As for those who want to froth about unethical Republicans clinging to power by any means, behaving like tyrants, etc., etc., I have two words: Tom Moss.

Other’s neglecting their duty does not excuse his neglecting his. Yes, I assume he did not read his bill. If he had, he would not have submitted it, because it “did not reflect his intentions.”

As you pointed out, they do not write their own bills, either. If they neither write them nor read them, why are they submitting them?

BTW, the Democrats have apparently pulled the same trick.

And if it is dereliction of duty, why did the Republicans allow their members to pull their bills? Is that dereliction of duty, too? No, it is simply that mistakes are made in the drafting of bills and the representatives may not catch them. Sometimes, all angles are not taken into consideration. (Take the abuser fees bill for example.) To say he didn’t read his bill is an assumption on your part, purely because that’s the only answer you can come up with.

In any case, Ebbin (no s) did what was proper – ask to have the bill stricken. Just like all of the Republicans who came to the same conclusion about bills that they asked to be stricken.

Brian – so you are saying the rules should stay the same and not be changed? Well, we’ll just have to agree to disagree on that one.

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it is the only thing that ever does. — Margaret Mead

I much prefer to believe that the system can be changed that to accept the status quo.

Maybe I should have been clearer. My point is that neither party plays by your rules. That said, you’re willingness to “call it like it is, whoever is in the wrong” is overblown.

Yes, the political system in this country is screwed up. But we don’t make any changes by accepting the status quo. As for me, I’m willing to call it like it is, whoever is in the wrong.

Join a union all you want, but collective bargaining is something else. I would hope that a university employee wouldn’t need an explanation as to why that shouldn’t be allowed for state workers.

Brian – since when does two wrongs make a right? Besides, show me where ever in the history of the GA this recording of a non-vote was ever done.

Vivian,

Since when did your “two wrongs don’t make a right” standard ever have any standing in modern politics? It is all hardball. Your precious Dems are no better (or worse probably) than their Repub counterparts. Spare me the outrage.

Brian – since when does two wrongs make a right? Besides, show me where ever in the history of the GA this recording of a non-vote was ever done.

By the way – I hope y’all looked at the update2 I posted. Seems only Ds have to vote, while the Rs continue to be able to pull their bills.

As a result, Dems will just keep winning elections at state and local elections and we will drive them to their richly deserved placement to a few generations in minority status. Death, decits and destruction are the only result of GOP rule.

(I think she meant that she would have an unfair economic advantage IF this legislation passed. That is, after all, the point of a union.)

Do you have a link to the video you mentioned?

“After proposing a bill (on behalf of some police departments, allowing government workers to unionize) Del. Adam Ebbin’s susbsequent request to pull the bill, to add to it language that government employees would be prohibited from striking, was rejected by Republican House Leadership.”

http://fred2blue.wordpress.com/2008/01/25/va-house-of-delegates-what-in-h-is-going-on-down-there/

Whether or not the bill was incorrectly drawn isn’t really relevant. The normal process of allowing a sponsor to withdraw a bill, while in committee, was overruled, as was the process of allowing the sponsor to strike the bill on the floor. If you follow the GA closely, you will see that this strickening of bills happens often enough.

As for why not voting yes, Del. Jeion Ward laid out her reasons in the another clip that you can view on Assembly Access. The others were expressing their displeasure that the rules had been changed to make a political point.

If the bill did not reflect his intentions, why did he submit it in the first place? I understand that many politicians do not read the bills they vote on, but I would expect them to at least read the ones they submit.

“The Republicans, using a political maneuver, recorded votes that did not occur and you can expect in 2009 that they will attempt to point to this “vote” in telling voters that Democrats don’t support unions.”

Then why did they not vote YES?

And then there’s this gem:

“‘They put a bill in, then they’re too cowardly to take a vote on it,’ House GOP Leader H. Morgan Griffith said after the clash.”

And you’re too cowardly to record subcommittee votes…

As for manipulation of the voters – Mouse, you have previously failed to “get it” when it comes to politics. The Republicans, using a political maneuver, recorded votes that did not occur and you can expect in 2009 that they will attempt to point to this “vote” in telling voters that Democrats don’t support unions. It’s all there in the writings that I linked to.

I get back to my question: where is the honor in what the Republicans did on Thursday?

Uh, how is making the Democrats vote on a bill they don’t like a SUPPRESSION of democracy?

And what is supposed to be the political point — that Democrats won’t stand behind the bills they propose?