Harwell's first public statement on her Legislative policies

[C. Richard Archie]

[fl0at]

Clearly there is only so much time for the Constitution, and apparently, it has been exhausted.

If a Rep were to initiate legislation, would he catch flak from the party, due to the desires of Harwell and Haslam?

[C. Richard Archie]

Said Rep. would have to get it through a committee, and with the current Speaker and Administration, there is no way that will happen.

We have been put in our place.

Funny, when the races were up for grabs, the pols all wanted our backing, now that the votes are counted, we are the poor relations to be swept back into the closet.

[SomeGuy]

We need to find out who voted for Harwell, and target them. If she shuts us down in the coming session, I will support any challenger she has, primary or general, just to remove her from office.

Still, one way to find out friends will be discharge petitions. Remember, we tried it with Naifeh, we can do it to Harwell. We just need to make it very clear to our Reps we are looking at these to determine loyalty.

[fl0at]

Blood in the water for judicial review of newly created laws?

Are there any lawsuits that need to be carefully watched? Obviously if any current ones go through, the Legislature won't push to amend and re-establish.

I don't like that, at all. Leaves too much uncertain.

[Pat McGarrity]

Here are my initial thoughts on this:

1. I told you so. Harwell's middle finger salute to gun owners is consistent with her record.

2. Whatever you do, Mr./Ms. GOP politician, whatever you do; Do NOT tell us that's rain running down our backs. If the two choices were such that it was perceived that Harwell was a better leader, then other choices should have been made available.

3. This needs to mark the end of the cowardly secret ballot system. It's time to own the choices they make. We should call for this legislation or rule change ASAP.

In Liberty,

Patriot Pat McGarrity

Director - Shelby County TFA

[TacticaLogic]

Having communicated with my newly elected representative, let me pass along the following so that everyone can be aware of where some of our true "Constitutional Conservative" members stand on this development.

First, the caucus ballot is held in secret... No one knows how anyone else voted. This has its "pros and cons" so to speak as far as the representatives themselves go, even though we as constituents may not like it since Casada did not win the Speaker position. The secret ballot prevents "payback" from being dished out against representatives that didn't vote for the elected Speaker... But at the same time, it prevents the representatives and those they represent from being able to see where everybody stands. The ballots are counted by an independent accounting firm. No tally is given - so there is no telling whether Harwell won by a single vote or by a landslide. I don't like this at all, for I have come to greatly distrust the "Republican Elite" which as far as I am concerned have become "RINOs". I'm not real "big" on the "take my word for it", "trust me" statements made by those that are entrenched in upper end Republican politics.

Second, the true conservatives in the House were pretty much shocked that Harwell won. Those to whom I spoke, as well as Casada himself, felt like the votes were there for him to take the Speaker position. This, as I stated in the paragraph above, is a problem for me... Either people that we trusted lied to Glen just to get him to move on down the list, or something is amiss regarding the tally of votes.

Third, the thing that we have to watch for at this point are the committees and how Harwell is going to interact with them. I fear that we will have another situation whereby the Speaker walks into committee and kills a bill without discussion, ala Boss Hogg Naifeh. Her statement along the lines of "we passed many handgun bills last year" would lead one to believe that she will spend no time on them next session...

Forth, we have to fix this in two years (if not sooner) by getting someone else prepped for the spot ASAP. We can't wait until the last minute. We have to start now.

Mike

[johnharris]

I have had several talks with sources on the Harwell vote. It was extracted similar to the way Naifeh used to and apparently still is working. Clear threats were made according to reports. Several who had committed to Casada, hiding in the secret process, voted for Harwell because of these threats but some simply because they lack integrity.

I am told but have not yet confirmed from multiple sources that it was a one vote margin. I am also told that some candidates who came to the TFA meetings to seek our support, like Sheila Butt, voted for Harwell. Frankly, I think that the observation that lots of candidates who PRETENDED to be conservatives and even Tea Party faithful simply are not. They voted for a speaker who would not support the Constitution, who voted with Bredesen's veto (twice), who supported a challenged Democrat senator rather than his Republican challenger, etc.

Some are already playing "nice" because they want perks from her anticipated leadership but I would just as soon start now to get rid of the Tories in 2012. They are more of a danger perhaps than candidates like Obama because you know what Obama is and can work against it openly. These Tories pretend to be conservatives and constitutionalists only to get votes and that type of conduct is like the serpent in the Garden, it smells like smoke and is from the pit of Hell.

[Pat McGarrity]

"Some are already playing "nice" because they want perks from her anticipated leadership but I would just as soon start now to get rid of the Tories in 2012. They are more of a danger perhaps than candidates like Obama because you know what Obama is and can work against it openly. These Tories pretend to be conservatives and constitutionalists only to get votes and that type of conduct is like the serpent in the Garden, it smells like smoke and is from the pit of Hell."

Amen John & good info Mike!

Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!

Isaiah 5:20

[TacticaLogic]

John,

Still no answer yet from your source?

Mike

[SomeGuy]

For better or worse we will know soon enough who we must oppose in the primaries come 2012. If Beth really does Naifeh us, we need to make her a 1 term Speaker, just like Williams.

[TacticaLogic]

Well, with no new developments in fact based information, let me say this:

My household actively supported and campaigned for Sheila Butt. I have not previously worked in a campaign to the extent that I did this one. This campaign has taught me quite a lot... I have learned just how underhanded people that are supposed to share a common goal can be sometimes... (That is not a reference to anyone here on the forum, but rather up on Capital Hill.) We all know that there are politicians out there that will say whatever it takes to get elected. There are lobbyists that will do the same thing in order to get what they want. In my many conversations with Sheila Butt, I don't believe that to be the case with her. Since this is a firearms centered forum, I will share this: She comes from a very pro-2nd Amendment family. More than once, her husband and/or sons and I would be off in a corner talking guns, carry loads, leather, etc. while she was talking to the crowds. And they weren't faking it - I would have been able to tell if that were the case. When I called the house on last Thursday to say "Happy Thanksgiving" the entire family was out on the back deck target shooting - I could hear the shots in the background. (How many of us get our families together and have shooting sessions on holidays? We may be staunch gun rights people, but I don't know many of us that do that. And no, it couldn't have been staged as she didn't know I was going to call.) I don't believe we have to worry about her voting against any firearms legislation unless there is some "hinky" language in it that would hurt gun owners. The type of language to which I refer is like that which was contained within the recent "right to hunt" legislation that said "subject to reasonable regulation" - even John Harris didn't like that. After all, who decides what is "reasonable"? I would have preferred that language to have been stricken...

There is a lot being said about Sheila by people that have never even spoken to her. That's okay, the 1st Amendment is there to protect that right. Some folks have spoken to her but didn't support her when they said they would - and that's fine too, as they have the right to do what they wish. They even have the right to deny that they said it, even when there were multiple witnesses. They even have the right to be vindictive (to an extent) when they have been caught in false statements. I have no problem with that either, as there is a scorecard being kept above by someone we all have to answer to someday. But I prefer to make my decisions about people based upon my interactions with them, and the facts that I have before me. I supported Shelia Butt based upon the many conversations I had with her shortly after she decided to run. She is conservative beyond just gun rights... It was for that reason that I became involved in her campaign. She holds conservative stances on pretty much everything I talked to her about. Her past actions prove that out. She has taken a lot of heat from people with whom she didn't spend campaign funds on advertising. She has taken a lot of heat from the liberals for the books she has written, and the statements she has made. What about her opponent, though? Her opponent (the one that stated that in a debate stated he didn't like the word "illegal" and that he would prefer to call illegal aliens "undocumented citizens") is (was?) listed as a member of my church... He joined just before the election in 2008. He was there like clockwork... Until after the election. He went on to vote for watered down immigration legislation, and voted against "State's Rights" issues concerning government healthcare. Then, we start seeing him again in mid-summer 2010 - oh yeah... another election coming up. He knew I was a gun-rights person, and avoided me at every turn. I finally cornered him one day in the lobby in order to ask some questions... All of the answers were "non-answers" in that they were generic "tell him what he wants to hear so you can get away" answers - no substance. But now I can call my representative at any time and voice my opinion or ask questions... Isn't that the way it is supposed to be? For me the choice was pretty obvious.

Now... John, please understand that this is not aimed at you personally... "Sources"... I have always found this to be interesting in the world of politics. Regarding the votes for Speaker, there is supposed to be in place a system that protects the secret ballot in order to prevent retribution by the winner of the Speaker position against those that didn't vote for the new Speaker. Regardless of whether or not we like it, it is in place and is supposed to be followed and respected. The same can be said for keeping the tally of the votes secret. Yet we have statements from "sources" regarding how someone voted in the Speaker's race. We have statements from "sources" saying it was a one vote margin of victory for Harwell. Unnamed sources. For what purpose would a source make this type of statement? Is an unnamed source that would violate the secret ballot any more honorable than that candidate they purport to show as dishonorable? How would the source know how a person voted? There are no names on the ballots, are there? No newly elected representative would reveal to anyone how they voted in such a race, for to do so would create adversaries of such a magnitude that a freshman representative would have a hard time overcoming them. Does the source make assumptions that since one person spoke to another that there was some sort of "deal"? That, in the political arena, is a pretty dangerous assumption - expecially since it is standard policy for senior party members to meet with and welcome newly elected freshmen representatives. There is an old saying that says "Anonymity in giving to the poor is a noble righteousness recognized only by God. Anonymity in the making of statements political is a cowardice recognized by all that are honorable." The vote is done... If the sources are to be believed, then there was a one vote margin... Yet the only person being named is Sheila Butt. Isn't it a little telling that, if there was only a one vote margin, the only person we are hearing about is Sheila Butt? Why wouldn't these same sources be just as concerned about all of the other re-elected, senior House Republicans that evidently also voted for Harwell? After all, didn't we loose the Speaker position to Williams by just one vote last time? Doesn't that mean that many more senior representatives, not just freshmen representatives, were swayed to Harwell's side? Why are we not hearing those names as well? Why? Because if you say there was only a one vote margin and then give only one name, the less enlightened would automatically connect that one name to Casada's loss of the Speaker position. It is for that reason that I will not give any credence to the information provided by unnamed sources... Our court system doesn't allow testimony as to what named third parties might or might not have said - it is called "hearsay" and is inadmissible in a court of law. Yet that is exactly what this situation with its unnamed source is asking us to do... Why should we trust unnamed third party information when making a judgement on an individual? My personal opinion: To believe statements made by an unnamed third party regarding a person's character is unwise and unfair. Would you want people to judge you on the same type of information? Or would you prefer that they judge you on your actions that they have personally witnessed? I know what I have witnessed personally in the character of Sheila Butt. I prefer to see how my representative votes and then to make my judgements upon her ability to represent me based on those votes. If I am not happy, I can voice my displeasure to her and then vote her out. If I am happy then I can say "good job" and vote to keep her if she chooses to run again. But I will not let "the one whose name shall not be spoken" (apologies to J. K. Rowling) make my decisions for me...

And that is just my (looking at the size of this post) $467.02 worth...

Mike

[johnharris]

Mike, it is certainly clear from the posts that you support Sheila Butt and she did in fact attend at least one of the local TFA meetings during the campaigning process. At this point, she is one of two whom my sources name as having committed to Casada and then reportedly voted for Harwell. The other, as I mentioned on a similar discussion on Facebook, was Elam. Both freshman allegedly strong 2nd Amendment, conservative, Tea Party "style" candidates, yet, if the reports are accurate, they voted for Harwell who has demonstrated "liberal" level support for the 2nd Amendment, support for Bredesen's veto, support for Doug Henry in the Senate race, etc.

If any of the representatives who voted want to sign a public statement regarding who they voted for, fine, I will accept that.

[TacticaLogic]

And if any unnamed sources want to step forward, identify themselves, and provide the proof of how they know the way someone voted in the election of the Speaker of the House, I will accept that...

I always thought a person had a right to face their accuser. Somewhere along the line there was a phrase about being innocent until proven guilty. I guess sometimes that gets left out if it suits the situation.

-Mike

[johnharris]

[Sky King]

Ok, the bottom line is that it is done. The fact that we have a source who identifies Sheila Butt and Linda Elam as two Republicans who allegedly voted for Harwell does not change the fact that many others did so as well. If the victory for Harwell was just by a margain of ONE vote, we could easily say that if ANY of the others who voted for her had NOT, then the outcome would have been different. So WHOSE one vote is the offending vote.

I too am not real happy about the outcome here. However I think, and this is just MY opinion which actually matters for very little, we need to see just how Ms. Harwell stacks the various committees. In particular the Judiciary committee as it seems that most if not all of the bills concerning our Second Amendment rights seem to go through that committee.

While we may all be displeased with this situation, given that Ms. Harwell has shown that she is not our friend, if we want ANYTHING done this session, we certainly do not want to shoot ourselves in the foot by alienating her. I am not saying we should kiss up to her. I think she and those who we KNOW voted for her need to know that we are watching VERY closely and come next election year, their actions WILL be remembered.

I would only add this to the conversation about Sheila Butt. Since she, as indicated by John, attended a TFA meeting seeking our support in the election, I think it would be appropriate that she be advised that her support of a person who has shown by her actions to not support our issues for Speaker is not appreciated. I would also ask if anybody contacted her prior to the vote indicating which of the two would have been the preferred person for Speaker?

[TacticaLogic]

[Sky King]

Mike asked, "So it is for that reason that I ask, why is she being targeted so heavily?"

I am not sure she is being "targeted" as heavily as this thread has evolved to. We all would like to know how the vote went down for all the representatives. It is just that we have infomation that indicates how TWO of them voted.

If the information is true, she should be confronted as we would confront ANY politician about campaign promises.

[fl0at]

Mike, to be honest man, I think you actually blew it out of proportion and made it seem, because maybe to you it was, that Rep. Butt was being heavily targeted.

To me, prior to your comment, it seemed that John was just making a comment that some people who TFA members would be familiar with (like Rep. Butt) voted in a way that was unfriendly to our cause. I don't see any comment that suggests we should work to oust such members at this time.

Had he used the other name, would you have so vehemently defended that individual? Maybe, maybe not.

I haven't seen any advocation of defeating any particular Representative, other than Harwell. The Tories comment, to me, didn't appear to be directed at any particular Rep, but instead to the idea that if there are individuals who are RINO, when their voting and policy viewpoints actually come to light, that we should work to have them removed.

I'm sure you have absolute trust that Rep. Butt voted as she indicated to you. She may very well have. She may not have. The point is that we don't know for sure, and that is something that should be changed.

Personally, I say we should be skeptical of them all unless their record proves otherwise.

[TacticaLogic]

I made the statement about her being heavily targeted because, as Sam pointed out, we are being told it was a one vote margin - but who is to say whose vote was that one vote? Outside of Elam that came into the thread several posts down, we are not hearing about anyone else. As I said in an earlier post, it took a lot of Republicans including others that have been friendly to our cause in the past to get Harwell elected to the Speaker position - but we have yet to hear one of their names...

And now, according to John, Bob Pope is going to discuss this vote on his radio show, and that he has "similar sources with the same net information". So we have one TFA member going on the air to target another TFA member (Sheila Butt) because of an alledged vote for Harwell.

I didn't bring up any names at all in my original post... All I did was speak to the issue of how the vote was conducted as a secret ballot, those ballots being counted by an independent accounting firm, and the resulting winner being disclosed without a tally being given. Am I happy that Harwell is going to be the new Speaker? No, absolutely not... But I am also tired of the way that members of a group that are supposed to be working toward a common goal tend to spend so much time on trying to cause damage to other members when there is nothing to be gained from it. All of the moaning and groaning and gossiping will not make a bit of difference in the race for the Speaker's position. Alienating a representative before they even take office by attacking them is just, in my opinion, stupidity.

Infighting within the party is simply a waste of time and energy that does nothing but result in giving the liberals some entertainment: "Hey look over there at the Republicans! They're eating each other up! This is fun, pass the popcorn!"

I'm done with this thread, since people are obviously going to believe what they want to believe at this point... But I'll tell you what... If I am wrong about Sheila Butt being conservative, as evidenced by her voting record after 12 months (you know, something tangible that we can all see, that is public information instead of undocumented information supplied by an unnamed third party) I will come on this forum and I will start my own thread titled "Boy Was I Wrong about Sheila Butt!" Will anyone that feels at this point that she is not a conservative based on the accusations made be willing to do that if she votes conservative down the line and votes pro-gun on the legislation that comes up?