Why are the Democrats complaining?
Some of the Democrats are still said to be grumbling over committee appointments, and Matt Angle of the Lone Star Project blasted Straus for appointing Republicans to head the most important committees. Everybody is fixated over the R vs. D question, but they are missing the big picture of the Straus committee appointments.
Straus appointed 18 Republican chairs and 16 Democratic chairs. But 10 of the chairmanships went to the ABCs (Straus being the 11th). Anybody who knows where the bathrooms are located in the Capitol knew that this was going to happen: All the ABCs were going to get chairmanships. Of the other 65 Republicans, only 8 got chairmanships. These were Corte (Defense & Veteran’s Affairs); Todd Smith (Elections); Branch (Higher Ed); Hunter (Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence); Smithee (Insurance); Land & Resource Management (Bonnen); Pensions, Investments, & Financial Services (Truitt); and Public Health (Kolkhorst). Except for Corte, who gets bonus points from being from San Antonio, none of the Republican chairman are identified with the hardcore social conservatives, who were shut out of chairmanships.
That is the point the Democrats are missing. Straus gave them a House that is run by moderates. They have a chance to get their bills out of committee and out of Calendars. The wing nuts have been relegated to the back microphone. Look at Calendars: 8 Republicans, of whom 6 are ABCs and the other 2 are Creighton and Kolkhorst.
The committee appointments signal loud and clear what kind of House Straus wants. In addition to putting the centrists in control, he pushed the major participants in the battles of the last three sessions to the periphery of the action. On the Democratic side, Dunnam, Gallego, and Coleman have chairmanships, but their committees are not the center of the action. On the Republican side, the Craddick loyalists–Chisum, Phil King, Hartnett, Morrison, Woolley–have been relegated to minor roles. This is not by accident. And the Craddick D’s, whose dalliances with the ex-speaker also fed the fires of discontent last session, no longer have chairmanships (except for McClendon, another San Antonian). It seems to me that Straus is sending the message that it is time to move on from the battles of the past, and that the combatants who threw the House into turmoil on both sides of the aisle are not going to be leaders in the future. Straus passed the torch to a new generation of members, Republican and Democrat, who chafed at the leadership of their parties and are ready to govern instead of fight. That sounds to me like a pretty good deal for the Democrats. And the Republicans. And the House.
Anonymous says:
Paul,
You forgot Todd Hunter who is also a moderate, D turned R.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
February 18th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
I corrected the omission.
Reply »
Phillip Martin says:
Straus covers his partisanship better than Craddick.
And I don’t think calling a spade a spade is complaining, Paul. The Elections Committee is stacked with voter suppression ideologues. There is a TLR Committee. A couple Democrat freshmen clearly have a bull’s eyes on their backs; a couple Republican freshmen got more than they deserved. All of those things are true. Stating those facts doesn’t count as complaining. And I think one can see both happening — your thoughts and the Straus’ partisanship — and have it not be so wholly separate that you have to raise one up above the other, as you do in your post.
Unless, of course, one isn’t comfortable thinking outside of the prevailing conventional wisdom that Straus’ Speakership is all great. It took so long for enough people to finally let go of Craddick as Speaker…they’re just rounding into form on Straus’ superiority.
Well, wake up everyone. The new boss ain’t the same as the old boss, but he’s not so incredibly different, either. As I said at the start of this: Straus covers his partisanship better than Craddick.
How well he covers it is the test of the Session.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
February 18th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
Craddick’s problem wasn’t only that he was partisan (except for the Craddick D’s). It was that he kept such tight control of the Republican caucus that there was no possibility that the Democrats could get a fair hearing on any issue. Craddick would not let Republican members voe for Democratic amendments. He ground the Democrats’ noses in the dirt.
Craddick was partisan 99% of the time and to the nth degree (tort reform, congressional redistricting). Calendars was partisan. Local & Consent was partisan. Straus is a Republican, but he may be able to run the House without being overly partisan.
Reply »
Phillip Martin Reply:
February 18th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
I’m certain he’ll be able to run the House without being “visibly” partisan. It will be small moves that the larger body can’t coalesce behind.
Craddick would upset 80+ Members with one gesture, and he’d do it just because he could. I think what Straus has done is upset a large number of Members with a large number of tiny gestures, and those reasons aren’t punitive, but they are political (either to promote Republican politics, Republican principles, or his own small score-settling). But the larger body can’t really coalesce behind those tiny gestures.
That’s what I mean when I say Straus covers his partisanship better than Craddick.
Reply »
A2Z Reply:
February 18th, 2009 at 6:34 pm
Mr. Martin, I enjoy reading the dialog between you and Mr. Burka. I am curious about something. In your view, what would committee appointments look like under a non-partisan Republican Speaker(in general terms)? And how would they not have been construed as pro-Democrat?
Anonymous says:
On the Democratic side, Dunnam, Gallego, and Coleman [. . .] are not the center of the action. On the Republican side, the Craddick loyalists [. . .] have been relegated to minor roles. Straus is sending the message [. . .] that the combatants who threw the House into turmoil on both sides of the aisle are not going to be leaders in the future
Paul: You seem to be setting up an equivalence with this post: just as Tom Craddick & his lieutenants were bad for the Republicans, the Dunnam/Coleman/Gallego trio is bad for the Democrats.
Could you provide some specific examples of how the Democratic leadership the past three sessions was as equally flawed as Tom Craddick’s leadership?
I ask because while you’ve spent a lot of ink/pixels over the past six years and developed some pretty substantial arguments on why Craddick should go, this is the first time I’ve ever seen you write that the Democratic leadership should also be removed for the same reasons as Craddick should be removed. Seems like a pretty bold claim to make; in fact, as recently as your last post, you were writing that Dunnam and Coleman were “underutilized” in their assignments and implying that Gallego should have been on Appropriations.
Without some good, substantial arguments behind the claim that the Democratic leadership should go (and perhaps an explanation of your change of heart), it sounds like you’re resting on the journalistic crutch of the false equivalency in your answer to Democratic criticisms of committee assignments.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
February 18th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
I didn’t say that the Democratic leadership should be removed. I said that Straus believes it. It is clear that he wanted a change in leadership on both sides of the aisle. I don’t think there is as much material on the R side as on the D side.
Reply »
Spiro Eagleton says:
The Burnt Orange Report writers will bitch and moan until there are 150 “progressive” (what’s wrong with the word liberal?) Democrats in the House that make Dennis Kucinich look like Ronald Reagan. They’ll never be happy. Ever.
Reply »
Phillip Martin Reply:
February 18th, 2009 at 8:14 am
What a bullsh*t claim.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
February 18th, 2009 at 11:02 am
Et tu Phillip? Asterisks will not suffice.
Reply »
Spiro Eagleton Reply:
February 18th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
Phillip, you know its true. You wouldn’t even be happy in Hawaii or Massachusetts because there are still a few endangered Republicans in their state houses. If it was up to you and the BOR Boys you would ban all Republicans as being hazardous to your health. Then, after all the conservative Republicans were rounded up and exiled you take about 30 seconds to celebrate before you found something else to complain about.
Reply »
Phillip Martin Reply:
February 18th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
I’d love to talk about something real; if you can drop these baiting remarks, I’d be happy to do so.
Anonymous says:
“Why are the Democrats complaining?” After providing 6/7ths of Straus’ original support (and without which he would not be Speaker), his Election Committee assignments assured passage of Voter ID — a not-at-all-subtle slap in the face of those who assured his election!
Reply »
Sidd Finch Reply:
February 18th, 2009 at 8:43 am
Which is heaviest: the biggest weight, or the one that tips the balance? The answer is, yes!
Reply »
AAnonymous Reply:
February 18th, 2009 at 10:11 am
So voter ID gets out of committee … making R base happy … for a while … there are enough votes to kill it on the floor.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
February 18th, 2009 at 11:10 am
Re anonymous @ 7:40:
After the ABCs named Straus, I wrote a post titled, “Did the Democrats Make a Mistake?” My point was this: that they had removed from office the arch-villain of Texas politics, the person whose leadership was poison to the Republican party, and installed in his place the member of the House who was most likely to remake the GOP into a party that was interested in governing instead of imposing an ideological agenda.
So my question is, what did the Democrats think Straus was going to do? He’s a Republican. He has a longer and deeper Republican lineage than any member of the House except maybe Tom Craddick. I heard from some of the Democratic leaders after I posted this piece. They were mad. What they told me was, all we want is a chance to represent our constituents and do things for our districts. OK, so Straus gave them that chance. That’s what I said above. They have a good chance to pass their bills. And you know what? They’re still complaining.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
February 18th, 2009 at 11:35 am
So are we already at the point that when the motion is made, the Dems vote to remove and the Repubs (including the Craddick loyalists) all vote to keep Straus?
Reply »
anonymouse1 says:
Anonymous Says:
February 18th, 2009 at 7:40 am
— a not-at-all-subtle slap in the face of those who assured his election!
if they couldn’t see this coming, it mostly means they didn’t cut the deal right. whose fault is that?
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
February 18th, 2009 at 8:18 am
I’m thinking the chairmanships given the Democratic leadership says something about the kind of “deal” that was cut.
Reply »
spirit of buck travis says:
And Harold Dutton is carping that he wasn’t given a plum assignment after riding on Craddick’s bandwagon? Come on, Harold, you can’t have it both ways.
Reply »
You thought Keel was going to be bad says:
Paul, this what you wrote:
“It seems to me that Straus is sending the message that it is time to move on from the battles of the past, and that the combatants who threw the House into turmoil on both sides of the aisle are not going to be leaders in the future. Straus passed the torch to a new generation of members, Republican and Democrat, who chafed at the leadership of their parties and are ready to govern instead of fight.”
Forgive me, but werent the ABCs exactly the combatants that threw the House into turmoil last session? And, are they not being given the opportunity to be the new leaders. It seems they were as much, if not more, resposnbsile for the open warfare that happend last session as Dunnam/ Coleman/Gallego were.
I just hope everyone sees the hyprocrisy of what was done with the commitee assignments. The bunch that moved to vacate the chair several times last session–the ultimate act of warfare– are now leading the House and have all been rewarded with cushy committee assisgnments, oftentimes in mupltiples of two such as the 6 ABC committee chairs also on calendars.
It seems that Republican combatants from last session have been rewarded with the ability to lead Texas while the Democrat combatants who stood with their Reoublican breatheren to bring down the tyrant are relegated to second-tier support roles. And, then you get folks like Kolkhorst and Truitt who never backed the Straus candidacy until the bitter end when he was all that was left and played wishy washy through the entire game (you should have listened to Truitt’s speech that Sunday night athe Craddick supporters meeting at Sullivans about how Straus would be so awful as Speaker that she was going to put her own name into nomination to replace him). Straus says no retribution against Truitt, Kolkhorst, Smithee Bonnen and Corte and he means it, but he extracts severe retribution against a whole lot of others who did nothing to disrupt the end of the last session and whose only crime was to remain loyaol to the incumbent speaker who had placed them in their position of leadership. They were punished because they did not attempt to blow up the last session, but instead get through the final weeks and pass a budget as they felt an obligation to the people of Texas to do.
Straus’ claim of no retrubution may have been sincere, but the reports coming from the Speaker’s office about who really made the cmmittee assignments (does the name Denise Davis) suprise anyone) means that he may have washed his hands of the process and passed the responsibility to others who not only wanted reeubution, they demanded it. Denise would certainly fit that description.
From what happened yesterday on the floor, and from the further study and analysis of D vs R committee representation coming from folks like Matt Angle, it appears that Straus turning the process over to others may well mean that his session if off to a very risky start and that yestreday’s parlimentrary inquiries about vacating the chair may become a daily occurance and that his shelf-life as Speoaker is short-lived.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
February 19th, 2009 at 10:35 pm
Straus’ speakership will indeed be “short-lived” since Democrats will pick up enough seats to recapture the Texas House of Representatives. When that happens, I certainly hope that whoever the new Speaker is in 2011 will have enough sense to pick someone other than the incompetent and venomous Denise Davis as Parliamentarian
Reply »
house gallery gadfly says:
Perhaps the Democrats are complaining because they need someone to run “against” in 2010. If Joe Straus does a great job, then why elect a Democratic majority come election time? Wasn’t it Matt Angle who was worried about the demise of Craddick becuase Craddick’s actions gave something Democrats could use to win swing districts?
Oh, and GOP’ers hope the Democrats keep talking about how they oppose common-sense ballot security measures like Voter ID that are used in just about every other industrial Democracy in the world. The race card doesn’t play well in suburubia. Neither does supporting ACORN-style election shenenigans.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
February 18th, 2009 at 8:35 am
Common Sense = Spending Millions of $$$$ to Address a GOP/AG-proven, non-existent problem. Welcome back to Texas, GWB!
Reply »
Frank Perez Reply:
February 18th, 2009 at 8:57 am
Anon, maybe the Texas Democrats are so bitter that they didn’t get the State House last November that they’re hoping Straus fails.
However, GOP dominance in Texas is going to end sooner or later.
Reply »
Spiro Eagleton Reply:
February 18th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
Frank is back, baby! How is the city council election in Keokuk, Iowa looking?
Jim says:
Democrats are complaining because that is all democras ever do. It doesn’t matter if it is at the local, state, or federal level. They are never happy. Look at what they have nationally. Obama is president and they have complete control over the House and Senate and all they do is bitch about how the republicans won’t join them in the spirit of bi-partisanship that has never existed in the history of our country. Moderate republicans like Strauss are not good enough for them because for them it is all or nothing. Agree with us completely or don’t bother, Spiro is correct.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
February 18th, 2009 at 10:19 am
Just because you call yourself Jim on the blog doesn’t mean we don’t recognize you Tom.
Reply »
Tort Reform Tea Leaves says:
Gotta see the forest from the trees, people.
Why is out of state Matt Angle carping? Two reasons:
First, the Trials got rolled in the clover by Straus on the appointments in Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence. Straus stacked it 9-3 Republican; and it’s 7-5 in favors of tort reformers even when Hartnett and Hughes flake off.
It’s the political equivalent of an ambulance chaser watching a fifty car freeway pileup and not being able to pass out business cards or chiropractic referrals.
And the tort reformers have eight solid votes – if not nine – on Calendars. So no wonder Dunnam is frustrated. It’s just like Craddick days, he can only try to offer amendments. But unlike some of the Craddick robots, a lot of the Straus GOPer are a lot smarter and a lot more seasoned in passing legisaltion on the floor.
Remember – Matt Angle’s money bag was a notorious trial lawyer – the legendary six-feet-under Fred Barron.
Second, with Barron now ground, Angle has to start raising the volume to make up for his hugh financial loss in order to fund races in 2010 – the year going in to congressional redistricting.
Texas will pick up three or four seats and with a Republican majorities in both Houses and a Republican Governor, those three or four could easily be drawn Republicans and a guy like Chet Edwards could get smoked once and for all.
So Angle is raising cane out of frustration and because of what is at stake in just two years.
Reply »
Phillip Martin Reply:
February 18th, 2009 at 10:30 am
“With Baron now ground”
What a f***ing asshole.
Reply »
Spiro Eagleton Reply:
February 18th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
Yeah, pretty tasteless I agree, but what’s with all your profanity, dude?
Reply »
Phillip Martin Reply:
February 18th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
Maybe more than needed. But the tastelessness was rather extreme.
anonymous says:
If Chet Edwards has made it this long, there is no reason to think they can draw him out next go round.
Way to point out that Fred Baron has died (“six feet under”; “Barron now ground.” You told him.
Reply »
Frank Perez Reply:
February 18th, 2009 at 10:44 am
Edwards will stay in the House until he dies or runs for statewide office one day, maybe the Governor’s Mansion in 2014.
Reply »
Spiro Eagleton Reply:
February 18th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
YES! Frank is off his meds and on a roll, baby!
Frank, how do you have such great insights into Rep. Chet Edwards’ mind? Amazing!
Reply »
the truth hurts says:
Paul misses the point again! Why are the democrats complaining he asks. Cause their lips are moving. They have built into their DNA to whine on cue. They engage their victum status even in victory. Paul being such an aficionado of whining you’d think he would know this already.
Reply »
Anon says:
Phase II begins
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Phillip Martin and Frank Perez should spend together. Frank needs adult supervision and Phillip needs to work on his manners and his potty mouth.
Reply »
Phillip Martin Reply:
February 18th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
You’re right. We should be polite to those who mock the dead.
Reply »
cow droppings says:
in an attempt to step away from the hysteria of some of these comments, this whole debate is informative of different worldviews held by liberals and conservatives.
The liberal guru of “word-ology”…Professor Lakhof would argue that the Democrat worldview focuses a lot on the question of fairness. That is why they believe in greater redistribution than Republicans.
The Republican worldview is not as applicable to this debate, but for the record it is more Darwinian as it relates to the individual: survival of the fittest, and the worst thing we can do is prescribe equal outcomes because it removes the incentive for genius.
To the point: the question of fairness is very dependent on one’s perspective. One thing is certain is that Democrats, who often are for quotas, like to to define fairness based on the number of people of a certain profile who are included.
In this case, Angle, Martin and other partisan Democrats look only at numbers that they believe don’t measure up, and offer no additional thoughtful analysis beyond the numbers such as Burka has in this case — specifically that the top R chairs are more moderate, consensus-building R’s that will give the D’s an equal chance to run with their priorities.
The problem with this focus on fairness is who defines what is fair? I would just say they are not being fair to Straus in their analysis of his appointments, but then again perhaps there are other motives.
Reply »
Phillip Martin Reply:
February 18th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
I actually think I made this exact same analysis last week on BOR. Several hours before the “winners and losers” post, too. I just also made the analysis about the existence of partisanship, too.
Straus covers his partisanship much better than Craddick did.
As I said in my first comment: the existence of “consensus-building” R’s atop some Committees does not exclude the existence of partisanship in others, or in Committee assignments to specific Members. Paul has done a great job, in writing this post, as positing that it can only be one thing at a time.
That’s what conventional wisdom requires: embrace a single, simple idea and defend it vigorously. I recognize that there are moderate Chairs. I just am also able to recognize the severe partisanship that Straus used in his appointments.
And many Members have, too, and that’s why this tension is bubbling up.
Reply »
cow droppings Reply:
February 18th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
if a tree falls in the BOR forest, does it make a sound…or just a partisan shrill?
Reply »
Phillip Martin Reply:
February 18th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
How do you know it falls unless you’re reading us?
Spiro Eagleton Reply:
February 19th, 2009 at 7:15 am
I love The BOR(G) (YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED) when it gives us stories about Jennifer Gale and Robin Cravey. I’m serious. That’s the best stuff on there and few others cover it.
Ida says:
Re: several remarks above about what Matt Angle may or may not be pissed about -
Is there any persuasive evidence that running against Craddick (or with him, for that matter) directly affected the outcomes of any races? His name recognition is 100% in the comments section of Texas political blogs. It is significantly lower, I suspect, among registered or likely general election voters.
Reply »
houtopia Reply:
February 18th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Amen, Ida. Most Texans don’t have the slightest idea who the Speaker of the Texas House is, nor do they care.
What they do know is whether or not their local schools are working well, whether or not they or family members have health insurance, whether or not they can afford their utility bills or to send their kids to college, insurance rates, etc.
Democrats are now in control of the federal government, while Republicans run the state. How things are going with the economy and these pocketbook issues for Texans will have a much bigger impact than this inside baseball stuff on which party gets credit or blame, and their respective prospects for electoral success here in 2010.
Oh, and you can bet an Obama Justice Department will have a big say in redistricting here in Texas, even if the GOP still runs everything.
Reply »
Ida says:
(And, of course, I pose this question to Paul, too, given his theory about the absence of Craddick as a focal point. This may well be true of participants in the process, but what do you think about the electorate…?)
Reply »
Harry Doghiney says:
the truth hurts
You are a grade-A certifiable troll.
Reply »
GOP Realist says:
I love Straus’ moves. They are pure genius for frustrating the Dems’ ability to take the TX House and re-introducing the Texas GOP to independent voters as a resonable party capable of governing.
Dems, you don’t have easy target Craddick to kick around anymore. Sorry.
GOP will pick up TX House seats in 2010, and be well-positioned. Dem take-over is not pre-ordained just because of demographics.
Thank you Straus.
And by the way, thank you Craddick for being part of a Texas GOP leadership team that budgeted wisely and avoided a California-type mess in Texas. If Dems had run the TX House since 2003, we would be right there with them.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Funny to read all the Repubs whining about Dems whining. As for Texas, it’s fair to ask what did Dems (leadership especially) think they were getting with Straus? [Ida, I'm with you -- the idea that identification with Craddick is going to get someone voted out of office and give control of the House to Dems is way overblown.] On the national level, sorry Repubs, you don’t get a pass on the huge mess you left by claiming “fiscal conservatism” and “just saying no” now!
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
February 18th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
Exactly: What did the Democrats think they were getting. Straus has a better Republican pedigree than anyone in the Legislature except, maybe, Tom Craddick.
Reply »
Tellnitlikeitis says:
I hope you don’t have too many grandkids, GOP Realist.
We have huge road problems and little willingness to finance them.
We have huge water problems..easy to ID the need but little willingness to pay for them.
Meanwhile, Texas ranks dead last among the 50 states in % of people over 25 with a high school diploma.
We rank 46th in SAT scores
1st in number of uninsured kids.
1st in number of total population uninsured.
1st in air pollution emissions
1st in amount of volatile organic compounds released into the air.
1st in amount of toxic chemicals released into the water.
1st in amount of carbon dioxide emissions.
1st in amount of cancer-causing carcinogens released into the air.
And the list continues from there.
And you are pleased with where this state is headed for your grandkids?
Reply »
cow droppings Reply:
February 18th, 2009 at 8:09 pm
the same old tired arguments that somehow Democrats forgot to raise when they were in power for 100 years.
And yet, 1,000 people move to Texas each day, despite all your statistics. I am sure they are simply masochists looking for more misery.
OR…maybe some are reasonable about our unique situation: yes we have more poverty and higher rates of uninsured, but we also have a 1,254 mile border with a third world country that runs people off if not for lack of economic opportunity, then because of drug violence.
More pollution? Yes, but we are also home to the largest petrochemical industry in the world.
Again, Democrats tend to throw out a bunch of numbers if they suit their political agenda, but for some reason they don’t dig much further.
Reply »
Spiro Eagleton Reply:
February 19th, 2009 at 7:17 am
Telly, I think you need to move to California. It’s obviously much better for you there than it is here in horrible Texas.
Reply »
asmith says:
Tort reform tea leaves,
The Dems will have enough money to run their races. I’m sure POTUS will raise some money in Dallas, Houston, Austin, and San Antone.
If you can’t beat Chet with Brazos and Johnson in that district, what makes you think you can beat him in a redrawn district.
GOP realist, many Texas would be glad to go back to a House ran by moderate to conservative Democrats.
Reply »
Jack says:
A response to Mr. Burka’s thought that the House will now govern rather than fight is necessary.
Fighting will continue. The House is set up to fight. Rather than offer utopian ideas of a House passing legislation through a mill we should recognize that debate is based on disagreement and winning the battle of ideas.
I think Mr. Burka may have meant to say the previous fighting has been over the ability to fight. Speaker Strauss seems to be willing to allow the House to fight over ideas rather than the mere ability to fight.
Fighting will continue and it is good. to suggest otherwise is Pollyana disguised tyranny.
Reply »
Frank Perez Reply:
February 18th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
The problem with the Texas Democrats is that they can’t raise MONEY to win statewide offices.
I hope Straus can get the House under control because it could be another ugly outlook.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
February 18th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
Of course there will be debate. That’s what makes the House the House. But the speaker will not be the focal point of attention.
Reply »
Frank Perez says:
Sprio, why do you HATE me so much ?
What have I done wrong ?
Reply »
Spiro Eagleton Reply:
February 19th, 2009 at 7:18 am
I love you Frank. I just can’t figure out if you are a joke or not. Your observations are wacky and off the wall. Please, tell us more about the county commissioners election in Provo, Utah and how the progressive candidate may win 12% there this time! Woohoo!
Reply »
Frank Perez says:
Burka, when do you expect the TX Democrats to get both houses of the legislature back ?
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
February 18th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
The D’s may not get the Senate for awhile. Chris Harris’s seat and Carona’s seat are possibilities. Bell had a shot to beat Huffman but getting another Democrat in the race killed him. I don’t see any other seats that are likely to go Democratic anytime soon. Of course there will be a new map, and the endangered R’s will have better districts. D’s are likely to lose ground in the House too. They have too many close seats to defend.
Reply »
slick says:
Paul,
The reason Matt is complaining is because that’s his job — that’s the role he is to play. If he were to come out and say that he’s perfectly content with the leadership positions given to D’s, that would do away with his best and only argument for raising money next cycle to flip the House. I respect Matt, he’s very smart, and I personally hope the House flips, but thinking that he’s going to have anything positive to say about the hand D’s are dealt by Straus is kinda like asking Macintosh to compliment Microsoft’s latest ad campaign — ain’t gonna happen.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
cow droppings, the answer is: a partisan shrill bathed in lavender light.
Spiro, one of the onsets of pure insanity is being absolutely certain about everything everybody else is thinking and what their future moves will be.
The cure for Frank Perez/MTD: medication, psychological counseling and EST (electro-shock therapy for all you civilians out there). An empty mind would be a healthy one – or at least a quiet, noncommenting, nonblogging mind.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Paul, there really is no point in having a rational discussion with babyKos because they aren’t interested in a dialog. They are interested in power. It is irrelevent to them that your points are exactly correct–their every effort is towards electing as many left-wing politicians as possible. Thus the composition of the House must be twisted by them into a partisan issue because everything must be framed in partisan terms to achieve that end. Indeed, the more correct you are the greater the threat your analysis poses as a potential frame that mitigates their scaremongering.
Reply »
Phillip Martin Reply:
February 18th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
There’s a lot of vagueness to this comment. Want to give it another stab with a real name?
Reply »
Eileen Smith Reply:
February 18th, 2009 at 6:40 pm
Why do you boys hate America?
Reply »
Phillip Martin Reply:
February 18th, 2009 at 9:09 pm
Sorry Pink Lady.
cow droppings Reply:
February 18th, 2009 at 8:13 pm
why do i know no one reads your blog? Because you spend so much time trying to hijack Burka’s blog. Apparently he gets the attention you crave but lack. I suggest you see a psychologist who deals with electra penis envy and other forms of psychosis. I know one named Hannibal.
Reply »
Phillip Martin Reply:
February 18th, 2009 at 9:12 pm
I post here because after a couple Buck Smiths, more people exchange dialogue where comments can be made anonymously.
Also, it is enjoyable to have discussions with those you disagree with. It’s the only way to learn anything.
B/CS Observer says:
When people vote with their feet and choose to leave another state to improve their lot in life, a lot of them seem to choose Texas.
Which is funny, since we rank last in oh so many categories of social services.
But we rank very well in relative tax burden.
Is it possible that people don’t give a flip about how many kids are insured in the state but decide to move here because they can pay less taxes?
What’s even funnier is that people are fleeing states blue states that provide all those social services. How else can one explain all the folks who work in Boston but live in New Hampshire.
Reply »
texun says:
People who work in Boston live in New Hampshire and Rhode Island because the city expanded to the north and south. They got no tax breaks by moving to Rhode Island.
Most of the people I have known to move to Texas during the past half century did so either because they retired and the lower cost of living was attractive or because their jobs were here.
My friends in HR say that the poor reputation of Texas public schools is an impediment to attracting some of the strongest candidates for scientific and technical jobs.
Reply »
Spiro Eagleton Reply:
February 19th, 2009 at 7:21 am
Texun,
You don’t know your New England geography very well. People that live in NH and work in MA aren’t doing so because the city of Boston expanded. In fact, Boston is completely surrounded by old line suburbs and does not border either the NH or RI borders.
Reply »
anon says:
What, pray tell, do the tort reformers hope to accomplish this session? Do any of the TLR homebuilder-types even have any money left?
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Oh, please, Phillip, my comment was not vauge at all–you and the rest of babyKos aren’t interested in truth. If truth helps you win power, fine, you’ll use it. If falsehoods and misleading statements helps (cough, TSTA push-poll survey) why you’ll use that instead.
No matter what the composition of chairs would have been you would have posted exactly the same “analysis”…just with different “facts” filling in the blanks.
Reply »
GOP Realist says:
Tellnitlikeitis,
Can you cite me to the basis for your statisicial assertions so I may study them further?
Thanks.
Reply »