« Photoblogging | Main | Swearing In »
This week's Weenie is Speaker Bill Howell, for losing another GOP seat to Democrats.
He's well liked within the GOP Caucus, but Howell won't last much longer if he can't start winning some elections for Republicans.
When Howell took office:
64 GOP, 34 DEM, 2 IND
NOW: 56 GOP, 40 DEM, 3 IND, 1 Vacant
Chris Peace, and his effort to hold Ryan McDougle's seat for the GOP could be the line in the sand for Bill Howell to remain Speaker.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b13369e200d83470272f53ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Weenie of the Week #2 of 2006:
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
If anyone saw the other story, that was a joke where I was giving a friend a hard time.
Posted by: Not Larry Sabato | January 13, 2006 at 09:15 PM
I wonder if there's a possibility of a Speaker Hall in 2007?
Btw: i just started my first blog on va politics, so i wonder what everyone thinks?
Posted by: NoVADemocrat | January 13, 2006 at 09:25 PM
Howell cut off the wiretapping strategy for the Republicans after they got caught. How do you expect R's to win if they can't spy on the D's? Come on NLS.
Posted by: | January 13, 2006 at 09:40 PM
And let's not forget that he's also a Weenie of the week for his calling for more tax-cutting foolery. Does he not remember the Gilmore fiasco?
Posted by: KathyinBlacksburg | January 14, 2006 at 01:04 PM
Slightly off-topic, but there was much discussion about the "Gang of 19" vs. the "Gang of 3" being weenies vis a vis the Potts Chairmanship vote.
Since that vote, the four Republicans (including Potts) grew to all BUT four Republicans (Cuccinelli, O'Brien, Obenshain, and Martin) voting to change the rules to protect Potts. While many bloggers on the right
disowned Chichester, Hawkins, and Quayle over this vote, it seems that they have a lot more disowning to do.
But---here's the question I have. As of now, 2/3s of the Senate must vote to confirm a Senator has changed parties.
So, imagine this. Your party "controls" the Senate by a 20-20 vote, with the Lt. Governor breaking ties in your favor. Senator Maverick feels increasingly isolated and frustrated in your party and announces a switch to the other party, in Jeffords-like fasion giving control to the other side.
Why on Earth would any Senator from the Majority Party vote to recognize the switch, making them the Minority Party?
Posted by: ZB | January 15, 2006 at 11:03 AM