Well, today is the day that the Speaker’s honeymoon ends and the members’s complaints begin. Last session the Republicans held 25 chairs and the Democrats 10. This time around it’s Republicans 24 and Democrats 14. Of course, the Democrats picked up seats in the last election cycle, but I suspect that Straus will take heat for that decision. I’ve listed the chairs below, noting the previous chair if there was a change. Past chairs who are no longer in the House are in bold.

Agriculture & Livestock: Chair Tracy King (D) **previous chair was Rick Hardcastle (R)

Appropriations: Chair–Jim Pitts (R)

Business & Industry: Chair–Rene Oliveira (D)  **previous chair was Joe Deshotel (D)

Calendars: Chair–Todd Hunter (R)

Corrections: Chair– Tan Parker (R) **previous chair was Jerry Madden (R)

County Affairs: Chair–Garnet Coleman (D)

Criminal Jurisprudence: Chair–Abel Herrero (D) **previous chair was Pete Gallego (D)

Culture, Recreation & Tourism: Chair–Ryan Guillen (D)

Defense & Veterans’ Affairs: Chair–Jose Menendez (D) **previous chair was Joe Pickett (D)

Economic & Small Business: Chair–John Davis (R)

Elections: Chair–Geanie Morrison (R) **previous chair was Larry Taylor (R)

Energy Resources: Chair–Jim Keffer (R)

Environmental Regulation: Chair–Patricia Harless (R) **previous chair was Wayne Smith (R)

General Investigating & Ethics: Chair–John Zerwas (R) **previous chair was Chuck Hopson (R)

Government Efficiency & Reform: Chair–Linda Harper-Brown (R) **previous chair was Bill Callegari (R)

Higher Ed: Chair–Dan Branch (R)

Homeland Security & Public Safety: Chair–Joe Pickett (D) **previous chair was Sid Miller (R)

House Admin: Chair–Charlie Geren (R)

Human Services: Chair–Richard Pena Raymond (D)

Insurance: Chair–John Smithee (R)

International Trade: Chair–Rafael Anchia (D)

Investments and Financial Services: Chair–Mike Villarreal (D)

Judiciary: Chair–Tryon Lewis (R) **previous chair was Jim Jackson (R)

Land & Resource Management: Chair–Joe Deshotel (D) **previous chair was Rene Oliveira (D)

Licensing & Admin: Chair–Wayne Smith (R) **previous chair was Mike Hamilton (R)

Local & Consent: Chair–Senfronia Thompson (D)

Natural Resources: Chair–Allan Ritter (R)

Pensions: Chair–Bill Callegari (R) **previous chair was Vicki Truitt (R)

Public Ed: Chair–Jimmie Don Aycock (R) **previous chair was Rob Eissler (R)

Public Health: Chair–Lois Kolkhorst (R)

Redistricting: Chair–Drew Darby (R) **previous chair was Burt Solomons (R)

Rules & Resolutions: Chair–Ruth Jones McClendon (D)

Special Purpose Districts: Chair–Dennis Bonnen (R) [new committee]

State Affairs: Chair–Byron Cook (R)

Technology: Chair-Gary Elkins (R) ** previous chair was Aaron Pena (R)

Transportation: Chair–Larry Phillips (R)

Urban Affairs: Chair–Harold Dutton Jr. (D)

Ways & Means: Chair–Harvey Hilderbran (R)

Note that the Border & Intergovernmental Affairs Committee, chaired by a Veronica Gonzales (D), was recast as the International Trade Committee.

The emergence of Ted Cruz has made life miserable for Minority Whip John Cornyn. Cruz constantly has the senior senator for Texas looking over his right shoulder. Cornyn voted against Kerry as secretary of state, as did Cruz, but it’s likely that he did so only to inoculate himself against further doubts being cast on his conservative bona fides.

Roll Call has a story about the likelihood of a primary challenge to Cornyn:

The founder and director of a grass-roots conservative group said he expects Senate Minority Whip John Cornyn, R-Texas, to face a primary challenge. Cornyn is up for re-election in 2014.

“I don’t know how good of a primary challenge he is going to get at this point, but he will get a primary challenge,” said Dean Wright, co-founder and director of New Revolution Now, based in Austin, Texas.

“There is vetting going on,” Wright said, but he did not have any other details. He noted that one possible challenger could be Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, who is viewed as much more likely to run for governor in 2014. Abbott and Cornyn are known to have a cordial relationship, with Cornyn once touting Abbott as a possible Senate candidate.

* * * *

There is another factor that makes Abbott an unlikely challenger to Cornyn. I have personally heard Abbott say, in years past, that the U.S. Senate is not a good option for him, because the travel back and forth would be difficult for him. In any case, I don’t think it matters: Abbott is widely thought to be focusing on the Governor’s Mansion in 2014.

Tagged: john cornyn, Ted Cruz

And so ends, for all practical purposes, the long Perry governorship. In an article I posted on Saturday, previewing the State of the State address, I asked, “Is it his last?” The tenor of his speech yesterday affirms that it is. Perry spoke mainly about the state he loves: “It is my pleasure to report that the state of our state is stronger than ever,” he said. “We led the nation out of recession and into recovery.”

“Big and small, dreams become reality in Texas,” he went on. “Texans have succeeded to the tune of more than half a million private-sector jobs added over the last two years alone, a total of nearly 1.4 million created in the private sector over the last 10 years. Now, there are those who insist our job creation stat doesn’t mean much, because they say we are only creating entry-level, low-paying jobs.”

“We should put in place a stronger constitutional limit on spending growth, ensuring it never grows more than the combined rate of inflation and population,” he continued. This was a rare applause line in his speech. He called for tax relief and said that the state will not expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. (“Texas will not drive millions more into an unsustainable system that will drive this state into bankruptcy,” he said.) That he called the law by its formal name rather than “Obamacare” was a signal that he was not inclined to forge into partisan politics this day, and he did not do so.

“We need to address our state’s infrastructure needs in water and transportation,” Perry said, adding that the Rainy Day Fund would soon reach $12 billion. He said he would earmark $3.7 billion from the fund for a one-time investment in infrastructure, but $3.7 billion won’t stretch very far when Tx-Dot alone is asking for $4 billion for maintenance and congestion relief.

What is interesting about this speech is that Perry himself, in earlier years, spoke often about the need for infrastructure improvements in power, water, and transportation. He has been governor since December 2000, and he could have put that money to good use for much of that period. Why didn’t that happen? The answer, I believe, is that two political battles changed Perry and made him less inclined to take chances. One was over HPV vaccinations of young girls; the other was over the Trans-Texas Corridor. He lost both. What Perry learned from those fights is that his constituency was more conservative than he was. Facing a looming primary battle with Kay Bailey Hutchison, he turned sharply to the right and embraced the Tea Party (and, famously, hinted at secession). That gave him a new lease on his political life and won him his third term as governor.

I think it’s worth pointing out what he didn’t say in his speech. He didn’t mention abortion, after saying recently that he hoped to end the procedure in Texas. He didn’t propose emergency legislation. He didn’t blast Washington and the federal government. But one thing came out of nowhere: “During his second inaugural address, President Obama called on us all to work together and do our part to secure a brighter future for America. Mr. President, Texas stands ready to do our part!” Huh? Where did that come from? Rick Perry harkening to the words of Barack Obama? Did the message of the election and the troubles of his party outside of Texas come through to him? Has he realized that the world of politics has changed? That came as a complete surprise.

By any political standard, Perry has been a highly successful governor. He had a vision for Texas that had at its center a policy of building a strong economy by attracting jobs to Texas with state funds. He now has the good fortune of serving during a magical oil boom that is transforming not only Texas but America and the future of energy. As a chief executive, he has changed the nature of the office that he held. The framers of the Texas Constitution intended to establish a government with a strong legislative branch and a weak and fragmented executive, but Perry has used his longevity in office to establish a cabinet form of government, one in which he appointed the heads of all the executive agencies and ran them from the governor’s office. He controlled the regents of every college and university system. His style of governing is not unlike a game of monopoly, in which his opposition had no safe place on which to land. He controlled the entire board of state government. Perry understood power as few Texas chief executives ever have and knew how to use it. That was his genius.

Of course, the story does not yet have an ending. Perry’s term as governor extends through January 2015.  What we do know is that Perry overreached when he ran for president. It didn’t appear to be a mistake at first, but it soon became obvious that he had started too late and his staff (until Joe Allbaugh came along) was not up to the job, and he was battling fatigue from painful back surgery. By the time he returned to Texas, Perry had lost his aura of invincibility, and the Legislature had lost its fear of him. The fact is, Perry has always enjoyed the campaigning part of the job more than the governing part. Whether he will try again to run for president (or governor) is known only to Perry. What else is there for him to do? But in the end, he has made the fatal mistake of staying too long.

Tagged: rick perry

And what will he say? He will no doubt take credit for the flourishing economy and the things that contribute to it: low taxes, low spending, a favorable regulatory climate, and a judicial climate that is hostile to lawsuits. He will touch on his legislative priorities; in particular, the fetal pain abortion bill (later today he’s speaking at the Texas Alliance for Life rally). He will wax maudlin about old friends, as he did on the opening day of the session. He will warn against excessive spending and urge members to sign onto his budget compact and its spending limits. He will give the green light to infrastructure improvements, especially the water plan. I think he will get a good reception, and he deserves one. His career is unmatched in American state government politics. But he has stayed too long, and his brand has lost much of its value.

The San Antonio Express-News has a story today by columnist Gilbert Garcia about Munoz’s experience in handling a project called Museo Alameda. (Garcia, you may recall, wrote a well-received book about the 1976 presidential primary in Texas called Reagan’s Comeback.) I don’t think Obama would be cheered by the headline for the story: MUSEO PROVED MUNOZ WAS BETTER AT RAISING THAN HANDLING FUNDS. A quick excerpt:

As the founding director of the Museo, Muñoz collected $12 million from public and private sources (including $500,000 from the city, and much larger contributions from AT&T and Ford Motor Co.) to open the museum with considerable fanfare in April 2007. He threw a glittery, three-night christening bash. He brought in Linda Ronstadt to sing mariachi. He boasted that the museum’s opening signified “the realization of an American dream.”

While he was picking out snappy guayaberas to wear at the pachangas, however, Muñoz seemed to pay little mind to the pesky detail of making the museum financially and creatively viable.

A New York Times review the week after the opening couldn’t help but note the puzzling incoherence of a museum that purported to tell the story of the “Latino experience in America” by exhibiting a purse belonging to Laura Bush and a brooch owned by Lady Bird Johnson.

Muñoz wasted large sums on furniture and lavish parties, according to sources close to the museum. He put ill-equipped people in key staff positions, and grew bored when budgets were discussed. He allowed a $1 million grant from the Henry Ford Learning Institute, specifically earmarked for the Ford-affiliated Alameda School for Art & Design, to be diverted to the museum. In 2009, with the museum foundering, he walked away.

* * * *

Did Obama do his due diligence before naming Henry Munoz III the new finance chair of the Democratic National Committee? I thought it was a promising appointment, until I called a well-connected Democratic consultant earlier this week after I had heard the news of Obama’s choice of Munoz. His immediate reaction was, “Oh, no.”

I have long been a skeptic about the prospects for revitalization of the state Democratic party, but recent developments call for re-evaluation. For one thing, the new finance chair of the Democratic National Committee is Henry Munoz III, of San Antonio. Some of his fundraising is likely to benefit the state party as well. For another, Politico is reporting that national Democratic groups have launched an initiative called “Battleground Texas” designed to re-invigorate the hapless state party.

From POLITICO:

National Democrats are taking steps to create a large-scale independent group aimed at turning traditionally conservative Texas into a prime electoral battleground, crafting a new initiative to identify and mobilize progressive voters in the rapidly-changing state, strategists familiar with the plans told POLITICO.

The organization, dubbed “Battleground Texas,” plans to engage the state’s rapidly growing Latino population, as well as African-American voters and other Democratic-leaning constituencies that have been underrepresented at the ballot box in recent cycles. Two sources said the contemplated budget would run into the tens of millions of dollars over several years – a project Democrats hope has enough heft to help turn what has long been an electoral pipe dream into reality.

“Tens of millions of dollars”? Well, I’ll believe it when I see it. That is serious money–enough to attract consultants, campaign operatives, and other talented folks who know the business of politics. Munoz’s presence should assure that the Castros and other Democratic candidates will be well funded when the time comes for them to run for high office.

I would offer the Democrats one piece of advice: the wisdom of Karl Rove. When the Republicans were trying to turn Texas red in the eighties, and they lost races here and there, Rove would say, “It’s not an event, it’s a process.” What today’s Democrats have that Republicans didn’t have in the eighties and nineties is the advantage of demographics. The stakes are high, because if “Battleground Texas” is successful, and Democrats can contest Texas, the Republican party could lose its biggest block of electoral votes.

As a result, Donna Campbell will have a very short time to get adjusted to the Senate before she has to defend her seat in a Republican primary. A four-year term would have solved that problem. Several members from San Antonio are thought to have their eyes on the seat, most notably Lyle Larson. It is also conceivable that a Democrat could get in the race.

Wendy Davis’s two-year term is a blow to Democrats, who had hoped that she would be their next statewide candidate (Julian Castro having taken himself out of the running). Davis, who won her seat against Mark Shelton by less than 6,500 votes, faces the near-certain prospect of a race for reelection against a Republican before she can think about running statewide. Unless she decides to run in 2014, she will have to wait until 2018.

The complete list of results can be found here.

I’m not a regular reader of RedState.com, but I was struck by the piece Erick Erickson posted late yesterday about President Obama and his second inauguration. The headline of the column is “The Loyal Opposition,” and I’d like to take the liberty of posting it here in its entirety:

Congratulations Mr. President on your second inaugural.

Saying that makes some of you really enraged. I said the same on twitter shortly after his official swearing in. Several of the replies were embarrassing and atrocious. Some accused the man elected by a majority of Americans of treason. Some accused him of willfully destroying the nation.

I believe the President’s policies are destructive and will harm our economy, our nation, and our sense of national self long term. I believe his policies have the effect of turning us into subjects of the government, not citizens in charge of it. Because of his expansion of the social safety net funded through class warfare, Mr. Obama’s policies will cause too many Americans’ fortunes to rise and fall with those of the government, unable to chart a course for themselves apart from government.

But I do not think the President means to do this maliciously. I do not think he is treasonous. I do not hate him. I am not outraged by it. The President has done what he set out to do. I cannot be outraged by him doing what he set out to do. I am far more outraged by the Republicans not doing what they said they would do.

We have too many outrage pimps on both sides of the aisle whipping the respective bases into a frenzy and fury against the other side. I don’t have enough time or energy to be outraged about it all. There are things to be outraged by, but not everything, and certainly not with full energy dedicated to every perceived slight and grievance.

What I am finding is that among conservatives there is too much outrage, piss, and vinegar. It makes our ideas less effective. We have become humorless, angry opponents of the President instead of happy warriors selling better ideas. We are not even selling ideas.

Conservatives, frankly, have become purveyors of outrage instead of preachers for a cause. Instead of showing how increasing government harms people, how free markets help people, and how conservative policies benefit all Americans, we scream “Benghazi” and “Fast & Furious.”

We’re off key and off message. We’ve become professional victims dialed up to 10 on the outrage meter. Who the hell wants to listen to conservatives whining and moaning all the time about the outrage du jour? Seriously? Mitt Romney ran a campaign on just how bad things are, but he was rejected by a majority of Americans who felt like he really did not care about them and really had no plans to improve their lives.

Bitching about Benghazi doesn’t do that either.

Be mad at me if you need to. Feel free to express your moral outrage and indignity at me. But then shut up and focus on convincing people not that the President of the United States duly elected by a majority of the American people is a traitor willfully trying to destroy the country, but that our policies will allow people to make the most of their lives and not be dependent on the rising and falling fortunes of Washington, D.C.

Be happy. The anger is unbecoming of the party of Lincoln and Reagan.

And if you must be angry, don’t be angry at a President doing what he set out to do, be angry at a Republican Establishment not doing . . . well . . . much of anything.

* * * *

I love this piece. I wish I had written it, or something like it. I think his words offer a lesson for every one of us who appreciates politics. In fact, this is what politics ought to be: a contest of ideas built on a base of mutual recognition that each side has something important to offer the American people. I hope the president has a chance to read this. I think he could learn from it too.

Thanks, Erick. You have made my day.

This article appeared in RealClearPolitics last week. Scott Conroy writes about Texas Republican consultant John Weaver’s concern about extremism in the Republican party:

For Republican operatives who believe their party’s core has taken a self-destructive turn to the far right — and that the GOP must recalibrate significantly in order to regain an electoral foothold — the immediate future holds little cause for optimism.

On issues ranging from gun control to the debt ceiling, the behind-the-scenes advocates of moderation see a GOP Congress that remains as unyielding in its hard-line positions as it was before President Obama’s re-election.

And lacking an influential, centrist standard-bearer to promote effectively a new tack from inside the Beltway, GOP strategists like John Weaver have taken to social media to voice their frustrations.

Weaver’s Twitter handle — @JWGOP — pays homage to the Republican Party, under the banner of which he has served as chief strategist for two presidential candidates.

But in his online interactions, the former senior adviser to John McCain and Jon Huntsman often purposely veers far from party talking points, doling out frank and cutting criticism of what he views as the extremist elements that have taken over the GOP in Washington.

“In our party, intolerance can no longer be tolerated,” Weaver tweeted shortly after Mitt Romney went down to defeat on Election Day.

“How do some of these gun advocates get out of the asylum to do cable shows?” he asked on Wednesday.

This is the key passage in Weaver’s argument:

“We’re kidding ourselves if we think we’re actually going to see a significant effort to change the way the party looks at issues in Washington,” Weaver said in an interview with RCP. “The first thing you have to do is accept the reality demographically of where the country is, and I don’t think our party yet has done that. And unfortunately, the votes on gun safety or immigration or anything else are not going to be indicative of how the whole party feels.”

What Weaver, whom I wrote about in September 2008, says is on target. Republicans are still trying to digest the message of the election, which, reduced to its essentials, is, “the country has changed but the Republican party has not.” This is especially true in Texas, where Republican leaders continue to wallow in self-satisfaction.

I think there are Republicans, and Weaver is one, who “get it.” They are few and far between in Texas, though. Perry brags about embracing tea party values and so does Cruz. They are wagering that the future of the Republican party rests with the tea party, and–at least in Texas–they may turn out to be right. (I don’t buy it. The tea party is a creature of the rise of  Barack Obama. When Obama leaves the White House, the tea party will be out of business.) There is nothing left of the Republican party that George W. Bush built; it vanished the day Rick Perry became governor and the owner’s box made its appearance in Texas politics. Even George P. isn’t a natural heir to W.’s Republican party. As a politician, he appears to be closer to Perry philosophically than he is to his uncle.

The Texas politician under the most pressure is John Cornyn. The newly elected minority whip is getting pushed to the right by, among others, Cruz. Michael Quinn Sullivan called Cornyn (and other Republicans) a “weasel” for his vote on the fiscal cliff. Cornyn probably won’t get a credible primary challenger in 2014, but he will be looking over his shoulder at would-be wannabes, and he will have to move to the right if he wants to keep his job. The comparison of the modern Republican party with the Democrats who wrecked their party with the McGovern rules in the early seventies is frequently cited these days.

I’m not sure how apt it is. The Democratic party that nominated Hubert Humphrey in 1968 had all but disappeared four years later. The old bulls (labor leaders, key senators, and big-city mayors) who had run the party for years had had their last hurrah in 1968. The ’72 convention was disorganized; labor had little impact on the course of the convention; feminism was the dominant force; the party was balkanized into caucuses. George McGovern did not get to make his acceptance speech until well after midnight, with the result that no one on the East Coast heard it. Not that it mattered. Richard Nixon won reelection by a landslide, only to be brought down by Watergate two years later.

(A bit of trivia: McGovern wanted Ted Kennedy–among others–as his running mate, but he had to settle for Thomas Eagleton, a senator from Missouri. When the news leaked out that Eagleton had received treatment for depression and exhaustion, including electric-shock therapy, McGovern dumped Eagleton and replaced him with Sargent Shriver. Eagleton still finished first in the balloting for veep but had to withdraw from the contest. So who finished second in the vice-presidential balloting after Eagleton withdrew? Frances “Sissy” Farenthold, who finished second to Dolph Briscoe in the Democratic primary for governor in 1972.)

Bill Clinton and the Democratic Leadership Council saved the party. It moved the party back toward the center. The liberal craziness wasn’t entirely gone, but it did have to moderate in the face of DLC calls for welfare reform and other centrist issues. The rest is history. Democrats were still on shaky ground through the nineties, but the unpopularity of George W. Bush helped save them in the 2000s. Now you have to ask yourself: Who in the Republican leadership today can bring the party back toward the center and sanity? Not Rick Perry. He has never moved toward the center during his entire career. Not Ted Cruz. He has aligned himself with the tea party. Maybe Chris Christie could do it, but Republicans may try to punish him for getting close to Obama during the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy. In any case, there are no loud Republican voices advocating for a move to the center. The GOP has doubled down on extremism.

I can’t conceive of any valid argument against expanded federal background checks for gun sales. We came within one vote on the Public Safety committee when Bush was governor of passing a requirement for background checks, and my recollection is that Bush killed it with a phone call.

If we are going to have guns in school, as Dewhurst wants to do, I don’t think we should arm teachers. I would favor hiring veterans or former or off-duty peace officers to work at the schools. The worst idea is funding CHL classes for teachers. I have nothing against CHL classes, having taken one myself, but I don’t think we should arm people who are not comfortable with guns.

Tagged: concealed handgun license, guns