More on the ABCs meeting
I had a conversation with one of the ABCs. His comment: “It didn’t look like they were close to an agreement.”
This does not come from an attendee, but from the proverbial “knowledgeable source”:
The statement following the meeting said that eleven people attended. What it didn’t say was that a twelfth person (the 76th vote) had confirmed intention to attend–but was a no-show. After the meeting, one of the ABCs called Craddick’s office and related everything that happened.
These guys had better get their act together. They are running out of time.
Tagged: abc’s, anyone but craddick, speaker’s race, tom craddick.
Will Hartnett says:
But an “act” is exactly what it is – all hat and no cattle.
Reply »
The Unreal Anon says:
Paul – As I mentioned the other day on your other posting, is there another story here that hasn’t been covered?
Best I can tell, most members of the House are not angry, don’t “hate” Speaker Craddick or anyone else, are reasonably happy with their committee assignments, and believe that most of the disruption last session was much more the product of self interest than any state interest.
It would seem to me that we have become circular in our reasoning on this insurrection business because we tend to only hear comments from one side – the non-11 (they are not unified enough to be considered a block of their own). The silence with regard to the non-11 failing to coalesce around one consensus candidate is deafening.
With only seven days until Cronkite declares the war unwinnable (intended as a complement to Paul and his previous post about January 2nd being a critical line in the sand), the non-11 still haven’t settled things among themselves and presumptively have 64 phone calls to make. That seems like a big task and your right – time is running out.
Reply »
Emeyekaye says:
Paul, are you worried at all about your forum being used to push votes?
… even a tiny little bit?
I think I liked the interweb better when the blogs were written by unknown conspiracy theorists…
At least say you are embarrassed to be slobbered over… “Cronkite?”
Wow.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
December 27th, 2008 at 1:24 am
No, I’m not worried about my forum being used to push votes. I believe that the readers of this blog are sophisticated enough about politics to recognize pushing votes when they see it. I personally am not pushing anything. I try to tell readers what I know. Some things I am not at liberty to say, such as the name of the missing member at the ABC meeting. I trust it is well known by now anyway. Am I embarrassed? Certainly not. I write what I have to say and everybody else can write what they have to say.
Reply »
Ativia says:
Paul, it seems you are willing to print whatever someone tells you if it suits your purpose. How do you have a conversation with an ABC, but not an attendee, and expect us to know for certain what happened at the meeting or the dynamic. And, if 1 person could not attend but is against Craddick, doesn’t that make it 76 members wanting a new speaker? And why would would the attendees want to let Craddick and his cronies(and maybe even you if it wasn’t the person you are supporting) run that person down for 2 weeks over the holidays? In checking the facts by a conversation with an actual attendee, not just a “knowledgeable source,” the group might have come to an agreement on a Republican speaker candidate, but agreed to wait for that reason. Actually pretty smart in my opinion. I guess those guys learned something from what happened last session after all. Contrary to what soon-to-be former chairman Hartnett says in a lame attempt to cast doubt on the meeting and the group, Craddick will not be next session’s speaker. And when others start breaking away from Craddick, I wonder what little ditty Hartnett will have then in defending Craddick?
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
December 27th, 2008 at 1:33 am
To Ativia:
I will print what someone tells me if I consider the source reputable and reliable. Readers are free to judge my reliability for themselves. If they think I don’t know what I’m talking about, they can read some other blog. There are plenty of them out there. My approach to the blog is that the standard for reporting is not as high as that of a MSM publication. The Internet is all about getting information out there and empowering individuals with knowledge. If certain indviduals believe that I am wrong, they have the ability to say so in the space reserved for comments. The Internet tends to be self-correcting. If something I write turns out to be off base, most of the time someone will post the correct information.
Reply »
Will Hartnett says:
I guess I would have to say my strong poker hand was beaten by your two “ifs,” one “might,” one “I guess,” and one “something!”
Reply »
Texas Publius says:
“Against someone who is highly esteemed, conspiracy is unlikely. Attack is also unlikely, so long as he is known to be respected by his subjects as an excellent man. … A prince need take little account of conspiracies if the people are disposed in his favor. If they are opposed and hate him, however, he must fear every incident and every individual. All well-ordered states and all wise princes have been diligent in seeking to avoid exasperating the nobles and in keeping the people satisfied.”
Niccolo Machiavelli’s “The Prince”
Chapter 19
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
December 27th, 2008 at 1:33 am
Didn’t Machiavelli also say that He who builds on the people builds on mud?
Reply »
Nachtwarheight says:
150 petulant children. Where have all the statesmen gone? (Intended as a gender neutral term) Name me 5 Texas House members that would take George Washington’s example to heart and leave office voluntarily. (I’ll spot you Fred Hill and you still can’t get there.) Much more of this and we’ll be left with Tom “my way or the toll way” Craddick and his band of sycophant worshipers who are convinced that there is no one else on the planet capable of being a good, conservative, republican leader of the House.
Craddick backers come in one of three varieties: 1. spineless fraidy cats; 2. hero worshipers; and 3. (the worst kind) the semi aware mediocre – those members who are just smart enough to realize they have limited legislative talent and ability, but not smart enough to enact any good policy for the state of Texas. In a true meritocracy, they would have no opportunity for leadership. (It’s called leadership in a meritocracy, under Craddick it is just called “power”). Under Craddick, these members are able to have Chairmanships and seats on appropriations without a thought or care toward good public policy or stewardship.
Now for the real question: Is it smarter / safer to watch the opening day from the gallery or from the safety of your office? In the gallery you can see the sub-plots away from the mic. You might have some early indication of the outcome. Like watching a hockey game close to the ice. You might catch a great fight break out away from the puck. However, the office is more comfortable and there won’t be any witnesses in case your poker face slips and you let slip your preference for the outcome of any situation. Not to mention the fact that you can enjoy the festivities with the beverage of your choice.
Please forgive the tone of this post. Having spent the Christmas holiday traveling, i arrived back at home in a foul mood with my cynical juices flowing.
Merry Christmas to all. I wish all of you, and your favored Speaker candidate, a safe and healthy New Year.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
The only thing that surprises me is how surprised burka and everyone else is by this story.
This is exactly what has happened to the abc’s three times before. Why would you expect anything different this time?
The Unreal Anon hits the nail on the head. Burka et al miss the boat over and over because they have gotten so used to denying that the “Other 75″ actually do exist.
The ABC’s are 11 loosely united R’s duct-taped together with 60-odd Dems, who have no definite agreement as to who their consensus candidate is.
The long-forgotten “Other 75″ are a group of about 65 R’s and 10 D’s that like and respect Craddick, and definitely respect his ability as a legislator and leader. And even if they disagree with some of his actions from time to time, they realize that comes with any speaker, and they believe that the whole “Darth Vader” persona is a silly one ginned up by the opposition and the media.
The forgotten “Other 75″ aren’t all religiously devoted to Craddick, and they might vote for someone other than Craddick someday, but only for a superior candidate who they feel can better run the House, better negotiate with the Gov and Senate, and better advance their own district’s legislative interests. And they don’t see that alternate candidate out there.
It is Paul et al’s single-minded focus on the complaints and desires of the 75 ABC’s that leads them to totally forget the Other 75, and to therefore consistently mis-predict the events of successive speaker’s races session after session.
For example, I doubt Paul ever actually talks to many of the Other 75, at least not with an open mind that would allow him to actually understand where they are, what they think about things, and why they will once again shock him and vote in Craddick for another term as Speaker.
Reply »
The Unreal Anon Reply:
December 27th, 2008 at 9:33 am
Paul – I’m not a seasoned reporter such as you, but I do believe that most here would be interested to hear the other side of the story.
Reply »
Tellnitlikeitis Reply:
December 27th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
And what exactly is the other side of the story?
The story is quite simple:
Republicans lost 3 more House seats last month, meaning that Craddick’s once comfortable 88-62 GOP majority is down to 76-74 – and would have been 75-75 had the Democrats invested in Harper-Brown’s opponent, who lost by 19 votes.
Craddick’s leadership has been defined by petty vindictfulness, arrogance and mean-spirited revenge. He has lost respect of all but a small handful of Democrats (only those whose ego requirs a committee gavel remain tethered to him); and he has lost close to 20 GOPers – some of whom have not yet broken publicly with him but who are tired of the confict and discord that has marked Craddick’s leadership.
A House that is divided 76-74 requires a much more bipartisan tone and direction. There are not many thinking-members in the body who believe that Tom Craddick can provide such leadership.
Meanwhile, Craddick refuses to talk about his situation. He retreats to the fetal position as is always the case when he doesn’t get his way.
Reply »
anonymous Reply:
December 27th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
The “petty vindictfulness, arrogance and mean-spirited revenge” were coming from the back mic.
A2Z Reply:
December 27th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
…in direct response to the “petty vindictfulness, arrogance and mean-spirited revenge” coming from the podium.
Easy as ABC says:
Any word on whether Cook is dropping out? I believe he should. The real hero here is Keffer who came out first against Craddick, chickened out and stood at the back of the room during the “walk-out” roll call vote last session, backed Strama in 2006 against a strong conservative, and backed two Ds in East Texas when there were strong Rs running against them.
Have any votes swung to Kolkhorst since she started making calls?
Reply »
Tellnitlikeitis Reply:
December 27th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
Anon at 6:37….
“Absolute power” came from the very front mic.
Reply »
anonymous Reply:
December 28th, 2008 at 10:26 am
You are correct. There is plenty of blame to go around as is usually the case in any disagreement.
Some of the 75 insurgents(if there are that many)want a new speaker because they disagree with Craddick but most just want to reshuffle the deck so they can hold a gavel in a committee.
Reply »
A2Z Reply:
December 28th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Maybe some of them want to reshuffle the deck so they can actually represent their constituency. Isn’t that possible, too?
windmill says:
This was in the LA Weekly this week:
“Embarrassingly, Texas, the state most comparable to California in size, in its badly tanking economy and culturally challenging demographics, has zero deficit.
Californians might resent comparison to the Lone Star State. Gov. Rick Perry is a Republican who did not let his budget reel out of control by spending riches from the housing boom, while Arnold acted as if it would last forever, approving budgets that increased overall government spending by 40 percent — in just four years. Perry and a handful of governors resisted temptation, squirreled away fat reserves — did, in fact, exactly what Schwarzenegger promised to do.”
http://www.laweekly.com/2008-12-25/news/schwarzenegger-8217-s-lost-year/
Although Perry gets credit here, Craddick should also be proud of his contributions regarding the Texas budget. Texans need to wake up to reality. Making tough decisions beyond your own self interests will not make you Mr. Popular.
The ABC’s are petty and not up to the assignment.
Reply »
Shine the Light says:
So Paul. I know most everyone is off enjoying the holidays, but do you have anything new to report on all of the phone calls that are allegedly being made to members? With 12 announced candidates for Speaker all making calls, plus the not yet announced candidates like Kolkhorst, the big winners here are ATT, Sprint, and Verizon!
Reply »
Texrusk says:
It’s pretty laughable when people call Craddick mean-spirited and vindictive, but give Jim Dunnam a pass. Since 2003, Dunnam has been the single greatest impediment to legislative progress in Texas. He’s blown up the session more times than I can remember and has stabbed his fellow Democrats in the back when they deigned to do something bipartisan.
And yet the whole logic here is that some Republican is going to sign some kind of truce with this guy and expect full support for a moderate agenda. It would be the worst example of misplaced trust since that which Joe Stalin had in 1939.
Reply »