Pollytick's Comments on Matt Entenza's Lack of Leadership on the Bachmann Amendment.
A commenter over at Pollytick seems to agree with Polly:
Entenza's ambition has clouded his ability to lead on everything for the past several years since he has lusted after the governor's office and AG's office. The only leadership he's ever been interested in is whatever leads Matt Entenza to a higher office. That the House DFL picked up 13 seats in 2004 was dumb luck and due to the quality of DFL candidates vs. GOP candidates. It had nothing to do with Entenza.
Entenza has admitted to letting his caucus "vote their district" on this issue rather than their conscience or DFL core principles. Look where it got Rebecca Otto. That's not leadership--that's political pandering to a vocal minority.
If Matt Entenza is the future of the DFL, the DFL is in serious trouble. Entenza is the best reason for supporting "Anybody But Hatch" for governor--to keep Hatch in the AG office and squeeze Entenza out of that race AND be rid of him as House minority "leader."
2/24/2006 03:41:57 PM
Stop the Eva Agenda (a Democratic partisan for both Mike Hatch and Matt Entenza) left the same comment over on Pollytick in Minnesota that s/he left here:
This would be great...and if only cows could fly too...
There are a number of DFLers who are, simply put, pro-life. They will not vote against this bill no matter who was leader.
In addition, the thing is, the Democratic Party is a big tent. That means that we allow in people of all beliefs. To force a vote on such a hot button issue would do nothing more then force out members of the party, who feel that they are not wanted. That will make us no different then the GOP.
10 - 15 members of the House are probably pro-life. Forcing a vote on them to push a caucus position will do nothing to fix the problem of the bill being pushed to the floor, and they will STILL vote for it. They only answer is to change control of the House to the DFL.
In the end, this is just more of your agenda against Entenza. Awfully convenient to blame the MINORITY leader for action of the Speaker.
You seriously need to get over it.
2/25/2006 09:53:16 AM
Polly brings it back to the topic at hand:
Editors Comment: Thanks for the thoughtful dialog on this sensitive subject. We would like to make one correction....the article is referencing the gay-marriage amendment and not the abortion issue.
Also, we feel that the DFL members (conservative and liberal)in the Senate have been hung out to dry on this (for many years) and it is high time the leadership in the House participate, also.
Peaceful Days to All!
2/25/2006 10:54:45 AM
Another anonocommenter defends Entenza...
First I am not a Democrat, but a Republican, and I do not support an amendment to ban gay marriage, however, your logic and complete failure to understand the legislative process confounds me. I am also not a fan of Entenza's however; your criticism of him is off base.
1) You assume that Entenza could somehow insist that all 66 Democrats vote against any bill to ban gay marriage. Assuming all 66 House Democrats oppose a gay marriage ban, which they don't, Entenza is the democratically elected leaders of the Caucus, not a dictator, in fact he had opponents for the position of minority leader, why would they blindly follow him in opposing a ban, especially if they supported it in the first place. At best Entenza can dictate to about 65% of his caucus to vote a certain way, hardly a large number. Incidentally, that is probably close to the same percentage Steve Sviggum has.
2) There is no filibuster in the House, what you are talking about is when Rep. Karen Clark simply refused to quit speaking, a legislator can do this, however eventually they will tire, at that point a motion to call a question is in order. In fact, I believe that is what happened with Rep. Clark, from what I remember the image of the "left over hippie windbag" unable to continue her diatribe was one of the more humorous events to occur on the floor of the house that year, from what I remember it gave quite a few GOP'ers a good chuckle.
As for procedural motions to delay, or stop passage in the house, there really are not any-the simple reason it has not passed in the Senate is because Johnson has refused to bring up the issue-if you are truly against a ban on gay marriage, insist that your leaders stop the legislative gamesmanship and pass a constitutional amendment and then defeat it at the polls. I plan to vote against it, educate others why voting against is the right thing to do, don't make a mockery of the legislative process simply over this issue.
2/25/2006 02:07:19 PM
If Entenza would use his leadership to persuade legislators - so that he keeps it to less than 2 defections, this amendment could be defeated in the house. Matt Entenza could also be out in the media explaining why this amendment is a bad idea. Pollytick lets Entenza have it.
FILIBUSTER: The use of obstructionist tactics, especially prolonged speechmaking, for the purpose of delaying legislative action.
Yes, you can indeed filibuster in the House. Karen Clark did it a few years ago. She actually handed off to other Dems while she held the floor. As referenced above, it could also include the use of obstructionist tactics. For example, Entenza could come to the House floor with 100 amendment to the bill. His caucus could offer and debate them one-by-one. This could literally expand the session for hours or days. At some point the author or Speaker may choose to pull the bill from consideration.
To say this couldn't happen shows a lack of knowledge about the legislative process.
Happy days ahead!!
2/26/2006 12:49:58 PM
Exactly. Entenza has no interest in putting political capitol into this issue. That much is very clear. He's left Dean Johnson and the Senate hanging out to dry. What a team player!