No Time for Tom
Everyone wants to attend Craddick’s funeral, but the corpse is still breathing—barely. One more nail in the awaiting coffin: The Democrats published their names. It’s vital, as January 13 approaches, that the insurgents do everything possible to bolster their credibility, and the best way to do that was lay out the names. The most important thing about this list is that the D’s won over the five members whom I had previously identified as the most likely new recruits for Craddick: Heflin, Marquez, Olivo, Quintanilla, and Rios Ybarra. The pool of members from which Craddick can plausibly seek votes has shrunk. The bad news for the insurgents is that the Democratic leadership has not been able to win over any of the Craddick D’s. Why should they commit to either side now? Sylvester Turner is playing his cards well. At the crucial moment, he may be the kingmaker.
But events may have overtaken the Democrat-ABC coalition that has 75 votes against Craddick. Gattis’s candidacy for speaker provides members with a chance to realign in coalitions FOR someone instead of merely against. Suddenly the timing is off for the ABCs. Their announcement of a candidate won’t come until the end of the week, and in the meantime Gattis can be adding to his list of supporters, currently reported to be three (Kolkhorst, Hamilton, Harless).
Those who have said that Gattis’s announcement gives the insurgents 76 votes against Craddick are wrong. Gattis is not an ABC. He is a mainstream Republican. I would bet a hundred bucks that he is not committed to be the 76th vote.
Is it too late for Gattis? (or Smithee, who says he will decide in the next 48 hours?) Not necessarily. I think there is a constituency out there for a coalition of the uncommitted–the members on both sides of the aisle who make the process work and know that Craddick has lost the ability to govern. It’s the R’s and D’s who aren’t comfortable with the current leadership of their parties and want to move on beyond Craddick. It’s Kolkhorst and Hamilton, Branch and Madden, Anchia and Eiland, Hochberg and Strama. Some will view Gattis as a stalking horse for Craddick. I don’t believe it. Nobody who went to stand at the back microphone on the day of the local calendar rebellion is going to go back to the House as it was. That was the crossing of the Rubicon.
But it’s risky. It means asking the insurgents to give up the hand they hold and reshuffle the deck. Will the Democrats remain in their coalition with the ABCs, or will some of them follow Gattis? What about the ABCs? Will they continue to stick together, or will some break away? A redeal could mean new opportunities for Craddick. But I think he’s out of opportunities. He’s drawing to deuces now. The only question left is whether he plays out a losing hand—or folds.
Tagged: abc's, craig eiland, dan branch, dan gattis, hamilton, harless, Heflin, john smithee, kolkhorst, mark strama, Marquez, Olivo, Quintanilla, rafael anchia, Rios Ybarra, scott hochberg, speaker's race, sylvester turner, tom craddick
Morning Statesman says:
Class is in session; the clerk will call the roll: Burka: absent. Oh well.
One day Texans will rue the day the Democrats were stampeded by the trial lawyers and a few nutty liberals into dividing the House along party lines.
The incumbent Speaker has over 80% of the Republican members of the House and over 10%, maybe 15% if you count the flakes. If this were Washington the big doors would have opened and Mr. Craddick would have emerged. The enraged D’s and liberal R’s would have stood aside. Yet, here in Texas Tom soldiers on. Why?
The Whino’s and D’s want someone “easier” to work with. Couple that with “you didn’t make me Chairman” and he has a race on his hands.
Not that he won’t win it however, because his core R support is far more than any other R. Can you imagine releasing 3 names?
Once the voting begins we will see what standing tall means. And those who stand tall will deserve all the credit from a grateful public that Tom Craddick is reelected Speaker.
Best news? When he is reelected surprise, surprise Andy, there will be bipartisanship, co-operation and conciliation because he realizes that there needs to be a kinder and gentler House.
Hence Terral Smith and other soon to be revealed actions noted at the Republican conference….
If the red hots and disapointed Whino’s will let him.
Reply »
Phillip Martin Reply:
December 29th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
That didn’t make any sense.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
December 30th, 2008 at 9:52 am
Re Morning Statesman:
“When he is reelected surprise, surprise Andy, there will be bipartisanship, co-operation and conciliation because he realizes that there needs to be a kinder and gentler House.”
Who wrote this? Christi? Nadine? I’m not being disrespectful to them. I just can’t imagine that anyone outside of his immediate family believes this rant.
Craddick doesn’t want bipartisanship. The Democrats made overtures, a session or two ago. Gallego told me the story. Craddick said, “You do what you have to do.” Not even a whisper of conciliation. Nor do his strongest supporters want bipartisanship. They are conservative ideologues.
If the last three sessions have proved anything, it is that Craddick is incapable of changing, even when his survival is at stake. Now it’s too late.
Reply »
Texrusk Reply:
December 30th, 2008 at 11:45 am
Burka, you’ve got to be kidding me when you say that the dems want bipartisanship. Jim Dunnam makes Tip O’Neil look like Henry Clay. Pete Gallego is a one-man spitoon of venom.
These guys are perfectly willing to stab their fellow Democrats in the back if they get “off the reservation.” What makes these naive Republicans think that they can work with them?
Reply »
Floozikins Reply:
December 30th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Who the fuck is this dipstick?
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Gattis will not be speaker. He is too much like Tom Craddick. The members want change, not more of the same.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
December 30th, 2008 at 10:40 am
Gattis is not like Craddick. For one thing, he lives in modern Texas, not Midland. He doesn’t think the state ought to be governed according to the way his hometown thinks. Also: He’s a lawyer. That means that he doesn’t look at disputes as something that can only have two outcomes, you win or you lose. There is such a thing as a compromise–as he has shown in dealing with tort reform issues. Craddick doesn’t think like that. He has to have his way, every time, even on the little things.
Gattis had the courage to stand at the back mike and take on Craddick when he thought he had gone too far. If he and Fred Hill and Keffer and the others had not done that, where would the House be now? Still in the grip of Craddick. Their opposition drove Craddick to the excess of claiming absolute power. How can Anonymous claim that Gattis doesn’t represent change? He helped bring it about.
Reply »
anonymous says:
You included Solomons and Eissler as ABC’s and what I see is they are conservative Republicans with enough leadership to know there needs to be a change.
You treat Gattis as he some new star when these other guys have been carrying the water.
Reply »
Phillip Martin Reply:
December 29th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
That makes sense.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
December 30th, 2008 at 10:51 am
I agree with the above Anonymous that Solomons and Eissler are not true ABCs; they’re mainstream Republicans who want change. I recall writing, when Solomons announced, that he was a serious candidate for speaker precisely because he was a mainstream Republican, not an ABC. I wrote the same thing about Gattis yesterday. I don’t think that a true ABC can be elected speaker.
But how can Anonymous say that Gattis is new to the fight and these other guys have been carrying the water. I didn’t see Solomons at the back mike when Craddick was running roughshod over the House. I didn’t see Eissler there. I did see Gattis. Doesn’t anybody here have a sense of history? That was the Boston Tea Party of the rebellion against Craddick.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Note to Republican House Members:
Morning Statesman has it exactly right.
When Phillip Martin and Jim Dunnam are applauding from the sidelines and encouraging you to do something, beware.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
So, Paul, now you’re predicting that Craddick loses?
Guess consistency (even over 3 days) is not a prime virtue for you, eh?
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
December 30th, 2008 at 11:09 am
I have never said that I thought Craddick would win. A lot of people have called this race one way or another. Evan is on my case because I haven’t done so. He said that if the opposition has 75 people who will not vote for Craddick, that means Craddick can’t win. I said to him that votes against someone are important, but votes FOR someone are more important. Until those votes against become votes FOR somebody, I’m not about to call the race. I’m predicting Craddick loses now because he is going to lose. Craddick is competing against himself now; he can’t get any new votes, and he has to defend the votes he has against raids by the other candidates. The one thing I agree with in the comments is that the members want change. Time is against Craddick now. The closer we come to that first day, the more members do not want to go through another bloodbath.
What I said, over the last three days, was that the ABC opposition didn’t have its act together. They’re running out of time too.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
“The most important thing about this list is that the D’s won over the five members whom I had previously identified as the most likely new recruits for Craddick: Heflin, Marquez, Olivo, Quintanilla, and Rios Ybarra. The pool of members from which Craddick can plausibly seek votes has shrunk.”
Paul, why are you and Kronberg so willing to believe this list of 64 Dem’s is set in stone? Do you really think there is no way one, three or more of these Dems aren’t going to cut a deal? Is this your first speaker’s race?
I predict three of these Dems will end up with Craddick.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
December 30th, 2008 at 11:11 am
I bet some of them are already pledged to Craddick. I still take the “under.”
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Paul you write that “Those who have said that Gattis’s announcement gives the insurgents 76 votes against Craddick are wrong. Gattis is not an ABC. He is a mainstream Republican.”
Paul, that is what many readers have been trying to explain to you for days. SEVERAL of these “ABC’s” are not really ABC’s. All the filed candidates want to be speaker, but they don’t really want ANYONE but Craddick. Gattis wants to be speaker, but will vote for Craddick over almost any ABC candidate. Likewise, there are several ABC’s that will vote for Craddick over certain ABC speaker candidates.
Paul, why don’t you ask them? “How many of you ABC’s are really willing to vote for Solomons? For Cook? For Merritt?” The true answer will not come back as 11, I can assure you.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Paul, on those ABC’s, how many have actually said they will not in any circumstances support Craddick? I don’t believe we heard that from Solomons or Eissler, and maybe others. Seems like they said something more nuanced like “We need new leadership”, leaving room for them to come back to Craddick if they or their preferred candidate doesn’t win. Agreed?
Reply »
Texas Publius says:
It’ll be either Solomons, Gattis, or Smithee. If the Craddick Rs and Craddick Ds keep deciding to not influence the process like numbskulls, the 64 Ds will pick which of those three wins. If the Craddick Rs and Craddick Ds wise up and decide to influence the process (or if Craddick does the honorable thing and withdraws), it’ll be a wide open race between those three.
Reply »
Nachtwarheight says:
I haven’t laughed so hard in ages as when Statesman said “there will be bipartisanship, co-operation and conciliation because he realizes that there needs to be a kinder and gentler House.” Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it. Anyone who thinks Tom Craddick will be kinder and gentler, especially toward anyone who didn’t vote with him, hasn’t Rep. Craddick’s House tenure. Terrel Smith works for Craddick, not the other way around. The monkey may be cute, but its the seedy old codger that is grinding the organ.
Reply »
Anna Ominous says:
Let’s see, we’ve had:
ABC – Anybody But Craddick (Merritt, Geren, et al)
D – Dunnam Ds (64 signatures)
EFG – Everybody For Gattis (Kolkhorst, Hamilton, Harless, and of course Gattis)
What’s next? HIJ – “Hi, I’m Joining…?”
Can you explain the likely scenarios and rules for voting, in the event this all comes down to a floor fight in two Tuesdays?
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
December 30th, 2008 at 11:13 am
Too many variables.
Reply »
Frisky Dingo says:
I’m curious, in what way has Craddick’s regime NOT been bipartisan? He has, to be sure, appointed a significant number of D’s to chairmanships and other positions. During the past sessions D-authored bills appear to have passed as must as R-authored ones. If my memory serves me correctly, the Local & Consent Revolt began after the Speaker gaveled to approve a motion to suspend the rules to include a D’s bill on the next Local Calendar. And I don’t recollect seeing much footage of Craddick of employing routine Republican rhetoric against the D’s. For a guy in position to wield “absolute power” to nuke the partisan opposition, did Craddick really do that? Honestly, really? Or is this ham-handed partisanship, and the alleged absence of cooperation, a construction of certain other partisans and their backers?
Oh, one more thought, looking back to the good-ole-days of the Laney years, did R’s get a fair shake? Honestly, really?
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
December 30th, 2008 at 9:42 am
no, the r’s did not get a fair shake under laney…the difference is that Arlene Woghlemuth kept her insurgency limited to one day, and yet she has been eviscerated for doing so…have dunham and all the rest been held accountable for their continued distruption, no, not by a long shot…in my humble opinion.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
December 30th, 2008 at 11:15 am
Go back and look at Laney’s committee appointments in 1999 and 2001. He put the leading Republicans on the most important committees. State Affairs and Ways and Means had Republican majorities. Craddick shut the leading Democrats out, unless seniority prevented him from doing so.
Reply »
the u b of Texas says:
Look, Gattis c of staff already thinks he is the most powerful man in the house, and is reason enough for Gattis to get no more than 3 votes…. There is no telling what this whiff of power has done to his ego….. that wing nut is probably dressed up in his uncles Air force reserves uniform making his poodle do sit ups as we speak…. I am not kidding, I am just saying….come on man
Reply »
anonymouse1 says:
the u b of tx apparently knows gattis much better than i do. i only know him from a constituent’s viewpoint so what do i matter? BUT … for me, he’s been a real nothing. (maybe that’s his COS’ fault, who knows?) regardless he’s an arrogant asshole who is not well liked or respected in his district.
Reply »
Big Bopper for Congress says:
Where is Patrick Rose in all of this? He seems to be extremely quiet. I’ve heard from both sides of the pro and anti Craddick crowds that they have this vote. What’s the straight dope?
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Gattis, until very recently, was on the STARS board of directors with Morrison and Phil King… He has been responsible for giving out a lot of Craddick’s money. If the Speaker of the Texas House thought enough of him (and I suspect threatened by him) to make him one of three directors in charge of his piggy bank then he probably has a real chance at picking up the mainstream Republicans who supported Craddick.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
December 30th, 2008 at 9:38 am
Paul, your math is right and your logic is correct with one exception: i love how people are calling the “insurgency” whinos because it’s accurate. The insurgency is not about bringing down craddick, but about having their way…this will prove to be Craddick’s greatest asset. yes, the members are tired of the tension, but are they so tired as to let the insurgents have their way and piss and moan over another member? i think not.
the greatest weakness craddick has is not his iron-fistedness, but the decline in GOP membership since his election as speaker. Even Dr. Jim can do the math on that…
thanks buddy
Reply »
ak4 says:
Gattis is confident, not arrogant – there is a difference. He is a good man with strong core values. I keep hearing that no one in his district likes him….I wonder why he keeps getting re-elected? Maybe it is because he is liked and maybe he does do a good job for his constiuents. He is going to make a great speaker.
Reply »
PM says:
Make no mistake that a Speaker Gattis would be in it for Speaker Gattis. He would not protect members from tough votes nor would he allow himself to appear weak on democrats. He’s got his eyes on bigger prizes, a well functioning House not being among them. The speakership may however reduce his outrage at Steve Ogden for occuping the Senate seat he feels is rightfully his. Glad I’m not the only one who has noiced his CoS’ difficult nature.
Reply »
paulburka says:
So Gattis’s chief of staff is worse than Nancy Fisher? Will he throw lobby contracts to relatives?
Reply »
PM says:
I should not have dragged staff into it. I’m sure he serves his boss well and I certainly don’t think he’s corrupt.
Reply »
Good Lord, Paul says:
At least two bits of info here – Gattis’ three supporters and Smithee’s 48 hours – have come from the Quorum Report. Ever give any thought to giving someone else some credit every once in a while?
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Why do members ‘need’ to be ‘protected’ from tough votes? Do these poor lil house members need a big daddy to protect ‘em? honestly?
Sheesh, I think voters send them to Austin to take on the tough votes and issues.
I’m beginning to think all of them are a bunch of pansies and whinos.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
To Anonymous at 12:30 p.m., your point is exactly right. Tough votes are part of the job description for an elected official. I get so tired of these prima donnas always looking to cushion themselves from the requirements of a job they campaigned for, and then turn around and treat their employees like dirt.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Anon 1:32–
Amen. I have also personally seen these same prima donnas mistreat their employees.
No wonder there is such an air of “throw all the bums out”
Hard to imagine how starting from scratch could be worse.
Reply »