The Next Speaker
It will be Dan Gattis, John Smithee, or Burt Solomons.
Gattis has to build some momentum. The test, in a speaker’s race, is not whether a candidate can reach out to other members. It’s whether other members, believing that a candidate is for real, reach out to him. These next few days are crucial to Gattis. He needs more Republicans. Keep your eye on Dan Branch. Do you remember the dog and pony show he and Gattis did during the water bill debate, on that Possum Kingdom lake amendment? I think he may end up with Gattis.
Smithee’s advantage is that he has a geographical base. Those West Texans think it’s in the constitution that the speaker has to come from west of Interstate 35. If he gets in the race, he’ll have more initial support than anyone else.
Solomons is still very well positioned, assuming that he gets the ABC “nomination.” The Metroplex is a stronger geographical base than West Texas. The Democrats are more comfortable with him than they are with Gattis, for now.
Craddick still has the most votes, of course, but as the dominos start falling, he will not be able to keep them. All of the speaker candidates are going to be chasing the same votes, the Republicans who haven’t committed to Craddick. I’m guessing that this is around 25 members. The largest bloc of members on the Republican side is the 30 or so hardcore conservatives. I wouldn’t be surprised to see someone—Warren Chisum, maybe, if he doesn’t become a candidate himself—organize them and take them as a group to one of the contenders, most likely Smithee. Solomons and Gattis cannot afford to let this happen, so they have to be working the hardcores too. There is going to be some fascinating politicking going on in the next two weeks.
Tagged: burt solomons, dan branch, dan gattis, john smithee, speaker’s race, tom craddick, warren chisum.
Anonymous says:
fascinating politicking is right. It won’t necessarily be one of those three, although you are correct that Smithee is likely to have the momentum.
Reply »
Big Bopper for Congress says:
Does Gattis live east of I-35? His district straddles it.
Reply »
WilcoR Reply:
December 31st, 2008 at 6:23 pm
Gattis lives in the rural part of his district, but just barely. He lives east of Georgetown and IH 35. Most of his constiuents live in suburban Georgetown, Round Rock and Cedar Park. And he lost a lot of clout locally when he backed the losing candidate for Krusee’s seat, despite many telling him his guy could not win.
Reply »
Bearclaw says:
I’m not so sure it will be any of these three. Nobody was talking about Ratliff when he suddenly emerged to win the Lt. Gov’s seat.
Reply »
Texrusk Reply:
December 30th, 2008 at 11:49 am
Yes, and Ratliff will be the pattern for any new speaker. Just a placeholder until someone else with more money or clout can take over.
Reply »
Martin Reply:
December 30th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Texrusk…..Bill Ratliff was NO “placeholder”. Just ask anyone who was a senator while he was Lt. Gov.
Reply »
Texrusk Reply:
December 31st, 2008 at 11:29 am
Of course, Ratliff tried, but he was not strong enough to keep the job, and Dewhurst pushed him aside like the little kid at the water fountain.
That’s just what the Dunnamcrats want to do with any Republican proxy they can put up.
Anonymous says:
What dog and pony show on the Possum Kingdom lake amendment? Where do you get that?
Reply »
GovMoFoSux says:
The Possum Kingdom Lake amendment that Keffer gave to Branch? By your logic, Branch should be with Keffer? Or are you saying there was House Floor Flirting/Wooing between Branch and Gattis that has bloomed into an anti-Brazos River Authority romance between the two? And if Branch really cares about the substance of the amendment, he’d be with Solomons because it’s his constituents (along with other Tarrant County and some Dallas County) are the ones who lease property at Possum Kingdom. What was your point on this again?
Reply »
W. Joe Deshotel says:
The ABC-Ds at this point are probably willing to vote for “anyone but Craddick” including a proxy. It would be a smart move for moderate Republicans to come to compromise. They should recognize their shrinking crew size as a sign of the times. “Change is always resisted from the top down, luckily for Texas, this leader’ship’ is going bottoms-up.” -pollabear.org
Reply »
T.J. Reply:
December 31st, 2008 at 11:38 am
Oh, how nice, the dems are now giving us advice. Because they want what’s good for Texas, not what’s good for the Democratic party.
2010 will be a different year, without your Obama people out stuffing ballots.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Keffer didn’t give the amendment to Branch. Branch took it because he represents people that lease peoperty at Possum Kingdom.
I think what Paul may be referring to is the fact that Gattis had a point of order that would have killed the amendment and he and Branch struck a deal for Gattis to pull the point of order then had a nice little back-and-forth on the floor about the whole thing.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
December 30th, 2008 at 11:21 am
This is correct.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
You may be reading too much into that little exchange Paul.
Reply »
GovMoFoSux says:
So even though Keffer had HB 2923, the companion to Sen. Estes’ SB 1326 that Keffer Sponsored in the House, Keffer had no say in it and Branch just “took” it. Ok, thanks for your genius lesson on how House Floor politics work.
And everyone knew that amendment had a point of order because it wasn’t germane. It was always going to be stripped because Averitt would have never allowed it being that the BRA is in Waco.
Getting back to Mr. Burka’s point that this incident somehow sparked a love affair between Branch and Gattis, I don’t get it. “A little back-and-forth on the House Floor” does not spark iron-clad alliances. If it did, there are too many to even consider contemplating.
Reply »
David Siegel says:
I haven’t heard much about what’s in it for individual members. Is it Eissler vs Branch for Public Ed chair? Smithee willing to throw his support (if he can’t win it himself) in trade for Ways & Means? Gattis similarly for Appropriations? Is it premature to make promises about redistricting, especially with three or four new Congressional districts coming up (cf Culberson, Marchant). Could a bloc get bought off for the third flagship university in their city? Is the Big Money totally uninvolved?
Reply »
Anonymous says:
MoFo, your first statement, minus the sarcasm, is actually correct. That’s exactly what happened. By that point in the process (and now from what I understand) Keffer had been somewhat cut out of the issue by the people seeking the legislation and Branch (along with most of the DFW delegation) took ownership of it. Look at the co-sponsorship of the amendment.
Of the folks that lease property at Possum Kingdom, the ones with money and influence are in the DFW area. Over the course of the session they got tired of dealing with Keffer as the sponsor because he asked too many questions and wouldn’t do exactly what they wanted. He was concerned about what was in it for his locals, most of whom aren’t that well off.
Additionally they burned a bridge with Keffer in the House committee by asking him to substitute what was supposedly an agreed-to bill. When this happened, the stand-alone died, and the people pushing the legislation got Branch to try and resurrect it via amendment.
Reply »
anonymouse says:
Cash on hand as of November 2008:
Solomons: $890k
Smithee: $158k
Gattis: $39k
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
December 30th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
Who cares! None of those amounts is enough to win a race in 2010 when redistricting is on the table in 2011.
Reply »
Texrusk says:
The truth is that the options are now down to two. A Democrat is out with 76-74. So it will be a Republican. The way I see it, with any of the candidates needing Dunnam’s 64, we will have either:
Tom Craddick
or
Jim Dunnam’s marionette.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
December 30th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
I wouldn’t be surprised if Dunnam tried to influence other Democrats should vote. I would be surprised if it works. The momentum in the House is to overthrow the bosses. Dunnam has done his job. He maxxed out the Democratic anti-Craddick pledges. He can’t get the Craddick D’s unless he lets Sylvester dictate the terms. These signature were not proxies. They were just pledges to vote against Craddick when the vote came down to the last two candidates.
Reply »
Distinguished Gentleman says:
No matter who it ends up being, I say permanent future TERM LIMITS on the post of Texas House Speaker.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
I beg to differ with Burka on Gattis. I think he has just about reached his peak. Democrats don’t trust him and too many Republicans think he is full of himself – not what the House needs in a Speaker.
“Too immature” is a phrase I hear about Dan Gattis a LOT.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
December 30th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
So what if the Democrats don’t trust him? That can be fixed. It just takes negotiation and signatures on a piece of paper. Fair redistricting, fair rulings, fair committee assignments, pass your local bills, govern from the center-right. Sign here please. The point is, we are now at a point where members have several choices. They have to choose someone. Gattis one of three “someones,” if you include Smithee, four if you count Craddick. Nobody is perfect.
Reply »
T.J. Reply:
December 31st, 2008 at 11:44 am
The problem is that Gattis doesn’t do much in the House. He’s never been much of a leader.
I’m not sure he’s ready to play hardball either, and I’m afraid he’ll just be a puppet for the power behind the throne.
Reply »
Floozikins says:
If Gattis can bring his flock to the ABC renegade nomination than he will or someone in his group of 3 will get Appropriations.
Reply »
GovMoFoSux says:
Anon 11:46, you are very knowledgeable on the Possum Kingdom issue and you are correct on most of it, except for the fact that you don’t think Keffer was involved in the SB 3 amendment. He was never cut out of the process. If he truly was, he would have called the point of order himself. Keffer gave Branch every bit of information on the issue, knowing Averitt was going to kill it anyway, and Branch knew it too. So did Gattis, which is why he didn’t call the point of order. The only oblivious people were the people that lease property at Possum Kingdom that thought that amendment had a prayer of staying on. Now that we have both showed we know entirely too much about the sleepy lake community of Possum Kingdom, I still don’t see how Mr. Burka can infer that their magic moment on the House Floor leads to a Speaker vote commitment. Debra Danburg had numerous “friendly back-and-forths” with Warren Chisum in the past, but I don’t think Danburg would ever have supported Chisum for Speaker.
Reply »
Buck says:
I thought Tom and TLR were going to unleash a media campaign. Did TLR reconsider?
Reply »
Anonymous says:
TLR didn’t reconsider, they simply lack the agility and decision-making process to act…
Reply »
poindexter says:
GovMoFoSux, actually Danburg and Chisum had a great deal of respect for each other despite an occasional disagreement. Many members that argue on during debate are actually good friends. That’s how the House is supposed to work. Members work together on the issues that they agree on, fight civily on the others, and don’t take it personally at the end of the day. That how Danburg and Chisum could both be valuable members of Laney’s leadership team. In the current climate I could see Danburg supporting Chisum for Speaker if she believed he would run the House with a lighter, fairer hand.
Reply »
TLR has two Daddy's says:
You are right on in your assessment about TLR’s decision making agility, but that’s not the reason TLR is sitting this one out. The real reason is that TLR has mixed loyalties. If not for TLR’s finanicial backing, Homer and Hopson would probably be gone and Craddick wouldn’t be in as much trouble as he now finds himself. TLR’s biggest problem is the TWO DICKS!. Dick Weekley who is Mr. Republican and Dick Trabulsi who is Mr. Democrat. Trabulsi would be just fine with a Speaker chosen by a majority of Democrats including his nephew Mark Strama. Trabulsi knows that under Craddick, Strama will never reach the leadership levels that Uncle Dick believes he is entitled therefore Trabulsi helped put a stop to the anticipated TLR media campaign. TLR has some real identity problems with Bob Perry and Dick Weekly’s money being spent on the campaigns of Democrats who will help stick a fork in Craddick on January 13th.
Reply »
FMJCB says:
Gattis sure was cocky to the big city folks supporting SB3. I wonder if their Reps. will remember how disrepectful he was during the hearings.
Reply »
Will Hartnett Reply:
December 30th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
We have not forgotten.
Reply »
GovMoFoSux says:
Poindester, I realize that Members can and do have civil debates and “respect” each other. It happens all the time. My point is that Mr. Burka wrote, “Do you remember the dog and pony show he and Gattis did during the water bill debate, on that Possum Kingdom lake amendment? I think he may end up with Gattis.” This is horrid reasoning on why someone may vote for someone for Speaker. Charlie Howard and Senfronia have “civil” debates and respect each other but I don’t think either will support the other for Speaker based on their Floor “dog and pony shows”. And I guess we’ll disagree because I really don’t think Danburg would have ever supported Chisum for Speaker unless it was a forgone conclusion, regardless of their mutual love affair. (That makes me sick just typing it)
Reply »
Anon says:
Odd….. why would someone MORE qualified support someone LESS qualified? Why would Kolkhorst back Gattis?????
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
December 30th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
I don’t think Kolkhorst wants to be speaker. I think she wants to be chairman of appropriations.
Reply »
poindexter says:
GovMoFoSux, I don’t think the Branch/Gattis dog and pony show would point to a reason for Branch to support Gattis for Speaker unless it is a syptom of a greater working relationship. The point about Danburg and Chisum, wasn’t that was a “mutal love affair” but that under the current leadership situation I could see there being enough respect that if Danburg thought Chisum would run the House in a more Lewis or Laney like manner, I could see her supporting Chisum as a Speaker Candidate.
Reply »
Anon says:
But keep watching…. the anti-Craddicks have hit a high water mark. The minute the opposition put a name on the ballot – people will start to fall back to Craddick. Everyone knows exacly where they stand with Craddick – they will have no idea where they may stand with a “Gattis” and vote with the devil they know.
Reply »
Tellnitlikeitis Reply:
December 30th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Too many folks keep forgetting the most important point: Everyone knows what another Craddick term would look like.
A majority of members don’t want more of the same – particularly in a 76-74 chamber.
It is naive to think that folks who have broken publicly with Tom will go back.
You can’t go back.
And you can’t expect Tom to change his style and pull a bipartisan rabbit out of the hat.
Reply »
Anon Reply:
December 30th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
In politics… you can always go back. It’s not about another Craddick term – It’s about POWER. What chairmanship do I get with this candidate Vs. what I get with another candidate.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
December 30th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
Tellnit is usually right. He’s right this time too. Nobody will go back because nobody wants to go back. The tipping point has been reached. Members know that Craddick won’t be speaker.
Reply »
K says:
Earlier this year, Garnet Coleman told a group in Houston that he would support Robert Talton for speaker if it came down to it. This is all about leadership style (or non-leadership style) and not about legislative substance.
Reply »
abc's says:
Er, how is lois kolkhorst more qualified than dan gattis? they’re from the same class. And maybe she doesn’t want to be speaker.
as for heflin, paul, what are you smokin? joe heflin has defended runs against him funded by craddick two times now, and he won his seat to begin with because laney helped campaign for him. you’re listening to the wrong people, man. Stop letting them use you.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
December 30th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
Heflin and Quintanilla have both been quoted in the papers as saying that they would support Craddick because he is a rural speaker, if no Democrat was in the race.
Reply »
abc's says:
“So what if the Democrats don’t trust him? That can be fixed. It just takes negotiation and signatures on a piece of paper. Fair redistricting, fair rulings, fair committee assignments, pass your local bills, govern from the center-right. Sign here please.”
Cute, but no dice. Signatures don’t matter anymore. Wake up.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
December 30th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
If signatures don’t matter, why does Dunnam have 64 of them? Signatures always matter.
Reply »
anonymouse1 says:
Distinguished Gentleman Says:
December 30th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
“No matter who it ends up being, I say permanent future TERM LIMITS on the post of Texas House Speaker.”
ONLY if you impose a limit on YOUR comments here, like beginning yesterday.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Why should he? Anonymouse1, you don’t put any term limits on your comments posted on this blog.
Reply »
David Siegel says:
Other states have term-limited Speakers. And perpetual Speaker races.
Reply »
emptyk says:
In’t that Warren’s knife sticking out of Craddick’s back over at the Houston Chronicle blog?
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Not if the state laws are worded correctly they don’t, Mr. Siegel.
All that has to be done is make it illegal to campaign for Speaker now for a legislative session beyond the next legislative session.
Texas already has a strong statute on Speaker candidacies, and if that statute needs to be further strengthened to clarify issues like the one that you have raised, then clarification can materialize as early as the 81st legislature.
Reply »
Texas Publius says:
Camp Craddick is either lying to one another (and others) OR they’re operating with some really bad intel. Notice any incongruity here?
December 28 – “The speaker has the support of the majority of the House.” Alexis DeLee
December 29 – “The speaker continues to have the largest and most solid support of the House.” Alexis DeLee
December 30 – “I think he (Craddick) is within five or six of getting there.” State Rep. Warren Chisum
December 31 – ?
Reply »
Sidd Finch says:
One has to think that Chisum’s public admission was not part of The Plan. Oopsy.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
To David Siegel, look at the circus atmosphere going on right now in the Texas House of Representatives relative to the job of Speaker. And that is WITHOUT term limits. So, I would have to agree that term limits would actually be a good thing.
Reply »
anonymous says:
PoliTex:
Chisum said Craddick clearly has more support than any of his supporters but may be short of the needed 76 votes to win. “I’m guessing in the numbers of 50 to 53, but that’s not enough to get there,” Chisum said.
Reply »
Chad Briscoe says:
Paul,
If Dan Gattis wasn’t a stalking horse, he wouldn’t have Lois on board. She’s as pro-Craddick, pro-establishment, pro-Palin as they come, and I can assure you she’s only “on the team” as a signal to other would-be Craddick supporters that they have a plan in place.
Nobody likes Solomons but Solomons; and if Smithee becomes the speaker, I’ll buy you a can of mustache wax.
I think we’ll all be surprised on January 2nd, when the ABC’s show us that they actually *do* have a plan.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
December 30th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
How can Gattis be a stalking horse for somebody who is about to be sent to the glue factory?
The assertion that Kolkhorst is on the team as a signal to other would-be Craddick supporters is nuts. That scenario seems to assume that Gattis is going to try to run the House with just Republicans. That won’t work. The Democrats can align with the ABCs and defeat that. Gattis needs a 35/35 strategy, taking the middle out of both parties.
Reply »
Texas Publius says:
The Craddick-Chisum Show is becoming the 2008 version of the Dec 2006 McCall-Pitts show. Here’s an update:
December 28 – “The speaker has the support of the majority of the House.” Alexis DeLee
December 29 – “The speaker continues to have the largest and most solid support of the House.” Alexis DeLee
December 30 AFT – “I think he (Craddick) is within five or six of getting there.” State Rep. Warren Chisum
December 30 EVE – “I’m guessing in the numbers of 50 to 53, but that’s not enough to get there.” State Rep. Warren Chisum
December 30 MIDNIGHT – ?
Reply »
Benevolus says:
…..Back to a pumpkin for Craddick.
Reply »
Chad Briscoe says:
Paul, you inadvertently made my point about Gattis being a stalking horse for me. There is absolutely no way that any of the current ABC’s (read: Geren, Merritt, McCall, and the like) would support a Gattis speakership bid. And you can be sure that you can count the number of Democratic supporters for a former law and order prosecutor and a close Craddick lieutenant on two hands.
The only people Gattis can bring to his side who are currently unaffiliated are the people who have just recently ‘jumped ship’ from the USS Craddick recently–Eissler and Solomons, and, probably soon, Chisum and Smithee.
So what happens? The numbers stay exactly the same, except that in a multi-candidate field, the top two choices are Craddick and the ‘consensus candidate,’ with neither gaining a majority.
Care to guess where those Gattis votes would go? Can you see Lois Kolkhorst voting for anybody else when Craddick dangles her seat on Appropriations in front of her?
Reply »
Anon says:
Another intersting possibility…. Kolkorst and Gattis are in Ogden’s Senate district. Kolkorst may have a deal that if Gattis is speaker, he won’t want to challenge her for the senate seat when Ogden retires in 2010.
Reply »
Ben Quick Reply:
December 31st, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Kolkorst didn’t have the nuts to run when Armbrister retired – has she suddenly grown some now?
Reply »
Chad Briscoe says:
Hell, I’ll promise you a LIFETIME supply of mustache wax if any of these three becomes speaker. And I’m not talking about the cheap stuff, either.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Anon at 9:57
What makes you so sure Ogden will retire in 2010. One idea could be that Gattis chose to run for Speaker in order to move upward because Ogden told him he wasn’t leaving any time soon.
Reply »
Texas Publius says:
Kolkhorst is in Hegar’s (formerly Armbrister’s) senate district, not Ogden’s. Some of her district overlaps Ogden’s, but not Brenham (her residence).
Reply »
Proxy Site says:
I dont browse the net now without a anonymous proxy like http://www.surfshuffle.com, it protects my computer from the nasties on the net
Reply »