Garrett’s rationale was very simple, and it had little to do with leadership or a power-grab.
The reason? Twofold.
(1) That the power of majority leader and Senate Finance should not be under one roof. On that, Garrett won a Phyrric victory by getting Emmett Hanger named co-chairman of Senate Finance. Not exactly something conservatives will do cartwheels over, but as Hanger was next in line vis a vis senority… there it is.
(2) Norment’s personal life — which need not be dredged up here — was a source of concern for Garrett. Ergo, he did not believe he could support him in good faith.
Now whether or not there was a nose count and whether or not there was something else moving behind the curtain — we’ll never know. Caucuses are like that.
Whether folks are interpreting this as recalcitrance in the face of Norment’s overwhelming numbers yesterday is up for folks to interpret. But on the public face? This is what Garrett’s confidants and allies are privately assuring folks.
…and I have to say, I believe them.
Before folks raise their eyebrows (I know who you are), Garrett has indeed done your humble writer no favors. That having been said? Not going to follow down the same road. Prima facie, Garrett’s opposition was one of conscience… and you can’t blame a man for that. In Garrett’s position, I would have had similar concerns, and probably made a similar stand (and for similar reasons).
