|
HAMBRICK’S HANDLERS TRY TO DOUSE FIORE’S FIRE
The chaos enveloping the 25-person Nevada Republican
Assembly Caucus (RAC) is beginning to resemble herpes in the same way that
Whole Foods’ John Mackey once
described labor unions: “It won't kill you, but it's very unpleasant and will
make a lot of people not want to be your lover."
With that in mind, handlers for Assembly Speaker-of-the-Weak
John Hambrick published a response
under Hambrick’s name yesterday to conservative Assembly Majority-Leader-in-Exile
Michele Fiore’s open
letter challenging Hambrick’s authority to unilaterally remove her as
Majority Leader.
But before diving into that, it might be helpful to recap
how we got to this point…
Just days after Republicans won majority control of the Assembly
and conservatives won a majority of the majority – RAC members voted to oust Minority
Leader Pat “The Appeaser” Hickey
from his leadership position and conservative Assemblyman Ira Hansen was elected Speaker-designate.
Immediately after that vote, in the same meeting, Hambrick
and liberal Republican Assemblyman Paul
Anderson ran against each for the position of Majority Leader.
After Hambrick reportedly presented about as crappy a
presentation as is humanly possible, caucus members elected Anderson even
though many were diametrically opposed to his liberal-leaning political
philosophy.
That’s how bad Hambrick’s performance was.
But the key point here is that there was an ELECTION
for the Majority Leader’s position.
Anderson was ELECTED to be Majority Leader, not
appointed by Hansen.
That’s what’s called a “precedent.”
HAMBRICK RISES FROM
IRA’S ASHES
Fast-forward a couple weeks later. Hansen got hit with heavy criticism from
liberals and the media for racially-tinged and homophobic opinions he had
expressed in newspaper columns and as a conservative talk-show host dating back
as far as two decades ago.
Under fire, Hansen quit as Speaker-designate.
That led to a second caucus meeting and second leadership
election.
This time, Anderson opted to run to replace Hansen as
Speaker-designate rather than Majority Leader.
Only this time, Fiore scrambled to obtain written “proxies”
from 12 conservative members of the caucus to give to Hansen for the
meeting. With the proxies in hand Hansen
announced to Anderson before the meeting that he had the 13 votes necessary to
elect Hambrick as Speaker-designate and Fiore as Majority Leader.
Hansen offered Anderson the option of going forward with a
formal election, but seeing the writing on the wall, Anderson declined.
As such, Hambrick was elected Speaker-designate and Fiore
was ELECTED Majority Leader. She
was not appointed to the position by Hambrick.
She was elected in the exact same manner as Hambrick was.
ANATOMY OF A SELL-OUT
A little inebriated with his new-found power, Hambrick appears
to have then begun conspiring with Anderson and others to get rid of Fiore in
return for getting rid of the “nuclear option” threat, whereby a rogue band of
Assembly Republicans would collaborate with the 17 Democrats to elect a Speaker
other than Hambrick.
Using some long-known IRS tax liens against Fiore’s business
as a fig leaf, Hambrick announced he was removing her as Chairman of the
Taxation Committee. But after receiving
furious blowback from conservative activists, Hambrick reversed himself and put
Fiore back on the committee as Chair the very next day.
Then on December 16, Fiore appeared on the Alan Stock radio talk-show to explain
the IRS liens. In discussing why the
liens had suddenly become such an issue, Fiore named names of individuals she believed
were trying to undermine her positions as both Majority Leader and Chairman of
the Taxation Committee.
One of those named was Nathan
Emens, Hambrick’s personal valet and political strategist. This infuriated Li’l Nate, who immediately
issued a fatwa…
“Fiore will be saying ouch soon!!!!” Emens threatened on
Twitter even before Fiore’s interview was finished.
And sure enough, the very next day Hambrick announced,
without citing any authority or consulting with other members of the caucus,
that he was once again unilaterally removing Fiore as Taxation Committee chair…as
well as from her ELECTED position as Majority Leader!
It’s been pure chaos ever since, leading to Fiore’s open
letter a couple days ago.
HAMBRICK AND THE
THREE PRECEDENTS
On Saturday, Hambrick – in a response clearly written by
someone else (not enough typos to have been written by Emens) – fired back…
Au contraire, mon frere.
First of all, the Speaker is the leader of the full Assembly. Unlike the state Senate, where leadership is
split between a majority leader and minority leader, the Speaker position in
the Assembly is a bipartisan position with the respective caucuses run by a
majority leader and minority leader.
But here, let me let Wikipedia explain it better…
“Elected…by their respective party caucuses.”
And while Mr. Hambrick’s ghost-writer claims to have gone
all the way back to 1973 to look for examples of positions other than Speaker
being elected, he could have saved himself some time and trouble by going back just
three years ago.
In a Las Vegas Sun
story on January 11, 2012, reporter David
McGrath Schwartz wrote…
Key word search: “…picked their majority leader…in a
contested vote.”
Sorry, Mr. Hambrick.
On this particular point…game, set, match.
Fiore was elected to the position of Majority Leader; she
was not appointed. And not only was
there the precedent of electing the majority leader in two RAC votes since the
November election, there’s the Democrat precedent in 2011.
You lose.
YOU WILL SUBMIT,
WOMAN!
In her open letter, Fiore asserted that there exists no rule
in the Assembly Standing Rules “that allows you to arbitrarily remove me from
an elected Caucus position.” To which
Mr. Hambrick replied…
Now I can certainly understand why Mr. Hambrick wants the
little woman to subordinate herself to his authority, but the Assembly Standing
Rules only apply to his official duties as Speaker of the Assembly, not as
leader of the Republican Assembly Caucus.
As such, Mr. Hambrick not only does not have the authority
to remove Fiore from here ELECTED position as majority leader, but Fiore
is under no obligation to subordinate herself to Hambrick’s authority in any caucus
matters unrelated to the majority leader’s “official duties” in the Assembly.
In her open letter, Fiore continued…
Now wait’ll you get this one…
Ignoring the precedents set by three majority leader
elections in the last three years, Hambrick’s ghost-writer stretched all the
way back to 1996 and cited, as an authoritative source, the author of a book…
That’s right. Mr.
Hambrick has sunk to relying on the unsubstantiated OPINION of a
political science professor expressed in a book written almost two decades ago!
I mean, who could argue with authority like THAT,
right?
AND THEN THERE WERE
THE STRAWBERRIES
Later in his response, Mr. Hambrick’s ghost-writer wrote…
Look, we all know the real reason Hambrick removed Fiore as
Taxation Committee chair the first time was to remove a formidable obstacle to
the coming Sandoval tax hike, and the reasons for removing her the second time
were nothing more than a trumped-up smoke screen to cover his butt for the mighty
flip-flop-flip-flop-flip.
But let’s take his written responses one at a time…
1.) In the radio
interview, Fiore DID explain her IRS issues publicly like she agreed to
do. She criticized the two “respected” (NOT!)
consultants and donor in addition to
her explanation, not instead of.
So scratch this excuse off the list.
2.) As the elected
Majority Leader of the caucus, Fiore did, in fact, request and receive a
meeting with Mr. Adelson. Why wouldn’t
she? It’s HIS money. He’s the donor.
Meeting with a donor directly in NO WAY “undermines
the Political Affairs department at the Sands.”
Mr. Adelson IS the Political Affairs department at the
Sands. Again, it’s HIS money. If he wants to meet with the Majority Leader,
who’s to tell him he can’t?
So scratch excuse #2 off the list.
3.) Fiore did, in
fact, threaten caucus colleagues with potential recall efforts if any of those
colleagues went forward with the “nuclear option” of voting with the Democrats
to elect a Speaker other than the RAC’s elected Speaker-designate.
The “nuclear option” talk was not “unsubstantiated rumors.” Caucus members have ADMITTED to having
been approached about joining the “nuclear option” conspiracy.
So scratch excuse #3 off the list.
4.) “Repeated
insubordination”? Does this guy think he’s
Capt. Queeg now?
I don’t know if this “behind my back” accusation is true,
but even if it is, trying to change room and committee assignments is “repeated
insubordination” deserving of removal as majority leader? Seriously?
Scratch excuse #4 off the list.
Leaving Speaker-of-the-Weak Queeg-Hambrick without a
paranoid leg to stand on.
EMENS DID IT
The following, I think, is the most interesting part of
Hambrick’s response because he concedes that the accusation that Emens did, in
fact, work to defeat conservative Republican Assemblywoman Victoria Seaman in the general election while at the same time
taking money from the RAC is true.
Let’s go to the tape…
In other words, Li’l Nate did what Fiore accused him of
doing. So much for the notion that she “maliciously
attacked” him.
And that Emens is technically not an “employee” is absolutely
meaningless.
As I reported in an earlier column, Emens was paid nearly
$25,000 by the Republican Assembly Caucus to elect Republicans to the Assembly. For him to pocket that $25K and then
simultaneously work to defeat one of the caucus’ general election candidates is
about as unethical as it gets.
Now if Li’l Nate had just taken money from other GOP
candidates rather than the caucus, it wouldn’t be a “discussion point for the
caucus.” But since Li’l Nate DID
take money from the caucus itself, his unethical business decisions absolutely ARE
a valid discussion point for the caucus.
Nice try by Hambrick to cover up for his man-servant, but no
dice.
Perhaps even more interesting, however, was Hambrick’s
failure to even mention the other, more serious, accusation made against Emens;
that he’s the political consultant who blackmailed Hambrick into canning Fiore
by threatening to sue EVERY member of the caucus if he didn’t.
Is this “not a discussion point for the caucus,” too? And does Hambrick’s refusal to address the
charge in his response equate to a de facto admission that Emens is, indeed,
the guilty party? Inquiring minds wanna
know.
RULES? WE DON’T NEED NOT STINKIN’ RULES
Hambrick then revisits the question of his questionable
authority to remove Fiore as Majority Leader unilaterally without a vote of
caucus members…
This would almost be hilarious if it weren’t so absurd.
So first Hambrick admits there are no caucus rules granting
him the authority to unilaterally undo Fiore’s election as majority leader. Then he, himself, “chooses,” Humpty-Dumpty-like
(a word means “just what I choose it to mean”) to follow whatever non-related
rules he wants to get the result he desires.
Then secondly he chooses to follow the Assembly Standing
Rules – “All officers of the Assembly are subordinate to the Speaker” - from
the last legislative session even though, as we’ve already determined, those
rules pertain only to the conduct of the full Assembly itself and the various
committees, not the respective party caucuses.
In addition to the fact that Hambrick isn’t even the Speaker
yet.
Which means Fiore need not submit to or subserviate herself
to Hambrick when it comes to caucus affairs unrelated to the Assembly
itself.
TOMORROW’S ON AGAIN,
OFF AGAIN CAUCUS MEETING
In her open letter, Fiore invoked her authority as the duly
elected Majority Leader to call a caucus meeting for tomorrow afternoon - the
same day Hambrick had previously called for a caucus meeting, before changing
his mind (surprise!) and cancelling it.
In his response, Hambrick said he refused to acknowledge her
standing as Majority Leader and offered that even if she was the Majority
Leader, none of the decisions made at such a caucus meeting would have any
effect “without the authority of the Speaker.”
This guy really has a bad case of “it’s good ta be da king,”
doesn’t he?
That said, whether or not Fiore has the authority to call
for a meeting of the caucus is now moot.
Indeed, a majority of the caucus members themselves have called for the same
meeting Fiore called for, as explained by Assemblyman Jim Wheeler in an email to me Saturday night…
Which leads to the obvious question…
If King John doesn’t think a meeting called by Majority
Leader Fiore has any force without his “authority,” does he similarly believe a
meeting called by a majority of the caucus members themselves have the force of
authority without his permission?
WRITING’S ON THE WALL
In a story today on the Fiore-Hambrick he said/she said, Las Vegas Review-Journal reporter Laura Myers opened with this…
This is the sort of reporting that fuels conservative
criticism about liberal media bias.
The fact is, the conservatives won both of the caucus
elections and were in control. It’s been
a MODERATE “insurrection” that has been relentless in its effort to wrest
power and control from the hands of conservative caucus members.
And it hasn’t been Fiore playing “childish games”
undermining Hambrick; it’s been Hambrick who has been dishonestly undermining
Fiore and the very conservatives who got him elected Speaker-designate in the
first place.
Alas, he’s almost surely succeeded.
The fact is Hambrick was the 13th vote that both
made him Speaker-designate and Fiore Majority Leader. Clearly, he’d now be the 13th vote
to kick Fiore to the curb.
So even in a
legitimately-called meeting with a new election, Fiore likely wouldn’t have the
votes to remain as Majority Leader, especially as some of the conservative members of the
caucus have now tired of the fight and are willing to surrender in return for
peace.
Then again, Anderson might not have the votes to be elected
Majority Leader either. It also doesn’t
mean conservatives aren’t willing to pay Hambrick back for selling them out
with a nuclear option of their own.
Indeed, in the middle of the Cincinnati-Indianapolis playoff
game this morning, Assemblyman Pat “The
Appeaser” Hickey emailed to inform me that Assemblyman Ira Hansen was negotiating with thin-skinned Assemblyman Randy “Kirner Tax” Kirner (RINO-Kirner Tax)
to bump Hambrick out as Speaker-designate.
Could the enemy of the conservatives’ enemy end up being the
conservatives’ friend?
Could what went around go around?
Payback’s a bee-ahtch.
Stay tuned for our next exciting episode of As the Caucus
Turns.
HOW TO SUBSCRIBE
Silver State
Confidential is an email newsletter on Nevada politics, public policy and
current events published (usually) daily by Chuck Muth, Nevada's #1 Renegade
Conservative and the man voted "Most Likely to Irritate Liberals!" Click on the link below for subscription
information…
|
Sunday, January 4, 2015
SILVER STATE CONFIDENTIAL 01/04/2015
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment