(NC) Senate Democrats 'Circle the Wagons' to protect nervous conservative Democrats

North Carolina Senate Republican Caucus ^ | 1/30/2005 | Editorial

[Prospero]

Raleigh – Jan. 26. As has been reported in the Charlotte Observer, and elsewhere, changes made in the Rules governing the state Senate, upon the opening of the 2005 Session, have raised some eyebrows. Democrat leaders appear to be providing cover for their embattled conservative Senators without causing a revolt among liberals.

Maintaining a ban on laptop computers and banning smoking in the Senate Chamber grabbed more attention as Democrat leaders changed the way the Senate does business in fundamental ways. Even greater power over the Senate agenda has been placed in the hands of Rules Committee chairman Sen. Tony Rand (D-Cumberland), appearing as an attempt to protect worried conservative Democrat senators from voters polls say are increasingly at odds with the liberal pronouncements of the national Party.

The changes did not go unnoticed by Senate Republicans. Andrew Brock (R-Davie) even commented that the parliamentary changes brought into question whether the state Senate was still "a deliberative body."

[Prospero]

We keep you alive to serve this ship, taxpayers...

Row well, and live.

[EagleUSA]

...at odds with the liberal pronouncements....
======
Any real American is at odds with the frothing Marixism of the far-left Lib party! Pronouncements? Give me a break...the last thing they are interested in is this country --- focusing only on their own selves, their power and control. Nothing else matters to Marxists...except having enough "useful idiots" to vote them in.

[NonValueAdded]

Here's the main point of the story:

The latest Senate Rules, however, say only that the Rules Committee chairman "may" refer a bill to a committee, meaning bills can remain in a kind of limbo, literally in Sen. Rand's pocket, creating a new way for one legislator to veto any bill and destroy any hope of it ever being considered.

[Kuksool]

Is Rand actually a dying breed of Zell Miller RAT or is he just a con man?

The new rules allow rural RATS to fool dumb rednecks into thinking they're conservative while not doing anything.

[longtermmemmory]

...Last summer, Forrester fell shy of getting enough willing Senate Democrats to join Republicans in discharging the Defense of Marriage Amendment, but the petition allowed a few of the more conservative Democrat Senators to crow about their support for "traditional marriage" during the 2004 election. If Rand refers the new reintroduced Defense of Marriage Amendment to committee, even more wary Democrats would be able to sign such a discharge petition.


However, the need for 33 rather than 30 signatures makes it impossible for enough conservative Democrats to override liberal Democrat leaders who don't want a Defense of Marriage Amendment to actually reach the Senate floor.



And there we have the true tale. It seems the only way the are going to prevent a DMA is by changing the rules so the people don't have vote. How Ironic to find this out on Iraqi election day.


True conservative democrats would not be looking for cover, they would be looking for an official vote.


The homo-advocats state that as many as 15 states will have DMA's up for vote in 2006.

[longtermmemmory]

North Carolina General Assembly
Senator Phil Berger, Office of the Republican Leader, North Carolina Senate
1121 Legislative Building, Raleigh, NC 27601 (919) 733-5708

January 30, 2004

Senate Democrats 'Circle the Wagons' to protect
nervous conservative Democrats

Raleigh – Jan. 26. As has been reported in the Charlotte Observer, and elsewhere, changes made in the Rules governing the state Senate, upon the opening of the 2005 Session, have raised some eyebrows. Democrat leaders appear to be providing cover for their embattled conservative Senators without causing a revolt among liberals.

Maintaining a ban on laptop computers and banning smoking in the Senate Chamber grabbed more attention as Democrat leaders changed the way the Senate does business in fundamental ways. Even greater power over the Senate agenda has been placed in the hands of Rules Committee chairman Sen. Tony Rand (D-Cumberland), appearing as an attempt to protect worried conservative Democrat senators from voters polls say are increasingly at odds with the liberal pronouncements of the national Party.

The changes did not go unnoticed by Senate Republicans. Andrew Brock (R-Davie) even commented that the parliamentary changes brought into question whether the state Senate was still "a deliberative body."

As the first order of business for the 2005 Session, Republicans tried to amend the Democrat's new Senate Rules, but attempts to reverse the autocratic direction of the majority was defeated along party lines as Democrats circled their wagons. The effect of all this on the Republican minority appeared minimal.

Senate Republicans have long been accustomed to having certain of their bills immediately referred to committee, never to be heard from again, and with a Democrat Lt. Governor presiding, Democrats are practiced at using parliamentary maneuvers to avoid embarrassing debate or votes on issues they would rather not explain in the next election.

In years past, when a Republican bill disappeared into a committee chairman's attic, hope was still not lost. The powerful Rules Committee chairman was required to refer any bill to at least one Senate committee, and the possibility remained of a "discharge petition," signed by at least three-fifths of the 50 Senators, forcing the bill to the Senate floor for a vote.

The latest Senate Rules, however, say only that the Rules Committee chairman "may" refer a bill to a committee, meaning bills can remain in a kind of limbo, literally in Sen. Rand's pocket, creating a new way for one legislator to veto any bill and destroy any hope of it ever being considered.

If Rand decided to exercise his new "option" of referring a bill to a committee, the new Senate Rules also increase from three-fifths to two-thirds, from 30 to 33, the number of Senators needed to enforce a discharge petition.

It's speculated these new restrictions are directed at the Defense of Marriage Act, a constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between one man and one woman, filed by Senator Jim Forrester (R-Gaston) last summer, and already reintroduced this session by Forrester and Sen. Fred Smith (R-Johnston).

Last summer, Forrester fell shy of getting enough willing Senate Democrats to join Republicans in discharging the Defense of Marriage Amendment, but the petition allowed a few of the more conservative Democrat Senators to crow about their support for "traditional marriage" during the 2004 election. If Rand refers the new reintroduced Defense of Marriage Amendment to committee, even more wary Democrats would be able to sign such a discharge petition.

However, the need for 33 rather than 30 signatures makes it impossible for enough conservative Democrats to override liberal Democrat leaders who don't want a Defense of Marriage Amendment to actually reach the Senate floor.

-30-


PRESS CONTACT: Joel Raupe - Administrative Asst. Office of the Minority Leader North Carolina Senate
joelr@ncleg.net (252) 944-8894
http://www.ncsenategop.com

[MisterRepublican]

Conservative Democrats? What the hell is that?

[longtermmemmory]

Zell Miller.

HOWEVER, since these conservatives are looking for cover to claim the ISSUE and not looking for a SOLUTION, they are CINO's

[fire_eye]

...protect worried conservative Democrat senators from voters polls say are increasingly at odds with the liberal pronouncements of the national Party

Why shouldn't ALL the Demonrats pay for having allowed their party to fall into the hands of the Communists?

Where were these fine gentlemen when it was happening - sipping mint juleps on their front porches? Following their rabbit hounds into the brush on their thoroughbreds?

My heart bleeds for them. I want to see them go down with the ship. (I'm sure I'll find their final solute from the prow very touching.)

[Prospero]

Tony Rand isn't any Zell, that's for sure, and neither are the rest of these "conservative" state Senate Democrats in Raleigh. Fact is, they're just "Made Men" in a criminal conspiracy being taken over by liberals. Slower than in the rest of the South, the 77 percent of the voters who consider themselves conservatives, some of whom are fifth generation Democrat, old line southern dems, they are still catching on, and the liberal aristocracy that runs the Party appaRATus has twisted the rules to hold off the inevitable for another two, four, six years.

[longtermmemmory]

Is there any way to bypss these dweebs and get the Marriage Amendment before the voters?

[Prospero]

I'm afraid only a grassroots movement, aimed at the Senate and House leadership, as well as the fence straddlers, would frighten them into allowing such a constitutional amendment to be put on the ballot.

At present, they are only only concerned with being shown not to be in support of such a protection, of being accused of catering to their gay activist donors and supporters.

People like newly-elected gay activist Senator Julia Boseman of Wilmington. By signing a "discharge petition" that has no hope of reaching the required numbers to force the measure on the floor, "conservative" Democrats in power in Raleigh can claim to have "supported" the protection while keeping the bill bottled up in limbo.