The Speaker’s Race: Shock and Awful
Things are about to get ugly in the speaker’s race. The Craddick forces, led by several longtime loyalists (I want to run another check on the names), are trying to stir up a coordinated campaign to put pressure on wavering colleagues to vote for Craddick. According to credible reports I have received from Republican operatives, they are asking members to call various GOP and conservative groups with which members may be connected. The purpose is to get activists in these organizations to call House members and urge them (a) to support Craddick and (b) to oppose a secret ballot for the selection of the speaker.
One of the first shots in this battle was fired by Republican County Chairmen’s Association president Linda Rogers. She sent a letter to all GOP county chairs warning that “Texas Liberals are attempting to take over our State House of Representative by nefarious means.” As the Quorum Report pointed out, among the people “attempting to take over” the House are conservative Republicans Burt Solomons and Jim Keffer, and the “nefarious means” are a vote of the members of the House of Representatives, as specified in the Texas Constitution.
So members can expect to spend their Christmas holidays being badgered by county chairs and members of Republican womens’ clubs, right-to-life organizations, and any other affiliated groups. No doubt the State Republican Executive Committee (SREC) members will get their shots in too.
As the Republican apparatchiks gear up to support Craddick, the speaker’s race is likely to become an issue in state GOP politics. Tina Benkiser, the current chairman of the Republican Party of Texas, is a virtual certainty to become the vice-chairman of the Republican National Committee. Party rules require that if the RNC chairman is male, the vice-chairman must be female (and vice-versa). Since Benkiser appears to be the sole female candidate for vice-chair, and all of the candidates for chairman are male, she can hardly lose. Her successor at the RPT will be chosen by the 62 members of the SREC (a man and a woman from each of the 31 state Senate districts).
Among the leading candidates are Denise McNamara, one of the two RNC members from Texas, and Gina Parker, who lost her race for RPT chairman to Benkiser. Former RPT vice-chair David Barton and attorney Kelly Shackleford wield a lot of clout with the SREC. One can picture the various candidates sparing no threat to prove themselves most adept at delivering votes for Craddick.
The problem for Craddick is that things have gotten to the point where every time he acts like, well, Craddick, he reminds GOP members why they wish he would just go away. Many members are still fuming about Craddick’s iron-fisted control of members’ races. Candidates had to come to Austin and appear before Christi Craddick, the speaker’s daughter; operative John Colyandro; and consultant Dave Carney. They were told what they had to do in their campaigns in order to get money that the speaker controlled. They had to bring their campaign plans and subject them to Christi Craddick’s scrutiny. She could overrule the members and insist on their using speaker-approved campaign materials that had already been prepared by consultants. Many members were furious; they felt that they knew their districts better than Carney, who is from New Hampshire, or Ms. Craddick. These hard feelings have not subsided.
Another source of ill will for Craddick is the redistricting map that the Legislative Redistricting Board adopted in 2001. A lot of Republicans have been defeated because of that map, which was supposed to make the House safe for Republicans for a decade. It is apparent, in retrospect, that the map adopted by the Legislative Redistricting Board was drawn to elect not just a Republican speaker, but a Republican speaker named Craddick. It was drawn to maximize Republican districts, not to safeguard incumbents.
Craddick couldn’t settle for 85 Republicans, because, back in 2001, there were 15 to 20 ABC Republicans who would never vote for him for speaker. To get more GOP districts, safe seats had to be sacrificed for more marginal seats. These are the seats Republicans have been losing: a net of twelve seats lost to the Democrats since Craddick became speaker in 2003.
I think Republicans in the House are finally beginning to realize the damage that Craddick has done to the GOP majority. Does it mean that the GOP rank and file will turn against him? The discontent with Craddick is far greater than I thought it was. But at the moment, it appears that fear still outweighs outrage.
Tagged: burt solomons, christi craddick, dave carney, david barton, denise mcnamara, gina parker, jim keffer, john colyandro, kelly shackleford, linda rogers, republican party of texas, speaker’s race, state republican executive committee, Texas house, tina benkiser, tom craddick.
anonymous says:
Paul:
I agree with you that a new speaker would be nice. What I don’t know is if the loss of Republican seats is Craddick’s fault.
The Democrats also lost a bunch of seats in the last decade before redistricting in 2001. That may be irrelevant and could just could be the nature of the process.
Reply »
Anon says:
Paul: Are you sure that Morrison and P King are pressuring members to support a secret ballot for selection of the speaker?
If that vote is truly secret, Craddick is toast. A secret vote makes the fear go away.
Reply »
Tellnitlikeitis Reply:
December 1st, 2008 at 11:10 pm
Anon at 9:39…..you misread it.
They are pushing opposition to a secret ballot.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:18 am
I had it backwards. I have corrected it. And I’m doing further checking on the story.
Reply »
Martin says:
What a joke. If the R’s can’t see the damage he’s done, then they deserve what they will (eventually) get. It’s really sad what’s happened to the Republican Party here in Texas. Their representatives have been reduced to groveling before Craddick while their election losses in Dallas and Houston continue to mount.
They’ve forgotten how to win.
Reply »
ears1foru says:
Anyone else noticed that most of the fundraisers now are not listing Tom Craddick as “Special Guest” or some other designation to show this or that member is part of his team. It seems like the last few years he was on everyone’s announcement list.
Reply »
George McGuvernorin says:
The nefarious part is having a secret ballot vote for speaker. People deserve to know how their members are voting. If not, lets do away with the big voting display boards and just go with voice votes or teller votes on all issues. Then members could go home and tell the voters whatever they want to tell them and there would be no voting record to prove otherwise. It would be a politician’s dream.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
People get a secret ballot when they vote for State Representative.
State Representatives deserve the same right when selecting a Speaker of the House. They are entitled to be protected from political payback by any Speaker or his henchmen.
This is not about electing a Conservative Speaker, it is about Tom Craddick holding on to power and a few of his committee chairs staying in power when they know they will be on the outs under a new Speaker – any new Speaker (and they know it).
Texans deserve to have their democratically elected Representatives free from special interest threats and intimidation.
A secret ballot for Speaker is the only truly democratic option.
Reply »
cow droppings says:
I remember the major editorial pages vociferously opposing the secret ballot for lieutenant governor that elected Bill Ratliff. I wonder why they are not so loud opposing it as Craddick opposes it. Perhaps their bias is underscored by the volume of their silence.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
December 2nd, 2008 at 10:48 am
Apples and Oranges.
The lieutenant governor is a statewide official. In those circumstances, the members of the Senate were voting for a member of their own to an office that is constitutionally mandated as statewide. The people deserved to know how their senator voted for the Lt. Gov. because they were acting as a delegate of the people.
With the Speaker’s race, the position is an internal leader who is elected by the members – not the people. Here the legislative members are acting as trustees not as delegates for the people.
Reply »
Phillip Martin Reply:
December 2nd, 2008 at 11:28 am
Dead-on.
Reply »
buck says:
I thought that secret ballot for Ratliff worked out pretty good. Let’s try it again.
Reply »
anonymous says:
Anonymous at 9:41:
The current committee chairs or any other member will be fine under any speaker if they are one of the first 75 people to commit to that person. If they are not one of the first 75 then their fate will be less certain. It has been that way in every speaker’s race for a very long time; even those that were decided with a secret ballot.
When someone runs for office they have a pretty good idea who is with them and who is not. They also have a pretty good idea who is committing to all sides.
Reply »
Nachtwarheight says:
What is it that makes all of the people running these organizations think that Speaker Craddick is the only human on the face of the earth that is capable of leading the House in a conservative manner? They have adopted a cult of personality much like the Obama clan has…. ignoring all their celebrity’s glaring faults simply to gain (or in the Craddick’s case, keep) power.
My biggest issue with Craddick and the crowd that is trying to keep him there is the same is similar to the problem with the Bush Presidency…. one of squandered opportunity. Both men ascended to their respective offices and in the beginning had some broad backing and the good will of all the people. Craddick, by forcing early and hard votes on a number of issues, including redistricting, blew it. He could have kept the existing map, taken a slower (2 session) approach to tort reform and been a little less autoCraddick, and we would still have a comfortable Republican majority and Craddick wouldnt be facing any challenges from within.
Craddick is like the teenage boy who’s parents finally gave him a Corvette. He can drive it, unfortunately, when he used all the power it has, he wrapped it around a tree.
Reply »
Will Hartnett says:
Speaker Laney saw 11 Democratic House seats lost during his first 4 terms, despite the grotesquely gerrymandered 1991 maps. I don’t remember anyone blaming him for those losses. How ironic that Democrats are now trying to tar Craddick with the loss of 12 Republican House seats during the most unpopular presidency in Gallup poll history.
Reply »
Phillip Martin Reply:
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:18 pm
A reality check for Rep. Hartnett
Burt Solomons isn’t a Democrat.
Tommy Merritt isn’t a Democrat.
Delwin Jones isn’t a Democrat.
Jim Keffer isn’t a Democrat.
Charlie Geren isn’t a Democrat.
Byron Cook isn’t a Democrat.
Gary Elkins isn’t a Democrat.
Edmund Kuempel isn’t a Democrat.
Brian McCall isn’t a Democrat.
Jim Pitts isn’t a Democrat.
Joe Strauss isn’t a Democrat.
Rep. Hartnett, in 2006, Speaker Craddick laid out 109 names the day after the election.
November 5, 2008 — no names.
November 12, 2008 — “Tom prefers to keep his cards close to his chest until the optimal time to show them!” (Source)
December 1, 2008 — “I expect that Craddick will release at least 76 names before opening day but will not be surprised if there is still a speaker election contest at the opening.”
I’ve laid out my names, Rep. Care to share yours?
Reply »
Will Hartnett Reply:
December 2nd, 2008 at 7:12 pm
All in due time, and I predict that not all of your names will be opposite Craddick in the final vote.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
December 2nd, 2008 at 6:21 pm
To Will Hartnett — I think it is fair to hold Speaker Craddick at least partially accountable for the loss of seats. Some things were out of his control, like the Bush presidency. But much was under his control. He recruits the candidates. He oversees and funds and directs the campaigns. Legislation that would not have seen the light of day but for his involvement — tuition deregulation, congressional redistricting, the CHIP cuts in Arlene Wohlgemuth’s House bill 2292 from 2003, the Trans-Texas Corridor, a school funding scheme that has sent many school districts hurtling toward insolvency (not Highland Park), attempts to force revenue-raising limits on city and county governments, most of which are run by Republicans, and, oh yes, a state agency designed solely to help homebuilders cheat buyers out of pursuing remedies for poorly constructed homes — is hurting Republican candidates. And that list doesn’t include his personal conduct as speaker, the armtwisting that went on before members revolted against him, his ostracizing of talented Republican members who oppose him, for session after session, and the claim by his mouthpiece parliamentarians that he could prevent anyone from seeking his removal as speaker by refusing to recognize them (and the adverse statewide publicity that resulted from his actions). Don’t you think that some of these things had to play a role in the Republicans’ loss of seats? Compare this to Pete Laney. The only thing that he did that cost the Democrats public support was to keep tort reform bottled up after 1995. And his personal conduct was impeccable.
Reply »
Will Hartnett Reply:
December 2nd, 2008 at 7:09 pm
Paul, what arm-twisting? I’ve read that allegation a lot, but never seen any egregious cases, either personally or set forth by the media. And I assume that you mean gross arm-twisting, because I saw plenty of routine, necessary cajoling under Laney. Putting aside Keel and Craddick’s interpretation of the House rules, do you seriously think we should have a speaker fight in the last week of the session? What would that do to the House as an institution?
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
December 2nd, 2008 at 11:42 pm
Will –
I’ll try not to get carried away.
Tuition de-reg was the most egregious example. And there were some instances during one of the education special sessions, when Craddick forced Republicans to cast bad votes against Democratic amendments (such as full funding for gifted and talented), just so the D’s couldn’t say they won one. Routine, necessary cajoling is part of the game. A lot of this could be fixed if the House would hire a competent electrician to keep the machines from “malfunctioning.”
In answer to the serious issue of whether there should have been a speaker fight in the last week of the session, my answer is no. It would have been irresponsible to remove the speaker and have all sorts of work go down the drain and force a special session. We were looking into the abyss, and it wasn’t a pretty sight. But I do think that the speaker should be subject to removal by a majority of the House. Laney has said that he was told, presumably by Bob Kelly, that this was allowed under the precedents. The proposed rules will probably have such a provision this time, but I suspect that it will require some kind of super-majority, probably three-fifths, which would make it meaningless.
Phillip Martin Reply:
December 2nd, 2008 at 11:47 pm
The House as an institution is the Texas House of Representatives. It’s made of 150 of the most awesome and awful elected officials in Texas. It is rededicated every two years by millions of Texans from areas so diverse in geography, culture, and political ideology that no vote on anything could single-handedly “destroy” the house as an institution. It is the people’s House. So long as work is being done for the people instead of special and narrowly-defined partisan interests, the institution will thrive.
My opinion, and the opinion of many from long before the end of May until today, is that it is no longer the House of the people. The House majority does not have it’s own say under Craddick’s rule; a manufactured Craddick majority has it’s say, and the rest have to make due with the scraps given to them.
What arm-twisting? “If you don’t vote with me on this bill, we won’t fund that medical school.” “If you don’t support vouchers, we will run someone against you — if you don’t believe, come into the back hall.” And then there is this gem:
There is a fundamental divide between Craddick’s camp and everyone else. So long as he is Speaker, that divide is going to exist. He doesn’t care to bridge it, because he (like you, Rep. Hartnett) fail to recognize it is there…or even that a large number of House Members believe it is there. At this point, he’s playing chicken with the 2010 elections and 2011 redistricting.
From a governance standpoint, that is irresponsible. From a policy standpoint, it is reckless. And from a personal standpoint, it reeks of “me before we” and — believe it or not — most House Members want the People’s House to be about “we.”
cow droppings says:
1) the lt gov. appoints committee chairs, and so does the speaker
2) the lt gov assigns legislation to committees, and so does the speaker.
3) the essential powers of the lt gov office emanate from the members, same with the speaker’s office.
4) they both appoint conference cmtes, and are equals in the process of creating legislation.
5) they both preside over their legislative bodies.
But somehow, just because one is a statewide elected official elected by popular vote, and the other is not, a secret ballot is justified in one case but not the other?
I wonder if the Dallas Morning News, which crusaded for years for recorded votes, agrees with such parsing. They remain silent. Others too.
As far as punishment goes related to backing the wrong horse, why didn’t that apply when all the other D speakers held the chair? And when a lt gov is elected popularly, don’t you foresee punishment for senators that back an opposing candidate?
Despite your Mike McCurry-like parsing, I fail to see a substantial difference.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Yes, they both preside over legislative bodies but the constitution is specific in naming the Lt. Gov. as a statewide official – along with many others in what political scientists call a “plural executive.”
The power to select the Lt. Gov. lies with the people – the power to select the Speaker lies with the other 149 House members. This is the inherent difference.
Your inability to see a substantial difference speaks volumes
Reply »
Floozikins says:
How was your Thanksgiving, Willie? Did you eat any turkey or were you too busy blogging for Craddick? Why don’t you concentrate on knocking Abbott out of his post? Grow some real balls for a change.
Reply »
Call Me Crazy says:
The definition of “real balls” is posting using your real name and subjecting yourself to idiot comments from bloggers going by goofy pen names. Will Harnett 1, Floozikins 0.
Reply »
Phillip Martin Reply:
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Dead on.
Reply »
Floozikins Reply:
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Anybody who is worthy of knowing me knows who I am.
Reply »
poindexter says:
Actually Chairman Hartnett makes an excellent point. The position Speaker Craddick finds himself in is more like what Speaker Laney faced than different. In the 90s the House map was drawn a little thin and seats were lost every election. The demographics of the state were changing, and becoming much more Republican. Losing the Democartic Majority was virtually inevitable and no one blamed Laney. Now the tide is turning. The redistricting of 2001 was meant to maximize Republican seats and cut a few pretty close. The new Texans from California and Northern States aren’t solidly Republican, like they were during the 70s, 80s, and 90s. Also the population is becoming more Hispanic and more Democratic. 2011 redistricting may forestall the inevitable, but it won’t stop it.
Reply »
Nachtwarheight says:
Think I have to agree with Call Me Crazy. Mr. Hartnett is quite up front with his posts and doesn’t resort to juvenile attacks.
I do disagree with Mr. Hartnett’s apparent assertion that Speaker Craddick is the only Republican in the House that can be a good, conservative speaker. I don’t question Speaker Craddick’s heart, I simply question his methods. In my personal interaction with Speaker Craddick, I have always found him to be a very personable, ever polite and likable fellow. However, I don’t think he has the market cornered on being a conservative Republican. I question his decision pushing certain divisive issues and on placing various members in a position of leadership where their experience or ability is not up to the challenge. I simply feel that the time has come for new Republican leadership. The general that wins the war is not always the best one to lead the government when the war is over.
Reply »
John Johnson says:
When I called Will Hartnett a sheep, I used my real name. I also used it on the unanswered emails I sent to him and his fellow Regulated Industries committee members. He does nothing for his constituents. He is there to do the bidding of the Speaker. He thinks he has hitched his wagon to a star. I see a Greek tragedy in the making.
Reply »
Distinguished Gentleman says:
Well, whoever is chosen, the Texas House of Representatives would be wise to impose TERM LIMITS upon the position of Speaker.
Or else, they (and by extension the rest of us) will only continue to suffer with individuals who seek only to perpetuate themselves in power, caring nothing about anyone, or anything, else, including the institution of the Texas House of Representatives itself.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
December 2nd, 2008 at 11:50 pm
I’m not sold on term limits for speakers. Florida has term limits, and former members who have been to Florida (while they were members) said that term limits cause a perpetual speaker’s race. They are always running for the next session and the session after that. The speaker tries to push a loyal lieutenant so that he can retain some power. It’s been awhile since I heard these stories, and my memory may be faulty, but it didn’t sound like a good idea.
There is no perfect system. I thought Laney was a great speaker. But long speakerships make it impossible for younger members to become players. Somebody is ahead of them on the organization chart and stays there until a new speaker comes in. I subscribe to the idea that the Texas House ought to be a place where you can do what you’re big enough to do. Decade-long speakerships don’t allow that.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Distinguished Gentleman:
Hear hear. Amen. No more fiefdoms.
Reply »
Anon says:
Chairman Hartnett makes another excellent point in that the Craddick arm twisting meme is largely the stuff of myth. Has he left members out for some bad votes? Yes, but the “arm twisting” is more a euphemism for the mindless cry babies that make up most of the Republican House members.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
December 2nd, 2008 at 11:53 pm
They are crybabies because they have nothing else to do. Even chairman are frustrated that most of the policy comes from the speaker’s office.
Reply »
Anon says:
Re: Term limits and Secret Ballots. If both D and R members really thought about it, using a secret ballot to select a Speaker Candidate prevents a Speaker from abusing the Rules, the Members, and is truly a check and balance for the number of terms a Speaker will hold the position. Members will not need to dramatically change the Rules with a true secret ballot process in place, including the “right of recognition” of members. In fact, a secret ballot prevents outside influences from trying to take control of the process of selecting the Speaker. And, most of all a true secret ballot allows the members to decide for themselves who among them they really want to sit in the Speaker position for the upcoming session. It prevents the kind of power abuses and fear we see going on now with members in their districts, and keeps Speakers worried about how they are perceived by both members and the public. From what I’ve read and heard, Rep. Solomons apparently has verbalized these thoughts of why the Texas House members should seriously consider using a secret ballot in the selection of their Speakers. Republican members should not be short-sighted about this. When, and it will happen, the Democrats are the majority party, the Republicans will want a secret ballot and it will be too late to whine about it.
Reply »
Distinguished Gentleman says:
Paul, December 2nd at 11:50 p.m., you say that you are “…not sold on term limits for Speakers” and then, in your next few breaths you state some of the very sound reasons why term limits would help to clean up the process.
There was a Speaker in the Georgia House of Representatives who lasted for many, many, many years. (I think his name was Thomas Murphy if I remember correctly). He interferred with state legislative races all over Georgia. He was feared and hated. But everybody was so gosh darn scared of him, that they kept re-electing him as Speaker of the Georgia House. If I recall correctly, the only way they finally got rid of the man was when he DIED. That’s just wrong.
We need to limit the Speaker of the Texas House of Representatives to perhaps three terms and that’s it. Let someone else serve as Speaker (possibly for three terms as well).
If there are no term limits, then we will keep having tyrants like Craddick who will stop at nothing to simply perpetuate themselves in power, regardless of the cost to anyone, or anything, else, including the very institution which they claim they wish only to “serve”.
Reply »
Distinguished Gentleman says:
Also, Paul, I recall when Laney first ran for Speaker and lied to the members to the effect that he would limit himself to only a few terms (maybe it was three terms total).
Senfronia Thompson believed Laney and if you go back and re-read Thompson’s nominating speech in January of 1993 in the House Journal, she specifically mentions in her remarks Laney’s verbal promise to observe self-imposed term limits. Well, as time proved, Laney broke that promise which, I think, was never reduced to writing but kept strictly verbal.
Reply »
Red Raider says:
How can Rep. Hartnett deny arm-twisting? I’d say a threat to run a fully-funded GOP primary opponent against a member is arm twisting. Many of his friends who have publically endorsed Craddick tell the education people at home in their districts, “Sorry, I’d love to help, but the speaker would run an opponent against me if I did.” Now, was that going on under Laney?
Reply »
Distinguished Gentleman says:
Paul, I was able to do some further digging over lunch about term limits on the position of Speaker of the Texas House of Representatives.
Representative Senfronia Thompson, in her speech seconding the nomination of James E. “Pete” Laney to succeed Gibson D. “Gib” Lewis, stated:
“…Pete Laney has promised us a return to the tradition of a two-term speaker….”
(See, House Journal, January 12, 1993, Page 13, third paragraph).
Ms. Thompson is not the type of person to simply dream something like that up.
Clearly, Laney must have told numerous members in his 1992 battle against Jim D. Rudd for the Speaker position that he (Laney) would only serve two terms if chosen Speaker and that Rudd had not offered any such assurance.
While I agree that Laney prevailed over Rudd for a variety of reasons, certainly a verbal promise to serve only two terms as Speaker was obviously noteworthy in the mind of Ms. Thompson in her support of Laney or else she would have never mentioned it so forcefully in her published remarks.
I seem to vaguely recall that in late 1993, Laney publicly reneged on his verbal two-term limit promise and made clear his intentions to “serve” well beyond that (and indeed he ended up “serving” a full decade in that post, as had his predecessor). The only thing that stopped Laney from his dream of surpassing his predecessor was Craddick’s tsunami of 2002, which ended Laney’s dictatorship of 10 years.
If I get some time, I might go back to search newspaper accounts from late 1993 in which Laney’s mere verbal promise of two terms only as Speaker was so publicly retracted.
And that’s a perfect example of why term limits on the position of Speaker of the Texas House of Representatives is so critically important.
Term limits prevent tyranny. But term limits must be instituted OFFICIALLY, and not as a mere verbal promise which is so easily broken. A total of three such terms would be reasonable.
Reply »
TX Political History Buff says:
Laney did indeed make a promise to serve only two-terms. You can ask former members Sadler, Stiles, Junell, Seidlits, Hightower, Place, Wolens, etc. about that two-term pledge because they all wanted to be the next Speaker.
When it became clear that Laney wasn’t going anywhwere soon many of the above members moved on.
That said Laney was a very different Speaker from the current one.
Reply »
middleclassR says:
Well, let’s form a list…what R’s that have not broke with Craddick yet have the potential to?’
I’m not sure Craddick can get to the magic number. If he loses a few more folks, he can forget about it. This time I think the clock isn’t in his favor — though it’s just an odd feeling, I need to put more thought into that.
Berman?
Chisum?
Callegari?
Anderson?
King?
Miller?
Branch?
Truitt?
Harper-Brown?
Brown?
Kolkhorst?
Zerwas?
Ok….tired of typing out the names, you know who they are. Who is the three most likely? I think if he loses 3 more, forget about it.
One thing for sure, if we keep this up in 2 years it will be a moot point at the rate we are losing seats.
Reply »
Anon says:
Why would you be afraid of Craddick running an opponent against you at this point? He hasn’t proven he can take anyone out. Coleman, Dunnam, and Gallego have, but Craddick hasn’t.
Reply »