The speaker’s race: The 1/2/09 meeting
The ABCs have said that they will choose a candidate on January 2. How are they going to do this? Will they decide among themselves? Will the Democrats have a say in the selection process? Will the pool of candidates grow? Who would make the best candidate?
The important thing to remember about this discussion is that I am starting with an assumption that some readers will disagree with: that the insurgents have the numerical advantage and that their biggest hurdle is to come up with a credible candidate who can get 76 or more votes. I think this assumption is accurate today, but if January 2 comes and goes without a credible alternative to Craddick emerging, then the unsurgency will fall apart. The weaknes of the insurgency all along has been that it is a leaderless operation. Two years later, it still is.
I think that the best candidate for speaker is someone who isn’t in the race: John Smithee. He is one of the few members who actually has a following on the floor. His integrity and his respect for the legislative process are above reproach. I know that overtures have been made to him. He can bring “clean hands” to the race because he is not an ABC, nor is he a Craddick-hater; he would run only to restore fair dealing to the House. About the only thing against him is that he would be yet another rural speaker. Oh, and one other thing. He isn’t a candidate. Yet.
Staying with the non-filers, what about Gattis? He is one of the most talented members of the House. He didn’t have a good meeting with the Democrats–he stuck up for Keel–and some of them see him as a stalking horse for Craddick. I worry that Gattis doesn’t have enough seasoning to assume a leadership responsibility, or whether he is willing to smooth the rough edges of his ideology. Some members regard him as brash and abrupt. So what? Talent covers a multitude of shortcomings.
Now, to the ABCs. Merritt and Jones are not front-line candidates. Geren won’t jump in. Pitts shredded his credibility in 07. Keffer charged halfway up the hill and pulled back. That leaves Cook, Kuempel, McCall, Solomons, Strauss.
Cook was a Ten Best legislator in 2007. He did a great job as a rookie, non-lawyer chair of Civil Practices, forging compromises on controversial legislation. His personal privilege speech against Craddick last session was one of the early shots fired by the insurgency. He is not the hale fellow well met type; his strengths are his success in the business world and his quiet determination to bring about change.
Kuempel is the hale fellow well met type. That’s his strength. He is nonideological and nonthreatening, and that makes him very acceptable to the Democrats and to members who want to return to the easy going Laney days. Kuempel’s problem is a lack of gravitas. I think he’s underrated, but it’s hard to see him emerging from the ABC meeting as the choice to take on Craddick.
McCall (not filed yet) was a strong critic of Craddick’s candidacy for speaker in 2003, and he wrote a prescient letter to his colleagues about why Craddick would not make a good speaker. Democrats trust him. He has the understanding of the process, and the sense of fairness, to be a great speaker, and his intelligence and mastery of issues place him in the top rank of House meembers. But memories of the debacle of 2007 are still fresh, and I think they are going to be hard to overcome.
Solomons is a master of the rules and a tough opponent in floor debate. He may encounter some jealousy from other ABC’s over the prospect of being a “last in, first out” speaker candidate. If he is the candidate, his mainstream Republican credentials will help him with wavering Craddick supporters but will hurt him with Democrats. Not the sort to suffer fools gladly, he can be abrasive, and that could be a problem.
Straus (not filed yet) brings impeccable Republican credentials to the table. If he were elected, there would be no retaliation by the Republican estblishment against the members who voted to defeat Craddick, because the Strauses ARE the establishment. He is probably the most moderate Republican in the House. Good for Democrats. Bad for conservatives. Straus has a great political future, but speaker in 2009 is too much too soon.
If the ABCD coalition holds firm, any of these candidates should be able to win. If it doesn’t, the absolute best bet to defeat Craddick is Smithee.
Politico says:
Interesting analysis. I think Democrats are eyeing 2010 and want to make sure that a Republican speaker, even a moderate one, will not spoil their plans to maximize their seats during redistricting in 2011.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
December 24th, 2008 at 9:08 am
I think the Democrats would be better advised to think about spoiling Republican plans to maximize their seats in 2011.
Reply »
ears1foru says:
Paul, what if Geren got in.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
December 24th, 2008 at 9:07 am
He has told me before that he doesn’t want to run around the state sucking up to rich people, which is what you have to do to run for speaker.
Reply »
Floozikins Reply:
December 25th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Geren won’t get in.
Reply »
texxasredd says:
Gattis??!! Puh-leeze. If he’s one of the most talented members in the house, we’re in a heap of trouble here in Texas. Granted, he can deliver talking points with great skill, but shilling for the speaker is his only skill. Shame on you Paul Burka for falling for such a ruse.
If the members are dumb enough to even think about Craddick-hack Gattis, are they dumb enough to be “surprised” when he demurs to let Craddick have the speakership again?
Craddick continues with the same whine he’s used the last two sessions..”I need just one last session”.
Poppycock and poppyrot.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
December 24th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Gattis has been independent on tort reform issues and has taken the lead in crafting compromises. He was one of the first members at the back mike during the revolt on the local calendar, against Charlie Howard. If this is shilling for Craddick, we need more Shills like Gattis.
Reply »
anonymouse1 says:
gattis is nothing but an arrogant jerk. though it doesn’t translate specifically to being speaker, a member’s constituent service says a lot about his character and purpose. in gattis’ case, his constituent service ranks worse than glenda dawson’s, and i mean today.
Reply »
Floozikins says:
The Panhandle is not reflective of this state, so I’m not sure Smithee would be the best Speaker (unless he’s just transitional). Gattis shot himself in the foot with his notorious just filed HJR and furthermore, I heard he did not necessarily think Keel should go.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
At least Paul recognizes that Merritt and Jones are a JOKE so some progress in this insurgency debate is being made.
RINO Keffer – Any Republican who votes for Keffer is toast if they have a primary opponent due to Keffer’s close association with the far left, like liberal Mark Strama. During the 2006 election cycle RION Keffer appeared on several mail pieces endorsing Strama and his ultra leftwing agenda. Again this past election he openly supported liberals Chuck Hopson and Mark Homer over qualified, serious Republican candidates. As we all know, Hopson only won by a few votes and the withdrawal of an election contest. Clearly, RINO Keffer has made a difference losing seats for the GOP.
RINO Kuempel – I can’t recall if this guy has ever even passed a meaningful piece of legislation. Wasn’t he chair of the recreation committee that allowed our park system to become so dilapidated that we are now in the position of spending millions just to catch up because of his neglect? The only viable thing you hear about this guy is that if you need a good strong drink you can head up to his office and always find a bottle open. If the members are looking to make the Texas House like the Louisiana Legislature on Mardi Gras then I guess this is your man.
RINO McCall – On Thursday, December 28, 2006 at 11:34 AM CST Burnt Orange Report called RINO McCall a “moderate Republican” when they announced that Mr. Talton would support him. Any Republican who gets called moderate by Burnt Orange Report is probably one step short being a card carrying communist given the extreme left standards that are espoused at Burnt Orange Report. Additionally, McCall has a weak pro-life record and has been openly endorsed by homosexual organizations in his district.
RINO Cook – This back stabber is one odd duck. He gets made chairman of a powerful committee and then turns around and bites the hand that feeds him. His and his staff pulls some shenanigans to get paid for working out-of-state on committee business. This guy is way to fast and loose with the rules to ever be a credible option for speaker – unless you live in Colorado and want to meet with the Speaker’s staff.
RINO Solomons – this guy surely isn’t a “master of the rules.” The reason that everyone knows that Solomons has temper is because he has been beaten so many times on so many procedural issues on the floor that he throws one of his temper tantrums and runs crying to his desk to be one of four people to vote no on a bill. This guy is so unreliable that when he was chair of Sunset agencies worked tirelessly to find ways to not have him involved in their legislation. He fancies himself a Steve Wolens but at least Mr. Wolens actually learned an issue before he engaged people. He seems to only skim through issues enough to rant and rave about them on the floor.
RINO Straus – I can’t believe that Paul would call this guy a credible candidate for Speaker. He has never run a real political race in his life. He was handed a seat when Elizabeth Ames Jones left for her current gig at the Railroad Commission and hasn’t had a tough race ever. This guy couldn’t advise any member with a tough district how to go about maneuvering through the legislative session. Part of being a good speaker is having a vast body of political experience from which other members can benefit.
Reply »
Ativa Reply:
December 24th, 2008 at 11:08 am
Responding to the 10:27am posting. From reading your posting, one can only assume that you are a Craddick R or Craddick D about to lose your chairmanship, or wanna be chairmanship. It is the kind of crazed dribble that insults the intelligence of the members who know these people.
Reply »
Floozikins Reply:
December 25th, 2008 at 10:49 am
Jesus.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Gattis and Keel are friends but he has been asking members and others who should replace him. Plus the membership wouldn’t allow it. So thinking Keel stays under a Gattis speakership (or any other speakership other than Craddick) is erroneous.
Reply »
Anon says:
Just a comment on Solomons. He is not or ever been an “ABC” or “insurgent” and stood up to Craddick by filing for Speaker in a timely manner for the 81st Session. Solomons’ loss of faith in Craddick to lead the House under the current circumstances shows vision and leadership. Paul, you even commended him along with Smithee after last session for the work he’s done in past sessions. I haven’t talked to anyone on the Democratic side that has a problem with Solomons being Speaker. Generally, they believe he is a Republican that will at least listen, just as he always did when he was carrying legislation. He is the kind of Republican Speaker who will be a Republican Speaker but understands how the House is supposed to work, will use the talent in the House to get issues addressed, and respects the membership with strong relationships on both sides of the aisle. Don’t discount Solomons as an experienced, very viable candidate for non-ABC Republicans and Democrats that will be able to guide the House through what appears to be a most difficult session.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
December 24th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
I agree with Anon, above. I think Solomons’ work in the rules debate in 07 gives him credibility with the Democrats. The RINO obsessed Anonymous at 10:27 a.m. says that Solomons had problems with the chairs of Sunset agencies, but my memory is that the problems were with Phil King. That isn’t a bad mark; it’s a good mark.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Hey Paul, just for discussion sake and if all the wheels fall off, let’s talk about other dark horse candidates or tier 2 candidates (just to stir the pot) – Chisum, Swinford, Driver, Hunter, F. Brown, and Branch.
Reply »
Not The Real Anon Reply:
December 24th, 2008 at 11:35 am
11:09 post – Chisum, nice guy but don’t need another West Texas Speaker. Also, always has a social agenda; Swinford, see Chisum; Driver, nice guy but…; Hunter, nice guy but just got re-elected, chairmanship talent; F. Brown, nice guy but …; and Branch, nice guy but not enough tv cameras in Texas to cover him as Speaker. Also, has another political agenda in mind. And, as to Gattis, see Branch comments.
Reply »
The Real Anon says:
Anon 11:01
Excellent review of the Solomons situtation.
10:27: When you reach the point of personal attacks and name calling (RINO) it is clear to me you know you are losing.
Like any campaign, the person who is attacking has usually seen some polling they didn’t enjoy. I guess it hasn’t been a good week for the “faithful”.
I do hope there are lifeboats still waiting for you a week from now.
Reply »
twotimes says:
10:27, you’re the RINO: Really Ignorant Name-calling Oaf.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Solomons, like all the filed, and unfiled, candidates has problems on both sides of the aisle, not one is perfect. The question is obviously who can put together a majortiy of both sides to win this thing. You cannot govern with only a majority of the D’s or a majority of the R’s. This is going to boil down to a good old fashioned coalition building speakers race in my opinion. Solomons may have been out there with the ABC’s too long with no traction amongst other Republicans to make it. As to Smithee, Chisum and Swinford – another rural and/or west texas speaker doesn’t sit well with many members regardless of their respect for that member. To put the deal together someone will need to be rural enough for the rurals and suburban enough for the urban & surburban reps without being from one of the major metro areas because we all know that Houston, Dallas and SA will not want that type of control in the hands of one of the other major metro areas even though they do want it for themselves. That limits the field quite dramatically. It’s fun to to talk about but who knows?
Reply »
Anonymous says:
The rest of the ABC’s will never vote for Solomons.
Reply »
Ben Quick Reply:
December 25th, 2008 at 7:34 am
then they are not ABCs
Reply »
Outsider says:
My, that’s a pretty bold statement. And you would know that how?
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Isn’t Cook carrying too much baggage from the Ghost Employee imbroglio?
Also, I imagine members are a bit concerned by Eissler’s sudden “conversion” to supporting Cook for Speaker, which seems to coincide with his receiving two lifesaver personal loans, one from Cook and one from the Corsicana Bank where Cook is a director (all public info on the texaswatchdog website). Won’t members see this type of arrangement as dirty pool? If not a violation of the speaker’s race statute?
McCall/Pitts had their chance and might be seen as old news, Keumpel is well-liked but not seen as a speaker figure, Straus and Gattis are too young.
Seems like Solomons and Keffer are the stronger candidates. More experienced, more seasoning. My money is on Solomons.
Reply »
Anon says:
How long do you think it will take until Solomons blows his top once he isn’t selected as the Jan 2nd consensus candidate?
Reply »
The Unreal Anon says:
Jan 2nd consensus candidate? LOL! Odds are pretty low that there will actually be an announcement on January 2nd?
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
December 24th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
No announcement on January 2 = end of the speaker’s race. Didn’t these guys learn anything from 2007?
Reply »
Frisky Dingo says:
Historically, the alternate speaker crowd has a poor track record of performing when it comes to these press conferences. I am reminded of the Most Awkward Press Conference Ever of 2007 when McCall and Pitts stood before a full House Approps chamber defending their candidacy against Craddick, only to fail a few weeks later. This press conference was originally hyped to include a room full of supporters, all of whom failed to appear. Then there was the early November press conference hosted by Keffer that failed to happen.
I question if there will ever be a press conference on the second. I have two reasons for this. The first is that I don’t think any of the stated R candidates is a viable consensus candidate. Second, if another individual were to emerge as the new consensus candidate over the next nine days — two of which are holidays — then surely there would be a public indication of such a phenomenon. I cannot imagine 76 members of the Texas House being able to keep their mouths shut about anything as significant as who the new consensus speaker may be. Until you start reading official press releases and clatter on these blogs about a certain individual, that is substantiated by individuals other than “Anon” or “Frisky Dingo”, then the likelihood of a successful press conference for the opposition on the second continues to diminish.
Reply »
Benevolus says:
Safe bet #1 – if the ABCs CAN screw something up, they WILL. That includes Jan 2.
Safe bet #2 – this ain’t 2007. The math isn’t there for Craddick. It’s not even close. Even members’ fear can’t get him to 76 this time.
Safe bet #3 – the next Speaker won’t be from West Texas, even though Smithee, Chisum, and Swinford are well-liked
Safe bet #4 – the next Speaker will be Solomons or Gattis, despite each of their obvious flaws. And when the race is over, they will work together, not as adversaries.
Reply »
The Unreal Anon says:
Benevolus – I’ll take safe bet #1. I need a bit more info to go with #2, #3, or #4. Especially #4 – I can’t see Solomons working with anyone if he loses (he does tend to get pretty upset when he doesn’t have his way).
Reply »
Anonymous says:
I hear Mr. King has the hard conservatives quietly but firmly organized to stand by Speaker Craddick.
Is every one forgetting that there are a lot of Ds who like their committee positions under Speaker Craddick and know they won’t be a chair under a new regime? So why would they take a risk on a shake up and a possible bad committee assignment?
If any of the 11 insurgents cave and allow someone else to be their consensus candidate they are conceding that they will never be speaker during their career. Is Keffer, Solomons, or Kuempel really ready to concede that forever? Not a chance.
Ask the lobby why they call Mr. Solomons “King Solomons.” Because he is an absolute Chicago-style shake down artist when it comes to contributions.
Is there a DA investigation currently being conducted regarding Mr. Cook and his ghost employee?
Reply »
Ativa Reply:
December 24th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
5:24pm posting response – Didn’t you mean the “absolute Chicago-style shake down artist” is from Midland? Go ask the lobby about Craddick.
Reply »
Ben Quick Reply:
December 25th, 2008 at 7:43 am
I’m not sure either can meet Perry’s established bar.
Reply »
San Antonian says:
Please note that the cemented, solid block of Craddick supporters are all in agreement to a key watershed: Upon the trigger of Mr. Craddick deciding that he cannot achieve the goal, Mr. Craddick will so advise the block, and this core group will take the (plentiful) time to select The Alternate. And, yes, it certainly will not be any of the presently-announced candidates (including Stauss, et. al.) The Alternate, upon such trigger, would come from the present incumbent support block.
Reply »
Will Hartnett Reply:
December 24th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Very logical post!
Reply »
Ben Quick Reply:
December 25th, 2008 at 7:57 am
Oh!, I’m sure all these good republicans are just waiting patiently – to support another speaker candidate (picked by Craddick) – who’ll give 9-10 committee chairs to 9-10 marginally mediocre democrats – at the expense of fellow republican?
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Why would the Dems ever join together to put one of these moderate R’s in the Speaker chair? If they did they’d actually have to work with that R speaker. Wouldn’t they much rather have Craddick in the chair so they (and the media) can continue to villify him, and use him again as a campaign theme going into 2010?
I just don’t see the dems really getting behind any of these abc’s. There’s nothing in it for them.
Reply »
Checkmate says:
To anon 12-24 5:24p.m.
“I hear Mr. King has the hard conservatives quietly but firmly organized to stand by Speaker Craddick.”
If Craddick needs 76 to be elected Speaker, and there are 76 Republicans, 11 of whom have publically declared that they are not voting for him, then Craddick needs not only the conservatives (of which there are not 76) his current Craddick Dems (Deshotel, Dukes, Dutton, Edwards, the-soon-to-be-indicted Flores, Giddings, Tracey King, Pena, Quintanilla, Sly Turner, and supposedly Rios-Ybarra), but also more Democrats to make up for his rapidly depleting moderate Republicans – currently 11. So there are 75 Democrats, 11 of which are already with Craddick. That leaves 64. Craddick can’t get anymore votes – there’s no more to get.
“Is every one forgetting that there are a lot of Ds who like their committee positions under Speaker Craddick and know they won’t be a chair under a new regime? So why would they take a risk on a shake up and a possible bad committee assignment?”
1) Several of the Craddick D’s are not Chairs – Yet. 2) There are some Craddick D’s who are still seen as moderate and not having carried Craddick’s water except on a Speaker’s vote and can still be in the next Speaker’s good graces and they know it.
To Anon 12-24 at 6:25 pm:
“Why would the Dems ever join together to put one of these moderate R’s in the Speaker chair?”
Um,…..to pass a bill. The legislature works because the members have a tacid agreement that everyone gets to at least pass their local stuff and maybe some of their policy stuff and most everyone will grin and bear voting for the budget because it must be done and there is safety in numbers. But, the movement to oust Craddick at the end of last session didn’t really start up again until the issue with the Local and Consent Calendars. Members who didn’t support Craddick weren’t getting their local bills passed. And I say members who support Craddick, not just D’s because those who actually watch session will remember the explosion which happened when a Craddick D’s local bill was kicked off Local and Consent and was added to the Major State Calendar. So, to answer your question anon – why would Dems put a moderate R in the Speaker’s Chair, even if they lose their Chairmanships under Craddick, even if they don’t get a Democrat Speaker – because they get a fair shot at playing the game. That’s all. A chance to do what they were elected to do and represent their constituents. As chance to pass bills which matter to their folks back home. A new court of law. A bypass around their little town. A capitol improvement district to build a park. All politics is local.
Reply »
anon says:
It is interesting to me to note that there are several references to Solomons ‘temper’. I consider myself a decent observer of the House and for the life of me I can’t remember a blow-up involving Solomons on the floor or in Committee. I do remember, as Burka mentioned, some tense debate w p king, but nothing along the lines of a meltdown. I am with you on that one Paul. Any standing up to p king is a good thing for Texas.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
To Checkmate-
1. The Dems already have a currently indicted member voting against Craddick(Hodge)…so why try to smear Kino more with your assumptions on his fate?
2. There are lots of open chair opportunities for Dems who want to get something done in their districts in the next session…
So why would they be assumed to play ball with whomever the 11 R’s choose?
3. Maybe you’re too new to remember Yvonne Davis as chair of Local and Consent and her notorious retribution to Republicans who might have wanted to pass a local bill, but were not allowed to do so? Talk about iron fisted leadership…she’s one tough cookie.
To Paul-
Cleaver technique to talk to the 11 anti-Craddick R’s and have then leak Smithee…so you could “scoop” everyone and say that you were right when they put his name forth. It is curious that you have just now made this prediction. Pretty slick and it took only one phone call for you…
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
December 25th, 2008 at 1:32 am
I have had a few phone conversations with the ABCs. In none of these has Smithee’s name been mentioned, by me or by a member. I do appreciate the reference to my “cleaver” technique. I guess that makes me a hack journalist.
Reply »
cookinwithcraddick says:
Dont worry, craddick will really win over the voters with this video..http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhY_0LiYC3A
Reply »
Pat says:
Anonymous @ 10:27am
Oh, how True Believers make me laugh. Remember, a closed mind is a wonderful thing to lose.
Reply »
Pat says:
Question for San Antonian @ 5:24pm on Dec. 24
Lets say The Alternate comes forward. Wouldn’t everybody know The Alternate’s true colors if/when a significant proportion of the Craddick D’s board the Alternative Train? And wouldn’t that derail the Alternative Train?
What happens to the ABC’s? Some of them probably sing Alternative. A few with personal or other loyalties might continue to sing Guerilla Radio.
So the real question for the insurgency works like this: if The Alternative comes to pass, who among the ABC’s could still put together a winning coalition of ABCD’s?
These corollaries apply: who among the Craddick D’s and ABC’s will sing Alternative, and who among them will sing Guerilla Radio?
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Burka makes some interesting points and so do a handful of commenters.
If Craddick drops out, the Phil Kings of this world simply don’t have the vote to put it together. That core, with threats intimidation or incumbency, has no way to put together 76. There’s a good chance that Craddick D’s scatter and a few scardy-cat Republicans bolt to the center.
I did not realize the stuff on Keffer and Mark Strama although I heard about Cook and Merritt and some of the others. McCall is running for the State Senate & everybody pretty well knows it. No one mentions his name except Burka.
Supporting any Democrat over a Republican in a contested race promises a short career for any new Speaker. THose that do not understand this don’t undertand Republican electoral politics or the boundaries that both Laney AND Craddick have operated within in this regard.
Joe Straus is not establishment Republican. It’s interesting that Burka still thinks of him that way. He is very much outside the mainstream of the party. Straus is pro-abortion and pro-gambling and is highly vulnerable to a primary challenge if conservatives in San Antonio would just get their act in gear. But given that they keep sending Frank Corte back to Austin, that really is no surprise.
Paul Burka may respect Dan Gattis, but I can hardly find a member in either party that does not consider him insufferable. He has meddled in other Members legislation – often uninvited – and that takes its toll on a member’s reputation and image.
Best quote I heard on Dan Gattis from a current House member: “The only bills that would pass the House would be bills authored by Speaker Gattis.”
Byron Cook is the best member running but he did endorse Democrats over Republicans and that could cost him his seat in the primary in two years (that combined with the investment mess he and Rep. Paxton got into that the Fort Worth Star-Telegram reported about).
I disagree with Burka on making such absolute statements like “If they don’t have a candidate on January 2 it all falls apart.” That is just foolish to make predictions with such finality. That’s also a statement pro-Craddick forces commenting on here love for you to make.
This situation is 1980 all over again. The House went looking for a leader and found Gib Lewis – a total unknown. It happened in 24 hours.
I suspect Anti-Craddick forces will go into a room and agree to a process – multiple ballots amongst themselves; perhaps laying out pledge cards. I suspect that anyone in the room that does not agree to the process and does not agree to support the winner will have their motives questions and might get excluded. It reminds me of when all those singers went into record the song “We are the World” – they were required to think of the greater good and told to check their ego at the door or not come at all.
Look, there may not be some dramatic press conference afterwards where everyone walks out singing “kum-bye-ya.” This is not Washington and they are not trotting out of a House Conference leadership vote to announce the winners to all the cameras.
But something will emerge. There will be other members not in attendance that will have to be contacted, reached out to; some members like to at least be kissed before they get hitched or sold on the auction block.
But I do predict within 48 hours of that meeting one candidate or momentum towards one candidate will take shape.
And with that, a new chapter in the Texas House will begin.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
December 25th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
This poster is exactly right. It doesn’t matter what Phil King and the hardcore R’s do. If they were a majority, the speaker’s race would be over now. They’re not, and it’s not. If the ABCD’s elect the next speaker, King will be a TXU lobbyist by this time next year.
Reply »
The Unreal Anon Reply:
December 25th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Paul – Why does it matter what a handful of Ds (the 64) do but not what a handful of Rs (the King group) do?
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
December 25th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
Because the D’s and the ABC’s have 75 votes.
The Unreal Anon Reply:
December 25th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
So simple math says that the Non-ABCs have 75 as well (150-the 75 ABCs = 75). I guess I’m just wondering if there is another story here that isn’t being covered.
Anon says:
Latest information says that Eppstein is working hard on getting the 11 to back Solomons but that Kuempel and Keffer are holding out.
Kuempel and Keffer are probably right to hold out against the plans of a consultant who lost two critical races right in his own back yard (Brimer and Leonard). Especially Keffer who was the first to come out and go public in his efforts to be speaker.
Also, Kolkhorst is making calls to see if the 11 might support her as the first woman speaker.
Reply »
Boxer Reply:
December 25th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
LOL, where are getting your information Anon at 10:10am? Is that another rumor being spread by the Craddick team to discredit Solomons? Or maybe Keumpel is spreading the rumor because he knows that none of the non-ABC Republicans can or will support him. But since we are talking about rumors, the “latest information” is that Kolkhorst is a stalking horse for the Craddick team. Gee, this new computer finally works!! Merry Christmas.
Reply »
anonymous says:
I am just a long time casual observer but I can tell you what other calls are being made. The smart democratic members are calling speaker craddick and volunteering every time one of the republican chairman fall off the wagon. The ones that aren’t doing that are missing the whole point of a speaker’s race. That is the way this game is played.
Reply »
Tellnitlikeitis Reply:
December 25th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
Unreal Anon at 7:25…
Assuming that your side has 75 votes, well, it takes 76 to win. So you are short.
But assuming 75 votes is a bad assumption.
Last month, no one had Solomons, Straus, Eissler on the ABC list.
There are others …. at least a half dozen GOPers …. who realize that Craddick can’t be elected speaker and who will soon break – just as Solomons, Straus, Eissler did.
Reply »
aaanon says:
I think we could split the duties between Gattis, Branch and Kolkhorst, by the time they finish telling each other all they know, the session would be over.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
I talked with three ABC’s over the past two days; none of them mentioned Solomons in speculating what might happen.
That does not mean it will not happen, but it says his name isn’t the one coming to mind when they speak up, so I think the rumor reported by Anonymous at 10:10 am does not hold up.
I can tell you I have proably talked to as many ABC’s as any non-member and I can say I have no idea what will happen except that I do believe they will stick together to end this thing and get behind one member.
The Eppstein rumor – if true – is very, very disturbing. Would that mean we are replacing the Messer-Toomey-Jones undue influence in the Speaker’s office with the Eppstein undue influence? The ABC’s need to address this and do it soon.
For the future of the GOP, the Kolkhorst choice would be SMART, but I don’t know that is the highest priority or on the fornts of the mind of the members – they just want Craddick to go.
I would not count Kuempel out, there are a number of GOP members who aren’t on either list who would have no trouble supporting Edmund for Speaker.
The members just want someone fair with no agenda who won’t be a dilatente for certain Lobbyists.
Reply »
Another Anon says:
Cook needs to drop out of this race and make way for Kuempel, Solomons or Keffer. The way I see it Cook has two problems that will hurt his chances.
1. There is speculation that he is under investigation by a DA for employing ghost employees in another state.
2. Information on this blog suggests that he has some financial ties to other members who are now supporting him when they apparently have no other reason to be.
Reply »
Floozikins says:
I think the Ds would take Eppstein over Toomey/Messer. Bryan has been a consistent moderate in the past. Didn’t Eppstein say he would not help someone who ran against Laney?
Reply »
anon says:
Kuempel should drop out too. He couldn’t pass a major piece of legislation if his life depended on it. Think the Speaker should have a little more knowledge than that. Make him in charge of all the parties and he would be a great hit.
Reply »
Reality Check says:
Since when was Jim Dunnam ordained as king maker? I find it very curious that each of the ABCs keeps going to him on the assumption that he has some control over the 64 Ds. The fact of the matter is, Dunnam has never had any control over the 64 and that is why they have never been able to close the deal. Dunnam wasn’t able to deliver before last session, he wasn’t able to deliver during last session and he isn’t able to deliver now.
Most of the Ds in the Texas House are independent thinkers who know how to cut their own deals and don’t need to be lead by Dunnam. Hence the reason that Craddick has several Ds who strongly support him and others who are still talking to him.
The best thing for the Ds to do now is to move Dunnam out and look to their more intellectual and respected leaders like Thompson, Villarreal, Oliveira, Martinez Fischer, or Anchia.
Negotiating with Dunnam just doesn’t sit well with most Rs. As long as the ABCs are constantly looking to him for approval and delivery of the 64 (a group he has no control over) they cannot possibly build a coalition against Craddick
Reply »
Morning Statesman says:
Since I’m going to be teaching Speaker poly-sci and the lege at UT someday, all you serious students of the House, please listen up. (Not so fast Paul)
1. Tom Craddick will be reelected
2. He deserves to be
3. Wise, prinicipled, experienced, devoted family man, cares about policy.
3. If Scorcese were to cast a Texas Republican House Speaker, he would look like Craddick.
4. As most members know, having Terral Smith there is a sea change. The man could do any job in the House. Little changes are brewing which portends a much different, positive, productive, 81st session.
5. As for why the angst? First, the D’s are having trouble being in the minority. Second, all members want to be Speaker. Those who have come forward, just see an opportunity, however illusory, that’s all.
6. Years ago there was a member, Joe Hubenak, who liked to yell, when there were too many going to the front mike, “Vote”
7. Vote!
Reply »
Floozikins says:
You’d be better off applying for a job at Ameriquest due to your lack of political insight, Morning Statesman.
Reply »
The Unreal Anon Reply:
December 26th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
Floozikins – why would you say Morning Statesman has no political insight? I found the post to be both well reasoned with a bit of historical context.
Reply »
MyNameisEarl says:
To Reality Check at 10:25 – Thanks for discussing Dunnam. Far too little credit has been thrown his way for the succesful campaign he is waging to tear apart the R’s. Dunnam and the gang have registered numerous victories to date and R members (see the meeting of 11)just keep flocking to their promise of 64 votes (real or not) hoping to be the chosen leader. All the while, Dunnam, et al have positioned the debate to fall negatively at the R’s feet regardless of the outcome. If Craddick is re-elected under serious in-fighting then the party is further fractured and Dunnam, et al win. If an ABC is elected at the hands of 64 D’s then Dunnam, et al have substantial control over the next speaker…thus, he wins again. Under the preceding scenario if an ABC is, in fact, elected speaker with 64 D votes then the R’s will fight amongst themselves even further with the same result….Dunnam, et al winning.
The D’s have stood quietly and watched R members tear each other apart…..all the D’s do is keep picking up seats each cycle.
The fact is that there are a strong block of R votes (probably 50-60)that will NOT vote with any candidate other than one picked from within their ranks. In other words, they will not go along with Dunnam as King Maker. This will ensure any candidate (i.e. Solomons, Straus, Cook, Keffer, etc) the wrath of the party next primary cycle for essentially letting the fox fully into the hen house. That person, whoever it is, will be a one term speaker at best…..but then again, that’s just what Dunnam, et al want isn’t it?
At the end of the day, Dunnam et al have played this game(and these R’s)decidedly to their advantage with the coup de gras likely coming next election cycle unless these R’s wise up, figure out a way to mend their differences internally and dance with the one(s) that brung ‘em.
Reply »