
Comment by train111 Monday, Jun 14, 10 @ 11:47 am
The real question,perhaps, is whether it was economic punishment or a question of being a loyal party member regardless of the economic sanctions?’
I think that the true compensation all the members and leadership is necessary in order that the voters can appreciate or not what their tax dollars are buying? Nice to have bonus pay when there are scarce funds available.Does this influence how reps ans senators cast votes that are often not readily explainablr?
Comment by loyal illini65 Monday, Jun 14, 10 @ 11:51 am
This is an interesting question Rich because it exposes what I believe is a troubling situation that puts way too much control in the hands of leaders.
The leaders control the extra salaries for those they name to leadership spots. They also name the spokespersons for each of the committees, which provides additional pay increases. The loyalty of various rank and file state legislators is purchased by the leaders with our tax dollars. This is the power the leaders hold over their leadership teams, picking winners and losers from within the caucus.
So to the question, then, yes. If you accept that it is perfectly OK for some legislators to earn more salary than others, and you accept that the leader of each caucus is free to select those winners, then you must also accept that leaders will strip disloyal members of the additional pay. And so, yes, that’s the proper punishment.
I think a better question might be: why on earth do we allow this system to continue? When is someone going to push legislation to abolish pay disparity for legislators? Was this reform included in the Collins panel or other reform recommendations? If not, why not?
Comment by 47th Ward Monday, Jun 14, 10 @ 11:52 am
Strikes me that we ‘hire’ these folks to represent, and be answerable, to their constituents; not the party; nor the party leader. Punishments? Leave it to the voters. No wonder folks get upset when their respresentatives feel they have to dance on a string.
Comment by sal-says Monday, Jun 14, 10 @ 11:53 am
The punishment wasn’t fitting. Minority Leader Cross just demonstrated to the public that legislators are not to do what they think is best for their districts or their constituents, but just fall in line with what Leadership wants. This isn’t governing, it is bullying. And it is wrong, no matter which party is doing it. The Illinois General Assembly has to be one of the most oppressive places to work in the state.
Comment by Really?? Monday, Jun 14, 10 @ 11:53 am
If I look at it from Cross’ perspective, yes it is proper punishment. They took a caucus position, Black and Biggins defied that caucus position, Black and Biggins have their leadership in the caucus diminished.
If there are no consequences for failing to get in line in that situation, then Cross has lost all control over his caucus.
In the big picture, I think it was a bad caucus position to take and think Black, especially, made the principled decision. That being said, I bet Black would agree that Cross had to demote him.
Comment by Montrose Monday, Jun 14, 10 @ 11:54 am
Absolutely, if you are trying to enforce caucus discipline and make some examples, since they represent some fairly powerless targets for your wrath. I wonder whether Rep. Cross would be so bold with people eligible to vote for him for Leader next year.
Comment by Seneca Monday, Jun 14, 10 @ 11:55 am
In my view, the “punishment” was more about setting an example for other caucus members to be wary of (in case they consider breaking ranks in the future). Since Black and Biggins are retiring, it doesn’t hurt them personally all that much (unless their pensions are diminished substantially). If it does hurt their pensions, then Cross should have considered their prior service. Black has been a distinguished member and Floor Leader for eons…I would hate for him to have to personally suffer financially for one vote, especially since his vote was in the best interest of the State, and since he protected other members of his partisan caucus in the process.
Comment by unspun Monday, Jun 14, 10 @ 11:56 am
Well, since the only way Republicans are going to get anything is to remain united, it is a perfectly acceptable punishment. You get a few reps out there siding with the democrats, then the democrats call something “bi-partisan” legislation, even though only 2 or 3 Republicans are supporting it. A united minority is the only way to fight the Democratic majority at this point.
Comment by Heartless Libertarian Monday, Jun 14, 10 @ 12:00 pm
No, it’s absolutely not proper.
Tom Cross is just trying to pretend he’s some kind of big man. He desperately wants the same kind of respect Mike Madigan gets. But Cross doesn’t comprehend that respect has to be earned. Cross will never be Madigan. Cross will always be seen as a guy who couldn’t lead his way out of a wet paper sack.
There are MANY reasons to remove leaders from the House GOP caucus, starting with Tom Cross. But voting for the most sound financial plan on the table isn’t one of them. Cross simply blew a gasket because his whole “strategy” for the November election revolves around deliberately making Illinois government worse, and then turning around and blaming the Democrats for what he himself did.
There’s also the fact that Cross voted for $10 billion in pension debt in 2003 (the Blago deal that’s a big subject in the trial right now). But now we’re supposed to believe that he’s got a problem with just $3.7 billion? Plus, the economy is in much worse shape now. Borrowing now is more justifiable than it was in 2003, especially given the alternatives on the table. And Cross doesn’t seem to have a serious alternative of his own.
I could see Cross’ caucus being the only GOP body in America to lose even more seats in November. I’ve never seen a group so dysfunctional.
Comment by just sayin' Monday, Jun 14, 10 @ 12:00 pm
Certainly it was correct to demote these men, and I feel this especially true in Biggins’s case. He was being paid as the spokesman for the caucus in the appropriations area, and on an appropriation-related vote (not exactly appropriations, but very closely related) chose to break with the rest of the leadership and the caucus. If your SPOKESMAN doesn’t follow the rest of the caucus, there is no discipline within the caucus. Why then pay extra to have this rogue member speak for you?
Advice to Biggins:
“You got to dance with the one that brought you
Stay with the one that wants you
The one who’s gonna love you when all of the others go home
Don’t let the green grass fool ya
Don’t let the moon get to ya
Dance with the one that brought you and you can’t go wrong”
- Shania Twain
Comment by Cincinnatus Monday, Jun 14, 10 @ 12:01 pm
So I guess the only caucus that elected 1/2 of it’s leadership team only works for so long. Seems like a raw deal for all the water the two of them have carried over the years. Time for limits on caucus leadership.
Comment by frustrated GOP Monday, Jun 14, 10 @ 12:06 pm
Final warning. If you don’t answer the question, you will be deleted.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Jun 14, 10 @ 12:09 pm
I think it is perfectly fitting. Why have a Deputy Republican Leader that rebuts your arguments on the floor and goes against the efforts of nearly the entire caucus.
Black is clearly intelligent and effective, but the post he was serving in was Deputy Republican Leader–and if you are going to go against the caucus, don’t expect to hold that partisan post.
Comment by Easy Monday, Jun 14, 10 @ 12:14 pm
nope…legislators do not hand their brains over to the Caucus chair upon winning an election (well, I guess some do) …crap like this is why people loathe partisan politics…
Comment by Loop Lady Monday, Jun 14, 10 @ 12:17 pm
No, it was not right. The four tops have over the years eliminated the need for any representation other than themselves. They deem what is right and their subordinates follow in lock step or are punished as is demonstrated here. We in Illinois no longer have a repesentitive form of government. We have an oligarchy, where a few make decisions for all. Sometimes the players change but for the last couple of decades these four positions have ruled the State of Illinois.
This government has degraded into a power hungry quartet who’s sole ambition and purpose is self preservation and the furtherence of their power while the State falls into ruin.
Comment by Irish Monday, Jun 14, 10 @ 12:19 pm
Yes. One of the purposes of leadership is to enforce party discipline.
Why should one expect to maintain the perks of power when playing both sides?
Comment by Plutocrat03 Monday, Jun 14, 10 @ 12:20 pm
No, it was childish and inappropriate. This sort of action tells me that Madigan and Cross went to the same postgraduate course on Dictatorship. Why not send everyone but the two leaders home and save money.
Comment by GOP Middle of the Roader Monday, Jun 14, 10 @ 12:22 pm
Living in Cross’ district, I know he would like to be seen as a strong leader who can control a caucus and move an entire party’s agenda forward, in the minority or not, being a “Madigan in the minority”, minipulating the votes ….
That being said, the HRO “prides” (I know …) itself for finding the “right candidate for each of its Tier 1 targets”, but if your district believes in one aspect of an issue, and the caucus needs the vote the other way… then why have someone respresent a district and its beliefs if they are just going to be a “mushroom” anyway?
YES, I understand a support all that Cross did/has done, but here is the rub;
1) They are both retiring, so if it hurts their pension, that may be the only “hurt” they feel. It’s not like they were angling to take Cross out.
2) In the case of Black, who couldn’t be any more deliberate and honest in his take on the bill, letting Cross know he needed votes elsewhere from the get-go, I find it appropriate, but it WILL be disheartening for a member of the House GOP who needs to vote a certain way on belief and survival, and Cross will not have his back when that Rep goes down to defeat, possibly because of that vote.
The carrot and the stick …but in the minority… tough call …ask Lee Daniels …
No sympathy for Biggins - ZERO
Feel disheartened for Black, but I understand, and am glad Cross is doing what needs to be done … just be careful HRO!
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Jun 14, 10 @ 12:22 pm
I listened to the debate and vote that day. Usually I get quite annoyed with Black’s huffing and puffing, but not that day. To me at least what Black did is what Black felt he had to do…he knew when he did it it would come with a price. Do I think the punishment fit the ‘offense’? No, but I assume Cross does and as the minor leader I guess Cross gets to make that decision. It’s Cross’s loss to demote Black.
Comment by Cindy Lou Monday, Jun 14, 10 @ 12:25 pm
There is a broader issue here besides whether or not the punishment was appropriate. Only a very small percentage of the people of this state vote for the leadership in both parties. Yet, the entire state has to deal with the consequences of the actions of these four people, with no way to vote them out if they feel their decisions aren’t in the best interest of the people. Having a few people have that much power only serves to marginalize the people they are supposed to be working for.
Comment by Really?? Monday, Jun 14, 10 @ 12:25 pm
No. These members are supposed to represent their constituents and vote accordingly. They do not represent the leadership, which has been all but forgotten. We voters need to clean house (pun intended) this fall.
Comment by Full Sack Monday, Jun 14, 10 @ 12:26 pm
I do not think it was appropriate. Some of our best legislators in the last few decades are the few who have shown some independence from their leaders. This is behavior that should be encouraged not punished. Although, I know the leaders who do the punishing would not agree with that.
Comment by Bi-Partisan Monday, Jun 14, 10 @ 12:27 pm
No, I don’t believe that the punishments were at all justified and see them as being nothing more than childish.
If anything, it’s another distasteful example of how legislators aren’t supposed to think at all in Illinois but merely follow the leader’s whim in every way, shape, and form.
Comment by TJ Monday, Jun 14, 10 @ 12:28 pm
One more thought, in the case of Biggins, did he extract any meaningful pension reform for his vote? I can see breaking with the party leadership if you are making a deal that incorporates the caucus’ ideas. Heck, if you strike a meaningful deal, you could be LEADING the caucus and the GA into some meaningful reform.
That was not the case with Biggins’s vote. The vote was out of step with his constituents wishes (I have talked to many GOP leaders in the district), so one could be led to the belief that he took this vote to advance his own personal career, an allegation made here and in other places when the voting took place.
The caucus was within its rights to reprimand Biggins.
Comment by Cincinnatus Monday, Jun 14, 10 @ 12:38 pm
No, not for only one vote. Such a punishment should only be used for someone who consistently votes against the party position. Bill Black is one of the best there is and calls them as he sees them. It’s this kind of thing that explains the name I go by on this blog.
Comment by formerGOPer Monday, Jun 14, 10 @ 12:47 pm
proper punishment? no! any proper punishment has to come from the voters.
the members of the house aren’t elected to represent the republican party or their caucus or tom cross. they’re elected to represent their consitutents.
most of the people who vote for them expect them to think about their votes and cast them in the way that they think is best for their constituents. if the votes don’t fit with what the voters want, then the voters can decline to re-elect them; the primary voters can select someone else next time and the voters in the general election can make their own decisions.
in these two cases, the voters apparently have been satisfied with black’s votes and biggins’s votes in the past or they wouldn’t have re-elected them. so it’s probably a safe bet that most of their voters still are satisfied with black and biggins even though both are at the end of their house service.
too bad the republican caucus members don’t have enough guts to make some tough votes. typical bullying behavior—don’t use whatever strength you have to be courageous, but instead flex your muscles to hurt someone and make yourself feel good.
Comment by been there Monday, Jun 14, 10 @ 12:51 pm
I served with Bill Black in the House. Being a Democrat, I often disagreed with him. However, Bill was always a decent person and spoke his mind. He was always emotional about his positions. He always spok from the heart, and there were times that we were concerned that physically his own heart might be damaged, and he came close to that. The bottom line was that Ill Black could be trusted by everyone, and isn’t that what we all cherish in others. Bill Black should not have been punished at all, and althopugh I don’t know Rep. Biggins, his punishment probably wasn’t warranted either.These are things that the public is being soured about, and a great legislative process is diminished by it.
Comment by john s. matijevich Monday, Jun 14, 10 @ 12:55 pm
I’m gonna split my vote:
Black - though it pains me to say it because I think he did the right thing, yes, Cross was within his bounds to demote him. Part of the deal when you accept a leadership position is that when your leader comes to you and tells you he needs a vote, you give it to him. Though I think Bill is one of the best guys in the GA and an outstanding legislator, I think a demotion is justifiable, if not exactly warranted.
Biggins - Simply put, no. Minority spokesman is akin to Chairman on the majority side, and generally speaking, seniority is what gets you into those positions, not political fealty. He shouldn’t have had that taken away from him. If Cross didn’t want him as minority spokesman of an approp committee, he could’ve simply given him something that never meets like Dunkin’s Tourism committee. In Biggins case, it merely shows what happens if you try and think for yourself.
Comment by Thoughts... Monday, Jun 14, 10 @ 1:07 pm
Proper If you are in a one party ward or township. But not is the Illinois House. When the oath is taken it is as a STATE REP. not as a Demo or Repub. Rep. and the last vote on a bill should be what that Rep thinks is best for the State and that Reps district. For TCross or if MJM had done this in the middle of the year sends the message they will never get to the table for any real reform. Maybe they do not want reform?
Comment by Down South Monday, Jun 14, 10 @ 1:14 pm
no one is saying they can’t vote how they want to vote–the question is should they remain in their appointed (not elected) position of party leadership.
I think it goes without saying that if you want the independence to break from party positions-don’t accept the offer to be in leadership.
In contrast, when Madigan gets upset at his leadership team (i.e. Hoffman) he just doesn’t give him any work but Hoffman still gets the paycheck.
Comment by Easy Monday, Jun 14, 10 @ 1:17 pm
I don’t think it’s proper to treat your fellow colleagues like this, especially since they are retiring. They also did what they thought was best for the state, not the Republican Party. I expect (and demand) better behavior from my children who are all under five, Cross needs to grow up.
I also didn’t think it was proper for the Republicans to want to make the budget situation worse for the November election, so maybe this kind of behavior is par for the course.
Comment by Ahoy Monday, Jun 14, 10 @ 1:19 pm
it was not right from the perspective of good government, but
from the perspective of trying to grow a caucus, it was.
Comment by Amalia Monday, Jun 14, 10 @ 1:25 pm
===when Madigan gets upset at his leadership team (i.e. Hoffman)===
Hoffman is not in leadership.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Jun 14, 10 @ 1:47 pm
A little of both…
If they committed their stance on the issue to Cross and then flip-flopped on the floor, then yes because they jeopardized Cross’ position as leader and the party caucus.
However if they were up front with him all along and said they were going to support the legislation for a specific reason, then his actions are wrong.
From what I have been told, Biggins screwed Cross on the Floor and flip flopped, but Black was up front all along. So in my mind Cross was right with Biggins, but wrong with Black.
Now with that scenario in mind, my question is this: If demoting Biggins is right, can Cross take that step and leave Black unscathed? That may have been the underlying issue here.
Comment by A.B. Monday, Jun 14, 10 @ 1:54 pm
As said by others, the punishment is appropriate if you consider the circumstances, and the leadership situation. But - the circumstances are preposterous and the leadership situation is outrageous. The current reality - may it pass away quickly - is that the caucus generally has no policy option except scorched earth, and the leaders have to use their powers to enforce it. In this case, I think the caucus made a big mistake and should have gone for the borrowing. They’re only making matters worse, and I don’t see voters rewarding that behavior.
Comment by Excessively Rabid Monday, Jun 14, 10 @ 1:56 pm
Easy,
A better example would be Elaine Nekritz, the only rank-and-file Dem to vote against Madigan’s rules last year. Her punishment? Still running a committee, still getting bills called.
To the question, it was not appropriate given that the House Republican leader spent much of last year saying this very stuff was wrong.
Comment by Michelle Flaherty Monday, Jun 14, 10 @ 1:58 pm
yes, since this was a party appt, then this is a party punishment. I do not like it, but I do understand it. They are not removing them from thier duley elected positions, merely an appointed add-on.
Comment by Wumpus Monday, Jun 14, 10 @ 1:59 pm
If you want to be in leadership, you have to figure you’re going to have to tow the party line more so than if you elect to stay out of leadership in order to be more independent. Absolutely warrented on both accounts.
Whether or not “tradition” or “seniority” is what usually decides chairmen and spokesmen for committees, it’s ultimately up to the leader, and every member knows that. If you go against the leader on an issue as big as this one, no one should be surprise that there might be consequences.
The sanctimony on here is somewhat laughable. Even the nation’s Founding Fathers knew how to manipulate the system to get things done - including “punishing” naysayers or opponents. Look up George Washington’s handling of some deserters in the Revolutionary War to get an idea how “hardcore” they were. To think that there will ever be a time where there’s no politics in governing is ludicrous.
Comment by Amuzing Myself Monday, Jun 14, 10 @ 2:06 pm
Yes. This was a very important vote and these were party leaders voting on an issue of importance to the party. It wasn’t about your rabbit having to wear a flea collar or something similarly trivial.
Besides, the punishment is hardly severe. If you want the luxury of voting independently every single time, don’t take the leadership position.
Or accept the risk if you do.
No whining.
Comment by cassandra Monday, Jun 14, 10 @ 2:14 pm
I guess. If you take the man’s money, you dance to the man’s tune. The solution is to never take the money if you want to be your own person.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Jun 14, 10 @ 2:22 pm
These are positions which appropriatly may demand political loyalty. I beleive it is fair game to attack Cross and his charcater over the decision, and point outhow the GOP would hack away and somone retirment for not eing obstructionist. However the decisions is fair game, as is public scrutiny and comment on the action.
Comment by Ghost Monday, Jun 14, 10 @ 2:26 pm
This was absolutely appropriate, because these “gentlemen” caused a great deal of damage to both their party and constitutents, as well as making it possible for the GA to avoid dealing with the issues in the budget that need to be addressed.
First, their actions were a HUGE disrespect to GOP leadership, who needed this issue as leverage for other trade-offs.
Black and Biggins essentially stole that leverage from Cross for pretty selfish reasons, most of which I expect we’ll see after they retire.
To paraphrase Blago,”This thing is freakin’ GOLDEN”, and the Dems NEEDED this borrowing to avoid making either spending cuts that would adversely affect their “entitlement” and union constituencies, or cause them to raise taxes that would cause the 75% of the Illinoisans not feeding at the public trough to vote against them.
Forcing Madigan and Quinn to make that Sophies’ Choice would have been huge, but it appears that Black and Biggins sold their party out to avoid this tight spot for the Dems.
Judas Iscariot actions deserve Judas Iscariot punishment!
Comment by PalosParkBob Monday, Jun 14, 10 @ 2:32 pm
It is the cost of doing their jobs as they defined them. To the degree in which they were punished, would depend on their home support. Representatives represent more than just their constituencies, they also represent their political parties. To be effective in the General Assembly, a representative can’t always be a maverick, yet expect group support when desired.
Cross doesn’t relish this. This kind of decision is made in order to maintain a seblance of worksmanship and unity within a party. As a party leader, Cross had few options. Had he done nothing, he risks losing future unity on other issues. Leaders don’t always have options in these cases.
This is how it is done.
Comment by VanillaMan Monday, Jun 14, 10 @ 2:37 pm
There’s also the irony of Bill Black being one of the handful of House Republicans to break from party leadership in the late 90s to vote for the Edgar education tax plan. Black ended up co-sponsoring it with Barbara Flynn Currie. Then GOP leader Lee Daniels was none too pleased but Black didn’t get demoted.
And those were allegedly the days of iron-fisted GOP leadership on the caucus. Further irony was the Biggins was one of the bigger critics of that plan.
Comment by Michelle Flaherty Monday, Jun 14, 10 @ 2:39 pm
Notice also, fair reader, the differences in the responses between Black and Biggins. Black was willing to take his lumps, and from the sounds of things, understands the caucus’ position on the demotion. From Biggins, crickets.
Comment by Cincinnatus Monday, Jun 14, 10 @ 2:52 pm
If you accept a leadership position, you should accept these consequences if you stray on an important vote. There are several House GOPers who eschewed leadership positions and the extra money because they wanted to remain able to vote their District. They will never get the recognition and respect they deserve, but by definition they don’t care. Can anybody name them?
Comment by Expol Monday, Jun 14, 10 @ 3:10 pm
===Judas Iscariot actions deserve Judas Iscariot punishment!===
PPB, maybe Benedict Arnold is the better analogy. I don’t think you meant to compare Tom Cross to Jesus Christ…
Comment by 47th Ward Monday, Jun 14, 10 @ 3:26 pm
The irony is that every time the House Republicans appeal the ruling of the chair, they urge Democrats to think for themselves, to show some independence from their leadership, to not be mindless lemmings. The first time all year a couple of Republicans take the Republican advice, they get penalized by Boss Cross. Go figure.
Comment by Reformer Monday, Jun 14, 10 @ 3:35 pm
=PPB, maybe Benedict Arnold is the better analogy. I don’t think you meant to compare Tom Cross to Jesus Christ…=
Point well taken, 47th Ward!
I’d have to agree that he’s a lot closer to the “Prince of Darkness” than the “Prince of Peace”!
Now I’ll go say 10 Hail Mary’s and 10 Our Father’s and sin no more……..
Comment by PalosParkBob Monday, Jun 14, 10 @ 3:44 pm
Everyone says Madigan is heavyhanded, but does he “discipline” members when they vote or speak against the democratic caucus position? Look at Franks - he speaks against the democrats everytime, yet he still gets to call his priority bills and sponsor items such as recall. Look at Nekritz - she voted against the Rules and often speaks against party leadership, yet she chairs a committee and most of her bills move.
Comment by ugh Monday, Jun 14, 10 @ 3:45 pm
“Thoughts” is right. Biggins was minority spokesman of a committee — just like every other GOP Rep who has been around longer than 4 years. That position isn’t some special perk.
“Expol”: The senior House Republican is Ron Wait. He’s not in leadership.
“Vanilla”: Can you cite any occasion where Madigan demoted a member of his caucus for stepping off the reservation?
Comment by Reformer Monday, Jun 14, 10 @ 3:47 pm
I wasn’t finished…Cross can do what he wants with caucus leadership positions, but I think this doesn’t bode well for independent thinkers.
Comment by ugh Monday, Jun 14, 10 @ 3:47 pm
=== Can you cite any occasion where Madigan demoted a member of his caucus for stepping off the reservation?===
Hoffman, Ronan, etc.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Jun 14, 10 @ 4:12 pm
It epitomizes why it is hard to get good people to go into politics. Black and Biggins voted their convictions. This is why increasingly people with convictions do not want to go into politics, or if they do go, do not survive.
Comment by jake Monday, Jun 14, 10 @ 5:11 pm
The question, was this the proper punishment?
That can only be determined by defining the objective. If the objective is deterring future action, probably. If the objective was making the caucus or party look good to the public, probably not.
BTW, is there any member of the legislature that does not get some bump in pay by an appointment from a leader?
Comment by BigTwich Monday, Jun 14, 10 @ 5:21 pm
Black –NO Biggins—not so sure. Black has been a good rep. for his district & carried the water for the GOP long before little Tommy Cross was on the scene. I’d think given the GOP position they’d need all the friends they could get.
Comment by anno--mus Monday, Jun 14, 10 @ 6:49 pm
I agree with Montrose and Easy. There was a caucus position. If you want to go against that caucus position, fine, but then you can’t be in caucus leadership. To kick them out of the caucus would not be fair, but to demote them from leadership positions is totally fair in my book.
Comment by Its Just Me Monday, Jun 14, 10 @ 7:04 pm
It is not a coincidence that two reps on the way out, who will not be facing voters again, nor who will have to ask for the extra payola that comes with leadership appointments, did this. I see self-interest and cowardice here, not courage with those two votes.
Comment by Jon Zahm Monday, Jun 14, 10 @ 11:18 pm
I have been critical of Rep Black (he is my rep) but I complimented him on this vote because IT SAVES US MONEY…isnt the GOP line about fiscal responsibility. It took some guts for someone to go against the party line…lets quit talking about how we need to change politics and actually do what our state needs.
Comment by Double D Tuesday, Jun 15, 10 @ 7:28 am