Reps Give Herman Cain Standing Ovation; Speaker Opts For Tyranny

If there were any doubt about who won last night's debate in Hanover (consensus seems to be Mitt Romney), there certainly can be no question about which candidate received the best reception of five Presidential contenders who took advantage of an invitation to address State Representatives Wednesday morning.

It was Herman Cain by a country mile...or even a city mile for that matter.

Others speaking (and left in the dust) were Gary Johnson, Newt Gingrich, Michelle Bachmann, and Rick Santorum.

Cain drew a standing ovation when he spoke of the right of law abiding citizens to defend themselves, but he received enthusiastic applause (including from me) several other times during his speech.  "You know you must be doing something right when you get a lot of arrows in your back," Cain commented regarding the attention paid to his 9-9-9 plan at Hanover.

At another point, he quoted Ronald Regan, "Freedom is never more than one generation away from being extinguished."

A great line.  I almost forgot I'm a Ron Paul supporter--almost but not quite.  That's how good Herman Cain was.  I admit to having been shocked when he won the Florida straw poll by such a wide margin a few weeks ago, but now I understand why.  The folks in Florida got to hear him speak before voting, and the man is simply sensational.

Democratic Reps, although they most likely will never vote for Cain, seemed to enjoy the speech as much as Republicans.

He spoke of the need to define what our problems are before we attempt to solve them, a good theme for State Reps who spent nearly five hours spinning their wheels after lunch, passing proposals which the Senate has made clear it will not come back to take up prior to January.

At the end of the day, Speaker Bill O'Brien called forth only one of the remaining gubernatorial vetoes for an override vote, and John Lynch came up a loser again.  SB91, the sprinkler bill, became law after a 266-61 vote to override the governor.

Right to work, which Michelle Bachmann alluded to her comments (angering some on the Democratic side), once again was not brought forth, nor was the bill to allow title loans at greater than what some deem acceptable interest rates (some, but not me--I support an override as a matter of individual choice, but I'll have more on that here in coming days).

The House adjourned at the call of the chair, but most likely, it will not be returning until January at which time veto overrides (presumably) will be the first order of business--hey, we've got to deal with them some time, and time is running out.

By voting to attach the marital masters amendment to SB 198 (259-111), Republicans may well have guaranteed the state will lose $2 million in the next three months.  Without the amendment, the bill could immediately have become law.  Now, the Senate needs to concur, and President Peter Bragdon has said repeatedly he will not call Senators back into session.

Some Republicans, rather disingenuously in my humble opinion, tried to suggest that $2 million will not be lost, a rather tough canard to sell since all agree we've already lost $2 million by not having the fix in place the last three months ($8 million loss a year divided by four equals $2 million each quarter, a simple math formula which majority leader D.J. Bettencourt seemed totally at a loss to understand in his comments).

Call it simple hubris, pure unadulterated (and costly) hubris.

If you gather that I was one of the Republicans voting ageist this inane party position, you would be right, but don't look at the 259-111 vote as an indication of sentiment.  That was on the bill as amended.   The amendment in fact never really passed.  Here's how.

In the most shameful display of strong-handed tactics I've witnessed in this my eighth term in the House, Speaker O'Brien refused to allow a recorded vote on the amendment.  In fact, he ignored a final speech (parliamentary inquiry) from someone who had signed up earlier in the day--the evidence is on the clerk's copy of the bill and in a memo sent to the clerk from the Democratic office earlier in the day.  Such a blatant denial of free speech is unheard of and a most vile and dangerous precedent in the New Hampshire House.  Often, a roll call or division vote is requested at the time of the final comments, but the Speaker was having none of that today.

After calling for the yeas, O'Brien banged his gavel before even hearing the nays--everyone should really listen to the tape on this one.  The vote could have been two to one against the amendment and he would have ruled that it had passed!  If a vote is close, people may request a roll call or division vote.  In fact, several people were yelling for a recorded vote before the gavel fell, but the Speaker refused to acknowledge the request, no big deal when the vote is a foregone conclusion, but this voice vote hardly fell into that category.  In fact, the honorable thing would have been for the Speaker to ask for a division himself, quite a common practice when there's a doubt.

He may well have hammered in a vote which would in fact have lost. That's how few yeas he had. I'm sure you'll all want to review the tape--I certainly will.

I was embarrassed (as were many other Republicans) by this ham-handed anti-small d-democratic treatment.  As a defender of the Speaker throughout the year, even when he cleared the gallery on the day the budget passed, I was disgusted by his actions today.  I begin to understand complaints Democrats have been mouthing all year. I had my problems with Democratic Speaker Terri Norelli from time to time in the past four years (as did O'Brien when he was in the minority), but she never did anything even coming close to the dictatorial and illegal tactics we witnessed today.

There, I've said it.  I can live with my conscience now.  I hope other Republicans can do the same.  Such tyranny of the majority is sad indeed.

In other matters, the House accepted the redistricting committee's bill to force cities to have lines drawn early but it accepted an amendment to move the date from January 3 to January 7.

Again disingenuously Republicans argued that the bill will allow Lebanon to hold its vote (scheduled for March) at the same time as the first in the nation primary (December 6 or 13 we've heard), but that's not true at all, since the state cannot override wording in the Lebanon charter which mandates a 72 day window (I'm told) before a measure could go on the ballot.  That means the city will be forced to call a costly special election between Christmas and January 7.  Most likely, Lebanon will simply ignore the proposal (because it's not a law until the Senate concurs and the governor signs it--fat chance of that).

You just can't make this stuff up.

Hubris reigns.

By a 258-112 margin the House approved a resolution (that means--with no force of law) repudiating the decision by the New Hampshire Supreme Court declaring the legislature cannot force the Attorney General to join the law suit against Obamacare.  Two very lengthy explanations were printed in the House calendar, and the debate was lengthy.  I was with Republicans on this one, but it doesn't carry any real weight.

By a 323-4 vote (ouch!) the House passed a bill establishing a committee to study issues regarding the New Hampshire Local Government Center.  However, despite an overwhelming committee recommendation, the House rejected an amendment which would apparently have given the Speaker power to jail someone who refuses to respond to a subpoena.

What a day, the saddest in my tenure in this proud institution.  Rights were trampled on in a terrible fashion today, but at least, Herman Cain was great.