GOP lawmaker loses post after backing gun control

[bigtex]

Big Tex. You stirred the pot when you supported Mr Hope in your post. If I can ask a personal question. Do you think the Republican leadership should have left him on the committee?

The legislature had no plans to actually try and pass the two gun initiatives this year, the hearings they had two weeks ago were simply symbolic. Everybody knew the initiatives were going to go the voters and not acted upon by the legislature.

And yes I do believe that the Republican leadership should have left him on the committee. Even had a gun control bill passed out of the committee it would have had to pass the entire House, then the Republican led Senate. It's not like if Hope was on the committee and gave the decisive vote we were all doomed. Of course Hope isn't going to say it's retaliation, he's not going to say his party is retaliating against him.

So are you saying he would have voted the other way if there was a chance of it passing?

Explain to me why he voted the way he did then, what possible reason would he vote for it if he knew his constituents were against it, regardless if he thought it would pass or not?

I'm saying his vote wouldn't have been detrimental to gun control in WA. He could've given the decisive vote to get the vote out of committee, but the bill would still go to a full house vote, then to a republican led committee in the senate, then the full vote before the republican led senate.

Like I said in another post, every single bill in 2013-14 requires bipartisanship and more then just one party member going against his own party. We are in rare times in Olympia where typically the Dems control both houses so simply having a majority of the Dems voting in favor means a bill becomes a law. Since the House is controlled by the Dems and the Senate by the Republicans there needs to be bipartisanship on everything.

I don't know why he voted the way he did, it must have been personal opinion. Just like the other sponsored Republican legislation which essentially goes against the party platform.

[huntnphool]

Big Tex. You stirred the pot when you supported Mr Hope in your post. If I can ask a personal question. Do you think the Republican leadership should have left him on the committee?

The legislature had no plans to actually try and pass the two gun initiatives this year, the hearings they had two weeks ago were simply symbolic. Everybody knew the initiatives were going to go the voters and not acted upon by the legislature.

And yes I do believe that the Republican leadership should have left him on the committee. Even had a gun control bill passed out of the committee it would have had to pass the entire House, then the Republican led Senate. It's not like if Hope was on the committee and gave the decisive vote we were all doomed. Of course Hope isn't going to say it's retaliation, he's not going to say his party is retaliating against him.

So are you saying he would have voted the other way if there was a chance of it passing?

Explain to me why he voted the way he did then, what possible reason would he vote for it if he knew his constituents were against it, regardless if he thought it would pass or not?

I'm saying his vote wouldn't have been detrimental to gun control in WA. He could've given the decisive vote to get the vote out of committee, but the bill would still go to a full house vote, then to a republican led committee in the senate, then the full vote before the republican led senate.

Like I said in another post, every single bill in 2013-14 requires bipartisanship and more then just one party member going against his own party. We are in rare times in Olympia where typically the Dems control both houses so simply having a majority of the Dems voting in favor means a bill becomes a law. Since the House is controlled by the Dems and the Senate by the Republicans there needs to be bipartisanship on everything.

I don't know why he voted the way he did, it must have been personal opinion. Just like the other sponsored Republican legislation which essentially goes against the party platform.

Not good enough BT, no excuse for why he voted against the majority will of his constituents, good riddance!

[bigtex]

Not good enough BT, no excuse for why he voted against the majority will of his constituents, good riddance!

Then why don't we get rid of every single Republican who votes for higher fees, more rights for gays, and illegal immigrant rights? Or do we just care about Republicans who might influence gun control legislation?

I am pretty sure the majority of the people in Okanogan were against the firearm offender registry bill (which the NRA was also against) yet Representative Kretz later sponsored and voted for it. Where are the people trying to remove him?

[huntnphool]

Not good enough BT, no excuse for why he voted against the majority will of his constituents, good riddance!

Then why don't we get rid of every single Republican who votes for higher fees, more rights for gays, and illegal immigrant rights? Or do we just care about Republicans who might influence gun control legislation?

I am pretty sure the majority of the people in Okanogan were against the firearm offender registry bill (which the NRA was also against) yet Representative Kretz later sponsored and voted for it. Where are the people trying to remove him?

If you would like to start your own threads discussing taxes or Representative Kretz I would be happy to give you my opinions, but neither have any relevance to this discussion of gun control, so let's not spin this off topic shall we.

The fact is he voted against his party and his constituents in regards to "gun control" and is paying the political price. If you would like to share your opinion of why you think this is acceptable for him to do without him suffering any backlash then I would love to hear it.

[Special T]

Well first off it sounded like he wasn't running again anyway so taking him off the committee is more of a show of force/intent than anything else.

One of the lines i always hear is "its the job of the legislature to pass law". I HATE this mindset because it shows the do something disease. I would rather have NO law than bad law, and i believe that there are plenty of laws on the books that are poorly written. I have more sympathy for republicans that waver a little trying to correct shotty law, however when they propose new bad law. 

Big Tex, i think you will find that we will go after mediocre representatives in the next election. There is a scale on what is more important to republicans. I can tell you that I am more concerned about gun rights than the others you have mentioned.

I think any married man has learned to choose his battles otherwise you would always be at war with your wife. I can say that while I'm less than impressed with many of these republicans i will choose my battles and make sure to support an alternative in the primary. 

[Bob33]

Gun control appears to be one of his signature issues.

http://houserepublicans.wa.gov/mike-hope/

[grundy53]

Not good enough BT, no excuse for why he voted against the majority will of his constituents, good riddance!

Then why don't we get rid of every single Republican who votes for higher fees, more rights for gays, and illegal immigrant rights? Or do we just care about Republicans who might influence gun control legislation?

I am pretty sure the majority of the people in Okanogan were against the firearm offender registry bill (which the NRA was also against) yet Representative Kretz later sponsored and voted for it. Where are the people trying to remove him?

If you would like to start your own threads discussing taxes or Representative Kretz I would be happy to give you my opinions, but neither have any relevance to this discussion of gun control, so let's not spin this off topic shall we.

The fact is he voted against his party and his constituents in regards to "gun control" and is paying the political price. If you would like to share your opinion of why you think this is acceptable for him to do without him suffering any backlash then I would love to hear it.

I happen to be one of his constituents and I vote republican. He definitely isn't representing me the way I would want him to.

sent from my typewriter

[bigtex]

I happen to be one of his constituents and I vote republican. He definitely isn't representing me the way I would want him to.

Then you know that Hope is the only R representing your district. You have Democrats Hobbs and Dunshee as the other legislators. From what I have heard, Hope got elected simply because he's a well known name in Snohomish County politics, otherwise his seat probably would've gotten to a Democrat.

Would you rather have Hope representing your district or 3 Democrats (which could be possible next year)?

[WSU]

Big Tex. You stirred the pot when you supported Mr Hope in your post. If I can ask a personal question. Do you think the Republican leadership should have left him on the committee?

The legislature had no plans to actually try and pass the two gun initiatives this year, the hearings they had two weeks ago were simply symbolic. Everybody knew the initiatives were going to go the voters and not acted upon by the legislature.

And yes I do believe that the Republican leadership should have left him on the committee. Even had a gun control bill passed out of the committee it would have had to pass the entire House, then the Republican led Senate. It's not like if Hope was on the committee and gave the decisive vote we were all doomed. Of course Hope isn't going to say it's retaliation, he's not going to say his party is retaliating against him.

So are you saying he would have voted the other way if there was a chance of it passing?

Explain to me why he voted the way he did then, what possible reason would he vote for it if he knew his constituents were against it, regardless if he thought it would pass or not?

I'm saying his vote wouldn't have been detrimental to gun control in WA. He could've given the decisive vote to get the vote out of committee, but the bill would still go to a full house vote, then to a republican led committee in the senate, then the full vote before the republican led senate.

Like I said in another post, every single bill in 2013-14 requires bipartisanship and more then just one party member going against his own party. We are in rare times in Olympia where typically the Dems control both houses so simply having a majority of the Dems voting in favor means a bill becomes a law. Since the House is controlled by the Dems and the Senate by the Republicans there needs to be bipartisanship on everything.

I don't know why he voted the way he did, it must have been personal opinion. Just like the other sponsored Republican legislation which essentially goes against the party platform.

This is over simplified.  A lot of what legislation passes, doesn't pass, gets debated, ends up in the news, etc., etc. is a direct result of what gets out of committee.  Control of the various committees is a powerful political tool.

[300rum]

From the same people who have given us Mitt Romney and John McCain.  They love to use this threat! 

Let me interpret it for you, what you are trying to tell us is, "it is better to compromise a little bit on your values and rights, then possibly losing them all".  What others say is "I would rather lose them all then compromise them at all".   

Would you rather have Hope representing your district or 3 Democrats (which could be possible next year)?

[Bob33]

What others say is "I would rather lose them all then compromise them at all".

And that helped elect Obama. Are we better off?

[bigtex]

Big Tex. You stirred the pot when you supported Mr Hope in your post. If I can ask a personal question. Do you think the Republican leadership should have left him on the committee?

The legislature had no plans to actually try and pass the two gun initiatives this year, the hearings they had two weeks ago were simply symbolic. Everybody knew the initiatives were going to go the voters and not acted upon by the legislature.

And yes I do believe that the Republican leadership should have left him on the committee. Even had a gun control bill passed out of the committee it would have had to pass the entire House, then the Republican led Senate. It's not like if Hope was on the committee and gave the decisive vote we were all doomed. Of course Hope isn't going to say it's retaliation, he's not going to say his party is retaliating against him.

So are you saying he would have voted the other way if there was a chance of it passing?

Explain to me why he voted the way he did then, what possible reason would he vote for it if he knew his constituents were against it, regardless if he thought it would pass or not?

I'm saying his vote wouldn't have been detrimental to gun control in WA. He could've given the decisive vote to get the vote out of committee, but the bill would still go to a full house vote, then to a republican led committee in the senate, then the full vote before the republican led senate.

Like I said in another post, every single bill in 2013-14 requires bipartisanship and more then just one party member going against his own party. We are in rare times in Olympia where typically the Dems control both houses so simply having a majority of the Dems voting in favor means a bill becomes a law. Since the House is controlled by the Dems and the Senate by the Republicans there needs to be bipartisanship on everything.

I don't know why he voted the way he did, it must have been personal opinion. Just like the other sponsored Republican legislation which essentially goes against the party platform.

This is over simplified.  A lot of what legislation passes, doesn't pass, gets debated, ends up in the news, etc., etc. is a direct result of what gets out of committee.  Control of the various committees is a powerful political tool.

The Republicans don't control the House Judiciary (or any House Committee) this year.

There are hundreds of bills that make it out of committee and that's as far as they make it, they don't even get a full house vote. You cant say that Hope's yes vote would be the end all and would automatically put it on Inslee's desk.

[snowpack]

Would you rather have Hope representing your district or 3 Democrats (which could be possible next year)?

If he's voting like a Democrat, what's the difference?

[Heredoggydoggy]

All I know is that now I don't vote for any candidate, Republican or not, unless he's endorsed by the Tea Party!   

And especially one who is trying to be a "Career Politician"! 

[grundy53]

Would you rather have Hope representing your district or 3 Democrats (which could be possible next year)?

If he's voting like a Democrat, what's the difference?

sent from my typewriter