Huh?

So I just read the Governor's response to the Speaker's request that he be at the Committee of the Whole in which the Governor appears to say that he won't attend the committee hearing, but will have staff and others there to testify and answer questions.

I'm not even going to attempt to dissect the statement (an amusing but exhausting exercise), but I will put a few thoughts out there:

1. While it's great that he is going to have 'members of (his) administration and financial experts available to testify at the Committee of the Whole on the nature of the pension problem and potential solutions', why does that mean that he shouldn't be there himself? Aren't they proferring ideas that he has okayed? And are they going to be there to defend the specifics (to whatever extent they exist) of his lottery proposal as requested by the Speaker?

I'm really not trying to be sarcastic in my questions, but the Governor's parsing of the English language makes President Clinton's wordsmithing look downright amateurish. You truly have to break his sentences down word by word to figure out what he is, or isn't, saying.

2. The Governor goes on to state, 'But if the purpose is simply to vote down my proposed solution, then it is just more games. It is this type of gamesmanship that has brought us into overtime and has left me no choice but to call the members into Special Session. I must confess that I believe you are more interested in playing games and taking solutions off the table than trying to find solutions to solve real problems. So I will not be attending your Committee.'

First off, isn't voting on proposals why he wants the legislators to be in Special Session? And again, what does this have to do with his attending the committee hearing? HE called the Special Session. HE wanted more interaction with the legislators. Is he only going to attend hearings if we promise to support his proposals?

I am NOT trying to be funny, I just don't understand the rationale of the letter. It contains so much misdirection, it's like watching The Usual Suspects while playing a back-of-the-bus game of three card monte. You just can't keep up with it.

Lastly, he states, 'As I’ve said before, I have put forth my solution, but I am remain flexible as to the means to get there.'

Is this the same Governor that spent the entire regular session saying that anything other than GRT was off the table?

Redundancy alert - I do NOT enjoy being at odds with the Governor, whether he is from my party or another party. The fact that he is my constituent and predecessor makes this less, not more, enjoyable. But I just cannot fathom his thought process at this juncture.

I'm sure that Springfield is enjoyable in August. I guess we'll find out soon enough.