It can be a state farce [TN]

Knoxville News Sentinel ^ | 3/20/5 | Tom Humphrey

[SmithL]

There were some who have contended that a kinder and gentler House Speaker Jimmy Naifeh emerged over the past couple of years or so, transformed from the partisan ogre that Republican activists love to hate.

Maybe so. He's been quietly appointing Republicans as subcommittee chairmen, for example, and cultivating contacts with party moderates. More loudly, he has been making overtures toward openness in government - at least in the sense of making live broadcasts of floor sessions and some committee meetings available over the Internet.

But it may also be that the speaker, at age 65, is just being more selective in choosing where he engages in political combat - but no less effective and, if anything, more belligerent.

Recent choices include, for example, ignoring a constitutional amendment on gay marriage - pointless, he basically said, but not worth fighting over - while going to the mat against a bill to outlaw adoptions by homosexuals.

The latter bill died last week in committee, with Naifeh making a point of personally appearing to vote against the measure and denounce the sponsor, Republican Rep. Chris Clem, as a master of political divisiveness. Clem, of course, had some unkind things to say about Naifeh leaning on Democrats to bring them in line.

The speaker has at times seemed still bitter about his most recent re-election campaign. On more than one occasion, he has publicly proclaimed that the experience taught him, "It doesn't make any difference what I do, those people are going to come after me make things up lie."

Indeed, at one point in debate on the gay marriage amendment last week - which passed, naturally - Naifeh found occasion to lecture on Republican lying.

Then there's the adage to the effect that, if you're going to be accused, indicted, convicted and sentenced - well, you might as well be guilty.

Which may offer an explanation for a more curious choice of field for partisan combat by Naifeh and his Democratic lieutenants and some heavy-handed tactics - ethics legislation. In an opening salvo on that front, the speaker deemed a GOP package to be a farce.

Since then, Democrat-dominated House subcommittees have proceeded to scuttle or muddle every Republican-sponsored ethics bill that appeared before them - four, so far - while advancing a like number of Democrat-sponsored measures.

By and large, the bills on both sides have been rather inconsequential so far - an exception being House Majority Leader Kim McMillan's push to put limits on individual contributions to PACs and political parties. Republicans are united in defending their ability to take fat cat funds in unlimited quantities.

The muddling has been entertaining.

A bill to require freshman legislators to take a four-hour ethics course becomes, with Democrat tampering, a bill to require a 40-hour course and mandate that those taking it will spend a week without getting their expense payment monies.

A bill to define which relatives of a legislator can obtain a special legislator license plate, similarly, is amended to outlaw all legislative license plates.

These are real knee-slappers in the House political show under way but really sideshows to the overall plot that pits power-hungry Republicans against power-possessing Democrats led by a new Naifeh.

Well, maybe not new, but at least revitalized by anger. Some past accusations of heavy-handed tactics levied against him were unjustified. Now, he seems to have decided that he might as well be guilty.

In some ways, this is a refreshing contrast to the typical finger-in-the-wind, poll-checking politician. And there are many truly silly bills that meet a deserving death in the killer subcommittees.

But it's also possible to overreact.

Take one of the bills that, though not quite dead yet, seemed very ill last week in a sub. This is a proposal by House Republican Leader Tre Hargett - part of what Naifeh has designated as the GOP farce package.

It does two things. First, it requires an extra campaign finance disclosure prior to the beginning of early voting, a reasonable proposition. Second, it would ban PAC contributions to candidates 20 days before Election Day instead of 10 days as under current law. Contributions from individuals and political parties would not be affected.

Democrats chose to attack part two - and not unreasonably. It's a bit farcical. But instead of moving to an obvious compromise - drop the second part and approve the first - these folks would rather fight. And the farce continues.

[SmithL]

One might think that Naifeh was in the majority party.

[Calusa]

Now where do you stand on:

1. The education system is all about social engineering not electronic engineering?

2. Union activism has brought down the steel and most manuufacturing industries.

3. Lawyers and environmentalists have made it prohibitive to build new power plants and refineries, nevermind drill for oil.

What's left windmills off Nantucket?,

[Calusa]

My bad. Wrong post!Ooorps!