WP: House GOP Shows Its Fractiousness In the Minority

[kskiska]

Sunday, January 14, 2007; A01

House Republican leaders, who confidently predicted they would drive a wedge through the new Democratic majority, have found their own party splintering, with Republican lawmakers siding with Democrats in droves on the House's opening legislative blitz.

Freed from the pressures of being the majority and from the heavy hand of former leaders including retired representative Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), many back-bench Republicans are showing themselves to be more moderate than their conservative leadership and increasingly mindful of shifting voter sentiment. The closest vote last week -- Friday's push to require the federal government to negotiate lower drug prices for Medicare -- pulled 24 Republicans. The Democrats' homeland security bill attracted 68 Republicans, the minimum wage increase 82.

"You're freer to vote your conscience," said Rep. Jo Anne Emerson (R-Mo.), who received an 88 percent voting record from the American Conservative Union in 2005 but has so far sided with Democrats on new budget rules, Medicare prescription-drug negotiations, raising the minimum wage and funding stem cell research. "Or, really, I feel free to represent my constituents exactly as they want me to be."

"Times have changed. I don't want to be someone who they say is too stubborn to change too," said Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-La.), whose 92 percent conservative rating did not stop him from voting with Democrats on the homeland security and minimum-wage bills.

more…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/13/AR2007011301189.html

[KingFlorez]

1. That's really crazy that they couldn't vote their conscience

Emerson was harassed by Delay until she was in tears once. It's amazing how the swing in the balance of power has impacted some of these Republicans.

[54anickel]

2. Rather refreshing to hear them admit how coerced they were to vote

the party line in lock-step.

[radfringe]

3. good to hear it

the republics are free to vote, no more arm twisting or fear of blackmail -- at least some of them have kicked the kool-aid habit and thrown away their rubberstamps

[BayCityProgressive]

4. If they would have done it

while they were still in power, they may still have had the majority. These Republicans who are siding with us will have a much easier time than the ones who don't in 08.

[Gman]

13. They'll have an easier time in '08 assuming they survive the primaries

at which time the nutcase RW will go after them with a vengeance.

[Mnemosyne]

5. Many of them have seemed almost relieved on the

floor of the House. Strangest thing to watch.

[fishnfla]

6. "Or, really, I feel free..." Oh brother

whereas before.....

[Zorra]

7. How very courageous of them.

To not vote their "conscience" until Democrats were in the majority. Where was this mythical "conscience" when they were helping Bu*h and the republican party destroy our country?

If these people are in any way decent human beings, they will abandon the dark, dank, corrosive evil of the republican party and become either Independents or, better yet, Democrats.

[northofdenali]

8. "You're freer to vote your conscience," said Rep. Jo Anne Emerson (R-Mo.)"

That has to be one of the most disgusting comments I've ever heard from a Repuke. And probably the truest, in that they'd vote for a Satanic takeover if it was sponsored by someone with an "R" after their name.

[tanyev]

9. IOW, "Up until now I haven't been representing my constituents."

[yojon]

12. I was representing Tom Delay, not my constituents

pretty sad commentary...

[MasonJar]

10. Don't you remember how the Hammer, etc. would keep the votes

open until they had browbeat their fellow GOPers into voting with them? I am glad that they are speaking out...although there is probably a lot of self-preservation in it.

[MGKrebs]

11. Here in Georgia the state legislature has these guys called "Hawks".

In 2005, after the Repubs took over the legislature, the House Speaker changed the rules and created a position called a "Hawk". These are Representatives appointed by the Speaker who are automatically members of any committee the Speaker designates. If the Speaker feels that a committee vote will be close, he can send his Hawks in there to make sure he wins. I don't think they set a limit on how many Hawks there can be, but they have only appointed three so far.

Keeping in mind that all committees have Repub majorities anyway, and that therefore the Repubs- if they voted party-line- would never lose a committee vote, the Hawks are revealed as a tool to keep moderate Republican in line. Any Repub who thought they might go against the Speaker has no incentive to do so. They can't win, the vast majority of their constituents don't follow committee votes, and, oh yeah, the Speaker appointed his Communications Director to be the House Media Relations Director.
I have also heard rumors that there are mysterious phone/fax/internet troubles for misbehaving Reps, not to mention crappy office and committee assignments, and a lack of notice of meeting time and place changes. It's brutal.

The person who was running this site has stopped updating it, but there is still good info here:
http://www.nohawks.com/

[David__77]

14. I wonder if Rep. Alexander regrets has party switch.

I mean, I think he cited his ability to get district funding with the GOP majority as a reason to make that switch. Now he's in the minority again.