Today's Washington Post has an article on how "Renewed [Republican] Unity Dissolves Cooperation With Democrats." The following section is interesting, particularly the quotes by recently retired Senate Finance Committee chair (and President pro tempore) John H. Chichester (R-28).
But many personalities contributed to the rift between the two chambers. Two senior Republicans who recently retired, H. Russell Potts Jr. and John H. Chichester, the powerful Senate president and chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, were known for reaching out to their Democratic colleagues. But many Republicans considered them divisive figures who alienated the party's conservative wing."There was such disagreement with the House of Delegates on almost every subject that it had made the relationship strained, to say the least," said Sen. Stephen D. Newman (R-Lynchburg), a conservative Republican who was named chairman of the Senate Republican caucus this session. The strife, he said, "was encouraged, I think, by senators Chichester and Potts, who are no longer with us."
But Chichester laments what he sees as a misguided shift to the right in the Republican Party. The result, he said, is a more partisan legislature.
"What you have now is gridlock," Chichester said from his home in Fredericksburg. "Before, the common goal was, 'What is best for Virginia?' Now that's deteriorated to, 'What is best for the party?'"
The political dynamics here are fascinating, as the Democrats' gaining the narrow majority in the Senate actually helped push Senate Republicans to the right. Of course, the loss of old-style moderate Republicans like Russ Potts and John Chichester helped fuel the rightward rush even more, but I also find it fascinating how each party -- especially the Republicans -- have gone into a tight team huddle in the 21-19 Senate.
Now, comity and cross-party cooperation in the General Assembly, already shaky before, have deteriorated further, resulting in gridlock and excessive partisan rancor. In his latest newsletter, Sen. Chap Petersen (D-34) compares it to sumo wrestling, and not in a good way:
They'd come together. Eventually, the bigger wrestler would grab the smaller and throw him out of the ring. The smaller wrestler only won if the larger wrestler made a mistake.Yesterday, the factions of the State Senate circled each other over the State Budget. There were earnest speeches, sincere objections, denials of partisanship, and requests for the "comity of the Senate" (who is this person?) to return to the chamber.
AND THEN BANG.
We'd vote. Each time, the vote was the same (21-19) meaning that all Democrats voted for it and all Republicans voted against it. The bigger wrestler used his bulk to get his way. So much for the bipartisan unity of the Senate. I voted "yes" as this Budget spreads spending cuts equally and leaves K-12 spending relatively intact.
I'll let the opposition describe their own strenuous objections to our Senate Budget. Here's what my notes from yesterday show:
1. It spent too much money.
2. It didn't spend enough money.
3. It relied too much on debt.
4. It relied too much on cash.
5. It took education money (from the lottery) and used it for education.Got that?
Believe it or not, this situation is actually celebrated by Del. Tim Hugo (R-40), who thinks that hyper-partisanship is a wonderful sign that "the GOP is getting its groove back." In stark contrast, John Chichester (correctly) laments a General Assembly that is now more concerned with "What is best for the party" than "What is best for Virginia." Which do you prefer?