Last week Michael Quinn Sullivan posted a story on the Empower Texans web site headlined “Toxic Joe.” The reference, of course, is to Joe Straus, the speaker of the House, whom Sullivan has tried to remove from power, with nothing to show for his efforts. The Sullivan-imposed nickname of “Toxic Joe” is full of irony, because if there were a poll of who is the most-toxic person in the Capitol, Sullivan would win, hands-down (and be proud of it).

Sullivan’s writing style relies heavily on inuendo. A typical example:

With the race for the leadership of the Texas House heating up, many are feigning surprise that incumbent moderate Joe Straus hasn’t released a list of supporters despite increasingly brittle claims of invincibility.

Of course, what Sullivan is trying to do here is to create an impression of weakness in the Straus camp — as if to say, Straus must not be doing well because he hasn’t released a list of supporters. Why would Straus do so? Why would the frontrunner reveal to his enemies the names of his supporters, so that Sullivan can rally the tea parties to excoriate those who support the speaker?

Sullivan goes on to say, allegedly quoting unnamed Straus supporters, that “Team Straus recognizes that the speaker is ‘toxic’ with the grassroots. That’s the word used in at least a dozen conversations over the last several weeks by a handful of Straus supporters trying to bring more lawmakers to their side.”

It’s no secret that some of the activists in the Republican party–tea parties, precinct chairs, county chairs, leaders of grass-roots organizations–are not Straus fans. But the activists can’t vote in a speaker’s race. What they have done in the past, and will probably try to do again, is try to bully weak-minded members into supporting David Simpson, who is Straus’s only announced challenger, now that Bryan Hughes has given up the ghost and endorsed Simpson.

Here is more innuendo from Sullivan’s article:

One incumbent legislator told a colleague that the speaker didn’t want his “many supporters” to feel heat from the grassroots during December.

It’s an interesting strategy, and a telling admission. They know voters have little confidence in Mr. Straus’ leadership, and yet are so beholden to appeasing the cronies Straus represents, they’re working to get others to betray their constituents!

Unfortunately for Sullivan — and Simpson — “voters” don’t matter. They can vote in primaries, they can vote in general elections, but not in speaker’s races. Try as he might, he can’t change the constitutional imperative that “the House of Representatives shall, when it first assembles, organize temporarily and proceed to the election of a speaker from its own members.” The constitution doesn’t mention “activists” or “voters.” Only 150 people can cast a vote in a speaker’s race and it will take 76 of them to stop Joe Straus from winning a third term. And Sullivan doesn’t have 76 votes. In fact, if Straus’s hold on the speakership is so slight, why hasn’t Sullivan produced the names of 76 members who won’t vote for Straus?

During the last legislative session, Mr. Simpson took to the floor of the House decrying Straus’ inconsistent application of House rules.

Since then, Mr. Simpson has spoken out against the Straus leadership team’s use of redistricting as a weapon of revenge against legislators.

Mr. Simpson knows a thing or two about beating powerful incumbents. He entered the legislature by defeating one of Joe Straus’ closest allies, Tommy Merritt. This year, the Straus Team had Merritt try to retake the seat, only to be easily defeated by Mr. Simpson.

The race is far from over, and the advantages an incumbent House Speaker wields are not inconsequential. Yet by having not released the names of his supporters and daily acknowledging his toxicity, the case gets stronger that Joe Straus has neither the popular appeal, nor even the internal support, to continue as Speaker.

Sadly, only two dozen of the 95 Republicans have scheduled the GOP Platform-required town hall meetings with their constituents to discuss leadership issues. Time is short, since these meetings are supposed to happen before the start of the legislative session in early January.

* * * *

Mr. Sullivan’s innuendo-heavy attack on Straus is cleverly worded to create the impression that Straus is in trouble. I don’t buy a bit of it. I repeat what I said in an earlier post: Neither Bryan Hughes nor David Simpson has the gravitas to be elected speaker of the House.

What is strange to me is that Mr. Sullivan keeps the pot boiling, knowing that he has lost. He knows that Mr. Simpson is too green and too untutored to be speaker. Yet he keeps up an attack on Straus that is doomed to fail. He has tried and tried to find a way that the activists can pressure Republican members to vote against Straus, but he has met with nothing but failure. I can only assume that Sullivan is playing to the gallery here — the gallery being his readers across the state who believe the innuendo-filled nonsense that Straus is on the ropes. The game is lost, Sullivan has no candidate for speaker, and he hasn’t made a dent in Straus’s support. The more he rails against Straus, the more he relegates himself to the status of paper tiger.

Finally, Sullivan is wrong when he says the race is far from over. As I write, it is December 11. Two weeks to Christmas, one week to New Year’s, and one week to the vote for speaker on January 8 — and the end of David Simpson’s quixotic race for speaker.

Tagged: David Simpson, Joe Straus, michael quinn sullivan

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:

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: cathie adams, david barton, Kelly Shackelford, michael quinn sullivan, Paul Bettencourt

Maybe the times are a-changin’ in the Texas House if legislators are willing to challenge Michael Quinn Sullivan. Win or lose, the ethics complaints lodged against Sullivan by two committee chairs, Vicki Truitt and Jim Keffer, are a shot across the bow and an indication that Sullivan’s detractors are not going to allow him to push around members without his paying a price. Human nature being what it is, however, I suspect that most legislators are telling Truitt and Keffer, “We’re behind you all the way,” and that’s exactly where they’ll stay–discreetly behind them. Very discreetly.

From the Associated Press story, by Chris Tomlinson:

“Taken together, the ethics complaints filed against Empower Texans and Michael Quinn Sullivan reveal violations of important state ethics laws designed to let the public find out who’s lobbying and what they’re spending, and what special interests are spending money to help or hurt candidates,” Keffer said. “When lobbyists don’t register and file reports, and when powerful organizations spend money on campaigns but don’t report it, they hide their true identities and conceal their activities from the public.”

The complaint charges that Sullivan failed to register as a lobbyist and that his organization failed to file a required campaign finance form. Sullivan, who flatly denies the allegations and dismisses them as a “political stunt,” controls three entities, Empower Texans;  Texans for Fiscal Responsibility; and Empower Texans Foundation.

What we don’t know is whether this is a single shot at Sullivan, or the beginning of a campaign to discredit him. I will say this: If I were in MQS’s shoes, I wouldn’t want Truitt and Keffer breathing down my neck. They are tough and fearless adversaries, and if they are out to take him down, I wouldn’t bet against them.

Tagged: jim keffer, michael quinn sullivan, vicki truitt

The Amarillo state senator published an op-ed piece in the Midland Reporter-Telegram on Sunday called “Who Will Watch the Watchers,” in which he criticizes Sullivan for what he calls “fraudulent misrepresentation of voting records” by him and his “misnamed special interest group,” Texans for Fiscal Responsibility.

Sullivan had lashed out at Seliger two weeks ago, so it’s always good to see someone take on a bully. Since a link is not available to the piece, here are some excerpts from Seliger’s op-ed:

“Let’s set the record straight,” writes Seliger. “Mr. Sullivan is a lobbyist for a special interest group that has lobbied to replace property taxes with a double digit state sales tax (possibly higher than 20% in a down economy) on all purchases including medical care and housing.  Why doesn’t Mr. Sullivan just come out and say he favors Texas having the highest state sales tax in the country?

“Another example of how absurd Mr. Sullivan’s group is with their bogus “Fiscal Conservative” ratings is the vote they used in 2009 on state health oversight of open water recreation areas to prevent outbreaks of bacterial diarrhea. If you voted to prevent sickness from bacterial diarrhea, you got a bad ‘fiscal conservative’ rating.  In other words, Mr. Sullivan supported bacterial diarrhea.  I opposed it.

“Such is the case with Austin special interest lobbyist Michael Quinn Sullivan and his misnamed special interest group. Whereas, differing views and interpretations are a constitutional right of free speech, fraudulent manipulation of voting records is shameful and needs to be condemned.”

UPDATE: The link to the op-ed went up right after I published this post: http://bit.ly/vDOF82

Tagged: michael quinn sullivan, Midland Reporter Telegram, Senator Kel Seliger, Texans for Fiscal Responsibility

Self-appointed fiscal watchdog Michael Quinn Sullivan blasted legislators  yesterday (9/23) for a spending program that allows the state to attract and subsidize Hollywood filmmakers who wish to make movies in Texas. I find myself in rare agreement with Mr. Sullivan on this point. When I wrote a story about cutting the budget last October, I zeroed out the Film Commission.

Sullivan based his post on the Empower Texans web site on a Wall Street Journal story. Here is the lead for his article:

While other states have come to their senses about subsidizing Hollywood, Texas’ lawmakers continue pumping taxpayer cash into a scheme of dubious value to Texans and our economy.

The Wall Street Journal reports today that states are halting the subsidies as they find footing the bill for films isn’t as glamorous as the latte-liberals in the film industry would have us all believe.

There is one problem with Sullivan’s analysis. Film subsidies in Texas, while they are included in the state budget that lawmakers vote on, are not really proposed by the Legislature. (more…)

Tagged: Empower Texans, Film Commission, film subsidies, michael quinn sullivan, rick perry

Michael Quinn Sullivan has a bone to pick with me. I am the subject of a blog post by Sullivan published on the Empower Texans web site yesterday under the headline, “Texas Monthly: Disclosure-Free Zone.” Sullivan objects to the fact that in an April column about higher ed reforms, I did not disclose that I have taught at UT from time to time. Here are some pertinent paragraphs:

Paul Burka, the “senior executive editor” at Texas Monthly has taken to defending the higher education status quo – skyrocketing tuition and a lack of transparency. He follows the administrative bureaucracy party line by deriding reformers, disparaging them and calling motivations into question.

Couldn’t be because he has a financial interest in the status quo, could it? Mr. Burka received $10,159 in compensation ($9,295 in salary) for teaching 13 students. (NOTE: the numbers are from UT’s own data, which the institution says may or may not be valid or accurate.)

He hasn’t disclosed in any recent writings supporting the higher-ed establishment that he is a “visiting lecturer” for the University of Texas, teaching a three credit-hour class – ironically titled “Right And Wrong In Politics.”

Mr. Sullivan has a point, though he overplays it to a ridiculous extreme, as is his custom. I should have included a parenthetical statement in that April column saying that I had taught at UT on various occasions in the past (though I was not teaching there or receiving compensation at the time that I wrote the column). But it is far-fetched to suggest that I have any permanent attachment to UT, or a financial motivation to defend the university. I am not an academic, I am a journalist. Over the past twenty years or so, I have been fortunate enough to teach courses at UT (and also at St. Edwards). During that time, I have written several editorial columns about the university. One was supportive of tuition deregulation; one was critical of a watered-down degree program I referred to as “B.A. Lite” (this one, alas, is not yet available online). I have not tried to hide the fact that I teach at UT; in 2001, for example, I wrote about volunteering to evaluate applications for admission to the Plan II honors program, as I was eligible to do as an instructor. I have also written a skeptical column about the athletic department’s efforts to find a home for the Longhorns after the breakup of the Big XII conference. In short, I choose subjects that Texas Monthly believes are important, and I try to call ‘em as I see ‘em. I leave it to readers to judge for themselves whether they believe that my reporting on UT is influenced by what Mr. Sullivan refers to as my “financial interest in the status quo,” or whether it reflects my strongly held personal belief in the importance of allowing state universities to pursue excellence free of political interference. (more…)

Tagged: disclosure, Empower Texans, higher ed, michael quinn sullivan, paul burka, Texans for Fiscal Responsibility, texas monthly, transparency, UT

A meeting is scheduled this afternoon at the building occupied by the Texas Public Policy Foundation. It is probably taking place as I write. My information is that representatives of Straus and some of his adversaries, including Michael Quinn Sullivan, are having discussions that could result in the shaping of a Republican agenda by mutual consent. GOP caucus chair Larry Taylor is said to be in the meeting. Straus was not included at last report but may arrive later. Clearly, some Republicans are concerned about what a prolonged speakers race could do to GOP plans for the upcoming session. As they should be.

My view of the meeting is that it really doesn’t matter what the Chisum cabal does at this point. He and his allies have been trying to stir up the far right for weeks and as far as I can tell, the only member they may have won to their cause is Riddle, and that is unconfirmed. The Chisum candidacy has gone nowhere. It’s not going anywhere. If necessary, the Straus team can dredge up oppo research about Chisum’s spending when he was chair of Appropriations in 2007–spending increases and oodles of earmarks for Craddick in Midland. I think that the Berman and Sid Miller exchange of letters ended the speakers race for all practical purposes. Berman was hostile and hysterical about his fellow members, engaging in name-calling (RINO!)and alienating the very people Chisum needs if he is to win, while Miller was calm and statesmanlike (not a word I thought I would ever use about Sid, but good for him). The anti-Straus blitz by the far right has not worked, and the Cabal has had so little success that I would be surprised if their campaign can be sustained until Thanksgiving.

Leaving personalities aside (Chisum, Berman, Straus), I think that everyone whose sanity is intact should root against the Cabal. Chisum engineered a frontal assault on House tradition. They sought to take the power to choose the speaker away from the members and transfer it to ideological groups. They want total one-party control of committees, which is the Washington model they profess to hate. This is not the Texas way, and I believe–and certainly hope–it is destined to fail.

Tagged: Joe Straus, larry taylor, leo berman, michael quinn sullivan, sid miller, texas public policy foundation, warren chisum

This is the taxpayer advocacy headed up by self-appointed Republican enforcer Michael Quinn Sullivan. All of the endorsements went to Republicans. I am not publishing the full list of endorsements. It includes Kolkhorst, Taylor, Zerwas, P. King, Phillips, Crownover, Madden, Smithee, Chisum, Branch, Harless, and W. Smith, and a lot of back benchers. What is interesting is not so much which Republicans Sullivan endorsed. It’s which ones he did not endorse. Here is that list, in ascending order of district number:

MERRITT X
COOK X
PITTS X
EISSLER X
OTTO
BONNEN
KUEMPEL X
HILDEBRAN
ORR
KEFFER X
SOLOMONS X
SUSAN KING
DARBY
LEWIS
JONES X
T. SMITH
PATRICK
TRUITT
GEREN X
HARTNETT
JACKSON
STRAUS X
BOHAC

Members marked with an “X” are the remaining ten Cardinals who overthrew Craddick.

To get an endorsement, a member had to score 80% on Sullivan’s Fiscal Responsibility Index. I can’t imagine a more fiscally responsible member than John Otto. Yet he didn’t make the list, which tells me there is something wrong with the criterion. I’m not surprised that none of the remaining Cardinals got an endorsement, including Straus (who was not endorsed despite the absence of a voting record). I can’t even imagine why Bohac, Bonnen, Darby, Hildebran, Hartnett, Jackson, Susan King, Lewis, Orr, and Patrick did not merit endorsements. Truitt carried the local option transit bill, and Smith has been a longtime target of the enforcers.

It never ceases to amaze me that Republicans like Sullivan still want to call out members of their own party for perceived ideological transgressions. Politics is very volatile, particularly the independents, and they could turn against the Republicans.

Tagged: empower texas, michael quinn sullivan, texas house members