Spivak & Bice ran a story today ankle-biting Tom Reynolds for inserting Budget language awarding a refundable State tax credit to parents with home-schooled children or with children in private schools. (http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/jul05/339211.asp)
REALLY big money here: $100.00/eligible kid. Whoo-Hah!! Reynolds will get $300.00.
It's been known (and mentioned here) that Reynolds is a target of some "go-along-to-get-along" Pubbie Senators--you know them--the Big-Spender crowd (with Other People's Money, of course.) They hate Reynolds so much that they may even find a primary opponent for him.
Since S&B's story came from inside the Pubbie budget caucus, the only question is which RINO leaked? The one from Appleton who can't seem to keep a Republican majority when he's the majority leader? The moronic bozo who's currently the Senate Pubbie "leader"?
Inquiring minds want to know, S&B...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I'm not defending Spivak and Bice or their lame and liberal column. I am, however, suggesting that one should be less likely to rush to defend Senator Reynolds from all attacks and particularly from a primary challenge.
Senator Reynolds is undoubtedly a staunch social conservative and in this way he does a fair enough job representing his constituents. As a fiscal conservative, however, Senator Reynolds falls into the flip flopping, unpredictable pool with Senator Mary Lazich.
Reynolds is zealous indeed when it comes to fighting against abortion and gays but he does not carry that same enthusiasm over to the fiscal side of being a conservative. Like Lazich, he is for TABOR one minute and killing it behind closed doors the next.
I must admit that your defense of Senator Reynolds surprises me in several ways but primarily because you are so critical of Majority Leader Schultz. When the Senate chose a new majority leader last year, Senator Reynolds flip-flopped at the last minute and voted for Schultz. He has been almost as snaky in his denial of this fact as his compadre Lazich was.
Senator Reynold’s saving grace was that Mary “Pinocchio” Lazich made the mistake of lying to CRG about the vote. This took the heat of Reynolds. In that instance, Reynolds failed the fiscal conservatives of this state and he cannot be counted on to do any better in the future.
I mentioned earlier that Senator Reynolds does a “fair” job of representing his conservative constituents on social issues. I said “fair” instead of “great” or even “good” because despite his strong convictions, Reynolds fails to perform as an effective legislator. His bizarre eccentricities, his inability to draft or pass meaningful legislation, and his caveman like misunderstanding of the legislative process and politics in general have caused virtually all GOP legislators, both conservatives and RINOs to write him off.
Senator Reynolds has been marginalized for good reason. He makes a dangerous and unpredictable political ally and paints a bright red target on the GOP almost every time he opens his mouth in public, which is why Senate leadership and his own staff try to keep him quite. The fact that he is marginalized, however, should not do him credit as some sort of conservative Maverick as it has Rep. Lasee or at times in the past, Senator Grothman. Senator Reynolds has neither the intelligence nor the political will of either gentleman.
Senator Reynolds’s colleagues in the State Senate and Assembly are considering a primary challenge, not because he is too conservative (as you stipulated to in your post), but because he is too ineffective a conservative, especially when it comes to fiscal matters. As difficult as this is may be to accept, it is not just the RINOs who would like to see Reynolds go, but the fiscal conservatives too.
A couple final points on a potential 5th Senate District Primary… the current buzz is that State Rep. Leah Vukmir is the likeliest challenger. Vukmir is not only a true social and fiscal conservative; she is an eloquent debater and skilled policy tactician. She would undoubtedly make a more effective Senator for the constituents of the 5th, without sacrificing any ground on conservative issues. Furthermore, a challenge from the right might help force Reynolds into being a more adamant supporter of spending limits, it might…but I doubt it…
I'm not defending Spivak and Bice or their lame and liberal column. I am, however, suggesting that one should be less likely to rush to defend Senator Reynolds from all attacks and particularly from a primary challenge.
Senator Reynolds is undoubtedly a staunch social conservative and in this way he does a fair enough job representing his constituents. As a fiscal conservative, however, Senator Reynolds falls into the flip flopping, unpredictable pool with Senator Mary Lazich.
Reynolds is zealous indeed when it comes to fighting against abortion and gays but he does not carry that same enthusiasm over to the fiscal side of being a conservative. Like Lazich, he is for TABOR one minute and killing it behind closed doors the next.
I must admit that your defense of Senator Reynolds surprises me in several ways but primarily because you are so critical of Majority Leader Schultz. When the Senate chose a new majority leader last year, Senator Reynolds flip-flopped at the last minute and voted for Schultz. He has been almost as snaky in his denial of this fact as his compadre Lazich was.
Senator Reynold’s saving grace was that Mary “Pinocchio” Lazich made the mistake of lying to CRG about the vote. This took the heat of Reynolds. In that instance, Reynolds failed the fiscal conservatives of this state and he cannot be counted on to do any better in the future.
I mentioned earlier that Senator Reynolds does a “fair” job of representing his conservative constituents on social issues. I said “fair” instead of “great” or even “good” because despite his strong convictions, Reynolds fails to perform as an effective legislator. His bizarre eccentricities, his inability to draft or pass meaningful legislation, and his caveman like misunderstanding of the legislative process and politics in general have caused virtually all GOP legislators, both conservatives and RINOs to write him off.
Senator Reynolds has been marginalized for good reason. He makes a dangerous and unpredictable political ally and paints a bright red target on the GOP almost every time he opens his mouth in public, which is why Senate leadership and his own staff try to keep him quite. The fact that he is marginalized, however, should not do him credit as some sort of conservative Maverick as it has Rep. Lasee or at times in the past, Senator Grothman. Senator Reynolds has neither the intelligence nor the political will of either gentleman.
Senator Reynolds’s colleagues in the State Senate and Assembly are considering a primary challenge, not because he is too conservative (as you stipulated to in your post), but because he is too ineffective a conservative, especially when it comes to fiscal matters. As difficult as this is may be to accept, it is not just the RINOs who would like to see Reynolds go, but the fiscal conservatives too.
A couple final points on a potential 5th Senate District Primary… the current buzz is that State Rep. Leah Vukmir is the likeliest challenger. Vukmir is not only a true social and fiscal conservative; she is an eloquent debater and skilled policy tactician. She would undoubtedly make a more effective Senator for the constituents of the 5th, without sacrificing any ground on conservative issues. Furthermore, a challenge from the right might help force Reynolds into being a more adamant supporter of spending limits, it might…but I doubt it…
reif--Nice blogsite and thanks for the Mad restaurant recc's--I may use them soon.
Social conservatism is FAR more important than 'fiscal' conservatism, in my book.
Further, TR has been like a rock on the RKBA/CCW issue--
So all in all, "social skills" aside, TR's a good guy.
Ever note how many bills Sensenbrenner's put through Congress in the 185 years he's been there?
Bill-writing and/or pushing just happens to be ANOTHER symptom of the "Legislator-for-Life" syndrome. That particular syndrome, AFAIC, is not unlike other fatal diseases--except Legislators for Life don't die fast enough for me.
I kinda prefer the legislators we had back in my yout'--you know, rode their horse to New York (not DC, yet) and got the hell out of town as fast as possible.
Nowadays, laws generally benefit two classes of people: the accountants/lawyers, and the Other Rent-Seekers (which includes most State bureaucrats and officeholders.)
See what I mean when I say "nasty" in my self-description?
There is no doubt that Schultz is an awful leader. He may even be one of the people working to recruit a candidate to run against Sen. Reynolds, but Reynolds helped put Schultz in that position. Reynolds cast his ballot for him to be the Majority Leader.
Why he voted that way, only he and The Lord knows.
RIP TABOR
Post a Comment