Insurgents claim 75 anti-Craddick votes
The Quorum Report has the news that the ABCs have gone public with eleven R’s who will not support Tom Craddick’s reelection as speaker. This is the scenario I have been writing about for the last week: If the ABCs and the Dunnam D’s get together, Craddick’s speakership is over and there is nothing the rest of the members can do about. They got together, and it appears to be over. By this time tomorrow, Republican members will be contacting the ABCs and asking where do they go to sign up. And the Craddick D’s will be looking for a home as well.
The most important thing to come out of today’s revelations is not that there are 75 votes against Craddick. That has been the case for weeks; Eissler was the eleventh ABC to go with the 64 D’s. What is significant about today is that they went public, not only with their names, but also with their intention to reveal their consensus choice for speaker on Friday, January 2.
The big hurdle for the anti-Craddicks has never been getting 76 votes. It has been achieving unity among the leaders of the insurgents behind a single candidate. We won’t know for sure that this has been achieved until January 2. The Craddick forces can always hope that the choice will not be acceptable to some of the insurgents, even some of the Democrats and the coalition could splinter.
Here’s why this isn’t going to happen. It involves a personal story. Back when Newt Gingrich and the Republicans were trying to oust Jim Wright as speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, I went to Washington to write about the situation. My first interview was with Charlie Wilson, who was as astute an observer of politics as Texas has produced during my career. I asked him if the Republican offensive against Wright was just politics. “Some of it is,” Charlie acknowledged, “but his biggest problem is, He made them hate him.” That’s Craddick’s problem. This has gone way beyond politics. It’s personal. For six years he has rubbed his enemies’ noses in the dirt. He excommunicated them from having any role in the legislative process. He put them in the doghouse and padlocked the door. He made them hate him. The insurgents aren’t going to say that publicly — they simply say that it is time for a new speaker — but I think that they are going to take their former compatriot Fred Hill’s words to heart: “The time to kill a snake is when you have the hoe in your hands.”
Joe M. says:
I have been following the writings of Burka, Kronberg, and BOR for a while now. A week after the elections, after BOR posted their math that said this exact same thing, Burka said:
“BOR did a great job, good research, but a little bit of a naive feel because it’s a mathematical model of a speaker’s race, but you can’t do it because right now there is no speaker’s race, only one candidate”.
Now, I disagreed with Burka’s analysis then, for much the same reasons Burka outlines in this current post. People just straight up hate Craddick. Then there’s those that just want a change. That amounts to more than 75 votes against Craddick – it was the same a week after the election, and it’s the same now.
The only difference is that Burka’s now agreeing with BOR, only citing hatred of Craddick. Regardless of Eissler (not to denigrate that huge get for the ABCs), we’re in exactly the same boat we were in a week after the election. A majority don’t want Craddick, but there is not a consensus candidate. You can’t vote NO for speaker.
It was BOR’s fundamental thesis then – and it’s now Kronberg’s and Burka’s – that 76 NO votes on Craddick means it’s time to start talking about replacements. BOR hasn’t changed, but now the leading capitol pundits have followed it’s suit.
Respectable and intelligent people like Chairman Hartnett have argued that 75 votes against Craddick does not a new speaker make. Fair enough, it’s a decent argument but it’s one I, and BOR, disagreed with. From all appearances, it’s one people like Gattis, Hamilton, Doug Miller, Harless and others have likewise disagreed with (judging from their lack of support for Craddick).
The more time has passed, it’s more evident BOR’s mathematical model is pretty much the same as the ABCs, the same as the Craddick camp, the same as the lobby’s and the same as the chattering class. It may have been naive then, but the more time passes, the more it looks prescient.
Chairman Hartnett and everyone else, you are correct that 76 no votes on Craddick does not mean 76 yes votes on someone else. But the more time passes, the more that looks like it may actually be the case. When do we start writing stories about Craddick being doomed because he hasn’t laid out a list?
Reply »
Chess Player Reply:
December 23rd, 2008 at 4:00 am
For weeks now, Craddick and his Chief of Staff have been telling members that Straus and Eissler were still very much “on the team” when in fact, Craddick has known for over a month now that he had lost their support. That is why he has not released a list of names of supporters. Now, that that it has been proven that Craddick was lying about the support of Eisller and Straus will those who have remained loyal to Craddick be angry enough about his deception to now abandon him in favor of an alternative? And what about the two female, freshman Craddick D’s supported by Craddick and Texans for Lawsuit Reform in their primary races? Now, that the number of anti-Craddick votes has been shown to number 75, will they publicly announce they do not support Craddick, further exposing Craddick and Terral Smith’s deceptive count? By lying to his team menbers about support he no longer had, Craddick has demonstrated that he is quite willing to take his lieutenants down with him to the bitter end rather than provide them with the oportunity to protect their own interests and help choose his replacement . Of course, loyalty has always been a one-way street with Tom Craddick. While there will be some Craddick loyalists who will choose to voluntariliy go down with the ship (Berman, Morrison, Christian, Flynn, Callegari, Hartnett, Bohac, and Isett just to name a few) look for some suprise defections from the Craddick camp in the next few days by some extremely conservative and heretofore, extremely loyal Craddick lieutenants. They were already angry with Craddick for his lack of returned loyalty and this most recent deception will push them over the edge. But do not look for them to throw their support to one of the current slate of already announced speaker candidates.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
December 23rd, 2008 at 6:08 pm
This is really a reply to Joe M. –
I did not, and do not, agree with BOR’s assessment that Craddick is capped at 63 votes. While I admired their initiative, I felt that their benchmarks of using previous public statements and votes were unreliable in present time. Today we are looking at committed anti-Craddick votes. That is a much more reliable gauge of House sentiment, though it is far from perfect. There are enough jealousies among the insurgents–both the speaker candidates and the rank and file–that the anti-Craddick vote is fluid. I have always qualified my assessment of the situation as depending upon two things: whether the ABC’s could settle on a single candidate who is capable of defeating Craddick, and whether the insurgents could stick together to produce at least 76 votes.
If they can’t, as I have said in another response, they deserve three more terms of Craddick, which is what they will get.
Reply »
pundit'spoint says:
We need Jim Pitts to declare he is willing to run for Speaker again.
Reply »
Texas Publius says:
If Craddick’s supporters go to him and force him to abdicate, it blows the race wide open and the ABCs will probably get screwed again. If Craddick clings to his family syndicate all the way to the bitter end, taking down member-supporters and his employees with him, the ABCs and Dem caucus will pick the new speaker. I expect Craddick supporters with spines and talent to start breaking from him asap. They have to be blind not to realize that this is the Titanic, not the Queen Mary.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
December 23rd, 2008 at 6:10 pm
No one can “force” Craddick to do anything. If he cared what his supporters thought, he would have stepped aside long ago.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
What is the news here? It appears that all of the speaker candidates have now announced that they want a new speaker. So what?
The fact is, they can’t agree on who the new speaker should be among them, otherwise they’d be announcing that instead of making another inane “announcement”.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
December 23rd, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Re Anonymous –
Sometimes it does seem as if Craddick’s opponents are like the general who amasses a huge army and marches to and fro in the hope of scaring his enemy from the battlefield. Craddick doesn’t scare. He can only be defeated by people who are as ruthless and determined as he is. If the insurgents cannot agree on a candidate, they will get what they deserve: Three more terms of Craddick as speaker.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
The problem they have is that although there are 11 of these R’s, and 64 Dems, that have claimed to support Anybody but Craddick, in reality they cannot and will not be able to agree on any one of these R’s. Burka and Kronberg have failed to report on the sharp divides and ouright hostility between some of these R candidates.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Excuse me, am I missing something here? Are the telephone lines down or something?! If these R’s are so unifies and determines, is there some reason these R’s can’t pick up a phone, call Dunnam and the D’s, and strike a deal?
Hmmm, methinks they are still spinning their wheels, and just made this no-news announcement in order to give the false appearance that they have made some type of progress.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Can you pls make up your mind paul? You’re giving me whiplash!
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
December 23rd, 2008 at 6:15 pm
More whiplash:
This post is the first time that I have written that I thought Craddick would not retain the speakership. But it depends upon whether the ABC’s really follow through with a consensus candidate, and whether the anti-Craddick D’s can stick together.
Reply »
Pancho says:
Where’s Will Hartnett?
Reply »
Will Hartnett Reply:
December 23rd, 2008 at 12:23 pm
I’m sitting back with my popcorn and watching the spin. I still see a bunch of speaker candidates with only one vote each!
Reply »
middleclassR says:
I agree ChessPlayer. We still haven’t seen a viable alternative to Craddick, but there will be one and you will see some Craddick loyalists abandon ship — especially if there is a secret ballot. Any why not, this isn’t about Craddick, it’s about everyone’s respective house district and best serving them. The system has to prove that Craddick isn’t bigger than the system. Plus, these guys have to be tired of going to their districts and getting beat up over Craddick and the anti-district things he has them vote for. I just wonder if he loses will he serve the rest of his term or not?
On a side not, the Democrats have done a horrible job being the minority, that is for sure. We are actually seeing the Texas Democrat party veer left, while they use to be relatively conservative.
I wonder what words Craddick will have for TLR — a group that burned him, though you could argue he enabled them to burn him. It’s interesting to see the same funding sources (Bob Perry, etc…) being split and going to fight both sides of the race.
I wonder if Craddick regrets allowing his daughter to control the cash flow which strangled several campaigns and prevented new potential Craddick loyalists from forming — Connie Scott, Brian Walker, Kirby Hollingsworth, Bryan Daniel, Dee Margo etc…? And it’s not that there wasn’t enough cash, there was, he just had a daughter that is so insecure that she wouldn’t dish enough of it out to create winners in case her dad lost and he would need that money to pay her for some do-nothing job.
As for TLR, their descent is begining. Not only have they wore out their welcome, but they no longer have an issue. It seems they exist just to exist at this point. I guess that’s what happens when you get a little power and a few good paying jobs, no one wants to go away.
Merry Christmas! Enjoy your last one in the Speaker’s apartment.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Here we go again!
Last cycle Pitts and McCall told us they would have a press conference and announce their names and then they delayed it day after day until finally they came out, had a press conference, and said they were still working but that we would have a change.
The same thing is happening again.
The ABC Rs have a meeting with all present and they can’t decide which one of them is the best candidate (I’d definitely choose a guy who can’t get 10 of his fellow insurgents to agree with him to be able to get 75 of his colleagues to agree with him – that’s real leadership boys!). Now they have decided to allow the Ds to pick the R speaker and give them until January 2 (Nice pick guys! I, along with most Texans, will be watching Texas Tech beat Mississippi that day).
Why can’t these guys get their act together? Why is it always the same old “we’ve got the votes but we are waiting until X day to let the world know”? Just tell us who your guy is and who is really with you. Once we know that we can have real speakers race instead of a free for all that makes the House look like a three ring circus.
The answer is the same as it was for Putts and McCall. You won’t decide until the last minute who your best guy is and even then you won’t have all 64 of the Ds on the same page.
I’m not holding my breath on a January 2nd press announcement. In fact, I’d be willing to bet they don’t have it all together until March 2nd and then they’ll go through the same dumb exercise of trying to remove Speaker Craddick with the same failed rhetoric they tried last session.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Paul, why do you assume 1) that there really is a signed list of 64 Dems committed against Ctraddick and 2) that ALL 64 Dems will really hold the line and not strike a deal with Craddick?
Your assumption that this secret non-published Dunnam list actually exists, and especially that ALL these Dems will actually hold to it, might be considered a bit naive.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
December 23rd, 2008 at 11:53 am
Anonymous at 10:37-
Here’s a great example from today’s El Paso Times. Wonder if Chente is one of those “unified” 64?!
“Quintanilla, D-El Paso, said if a Democrat could win, he would vote for that candidate in a heartbeat. But with the GOP still on top, he said, the House leader is likely to be a Republican.
Of all the Republican candidates, Quintanilla said, Craddick is the one who knows best what El Paso’s needs are.”
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
December 23rd, 2008 at 6:19 pm
This is a reply to Anonymous at 10:37 a.m. I believe that the list exists and has 64 names because a Democrat I trust, not one of the three amigos, says he saw the list and counted the signatures.
Reply »
Rusty says:
middleclassR, why do you cling to the secret ballot? That’s unconstitutional as far as I read it. If more than three members want an open ballot, they can ask for it and don’t they need a 3/4 vote to override?
The media SUED the Texas Senate when Bill Ratliff tried to do a secret ballot. The Senate won, but the AG only gave them the option to do the secret ballot. Either way, the media made it clear then that it would not accept the secret ballot. So many members are media conscious (I wish they weren’t) that they’d buckle to pressure in a heartbeat.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
December 23rd, 2008 at 11:29 am
The media will remain utterly silent on this issue. Heigth of hypocrisy.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Anyone who thinks those 11 R’s are “united” is kidding themselves. There are strong divisions (inlcuding personal animosities) and factions between them. There is no way they will agree on a single candidate.
Which is fairly obvious considering the fact that the clock is quickly winding down to Jan 13 and they have not agreed yet!
How hard is it for 11 guys to get in the room and pick one candidate?!
Reply »
Anonymous says:
That is correct re: divisions between the R’s, and it has been totally unreported by Burka et al.
The only thing these guys have in common is that they are all led around by consultant/lobbyist Bryan Eppstein. In fact, Eppstein is the one who has the most to gain from a new Speaker, he hopes to greatly augment his lobby business. Of course, Burka sees only goodness and light in the ABC’s, and wouldn’t mention this obvious major factor in the race.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
December 23rd, 2008 at 7:14 pm
There are divisions everywhere, in every political body. There are always forces for unity and there are always forces for division. Division can mean everything, and it can mean nothing. The politician’s art is to bring people together. If the insurgents cannot find a leader who can do this, then they will lose and Craddick will be speaker again. This isn’t complicated. The numbers favor the insurgents, and the political situation favors Craddick–unless and until somebody can change the situation.
Reply »
anonymous says:
I have heard that some of the democrats that did not support Craddick in 2007 felt like they were misled by the ABC’s the last time and don’t trust them.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
I have heard that EVERYONE IN THE UNIVERSE felt like they were misled by the ABC’s the last time and don’t trust them.
Except Burka.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
December 24th, 2008 at 5:38 am
I cannot speak for anyone but myself, but I did not feel “misled” by the ABC’s. I knew that they didn’t have the votes. You can look up the blog posts from January 07 and see that I consistently said that Craddick had the votes. When one side (Craddick) lays out his names and the other side calls a press conference and doesn’t produce a single supporter, that’s all you need to know. The attendance by the Craddick D’s at an Austin Club dinner two days before the session eliminated any doubt about the outcome.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Ok Paul, put it on the line. Are you predicting that the ABC’s will actually present one candidate on Jan 2?
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
December 24th, 2008 at 5:41 am
Yes. But I don’t know who it will be.
Reply »
Pitfall says:
How about this Paul, since you’re so sure Craddick doesn’t stand a chance, if Craddick wins again will you quit as a Texas Monthly editor (since by then you will have been embarrassed again) and work as one of Craddick’s capital interns?
Reply »
Anonymous says:
There is so much misinformation on this stream it is hard to know where to begin.
Part of the problem with all of this is that there are so few people who have been through a real Speaker’s race – no not like 2002. That was completely different. That was about a change in party and huge money – new things to Speaker politics.
This is far more like previous Speaker’s races: 1975, 1980-81 & 1992.
In those years, you had multiple candidates and people who didn’t like each other, but they ended up forging acoalitions because they had an enemy in common they couldn’t allow to win: Carl Parker in 1975, John Bryant in 1980-81 and Jim Rudd (and more importantly, Jim Rudd’s gang) in 1992.
There comes a pressure point when forces in common have to pull together to end the race – just to keep the enemy from taking power. That is more likely to happen on or just after January 2nd than many people commenting realize.
The House members just want this to be over.
Members of the House don’t want a fight or bloodbath on Opening Day. Easily 20-30 Members are on pins and needles wanting to throw in with the ABC’s – they just want to make sure that they sign with the winner. Yes, they are scared of Craddick and more importantly Craddick’s enforcers. But there is strength in numbers. And once they band together behind one candidate, the ‘Emperor has no clothes’ and Tom Craddick moves to the dustbins of Texas political history.
Burka is right about the ‘hate.’ Hate and fear make a powerful combination. Once those who hate Craddick develop a consensus candidate, those who fear him will rush to that Consensus candidate seeking protection. Once Craddick is deprived of power, his weapons of revenge cease to exist.
As to the 64 Democrats, the small handful who may be contemplating any double dealing with Craddick will sign a pledge card like everybody else. They know which way the wind is blowing and have little interest in dealing with Trial Lawyer backed primary opponents in March 2010.
If history is a guide, someone – A Kuempel, A Cook, A Keffer or A Solomons – will announce victory with 85-100 pledges, probably just before Opening Day.
That 85-100 pledges becomes 110-115 or so within 24 hours and the race is REALLY over. Once the slide starts, it cannot be stopped. Ask Pete Laney, ask Jim Rudd, ask Carl Parker – each has lived through it and there is not much you can do once it starts.
Despite the Republican-Democrat axiom that now exists, the nature of the House has really not changed. And that is why I’m confident you’ll see the scenario I’ve described repeat itself very soon.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
December 23rd, 2008 at 12:26 pm
This is a decent analyis, and one a lot of people agree with. But these same people are confused as to why it never pans out.
You write:
“If history is a guide, someone – A Kuempel, A Cook, A Keffer or A Solomons – will announce victory with 85-100 pledges, probably just before Opening Day.”
And that is where it all falls apart. Once you start actually talking about the specific alternate candidates, the whole thing just fizzles. The fact is, there may very well be a majority that would like a change, in a perfect world. But there is simply no strong candidate out there to challenge Craddick. Those fence-sitting members you reference simply can’t imagine any of these guys wielding the gavel or running the House in an orderly manner.
That is why they will stick with Craddick.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
December 23rd, 2008 at 12:29 pm
This is a dead-on explanation of the situation. I think many that are around today only have experience with the 2002 race. This is a return to the way most Speaker races play out.
Reply »
shortcomings says:
Please answer me this, why are Craddick and his supporters against the secret ballot, I understand about how he interprets the constitution, but I want a simple answer everyone thats not an attorney or parlimintarian would understand. My logic is, if he believes he has the majority’s support to become speaker, he should not be concerned which manner the speaker is elected, same should be said for the ABC’s candidate or the D’s candidate.
As an average citizen of Texas, who has no role in TX gov’t, it seems that there are too many “political games” that are played, and the ultimate people who pay the price for these little power games are people like myself. I am tired of being the one that burdens the responsibility both at the state and federal level. I am ready for new leadership in Austin, starting with Speaker in ‘09 and then followed by a new executive leader in ‘10.
If you, Thomas Craddick, really believe you have majority support, who cares which ballot system we use, you should win. If you, Jim Keffler, really believe you have majority support to be elected speaker, why do you care which ballot system we use to elect speaker? Is there “arm twisting”, I am sure, but I dont care, lets elect a speaker, unite and move on to do whats best for the people of Texas, we all have a common goal to make this the best of the 50 states, and we can not achieve that if we have divisiveness and leaders who have too large of egos to put Texas first.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
You are disappointing me in your lack of depth of analysis. You are more fickle than the stock market these days. Eleven Republicans holding a press conference counts as eleven votes in my book. And it takes 76 votes FOR someone to be elected speaker. Some Eppstein non-sense about January 2 they will pick the winner from that group is laughble. Are they going to agree to a paper scissors and rock tournament like the picture, or will some people actually back down for one leader? Since they need 65 other votes, have those 65 agreed to let the nominee be decided in some backroom without them present? Have you or any other member of the fourth estate actually thought any of this through?
Do some real reporting work and quit reading Harvey Kronberg’s website for your source. If you don’t know that Harvey just prints Dunnam, Gallego, Garnet Coleman and Eppstein press releases with little regard for fact checking or journalistic integrity, you really have isolated yourself from the actual workings in the political world. Make Dunnam produce the so-called letter. Ask some Dems to actually tell you what the letter says. Impress your readers and live up to the standards taught to you by great journalists like Murrow and go find the real story. Sitting around waiting for Harvey to publish or people to call a press conference is not journalism, it’s sheer laziness. Calling Bruce Gibson, Messer, Buddy Jones, Toomey and Rusty for background will uncover nothing for you in a speaker’s race. This is a member’s only vote.
Here’s the real story Dunnam and others are threatening Dems and Republicans to vote against Craddick. Have you thought about that at all? Or is your hatred for Craddick deep enough to keep you from a good story.
Craddick has been on the winning side in the Speaker’s race for 40 years straight. He is really good at this and will outmaneuver all of these jokers again. Watch, or better yet learn. But quit reprinting press releases from Eppstein and Dunnam. That’s what Harvey does. You look like a tool for the anti-Craddick movement. You are better than that or at least the rest of us hope you aspire to better things.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Paul Burka says, “They [Craddick Opposition] got together, and it appears to be over.” This simply is not factually true. In such a case, realistically, the Opposition would call a press conference and lay out the names because you would not want the Incumbent to regroup. Accordingly, as fact, Craddick is the Incumbent and has the most votes leading toward January 13.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
I see the same thing as Will Hartnett. A bunch of chumps bluffing. The winning hand is still Craddick’s. Everyone already knew these guys were out there. No news here. Yawn
Reply »
Anonymous says:
I think it is very interesting that Eissler has joined the ABC’s. Why would he do that, after Craddick gave him his wish and made him Public Ed Chairman? Why is he throwing his lot in with the ABC’s? Any insight?
Reply »
Truth Seeker Reply:
December 23rd, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Perhaps because Byron Cook owns Eissler. Cook’s family bank in Corsicana (Corsicana National Bank) has loaned Eissler more than $100,000, which he is completely unable to pay back. (you can find Eissler’s latest financial disclosure at http://www.texaswatchdog.org).
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Anonymouse Reply at 12:26 p.m. does not understand or has not been through a Speaker’s race before.
The oppositon will organize behind ONE candidate. They will lay out 85-100 pledges to that candidate – not some ‘pledge to oppose Craddick.’
No strong candidate? When oppositon forces fall behind one candidate, that one candidate becomes strong overnight.
Just look at Gib Lewis. When Billy Wayne Clayton was indicted and Conservative Democrats and Republicans were looking for a backup candidate to block John Bryant, Gib became an overnight sensation. Literally.
It’s like Popeye eating his spinach. And Popeye always beats Blutto.
It doesn’t fizzle, just the opposite – Members will stampede to the new Speaker practically throwing him a pledge card professing their undying love and support. That’s the nature of the game and the nature of House Members.
Barnes, Clayton, Laney and Craddick each began a 24-48 hour push to claim victory. When the dust settled each had far more than he needed to win the gavel.
Once the opposition decides who it will be, there is little that can be done to undo it.
Many people who comment on all this stuff don’t understand or grasp this concept of how Speaker politics works. Pete Laney understands it, so does Tom Craddick. Those who don’t are about to be given a good lesson in Texas politics.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
December 23rd, 2008 at 2:39 pm
“Anonymouse Reply at 12:26 p.m. does not understand or has not been through a Speaker’s race before.”
Uhh, maybe he’s been through the last three attempts these ABC guys have made!
“It’s like Popeye eating his spinach. And Popeye always beats Blutto.”
Uhh, not in the last three episodes we’ve watched…
Reply »
Texrusk says:
I think there is a greater likelihood that Craddick can trot out 76 names than that the insurgents can trot out one – a unified candidate.
The speaker’s folks are unified by ideology (for the R’s) and the perception that Craddick is the best speaker for their districts (for the D’s).
The only thing that unites the ABCs is a universal love of EGO – their own individual ones.
Getting one of these guys to take a back seat is like getting MacArthur to shut his mouth and listen to Truman.
Reply »
Tellnitlikeitis Reply:
December 23rd, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Craddick’s firm support ranges from the high 30s to the low-mid 40s.
There is NO chance that he can rally 30-40 members. Everyone knows what another Craddick term would look like – just look at his past leadership.
Most members are tired of the turmoil.
There are many more GOPers besides the 11 pledged against Craddick.
Calls are going out today to the 10 Craddick Demomcrats. It’s now or never for them.
Some folks on this blog simply cannot concede reality. It’s over for Craddick.
Reply »
Rusty says:
shortcomings you must be a liberal. See, conservatives think that this thing called the constitution MATTERS, whether it’s for you, against you or indifferent. You don’t get to pick or choose what parts of the constitution you’ll enforce. Hmm…Today I’ll throw out the right of citizens to know how their legislators voted. Tomorrow, perhaps, I’ll throw out the freedom of assembly…Maybe after that, we’ll just throw out the legislature and let Perry run the state by executive order.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
What Texrusk doesn’t get is that those who are truly unifed by ideolgy aren’t even half of Craddick’s total. He might have 25 to 30 from that category.
The number of ABC’s? 11 publicly and 14-15 privately. These are FIRM votes. There are five to ten more that want to jump, but are just being cautious.
Below that are 10-15 “Fraidy-Cat Republicans” who just want to go with the winner.
That puts Craddick’s ’solid to firm’ support in the mid 30’s to low 40’s.
The ego stuff about teh ABC Republicans is BS and Craddick forces are using it as a last minute, desperate tactic.
The ABC guys are talking amongest themselves and intend to do what’s right.
And if Texrusk is implying that Craddick can only lay out 76 votes, then Craddick is toast.
Craddick needs far more than 76 to win. Otherwise every Democrat running in 2010 who votes for Craddick becomes known as the “Democrat who re-elected Tom Craddick.” That’s as quick a way to end a Democratic career in the House as any.
So people reading these comments should be aware of the frustration and tactics of Craddick forces on blogs like this – to confuse the issue and look for ways to alter the momentum which has moved against their candidate.
Reply »
anonymous Reply:
December 23rd, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Are you implying that there would be retribution for the democrats that voted for Craddick versus another republican?
Reply »
Rhino says:
“Respectable and intelligent people like Chairman Hartnett.” Those are two words I NEVER thought I would hear uttered about Sir William. I wish Mrs. Hartnett would stay off of this blog.
After a judiciary hearing, I looked over at a long-time lobbyist and reformed legislator and told the joke about Will’s ears ruining a perfect penis. I hope they make him chair of the water closet.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
December 23rd, 2008 at 5:38 pm
I’m not going to remove this comment, but I am going to ask commenters to treat public servants with respect. This is a standing request. I did not undertake this blog to give readers a chance to spew invective at named individuals.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Rhino, pls move your opinions and fantasies about perfect penises to a different blog. Thank you.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
December 23rd, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Thank you, Anonymous.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
I think Laylin gets it about right. If this group can’t even get together for Merritt’s “Speaker’s Sunnit, how unified are they really?
UNDER THE DOME
View from the speaker’s ’summit’
Saturday, December 20, 2008
View from speaker ’summit’
There was no danger of getting vertigo at the so-called speaker’s summit Wednesday. It was short on summitry.
Only two of the 12 running to be the next speaker of the Texas House, Reps. Tommy Merritt, R-Longview, and Delwin Jones, R-Lubbock, showed up. No word on what the other 10 had to do — Christmas shopping, maybe.
That said, Merritt and Jones repeated their vision for the next speaker. They want the next speaker to be elected by secret ballot, more power for committees and the ability to remove an errant speaker with a majority vote. They oppose fear and intimidation, which prompted a question from Dallas Morning News reporter Karen Brooks: “Where does backbone play into this?”
On term limits, Merritt said of his 84-year-old colleague, Jones: “I think a three-term limit would be fine. I don’t know if he would make the other two. But no one works harder.”
— Laylan Copelin
Reply »
anonymouse1 says:
Pitfall Says:
December 23rd, 2008 at 11:47 am
How about this Paul, since you’re so sure Craddick doesn’t stand a chance, if Craddick wins again will you quit as a Texas Monthly editor (since by then you will have been embarrassed again) and work as one of Craddick’s capital interns?
c’mon, you may not like craddick but he does have some standards.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
December 23rd, 2008 at 7:22 pm
I like Tom Craddick. I don’t like Speaker Craddick.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
December 23rd, 2008 at 7:29 pm
I would love to work as one of Craddick’s capital interns. He has a lot of capital. More likely, I would find myself working as one of his Capitol interns. Not so lucrative.
Reply »
Distinguished Gentleman says:
And the time is now to institute TERM LIMITS on the position of Speaker so that situations like the 6 years of Craddick won’t go on and on and on and on and on for all eternity.
And if Paul feels that term limits on the position of Speaker would cause other House members to run for Speaker NOW for a FUTURE Legislature, then that problem is easily solved by merely fine-tuning the statute that governs the process of electing a Speaker and stipulating within the statute that no member may be a candidate for the position of Speaker more than 18 months prior to the opening day of the particular Regular Session of the Legislature in question.
Reply »
anon says:
Good god man. Everyone who has ever heard of Texas
Monthy knows your stance on Term Limits.
To you: Please stop.
From: Everybody
Reply »
Anonymous says:
To Anonymous at 12:52 pm
I find the Eissler switch surpising as well, as do many. It just doesn’t make sense that Eissler would abandon Craddick to throw in with the ABC’s.
“Some say” that Eissler has “gotten involved” financially with the ABC’s, anyone have any info on that?
Reply »
Tellnitlikeitis Reply:
December 23rd, 2008 at 10:58 pm
Solomons, Straus, Eissler were going to cross over in time; They did. There are others who are where those guys were and who also will make a break – soon.
It’s over (except for the formalities)
Reply »
PS2 says:
Without reading any of the preceding 54 comments to temper my (55th) comment, I think Paul has nailed it. It has seemed for a while that the passion of the ABCs far exceeded the passion of the Craddick Ds. Not important if Craddick has a big cushion, but extremely important if the House is almost evenly split between Rs and Ds.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Anyone else think that if this wasn’t a holiday work week all these capitol staffers would have this much time to write comments?
Reply »
Anonymous says:
To Anonymous at 6:17 pm.
Rumor has it that Eissler’s financial situation is rocky and he may have a loan from one of the other speaker candidates.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Has anyone checked his personal financial statement to verify?
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Hmmm. A spelars candiate making a personal loan to a member. I’m sure Texans for Public Justice will fully investigate this for possible violations of the speakers race statute. And the media will look into it too.
(Holding my breath……..)
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Keep holding your breath… the source is someone named “anonymous” who is qouting a rumor. Yep, that’s solid.
Reply »
ears1foru says:
Maybe he used the loan to buy a fishing cabin.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
now you’ve made me curious. as has been advertised widely< texas watchdog puts all these things online, so I looked up eissler:
http://www.texaswatchdog.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/eissler_w_robert_00051538_364645_2007_000.pdf
check out Part 6. is it just a coincidence that a rep from the woodlands has a loan from the “Corsicana Bank”?
Reply »
Sam says:
Straus was already out as were all of the other guys at the meeting except for Eissler. So _one_ more member came out against the Speaker. This whole deal is a way to make a little non-story into a big one, so I’ve got to give props to the group. At least they know how to spin.
But here’s where I air my doubts about some kind of groundswell: Dunnam has a list…Solomons says that he has a list…the Speaker probably has some kind of list…and hell, I’d even bet Lovely Senfronia and Merritt have lists. If we were to add up the lists, we can all agree that the total would be well over 150. Probably more like double that. So it’s reasonable to assume we’ve got a bunch of triple and double-pledged members–put another way, people who are motivated by fear. When the vote goes down, these are the members who know how much uncertainty and misinfo is out there (after all, they contributed), and they won’t trust the Dunnams and the Solomonses (?) when those folks tell them numbers. So they’ll break towards the known source of power and blame the insurgents for including their names on lists.
Then there are the vaunted Craddick Ds. Question for anti-Craddick Ds: why would one Republican pledged to conservative values be any better than another Republican pledged to conservative values? Note to Craddick Ds: any Republican selling the idea of you “having more of a voice” in the process is insulting you. Flick them off. Craddick Ds only lose ground by supporting anyone except for the Speaker.
And has anyone discussed city-factions yet? Paul, you rightly mentioned “hate” as one of the motivating factors in this deal. The Houston delegation _hates_ the idea of the Dallas delegation getting themselves a Speaker. “Resources for U of H? Um…yeah, we used those for a north Texas law school.” And lest we forget, poor districts _hate_ (or at least strongly resent) rich districts. Remember when Straus was rumored to be throwing his hat in the ring? Really? Every member representing a poor district would get behind a guy from one of the wealthiest districts in the state? I’ll ask again…Really?
Then we’ve got a group that talks big now about ousting the Speaker but on the first day of session, will collapse like a Caddy’s bumper encountering a security pylon. Some of the opposition’s lists feature these names, and again, it’s a group driven by fear…probably fear of not seeming like one of the cool kids (want proof? Which character is cooler–Darth Vader or Han Solo? Han. Hands down. Even though the bad guy has the crazy power, the rebel leader wears a leather jacket, gets the post-Jabba girl, and has a wookie for a pal. In a word, cooler). A bunch of the big talkers sitting around the holiday table, maybe reaching once more for the vino, think they’re ready to blow up the Death Star. My prediction: they’ll end up landing there instead and ordering a delicious beverage from the snack bar. “Just please, pleeeease, don’t put me on any committees dealing with tick infestations,” they’ll think, sipping the beverage then ordering some Bugles.
Where am I going with this tortured narrative involving a highly underrated snack food and a highly overrated movie series? A fractured, divided opposition favors the incumbent, and all these guys have got right now is trying to turn a nothing of a story into a blockbuster. There’ll undoubtedly be a few more of these plays, but those last 24 hours are all that matters, and nobody runs the red zone offense quite like Mr. Craddick. He’s together and he’s the guy with the gavel, so his faction stays with him, the members on the fence pile onto his side, and we’ve got ourselves a good ol’ fashioned beat down. Note to Eissler and Straus: Looking for some holiday reading? Check out books on tick infestations now and be the smartest ex-insurgent on your new committee.
Reply »
anonymous says:
Sam:
That was the most cold blooded analysis I have ever seen. It was accurate too.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
To anonymous at 9.37
well, someone checked Eissler’s stuff out, apparently this stuff is online now.
http://www.texaswatchdog.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/eissler_w_robert_00051538_364645_2007_000.pdf
check out Part 6. is it just a coincidence that a rep from the Woodlands has a personal loan from the “Corsicana Bank”?
Reply »
Anonymous says:
sleepy
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Anonymous at 9.37pm:
Might be more than just a rumor. I just checked on TexasWatchdog.org, Eissler’s personal financial statement shows a personal loan from “Corsicana Bank”. Eissler is from the Woodlands, isn’t he? And isn’t Byron Cook from Corsicana?
Reply »
Anonymous says:
http://www.texaswatchdog.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/eissler_w_robert_00051538_364645_2007_000.pdf
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Actually, the loan that Eissler discloses is from Corsicana National Bank and Trust. And when you check Byron Cook’s statement, Cook is both a director and major shareholder of that bank and its holding company.
Part 3 of Cook’s statement shows another Eissler loan, a 10% personal loan from Cook to Eissler that was due 8/01/07. So if it has not yet been paid off it is now overdue. Eissler did not report this personal loan from Cook on his own disclosure statement.
This all makes Eissler’s sudden “conversion” to the ABC’s somewhat curious, doesn’t it?
Reply »
Rhino says:
PB- You may remove my earlier posting. While I disagree with Hartnett and find him to be just as much of a problem as the past Speaker, it was in poor taste to post that comment.
Reply »