7 Comments
Jun 25Liked by Capitalist Sooner

Thank you.

Expand full comment
author

Why indeed. Why did no one ask that question at the January budget meeting? I am just assembling the facts that are public, then giving my opinion. He certainly has done nothing that meets the Rule required for removal. I will address that in the next 2 days.

Expand full comment

I can't answer that as I'm not a part of the budget committee.

Expand full comment

If it was this simple to explain, why was it not explained so that it would have never been brought up?

Expand full comment

I can understand that mistake. And I've appreciated Dahm as a senator. But, on principle, a sitting legislator should not be running the political party of which he is a member.

Expand full comment
author

This is a valid position to take - but since he was elected to the position and there is no Rule preventing it, that's just a disagreement. It's not grounds for removal. I expect there will be a proposal to change this in the Rules next spring from someone. It deserves a vote at a State Convention, either way.

Expand full comment

Agree, not grounds for removal at all, nor has it been suggested as a reason. I have written the Rule change and will present it to my county at our next county convention i. 2024. For the record, I felt this way before Dahm was elected.

Expand full comment