79 and counting…make that 80
That is how many members appear to be committed to a course to elect a new speaker. It’s the 64 Democrats plus the 11 members of the ABC coalition (some of whom are not hardcore ABCs) plus the Gattis 4. It’s time to count Smithee in this camp, judging from his public remarks about the state of the House. That’s 80. What does this mean?
What it does not mean is 80 votes against Craddick for speaker. Depending upon how the speaker’s race develops, some of the R’s could end up with Craddick. What it does mean, I think, is that on the procedural issues—secret ballot, for example, or dumping Keel as temporary parliamentarian—these are yes (that is, anti-Craddick) votes. And if there is a secret ballot, it is hard to imagine Craddick being reelected.
And what about the Democratic pledges to vote against Craddick? The Craddick camp claims that they have six Democratic pledges from people who are on Dunnam’s list. Maybe they do. But I think the wobblies will be inviting primary opposition if they vote for Craddick. They signed pledges. How do they explain away going back on their word? A guy selling flowers on the street corner could beat anybody who does that: “He broke his word to his colleagues and he’ll break his word to you.”
Tagged: dan gattis, john smithee, tom craddick.
Distinguished Gentleman says:
I remember when Ratliff was chosen by the Senate to be the Lieutenant Governor. The Senators had several rounds of voting before narrowing the field to just 2 candidates (I think Sibley was the final opponent to Ratliff after numerous votes). True, it was a secret ballot process.
But what is to prevent the House from (whether in a secret ballot or an open public vote) also conducting several rounds of “balloting” before narrowing it down to just 2 candidates and then chosing between those top 2 vote-getters?
Reply »
Jesse says:
It is more likely “She broke her word to her colleagues and She’ll break her word to you.”
That’s you, Tara Rios Ybarra, Marissa Marquez, Carol Alvarado, and Norma Chavez.
Though Quintanilla, Deshotel, and Rose could wilt under pressure, too.
But with the dam about to burst, I don’t see any of these going back now when they can’t provide the margin to put Craddick over the top.
Reply »
anon says:
Gentleman:
What? No term limits??????
Reply »
Anonymous says:
There is nothing to prevent the House from multiple rounds of ballots; it just is unlikely to happen once the marbles start to roll.
Remember the difference is that there was no incumbent in that race and all 31 Senators were, in effect, candidates for the job.
These were very different circumstances in a much smaller legislative body
Reply »
Anonymous says:
What does Kolkhorst, Hamilton, and Harless do if Gattis is not the consensus candidate of the ABCs on January 2nd? Is there a chance their support reverts back to Craddick?
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Why would they do that – it would be like running BACK into the Stalag after you’ve just escaped. All you will do is get shot.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
People are forgetting the bonuses of have in ex-Speaker Craddick:
NO MORE Phil King holding Texas Utilities hostage.
NO MORE Beverly Woolley running the House Calendar.
NO MORE Leo Berman in charge of the Texas Election Code.
NO MORE Kino Flores taking plane rides from beer distributors while overseeing state liquor laws.
NO MORE of Texas Judges having to cotow to Will Hartnett in Judiciary.
Just look at all you get with a new House Speaker, won’t that make a Happy New Year!
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
December 31st, 2008 at 8:50 am
What did Hartnett ever do to judges other than try to raise their pay?
Reply »
Im just saying Reply:
January 1st, 2009 at 6:09 pm
Actually the bill that raised judges pay also raise the retirement pay of our elected officials. My state rep, John Davis got an $6000 raise from $36,000 to $42,000 a year for his retirement.
Pretty sweet for a part time job.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
January 1st, 2009 at 10:38 pm
Isn’t it interesting how these lawmakers whine about their low salaries. You are correct, “Im just saying” that for the little bit of work they actually do these “servants” of the people are way overpaid. And then they have the temerity to begrudge a livable salary to be paid to their staffs.
Anonymous says:
ROFLMAO.
What? No more King owning The Pond? No more Queen Bev? Oh, stop, I can’t even go on, I’m laughing so hard.
Reply »
Chad Briscoe says:
Seriously? Beverly Wooley running the calendar? Wooley can hardly hold her own makeup compact, much less the calendar.
Reply »
Chad Briscoe says:
And there’s nothing wrong with the beer distributors. They know how to have a good time.
Reply »
Pat says:
to Anonymous @ 11:26pm
Why pick on Kino? You don’t like the beer selection in your district?
Reply »
Anonymous says:
It doesn’t matter how many folks float away from craddick at this point. You’ll notice that these new floaters aren’t really anti-craddicks, they’re just folks like solomons, smithee and gattis (and their followers) that see an opening for their own speakership and figure they should test the waters.
If one of them gains momentum and shoots to 76, sure they become speaker.
Just as likely, however, is that they get all the attention for the next week or so, folks start lining up between one or more of them, and everyone declares craddick dead- but when none of them is able to get past about 45 hard pledges, folks come back to Craddick at the end.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
“But I think the wobblies will be inviting primary opposition if they vote for Craddick. They signed pledges. How do they explain away going back on their word?”
Ok Paul, you really have lost in now. I know you have observed a speakers race before, so – can’t begin to understand how you could make this totally ridiculous comment.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
December 31st, 2008 at 8:55 am
There is a huge difference between signing a pledge card for a speaker and signing a list of names pledged to oppose a speaker. In the first case, it is a private matter between the speaker and the member. In the second case it is a public matter that involves all the other members on the list and their political party. No opposing political consultant could make an inch of headway with the first circumstance. Any competent consultant could defeat a candidate in the second circumstance. If you don’t see the difference, I can’t help you.
Reply »
T.J. Reply:
December 31st, 2008 at 11:47 am
“But I think the wobblies will be inviting primary opposition if they vote for Craddick. They signed pledges. How do they explain away going back on their word?”
I don’t know. Ask Patrick Rose.
Reply »
Got the T-shirt says:
How many members had signed pledges to Laney AND Craddick? Several, er, lots. Pledge cards just aren’t what they used to be. Ask Smithee, Pitts, shall I go on? Oh, yes, Kino.
Reply »
House Watcher says:
“How do they explain away going back on their word? A guy selling flowers on the street corner could beat anybody who does that: “He broke his word to his colleagues and he’ll break his word to you.””
Paul, come on. If you can think of a way for a candidate (perhaps even one better than a flower guy) to explain on a mailer the ins and outs of the speakers’ race, then quit Texas Monthly and run winning campaigns. Think about Dora Olivo who has been in a long time and is probably one of the “wobblies” – and who is liked by her constituents. They’ve already tried to run a race against her based on Craddick and it didn’t work.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
December 31st, 2008 at 9:33 am
Didn’t Craddick donate money to Olivo’s 2008 primary campaign? And didn’t Paul, back at that time, post something on this blog to the effect that Olivo thereby “owes” Craddick?
It’s odd that her constituents would “like” Olivo. She is one of the most obnoxious, mean-spirited people that I have ever had the misfortune to interact with. Among staffers, she is feared and loathed and has one of the highest employee turn-over rates the Capitol has ever seen.
And for her decade of “service” in the House, does Olivo really have anything concrete to show for it? Any legislation that became law–even in the form of a successful floor amendment?
Reply »
Got the T-shirt says:
Shur ’nuff she’s a wobbly. She’s also one of the strongest members in their own districts. For grins go back and examine her results against the rest of the ticket for the past five or so cycles. The two issues are not mutually exclusive – a member can be a flake in Austin (for instance, on the speaker’s race) and still a good representative of their constituents and able to trounce most opponents. Add to that the relatively small turnout in primaries (as compared to generals), which an incumbent can generally control with even a moderately professional campaign, plus the usual difficulty of turning an incumbent out of office. That’s why its so damned hard to beat the Craddick Ds. Unless you find one asleep at the switch, which is always a treat.
Reply »
Waxahachie Prom Queen says:
The “floaters” were the first members to bail on Laney. Oh, and on the issue of how do they explain going back on their word? They didn’t have to in 2002, and won’t in 2010. Ask Ritter. Why? A handful of voters understand, fewer care.
Reply »
Big Bopper for Congress says:
Ok, so how will Jan 13th play out? Any predictions on when the final vote will be held? We need some sort of InTrade prediction market on this thing.
Reply »
paulburka says:
Are you kidding? I can’t see how they are even going to agree on the rules for the vote.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Read Geren in the Chronicle blog today. If what he describes plays out, then Opening Day could be Dullsville.
And Craddick could be out by Monday, depending on what happens at his Sunday meeting.
When Speaker’s races begin to break, they tend to end quickly. If the ‘Antis’ settle on someone and begin the push this weekend, it could be over by January 5-6 – one week out.
What a lot of people who read this blog and comment seem to fail to grasp – even Burka at times – is that a large, large majority of the House wants this to be OVER.
For many Members, whether they are double dealers, two timers or wobblies, it does not take much to make them part of the rolling snowball collecting momentum once somebody emerges.
Craddick having a meeting on Sunday could be too late; Laney started his push in November 1992 and had the votes he needed in roughly 24 hours.
Reply »
T.J. Reply:
December 31st, 2008 at 11:50 am
Is Geren still claiming to be a Republican? He’s acting more like a political hermaphrodite these days, meeting with the Dem. caucus.
Reply »
Will Hartnett Reply:
December 31st, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Thanks to Craddick. I know – he called me and pulled me and many other Republicans in for Laney.
Reply »
Waxahachie Prom Queen says:
No disagreement that Olivo is a staff-loathed ineffective dolt. But she shows up at every swingin’ Quinceanera and fishfry in the district. It’s how she beat McCulskey. Again, not to be confused with effectiveness, respect or likeablility in Austin. Just popularity at home. Like Prom Queen
Reply »
Waxahachie Prom Queen says:
Oh yeah, Olivo was a double pledge card signer, too. Not too private, huh. Not the larger issue though. .
Reply »
Benevolus says:
Some individual members within the 64 group of Ds have begun reaching out to Rs re: their candidate of choice: Solomons, Gattis, and Smithee. The 64 will hold as a group against Craddick only if absolutely necessary. They will not hold as a group for one particular R candidate once it’s clear Craddick can’t win. They will splinter. So will Craddick’s Rs. All groups will splinter except two: Sylvester’s Ds and the traditional ABCs. The latter claim they’re going to have a closed meeting to select a “consensus” candidate with only 11 members. I thought that was just the kind of thing they disliked about Craddick?!
Reply »
House Watcher says:
WPQ has got it right. Olivo is popular back home. The voters have no clue how she behaves in Austin and don’t care. And, yes, Craddick gave her money for her primary. That’s my point. Insider baseball stuff doesn’t matter to your average voter in Rosenberg – not to mention it can’t be explained to anyone via a soundbite. Certainly a flower vendor could not beat her in a primary. Not even Ron Reynolds who gave it a good shot.
There are a ton of ineffective legislators on both sides of the aisle who continue to get elected. It’s certainly been difficult for a Democrat to be effective under Craddick.
We’ve already discussed the countless Republicans who are mediocre dolts who can’t govern and won’t have a clue how to fit in under anyone but Daddy Craddick. In this category, I’d like to throw Charlie Howard into the mix. Or under the Craddick Get Out of Town bus.
Reply »
Waxahachie Prom Queen says:
Oh yeah, Olivo was a double pledge CARD signer, too. Like Woolley. Not too private. Not the larger issue though. And while there are a lot of back-mikers hankerin’ for a fight, they are hankerin’for a voice worse.
Reply »
Texas Publius says:
“The 81st Session Version of the McCall-Pitts Show” brought to you by Craddick & Chisum, LP:
December 28 – “The speaker has the support of the majority of the House.” Speaker Craddick’s spokesperson Alexis DeLee
December 29 – “The speaker continues to have the largest and most solid support of the House.” Speaker Craddick’s spokesperson 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 31 MORN — “He’ll decide one way or the other at this Sunday’s meeting.” State Rep. Warren Chisum
December 31 MORN (version 2) – “Craddick’s possible withdrawal from the speaker’s race is not at all going to be part of the discussion at this Sunday’s meeting.” Speaker Craddick’s spokesperson Alexis DeLee
January 1 – ?
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Geren has just confirmed the worst fears of every true Republican out there. He has publically stated that the ABCs will have a consensus candidate on January 2nd and that the Democrats are going to back that person. That means we have a Republican speaker elected by Democrats.
Democrats, although they are the minority, will control the agenda of the House. They will have the upper hand in every major issue to come to the floor – budget, sunset bills, etc. Moreover, they will have a speaker who is the target of every Republican in the state and therefore only a one termer.
A one term speaker is the best thing the Democrats can hope for going in to the 2010 elections and the redistricting cycle.
Reply »
Texrusk Reply:
December 31st, 2008 at 11:52 am
That’s their dream scenario. Set up the Republicans to fail. And who cares if Texas suffers in the meantime.
Reply »
Waxahachie Prom Queen says:
Pledge CARDS are like toothpicks. Helpful when you need them but easy to come by, plentiful, and cheap.
Betty Brown as copilot for the Charlie Howard bus tour!
Reply »
Anonymous says:
anonymous at 10:26 is right. In fact, more detail: Geren had multiple conference calls with D’s last night to get their input on who they would not support. Turns out Smithee and Gattis are a no go on their side.
Now, the D legislators have the next day or so to report in who else they can’t support.
Republicans’ worst fear is coming true: D Caucus is pre-selecting the final list of R candidates. This is a disaster for most R members of the Legislature. Jim Dunnam and team are driving this process now with an assist from Charlie Geren, and potentially influencing the pick of the 11 ABC’s tomorrow.
Reply »
Texrusk Reply:
December 31st, 2008 at 11:53 am
Not sure why the Dems would mind Gattis. He seems pliable enough. If they’re holding out for a true, 100 percent RINO, then they’ll never come to an agreement with enough Rs.
Reply »
anon says:
Does every staffer on this board have their bill drafts ready? Who has actually read a bill since prefiling began?
Reply »
Texrusk says:
I think a key point to note is that all these folks are running for speaker, but almost nobody else is supporting them, except for the four behind Gattis.
That tells me it’s more about their own egos than actually getting a new speaker. Once they realize that they are out of the running, it’s not guaranteed that they’ll be anti-Craddick. They’ll do what they need to to help their own careers, whether that’s with Craddick or not.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Waxahachie Prom Queen says:
“No disagreement that Olivo is a staff-loathed ineffective dolt. But she shows up at every swingin’ Quinceanera and fishfry in the district. It’s how she beat McCulskey. Again, not to be confused with effectiveness, respect or likeablility in Austin. Just popularity at home. Like Prom Queen.”
and
House Watcher says:
“WPQ has got it right. Olivo is popular back home. The voters have no clue how she behaves in Austin and don’t care. And, yes, Craddick gave her money for her primary. That’s my point. Insider baseball stuff doesn’t matter to your average voter in Rosenberg – not to mention it can’t be explained to anyone via a soundbite. Certainly a flower vendor could not beat her in a primary. Not even Ron Reynolds who gave it a good shot.
There are a ton of ineffective legislators on both sides of the aisle who continue to get elected. It’s certainly been difficult for a Democrat to be effective under Craddick.”
First, I would remind House Watcher that Olivo was a House member before Craddick became Speaker and before the House became a majority Republican body.
Second, maybe Distinguished Gentleman is right. Maybe the constituents need to be saved from themselves by term limits. And Olivo would seem to be the perfect poster child for term limits. And let’s not forget the fact that the state as a whole suffers from “an ineffective dolt” in public office, not just the one district which had the bad judgment to elect that “ineffective dolt” in the first place.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
The decline in strength of the GOP control of the Texas State House during Craddick’s speakership is the greatest reason he needs to go. How many GOP State Reps has he backed that have gone down?
By electing another Speaker, the GOP removes the ball and chain hanging around its neck in time for the next election cycle, and could gain Texas House seats with Kay Bailey at the top of the ticket.
This is a GOOD thing for the Texas GOP. Anyone who can’t see it is blinded by ideological zelotry so much that they would be willing to commit electoral suicide and forfeit all chances of actually enacting conservative policies. You need 51% of the general electorate to win an election. The SREC and David Barton cannot win a general election all by themselves. Funny how they don’t seem to realize this.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
December 31st, 2008 at 11:54 am
Barton and the SREC don’t need to win a general election. The social conservatives control the R Primary and once the R candidate emerges from the Primary they win statewide against a Liberal.
Barton and the SREC need only control the primary to control the agenda and, absent a massive amount of crossover votes in the 2010 race, that is why Perry kills Kay Bailey the same way he killed Strayhorn.
Reply »
Texrusk Reply:
December 31st, 2008 at 11:57 am
Dude, if you think that the voters in each state house race are thinking about Tom Craddick each time they vote, you’re screwed up.
Politics are local, and Republicans have run soft, bad candidates in years when the Republican brand is down. Look at the numbers and Rs just had horrible turnout. Most of that is due to the lack of fiscal conservatism in Washington, whereas Texas has been pretty good on that score – and Tom Craddick probably gets some of the credit for that.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
if you are a member of the Democrat Caucus, dial 1 to give your choice of who you won’t tolerate to Jim Dunnam…and dial 2 to give your anti’s to Charlie Geren.
Seriously, what a way for the R majority to have the speaker chosen — and when the D members call Geren or Dunnam (and not kidding here, they have the next day or so to pass along their anti’s to them) who is to say one of them won’t cook the numbers to reflect what they want?
Seriously House R’s, is jim dunnam pre-selecting the next R speaker better than Craddick?
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
December 31st, 2008 at 11:55 am
This is exactly waht is happening. Jim Dunnam is crowning the next R speaker all to the benefit of the Ds in 2010.
Reply »
House Watcher Reply:
December 31st, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Maybe. But the Ds have done very, very well under Craddick – as far as advancing their numbers. It’s a risk to have someone more reasonable for speaker and have the House run well.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
An Ode to Tom Craddick -
From 80’s rocker Dave Edmunds’ Slipping Away:
I can feel you slipping away from me.
A little bit further now every day.
I’m holding on, but I can’t believe
This is how you want it to be.
Oh, you’re slipping away.
Oh, you’re slipping away.
It feels like walking down a long, dark road.
You never talk to me the way you did before.
You ride through the city with your head held high.
And all I can do is watch you go by.
Oh, you’re slipping away.
Oh, you’re slipping away.
I’m gonna give it all I’ve got to give.
I’ve got to hold on, see what tomorrow brings.
You’re slipping away, but give me one more try.
One more chance to wipe these tears from my eyes.
You’re slipping away.
Oh, you’re slipping away
Reply »
Anonymous says:
If the ABCs can screw it up, they will. If there’s one thing the 64 Ds should have learned from the ABCs in 2007 (and in 2003, for that matter), it’s that you just can’t bank on them, their strategy, or their word–ever. Their political thermometer doesn’t work. The 64 Ds will have to connect with a broader coalition, because the Craddick Rs are actually divided into subgroups with divergent interests. And they will break apart over the next week and look for new homes–not all in the same place.
Reply »
Im just saying says:
I’m just saying….. You can add State Representative John Davis as one who would be lost without Craddick.
And in his district they really dont care what he has done, what he has done to them, or what he hasn’t done for them. He is a republican and that is all that matters.
He is Craddicks boy through and through. It is the only way he gets any assignments.
Reply »
House Watcher Reply:
December 31st, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Oh, my goodness. Another example of a member who was ineffective before Craddick, during Craddick and will be even more of a back bencher after Craddick.
Remember, his litmus test for a speaker candidate is that he/she is anti-choice. So, whoever wants the all important, coveted John Davis vote better whip out those credentials. Which clearly won’t be a problem since no matter how much folks holler that Dunnam is in charge, it won’t be a D.
Reply »
T.J. Reply:
December 31st, 2008 at 12:02 pm
So Republicans are the only ones who vote blindly based on party affiliation? You may have heard of a group of people called African-Americans. They do that too.
Reply »
Chad Briscoe says:
Really, Paul? Pledge cards? Their WORD? What universe are you living in?
Reply »
Anonymous says:
This was just posted on Quorum. Sorry Warren, the Genie is out of the bottle:
December 31, 2008 11:47 AM
CHISUM SAY HE WAS MISQUOTED IN STAR-TELEGRAM
Reiterates Craddick has support from all Republicans but the ABCs
House Appropriations Chairman and lead Craddick vote-counter Warren Chisum (R-Pampa) just released a statement that he was misquoted in the piece we blasted last night from the Ft. Worth Star Telegram,.
Chisum said, “Last night, I was misquoted on the Fort Worth Star-Telegram website as saying that Speaker Craddick had 53 votes. That number is a misinterpretation of what I said, and certainly not what I intended to say. The speaker carries all the Republicans except for the ABCs, and his position remains very strong.”
Presumably, the scheduled Sunday Craddick strategy meeting reported in the story is still on. That is when the Speaker is expected to lay out his strategy to overcome what appears to be a shortage of votes.
Reply »
Cornhusker says:
The ABC’s are being used as puppets by Dunnam. Are they really so naive as to think that an ABC R for speaker selected by the D’s will not have Dunnam’s radical socialist agenda forced down his throat? Trust me, a House under an R speaker with majority D support will not be a new era of “bipartisanship” that they claim is their motivation. Bipartisanship according to Dunnam is Republicans giving in to D legislation. Dunnam is setting this up to that he can control a Republican speaker and use this session as a way for the D’s to take the majority for the 2011 session. This is all about redistricting and the ABC R’s should be ashamed of themselves for selling their souls to those who have none.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Any of the 64 who break their word (plus any of the “Judas Ten” who don’t come to their senses before the voting begins), WILL receive primary challenges.
Every nickle that Craddick-Perry-TLR has to spend in the Democratic primaries defending a phony Democrat who supports the Craddick agenda against a real Democrat primary opponent is a nickle they won’t have for a general election fight.
With regard to phony Democrats who break their words, has anyone seen Slimy Jaime Capelo recently? How about Robby Cook, Dan Ellis, Timoteo Garza, Roberto Gutierrez, Jesse Jones, or Allan Ritter?
The disloyal Pseudocrats are a gravely endangered species.
Some on the Judas Caucus are merely overly ambitions and could not succeed on their own merits without a boost from some Svengali promoting them ahead of more talented colleagues in exchange for treason. These Pena/Dukes/Guillen types will drift from Craddick now that Craddick can no longer repay their disloyalty with unearned advancement.
Others, like Flores and Giddings, are lost causes who won’t come around (at least not without an unethical incentive, which would turn them in a heartbeat), and the Democrats would be much better off shedding these losers anyway.
I suspect Turner is even now trying to negotiate “party disloyalty by the small handful” with a fellow Craddick lieutenant of the Republican label with the hope of swinging his dwindling Judas Caucus behind a Craddick surrogate in exchange for unearned appointments.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
December 31st, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Is Chisum is that surrogate candidate? Wasn’t he a Laney R?
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
December 31st, 2008 at 12:26 pm
I don’t think Chisum is the Craddick surrogate.
Chisum may be the guy who announces the Craddick surrogate with a “heartfelt” speech about switching his allegiance from Craddick to ___ “after much prayer and soul searching.”
Reply »
MyNameisEarl says:
To anonymous 11:34 – Thanks for discussing Dunnam. Far too little credit has been thrown his way for the successful campaign he is waging to tear apart the R’s. Dunnam and the gang have registered numerous victories to date and R members 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) 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, Keffer, Gattis, 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 »
Will Hartnett Reply:
December 31st, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Well said.
Reply »
Ben Quick Reply:
December 31st, 2008 at 2:18 pm
“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.”
Will, maybe you should consider or remember that is was Tom Craddick that cast the first stone against Republicans who did not follow his edict.
You double RRs have been leading the fight to cleans the “party” of RHINOs (is that not what you call them?) at the behest of Tom Craddick – isn’t that tearing the party apart as well?
Why don’t you let members vote their district instead of insisting they vote the party platform?
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Chisum needs to S T O P, refrain from talking to the press. He’s always been a respected member, but he’s beginning to look downright silly.
Reply »
Im just saying says:
This is seriously about whether Craddick will run a candidate against someone in the primary. Cross him and you will have a primary opponent funded by Craddick-Perry-TLR. Count on it.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Chisum says he was misquoted in the Star-Telegram! That must mean that Craddick is actually only 5 or 6 votes short as Chisum was quoted in the Houston paper!
Reply »
Texas Publius says:
December 28 – “The speaker has the support of the majority of the House.” Speaker Craddick’s spokesperson Alexis DeLee
December 29 – “The speaker continues to have the largest and most solid support of the House.” Speaker Craddick’s spokesperson 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 31 MORN — “He’ll decide one way or the other at this Sunday’s meeting.” State Rep. Warren Chisum
December 31 MORN (version 2) – “Craddick’s possible withdrawal from the speaker’s race is not at all going to be part of the discussion at this Sunday’s meeting.” Speaker Craddick’s spokesperson Alexis DeLee
December 31 AFT – “Last night, I was misquoted … as saying that Speaker Craddick had 53 votes … The speaker carries all the Republicans except for the ABCs, and his position remains very strong.” State Rep. Warren Chisum
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
December 31st, 2008 at 12:20 pm
That ansewrs that. Craddick is only 5 or 6 short.
Reply »
Im just saying says:
I think Chisum is one short of a pair.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
I’m sure West Texas is a little nervous at how they’ve stuck with Craddick too long in this deal.
Reply »
Cornhusker says:
If anyone cares to notice, the belief that their is some kind of momentum against Craddick is just an illusion. No one has come out in support of Gattis since he announced the G3 (Kolkhorst, Tuffy, Harless)and the opposition is still operating on the ABC idea, which has a miserable track record. The opposition will not coalesce around around an ABC R, even when he is announced. Gattis and the G3 will vote for Craddick. In the last 24 hours alone, we’ve seen some D’s on Dunnam’s 64 list say publically that they ar uncommitted.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
December 31st, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Preach it brother!
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Unless the new Obama Administration really screws things up (and after 8 years of “W” is it even possible to screw things up worse than they already are?), then Democrats are poised to re-take the Texas House of Representatives in the 2010 elections. So either way you slice it, whoever is chosen Speaker on January 13, 2009, will only get to serve one term.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Several Craddick Rs, and even some Dunnam Ds, are putting out individual feelers to one another by phone and text re: Solomons, Gattis, and Smithee. Members are going to break for who they trust and who best advances their individual interests. Anyone who thinks there’s no momentum against Craddick will observe the fruits of that non-momentum on January 13.
Reply »
Im just saying says:
You know that is the best scenario. Keep Craddick in there so the Democrats can win the House in 2010.
Craddick will make it miserable for us for the next two years, but we will gain so much more in the long run.
Unfortunately if you are on the hurting end, it is bad.
Reply »
Cornhusker says:
To Anonymous 1:02 pm: If the members are going to chose someone based on “who best advances their individual interests”, which I will interpret as being the same as their districts’ interests, then Craddick can count on enough D support to put him easily over the top. Chente did say that Craddick knows El Paso better than all of the other speaker candidates. And look at Pena and Kino. Have they not had benefited from supporting Craddick? What do many south Texas and urban Dems have to lose by supporting Craddick while the Republicans have the majority? The reason why some D’s abandoned Craddick last session was not because their districts suffered from their support of Craddick but because Dunnam and Boyd Richie threatened them with primary opponents. Aren’t those the tactics that the opposition claims to abhor and associates with Craddick?
Reply »
anon Reply:
December 31st, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Some blogger threatened to run primary opponents against some D’s. Bloggers.
Reply »
Peaceful Warrior says:
Numbskull, they act like a representative of over a hundred thousand people and walk up to or call Gallego, Trey, or Rene, and say “I’m off the list.” The can damn well vote the way they think is best for their district, not what Paul thinks or the Startlegram, for God’s sake.
Reply »
Texrusk says:
Burka, just watched your video, and your list is pretty shaky. You count Smithee, and all he’s ever said is that he would run – but only if Craddick couldn’t win. So it’s a stretch to say he’s off the list.
In the same way, some of the D’s on the list of 64 have made comments in the paper that indicate that they’re still open-minded.
I think your list of 80 is a Jello list, and once the mold is pulled back, so to speak, it will slop all over the place.
Reply »
Im just saying says:
Ha-Ha! Dunnam and Richie dont have the money to do that!
Now Craddick-Perry-TLR DOES! Millions in fact.
Reply »
Texrusk Reply:
December 31st, 2008 at 3:09 pm
There are these folks called Trial lawyers, last I checked, and they had plenty of money left over.
You are right on one thing, they can’t use illegal foreign donations like grandpa Obama.
Reply »
Cornhusker says:
To Im just saying 1:51 pm: Ever heard of trial lawyers? What planet were you on this election cycle? D candidates in Texas were pretty well funded in the primaries and general election. Democrats are even threatening primary opponents this week.
Examples:
http://elpasotimes.typepad.com/capitol/2008/12/spirited-.html
http://blogs.chron.com/texaspolitics/archives/2008/12/democrats_warne.html
Reply »
Anonymous says:
The number of responses to this posting now exceeds the number of votes required to win the Speakership of the Texas House! LOL!
Reply »
Im just saying says:
sorry, but TLR alone donated over $3million. Perry donated over $3 Million also. And this does not include the last 3 months.
So, no there is no one to compare to. TLR and Perry will retaliate against any non craddick person. And very hard.
Count on it. Count on 6 million of it.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
December 31st, 2008 at 4:35 pm
I totally disagree. The Owner’s Box operation depends on Craddick as speaker. It is much cheaper to get along with the new speaker than it is to spend $6 million trying to retaliate for a speaker who isn’t even in the Legislature any more.
Reply »
Im just saying says:
Those numbers are for 2008 only.
Reply »
Waxahachie Prom Queen says:
The folks at TTLA have at least as many millions as their “decision-makers” have IQ points. So that’s a good 50 mil.
Reply »
anon says:
How much $$ does Stars Over Texas PAC have? And, how will Craddick use that money next cycle if he’s not speaker?
Reply »
Shine the Light says:
If Craddick is not the Speaker, the Stars Over Texas PAC money goes to Christie Craddick. She won’t have her $10,000 per month coming in anymore from her daddy’s campaign so I imagine she will get one lump sum from Stars to close its books, etc.
Reply »
dickbird says:
Never seen so much blather following a single Burka post. Me thinks that no one knows what’s going on, including the Speaker. If you’re looking for a definitive statement, here it is.
“The citizens of Texas have suffered because elected representatives have chosen to follow Craddick and his agenda to the detriment of the voters who elected them.”
Reply »
Nachtwarheight says:
For all of you Craddick worshipers out there who are fretting about Dunnam’s influence over the ABCs and the next potential Speaker i would just say this. Craddick himself can prevent any Dunnam influence by simply withdrawing from the Speakers race. That will completely eliminate Dunnams influence over the next speaker or the agenda for the 81st session.
The only problem with that scenario is that it would require Craddick and his house member desciples to put party above self interest in the form of keeping “power”. Most (certainly not all) of the dwindling but remaining Craddick loyalist know that they don’t have a chance at powerful positions in the House if they are judged simply on talent and merit. They can’t afford to leave Craddick for fear of a permanent back bench seat… not out of retaliation (the way Craddick put members there) but based on ability…or the lack thereof.
Reply »
anonymous Reply:
January 1st, 2009 at 7:49 am
There are talented people both on and off Craddick’s team. It has been the same for every speaker.
Reply »
dickbird says:
Nachtwarheight – were you specifically thinking about Phil King when you wrote “if they are judged on talent and merit”?
Reply »
Nachtwarheight says:
Nope. But what is unfortunate for the people of Texas is that Rep. King is one of the more talented people left on the Craddick team.
Reply »
Im just saying says:
Here is some info on how much Stars Over Texas has provided:
http://bayareahouston.blogspot.com/2008/11/bitches-of-tom-craddick.html
If he is not speaker, his daughter can still run the pac. It is not speaker oriented.
Reply »
Credentials says:
“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.”
I find it amusing any time someone automatically says one member or party “will control” the speaker they elect.
After all, look at the 15 Democrats who were responsible for Craddick’s re-election in 2007. You didn’t see all of them getting too much in return for falling on that sword. Some plum seats here and there but, at the end of the day, their bills were killed (Chavez) and their illusions shattered.
“Illusions” being the operative word here.
All I’m saying is that politicans are human beings and when it comes to human beings, you can never can tell what you’re going to get.
Reply »
Credentials says:
“She won’t have her $10,000 per month coming in anymore from her daddy’s campaign so I imagine she will get one lump sum from Stars to close its books, etc.”
Um, the campaign and the PAC are different animals entirely. Even if Craddick doesn’t stay speaker, he still stays a state rep – and his campaign payments to her “Direct contacts” can keep on keepin’ on.
Just wanted to clarify that.
Reply »
Waxahachie Prom Queen says:
After Craddick goes, Stars over Texas will have about as much fundraising prowess and influence as the Texas Partnership dis after Laney went kaboom.
Reply »
Waxahachie Prom Queen says:
And the Craddick D’s are the dregs of the party, crooked losers who could not generate a following from within their own party or the majority membership in the 90s. That’s why they jumped ship for the puppy treats being dangled from the other side. See: Kevin Bailey.
Reply »