And, now, for something completely different…

Rep. Chuck Martin has an…inventive…new proposal for selection of the next Speaker of the Georgia House. As The Beacon newspaper terms it: “elect the next Ga. House Speaker right from the floor in a series of public and open votes and make the Speaker selection process transparent and fluid, thus circumventing the House GOP power brokers.”

This is not sitting well with some other members of the caucus. Like, for example, Wendell Willard, who didn’t beat around the bush with his response.

House Judiciary Chairman Wendell Willard (R-Sandy Springs), who is running for State Senate in 2010 (D-56), expressed skepticism. “I am vehemently opposed to this concept for choosing our next Speaker,” Willard maintained. “It would set a dangerous and unnecessary precedent.”

Willard explained that Martin’s plan, although perhaps noble on the surface, actually circumvents the democratic political process. “The Republican Party has earned an electoral majority from Georgia voters,” Willard said. “Martin’s initiative would open the door for a liberal who is a Republican in name only to win the Speaker ship with the support of Democrats. This would circumvent the electoral wishes of Georgia voters over the last five years,” Willard asserted.

[UPDATE] Martin has contacted us with his reply to Willard’s comments…posted after the jump.

As Martin wrote late Thursday evening:

In my opinion, Wendell’s assumption that 16 or more Republicans would vote for a “liberal” to become Speaker is more than just unlikely, it is quite funny. Frankly, that talk is reflective of the scare tactics one usually sees from Washington these days. We have at least four Republicans offering for the Speaker’s job and all four are more than capable of making the case before the entire House. With a Republican Majority, there will be a Republican Speaker and a direct House Floor Vote will provide that individual the absolute validation needed in this situation.

Martin also noted, concerning his original proposal:

I stand by the proposal; however, the reason is to have an inclusive process for all and provide absolute validation for the Speaker that is elected not because “I’m fed up.” It is not directed at or trying to promote any one candidate.

30 comments

  1. ByteMe says:

    A lib’ral? Right here in Georgia!?!?!

    Omigod! Check under the bed, Wilma, there may be a lib’ral hiding under there!!

  2. IndyInjun says:

    Audit the Fed.

    Record the votes for Speaker.

    If you are against either, aren’t we free to consider you a threat to Constitution, liberty, and our interests?

  3. Rick Day says:

    House Judiciary Chairman Wendell Willard (R-Sandy Springs), who is running for State Senate in 2010 (D-56), expressed skepticism fear. “I am vehemently opposed to this concept for choosing our next Speaker,” Willard maintained. “It would set a dangerous and unnecessary precedent.”

    There. Fixed. Keep putting leaders forward with this type of attitude, and even I begin to look like a better choice.

  4. IndyInjun says:

    Behind it all is the meltdown in state revenues.

    All this is, is fallout.

    Dire conditions make for more readiness for change.

  5. macho says:

    I pretty much agree with Wendell. As already stated, he’s moving on to the Senate, so he’s only offering his opinion as moment of sanity.

    You have the open vote in the Caucus ahead of time. Why would you open it up to the Democrats, it makes no sense. You’ve got a lot of people on here looking to destroy everything, just for the sake of destroying it.

    One of the most common complaints, which I agree with, is, “The leadership forgot their Republican values and became a bunch of egomaniacal narcissists.” How is opening up the floor to negotiating with Stephanie Stuckey, Kathy Ashe and Tyrone Brooks going to encourage traditional Conservative initiatives.

    Up to a couple of days ago, Martin was in competition with Jones for being Burkhalter’s biggest lackey. Last week he wouldn’t have dared such a proposal. My guess is he feels he has a better chance negotiating with Democrats, than a Caucus that now knows about everything.

    • macho says:

      It’s a brilliant strategy, when you’re getting nowhere within your caucus, come up with “transparent and open” plan for good government. Then go out and try and negotiate a deal with a bunch of flaming liberals in exchange for shot at leadership.

      • IndyInjun says:

        Your machinations are suspect.

        The people have had a gut full of this BS.

        In others words your caucus is more important than the people’s business and your behind the scenes deals are above scrutiny.

        • macho says:

          Why stop at Chuck’s idea, I mean if we really are trying to out-do each other for transparency, the Democrats have a bunch of scumbag politicians also; will it really be better if we open the vote up to those same elitists? Let’s be the first state to do away with a representative form of government. We can just have a statewide popular vote on the internet every evening. It’s really not all that far from what California currently has. Things are going so well with their referendum form of government.

          In the end we are still a partisan state. I think some awful things have happened over the last few weeks. I’ll be disappointed if the Caucus goes back to the sam ol’, same ol’. I don’t really care about the caucus per se, I’m just not sure we need to head into a free-for-all quite yet.

          I’m not quite at the stage where I think we need to be seeking Tyronne Brooks’, Stephanie Stuckey’s and Karla Drenner’s advice, counsel and support on who the next Speaker of the House needs to be.

          Even if the Martin get’s his way, and there is an “open” vote on the House floor, with no pre-caucus vote, it’s extremely naive on your part to think there wouldn’t be “behind the scenes deals” cut in the days leading up to the vote.

          • IndyInjun says:

            I’m not quite at the stage where I think we need to be seeking Tyronne Brooks’, Stephanie Stuckey’s and Karla Drenner’s advice, counsel and support on who the next Speaker of the House needs to be.

            LOL, with that I yield.

          • IndyInjun says:

            10-4 on that hyperbole.

            yeah, I think there are some on the GOP side who are easily as dim-witted and plumb crazy in their socon radicalism.

  6. chamblee54 says:

    Thank you for bringing Mr. Williard’s comments to my attention. I have been looking for the best way to write about all this for my blog, and you helped me get a handle on this.
    Egomaniacal narcissism is a Republican Value. The players are merely following the script.

  7. Mid Georgia Retiree says:

    The silly actions of the House Republican leadership have pretty much destroyed the credibility of their part and that body. Elections for leadership posts that are not open and transparent will only lead to more speculation, accusations and name calling. Seems to me that only those with something to hide fear openness and transparency.

    • Booray says:

      I’m from not far away from Chuck in Forsyth, and I hear the same thing. This sounds like a guy left without a home in the GOP who is looking for anywhere to hide, even cutting deals with Dems.

      We need new leadership in Atlanta, but we don’t need Tyrone Brooks. This is a ridiculous betrayal of every election result in the state since 2002 and of customs that have governed the House for many, many years.

    • Lifetime367 says:

      I doubt that, and I think it’s irresponsible to anonymously post pure speculation about such a serious aspect of a person’s character.

  8. macho says:

    I don’t know Martin very well, other than knowing he has a lifelong and close connection to Burkhalter. I’ve also seen how Martin and Jones would try and outdo each other to the press in talking about how extremely awesome Burkhalter was.

    At this point, I would be very suspicious of anyone who a week ago was actively promoting the status quo, but now, after their meal ticket left the building, is all for open and transparent government. I don’t think this will be exclusive to Chuck. Look at anyone who was dependent on Richardson or Burkhalter and they probably don’t like the idea of having a Caucus vote anymore.

  9. ByteMe says:

    I would be very suspicious of anyone who a week ago was actively promoting the status quo, but now, after their meal ticket left the building, is all for open and transparent government.

    One of my frequently posted points over the past two weeks. Too many pols coming to the party late and bringing stale munchies.

    • benevolus says:

      As a matter of adding contrast, Richardson could be one vindictive hombre. I”m sure it took a lot of courage for anyone to oppose him on anything. Very few have that much courage.

      Didn’t he pitch anyone who opposed him out of their Capitol offices and into the LOB?

  10. Bill Greene says:

    “In my opinion, Wendell’s assumption that 16 or more Republicans would vote for a ‘liberal’ to become Speaker is more than just unlikely, it is quite funny.”</i

    How about if 16 or more Republicans vote for a true limited-government conservative, and the Democrats vote for the same guy in order to drive out having more of the same?

    You never can tell what could happen on floor votes… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLQ_6IWdCiw

Comments are closed.