New House Leadership

[demsformd]

According to the Washington Post, the Republican leadership of the house has decided to reward loyalty to the party this session when awarding chairmanships rather than following the seniority tradition. Several congressman such as Rep. Shays of Connecticut, a proponent of campaign finance reform, were shortchanged apparently due to their past disagreements with the leadership. Shays was tossed aside as the apparent new chairman of the government reform committee in favor of a less senior member known for his loyalty to Speaker Hastert and Rep. Delay.

I bring this up because during my time here I have observed that many of the conservative Republicans hate the Democratic Party because it does not respect the opinions that reflect something other than liberalism. Well it seems that the GOP does not either if they decide to promote people of the "revolution" before they promote long-time congressmen like Rep. Shays. The GOP is going through a period of ideological purification in its leadership. Ought to be fun!

 

[Frank]

How do you reach these conclusions? Were the reasons you gave specifically spelled out by the new House leadership? Or just the conclusions of the Washington Post? What article was that?

 

[demsformd]

Read the report from the Post...it cites sources (they're unnamed I believe) that provide the fact that the GOPers are rewarding loyalty over seniority. It is on the front page.

 

[Heretic]

Personally I believe in rewarding performance over senority, but then again I have no senority in anything myself. Promoting someone due to their voting record is also wrong (that isn't performance). Now something like a certian person going above and beyond to get a certian bill passed that deserves recognition.

 

[Frank]

Aside from a little reporting bias (I assume you meant THIS article http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47530-2003Jan12.html since you didn't give a reference) I don't see what's so different about anything. Do you remember back in 92 when Jerry Brown was denied speaking at the Democrat convention, because he refused to endorse the party's choice? So his opinions on any subject were squelched, because he wouldn't profess loyalty to Bill Clinton. Same sh*t, different day.

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by Heretic
Personally I believe in rewarding performance over senority,

I know if I was President, I'd promote people who were with the program before I'd go with seniority. How are you supposed to get anything done if you surround yourself with people who oppose you?

 

[Bruzilla]

Ditto

 

[demsformd]

I don't have a problem with this sort of thing because it will only harm the GOP and kill the conservative movement. I bring this up because it shows that the GOP does not endorse the ideas of anything except conservatism, which is contrary to what some people on this forum have said in the past.

 

[Heretic]

Now come on dems I know you would rather have someone else in charge of the Dems in the house, maybe someone who does a good job as opposed to someone who has been there forever.

 

[demsformd]

Seniority is a good measure of job performance with limitations of course. Yet the House GOP leadership based their decisions based on politics of the chairmen and not their job performance. Rep. Shays has served admirably in Congress but since he supported campaign finance reform, he doesn't get a chairmanship. Is that fair or are the GOPers playing politics to rid themselves of dissent?