Burkablog

Saturday, April 7, 2012

Conservatives continue push for winner-take-all primary

The Texas Eagle Forum has upped the ante for the May 29 Texas presidential primary. Five prominent conservatives have signed a TEF e-mail headlined “Texas’ role in choosing the president.” It calls for a winner-take-all Republican presidential primary, rather than awarding the state’s 155 delegates based on proportionality, as stipulated by the Republican National Committee. The signees include David Barton, former vice president of the Republican Party of Texas; Kelly Shackelford, a former national platform committee member; Michael Quinn Sullivan of Empower Texans; Cathie Adams, president of the Texas Eagle Forum and a former state GOP chairman; and Paul Bettencourt, former state GOP treasurer and Harris County tax assessor-collector.) The text of the e-mail follows:

We in Texas know that we are a significant force in national conservative politics. After all, we have the largest Republican congressional delegation of any state, and ours is a conservative delegation!
We also have 155 delegates at stake in the presidential primary – that’s more than the famous first five primary states combined (Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Florida, and Nevada). Those five states are considered to have set the tone for the entire presidential race, but Texas has not spoken yet – and we can speak with a louder voice and with more impact than all of those states!

Under our winner-take-all system, our 155 delegates have a significant impact on any presidential race. But this year, the Republican National Committee was poised to penalize Texas for holding our primary in March (as we always do) by imposing on us a proportional delegate count, so the Republican Party of Texas moved away from our normal presidential procedure. But then the federal courts got involved and delayed the Texas primary until May. So Texas now has an opportunity to regain its unified voice by going back to a winner-take-all primary.

Contrary to what you may have heard from the national media, the race for the Republican presidential nominee is far from over. [emphasis added--pb] After all, only 37% of delegates have been assigned so far; and the media has been completely wrong on the number of delegates that separate Romney from the others (particularly the oft-repeated Associated Press count) – the actual count shows the gap to be much narrower than claimed.

Texas can therefore have a clear and powerful voice in selecting a conservative Republican nominee for president by moving back to a winner-take-all system. All it takes is for the State Republican Executive Committee (SREC) to call a meeting and make the rule change before the Texas primary vote. Please contact your SREC member (link here) and ask them to convene and make that change; and also contact the Republican Party of Texas (link here) and let them know that you want to see Texas regain its national voice.

Please act on this as quickly as possible – Texas, as the biggest conservative state in the country, should be allowed to speak with the loudest voice!! Thanks for all you do to keep Texas a conservative state!

God bless!

* * * *

The premise underlying the winner-take-all primary is that the Associated Press delegate count is wrong. Really? What do the signees know that the AP doesn’t? If successful, which I doubt it will be, the main impact of moving to a winner-take-all primary will be to weaken the national Republican party’s attempt to defeat Barack Obama. It is quite remarkable that these prominent Republicans regard as their primary mission the defeat of another Republican. Following a similar effort Friday by Weston Martinez, a supporter of Rick Santorum, to get the State Republican Executive Committee to change the primary to a winner-take-all format (see yesterday’s post, “Santorum supporters seek winner-take-all Tx primary”), it’s a good indication of just how far out of the national Republican mainstream the state Republican party is.

Tagged: , , , ,

Friday, February 18, 2011

An odd moment in the sonogram debate

I was sitting in the Senate gallery yesterday, listening to the debate over the sonogram bill, when Dan Patrick said something that got my attention. He said that he had asked Speaker Straus to recommend someone to carry the sonogram bill, and Straus had recommended Geanie Morrison. He repeated this during the course of the debate, two, maybe three times.

This didn’t ring true to me. At the Republican state convention, Morrison had worked with former RPT vice-president David Barton to undermine Straus. During the speaker’s race, Morrison had been aligned with the Paxton forces. Why would Straus suggest an adversary  to carry the bill–especially after Sid Miller, a Straus ally, had stepped forward to put his name on a new sonogram bill with a low (that is, priority) bill number? For that matter, why would Straus get involved in telling any senator whom to choose as the bill’s House sponsor? That decision belongs to House members. It would have been out of character for Straus, who is a hands-off speaker.

Apparently I wasn’t the only one who thought that Patrick’s comment was strange, because e-mails from members started coming into the speaker’s office. After talking to various sources in the House–not including Straus–here is what I think really happened. Sometime last year Patrick went to Straus and told him he would be carrying THE sonogram bill and Geanie Morrison would be the House sponsor. The most likely scenario is that Patrick didn’t ask Straus to recommend a sponsor; he told him who it was going to be. I can’t explain why Patrick repeated the story about Straus suggesting Geanie Morrison as a sponsor during the debate, unless he did it to put pressure on Straus to let Morrison carry the bill. I don’t think it’s going to work.

Tagged: , , ,

Monday, December 1, 2008

The Speaker’s Race: Shock and Awful

Things are about to get ugly in the speaker’s race. The Craddick forces, led by several longtime loyalists (I want to run another check on the names), are trying to stir up a coordinated campaign to put pressure on wavering colleagues to vote for Craddick. According to credible reports I have received from Republican operatives, they are asking members to call various GOP and conservative groups with which members may be connected. The purpose is to get activists in these organizations to call House members and urge them (a) to support Craddick and (b) to oppose a secret ballot for the selection of the speaker.

One of the first shots in this battle was fired by Republican County Chairmen’s Association president Linda Rogers. She sent a letter to all GOP county chairs warning that “Texas Liberals are attempting to take over our State House of Representative by nefarious means.” As the Quorum Report pointed out, among the people “attempting to take over” the House are conservative Republicans Burt Solomons and Jim Keffer, and the “nefarious means” are a vote of the members of the House of Representatives, as specified in the Texas Constitution.

So members can expect to spend their Christmas holidays being badgered by county chairs and members of Republican womens’ clubs, right-to-life organizations, and any other affiliated groups. No doubt the State Republican Executive Committee (SREC) members will get their shots in too.

As the Republican apparatchiks gear up to support Craddick, the speaker’s race is likely to become an issue in state GOP politics. Tina Benkiser, the current chairman of the Republican Party of Texas, is a virtual certainty to become the vice-chairman of the Republican National Committee. Party rules require that if the RNC chairman is male, the vice-chairman must be female (and vice-versa). Since Benkiser appears to be the sole female candidate for vice-chair, and all of the candidates for chairman are male, she can hardly lose. Her successor at the RPT will be chosen by the 62 members of the SREC (a man and a woman from each of the 31 state Senate districts).

Among the leading candidates are Denise McNamara, one of the two RNC members from Texas, and Gina Parker, who lost her race for RPT chairman to Benkiser. Former RPT vice-chair David Barton and attorney Kelly Shackleford wield a lot of clout with the SREC. One can picture the various candidates sparing no threat to prove themselves most adept at delivering votes for Craddick.

The problem for Craddick is that things have gotten to the point where every time he acts like, well, Craddick, he reminds GOP members why they wish he would just go away. Many members are still fuming about Craddick’s iron-fisted control of members’ races. Candidates had to come to Austin and appear before Christi Craddick, the speaker’s daughter; operative John Colyandro; and consultant Dave Carney. They were told what they had to do in their campaigns in order to get money that the speaker controlled. They had to bring their campaign plans and subject them to Christi Craddick’s scrutiny. She could overrule the members and insist on their using speaker-approved campaign materials that had already been prepared by consultants. Many members were furious; they felt that they knew their districts better than Carney, who is from New Hampshire, or Ms. Craddick. These hard feelings have not subsided.

Another source of ill will for Craddick is the redistricting map that the Legislative Redistricting Board adopted in 2001. A lot of Republicans have been defeated because of that map, which was supposed to make the House safe for Republicans for a decade. It is apparent, in retrospect, that the map adopted by the Legislative Redistricting Board was drawn to elect not just a Republican speaker, but a Republican speaker named Craddick. It was drawn to maximize Republican districts, not to safeguard incumbents.

Craddick couldn’t settle for 85 Republicans, because, back in 2001, there were 15 to 20 ABC Republicans who would never vote for him for speaker. To get more GOP districts, safe seats had to be sacrificed for more marginal seats. These are the seats Republicans have been losing: a net of twelve seats lost to the Democrats since Craddick became speaker in 2003.

I think Republicans in the House are finally beginning to realize the damage that Craddick has done to the GOP majority. Does it mean that the GOP rank and file will turn against him? The discontent with Craddick is far greater than I thought it was. But at the moment, it appears that fear still outweighs outrage.

Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

E-mail

Password

Remember me

Forgot your password?

X (close)

Registering gets you access to online content, allows you to comment on stories, add your own reviews of restaurants and events, and join in the discussions in our community areas such as the Recipe Swap and other forums.

In addition, current TEXAS MONTHLY magazine subscribers will get access to the feature stories from the two most recent issues. If you are a current subscriber, please enter your name and address exactly as it appears on your mailing label (except zip, 5 digits only). Not a subscriber? Subscribe online now.

E-mail

Re-enter your E-mail address

Choose a password

Re-enter your password

Name

 
 

Address

Address 2

City

State

Zip (5 digits only)

Country

What year were you born?

Are you...

Male Female

Remember me

X (close)