George Wallace last held office in 1987—I think the political climate has changed quite a bit since then, and there has been a general decline in civility in the landscape of politics, and maybe in the culture as a whole.
I just can’t believe that if it was found out (for example) that some conservative politician was recorded using racist language as a young person, or a photo surfaced showing him dressed in a Nazi uniform at a costume party in college that the liberal pundits and Democratic politicians would just shrug and dismiss it as youthful hijinx.
Quite frankly, as a very liberal person myself, I am not 100% sure that they SHOULD be absolved of such beliefs or actions, just because they happened several years in the past.
I (as I said upthread) honestly believe that if someone is motivated enough to join an organization such as the KKK as a young man, it is pretty unlikely that they don’t have some residual baggage even decades later.
Only Robert Byrd knows the content of his own heart, but just because he is a member of the political party that I most often align with dosen’t mean I can’t think he is a pretty poor excuse for a senator, and maybe for a human being—Simply by virtue of his old age dosen’t give him an automatic pass in my book.
Old men can be racist assholes with the best of them…
So just to be crystal clear on this - this is an actual Congress/Senate rule of some sort that Chairmanships go to the most senior Senator/Congressman out of … all Senators and Congressmen? All from the party in control of the House? All who apply for it?
Or is the importance of seniority mainly a matter of custom?
Where can I find it? Did it make it into the Congressionsal Record?
I recall a bit of it:
“…the dog died…he died…and the dog died…”
This is what the senior/senile senator from WVA thinks is important!
No people can and do leapfrog spots to get the Chair even if seniority calls for someone else to get the job.
At the beginning of the session both party caucuses go behind closed doors and vote on who will get certain slots on committees. A junior member who has endeared himself to leadership and the caucus certainly could get elected over someone who has stepped on toes over the years. But out of tradition (and possibly some internal rules to which i am not privy) both parties tend to observe the convention of seniority.
Well the committees are where the legislative business is handled. Pretty much nothing goes to the Senate floor with being reported favorably out of a committee (let’s ignore discharge petitions for right now since they never work) So if the chairman doesn’t bring the matter to a committee vote, there is no committee report and no floor debate and no floor vote. Much of this process is covered by rule.
But all that being said, most of the members of the appropriations committees can pretty much slip items into the appropriations. So the senior member of the majority party (the ranking member) can add their own appropriations as well. So its good to be on the committee even if you aren’t in power. But being the chairman just gives you that added level of power to make sure whatever you want gets into the bill.
Then when he does retire everything will be perfect and you will stop bitching about Congress?
He is the poster child of home district spending, but he is hardly the only guy who does it, he is merely the best at it. Frankly, that is his job, being elected by the people of WV. Until the system is changed, that problem will remain. Unless you get members of Congress who are willing to forgo money being spent in their home districts on invent a system where it does not happen, it will continue.