From Take Two: Brooks Pace v. Steve Urquhart Debate

Introduction-Part One

Part Two

Part Three

Part Four


Click here to check out Brook's website

Rep. Steve Urquhart gets a "D-" in playing well with others

By Uncle Don Miller

The, esteemed in his own mind, Rep. Steve Urquhart doesn't play well with others, even as he claims to be a fair minded legislative leader. House Rules Committee Chairman Steveu said three of the five legislators who dared to file asking for an ethics investigation, in the face of apparently strong documented evidence that an ethics violation might have occurred, are "grandstanding hacks," as well as cancerous.

So why is Steveu so upset with these three? Obviously, he often forgets the GOP rule that if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. Does this episode reflect on his judgment?

He said the three bad guys -- two Republicans and one Democrat -- who dared to ask for an ethics investigation are "very ineffective legislators." He reportedly continued: "they're not doing well ...., so I think they're willing to drop a bomb anywhere they can, figuring .... why not stir things up?"

If three of the five are bad, how did the other 40 percent somehow escape Steveu's wrath? Does Steveu somehow perceive these two are good as they have purer motives and are more effective legislators, and hence clearly not bomb droppers even though they also asked for an ethics investigation of the same person?

Steveu reportedly wrote "it has long been my perception that these three members are cancer," apparently for not playing well with others. More specifically, apparently for not playing well with Steveu, the most important person in the equation. Could Steveu just be projecting? How did the call for this specific ethics investigation become all about Steveu? How does this episode reflect on his judgment?

Just asking.

Don L. Miller