In reading the last couple of days of convention coverage, I found two key takeaways that have been overlooked:

(1) Rick Perry is still very strong with the base of his party. He still connects with the rank and file when he makes a rousing speech, as he did at the convention in Fort Worth. Of course, Perry was addressing the 18,000 strongest and most loyal Republicans, and there was confusion about whether the boos when Perry spoke up for David Dewhurst, his choice for U.S. senator, were for Perry or for Dewhurst, or both. But Perry’s statement that he did not intend to ride off into the sunset was a warning shot across the bows of the wannabes, most prominent among them Greg Abbott.

It is still unclear (as it has been since he left the presidential race) whether Perry is just trying to find a way to remain relevant, or if he has any kind of plan other than his expressed interest in running for president in 2016.

(2) The second most important takeaway from the Republican convention is that the platform seeks to change the way the speaker is selected. The platform urges that the pledge card system, in use since at least the 1960s, be scrapped. Lawmakers give speaker candidates a leg up on the next election by signing pledge cards to signify that they will support a particular speaker candidate–usually the incumbent–in the next session. Obviously, the greatest beneficiary of this system is the incumbent speaker, who discovers who is for him and who is not (although any speaker worth his salt already knows). The platform would further urge that the speaker be elected by a secret ballot, thus making it less likely that a victorious speaker candidate can rain retribution on a member through punitive committee assignments. Next, the platform calls on lawmakers to do away with the pledge card system in which lawmakers swear fealty to an incumbent speaker in exchange for presumed favors to be granted at some future time. Finally, it urges Republican legislators to vote for speaker in caucus by secret ballot to protect members on the losing side. Note that this system applies to Republican members only. In 2011, the Republican members did vote for speaker, in a closed-door meeting, but the rules called for members opposing Joe Straus, the incumbent speaker, to stand if they were opposed to giving him another term. Obviously, this process was not akin to a secret ballot.

Readers with long memories will recall that the means of choosing a speaker was debated in the days leading up to the Eighty-first Legislature. The key issue was an amendment by Geren for a secret ballot on the choice of speaker. But the vote on the Geren amendment had to be public, and the incumbent speaker, Tom Craddick, had enough votes to prevail. I stress again that any speaker worth his salt does not need a vote to know who is for him and who isn’t.

Typically, a speaker’s race is decided when a candidate lays out his or her votes and the number is greater than 76. This was not the case in the Eighty-first Legislature, when election day passed without Craddick, the incumbent, laying out his votes. Craddick twisted in the wind during the weeks between election day and the convening of the Eighty-second Legislature, and when it became clear that he did not have the votes, he relinquished the chair.

It is inevitable in the age of the social media and the 24-hour news cycle that old forms of politics are going to give way to new ones. Members of the public are going to claim their right to be involved in the selection of the speaker, although ultimately their only tool is to persuade members how they should vote, and if what occurred in the weeks leading up to the Eighty-second session, that persuasion is likely to be none too polite.

In the end, the choice of the speaker will be made by the members, not by the public. The process may be different, but the outcome is likely to be the same as it was in the days when pledge cards were the deciding factor. The point is–let me repeat–any speaker worth his salt doesn’t need a pledge card, or the absence of one, to know who is for him or who is against him. Every speaker has a “team.” The speaker knows who is on his team. Bryan Hughes is challenging Straus for speaker (and other candidates may arise), but Straus knew long before Hughes announced his intentions that Hughes was against him.

The desire to be on the “team” is sewn into human nature. People want to be on the team because they want to get things done, or because they share a point of view with other members of the team, or just because it is natural to want to be on the prevailing side.

That will be true in the next speaker’s race, and in the one after that, and in the one after that. The members who are on the outside can do nothing to change their status. This is how politics works.

The likelihood is that, when all the ballots have been counted on election day, Joe Straus will have enough support to be elected speaker. He will have most of the Republicans and many of the Democrats, who have no one else to turn to, short of making a Faustian bargain with the Republicans. (A number of Democrats made such a bargain with Craddick, and they prospered for awhile, but in the end they had to rejoin the Democratic ranks or face defeat. It could happen again.)

The pledge card system, which has lasted half a century, will not last forever. Nothing does. The most ideological Republicans want to change the system so that it benefits Republicans and only Republicans–and in particular, not the elected class, but the agitators and the pressure groups who want to bully politicians into doing their dirty work. A lot of people believe, as I do, that Texas politics is headed on a course that will inevitably result in the replication here of the way Washington works, where the majority party controls everything. I hope it doesn’t happen, but if it does, remember, politics never stands still.

Tagged: gop convention, Joe Straus, rick perry, speaker's race

The reference is to the speaker’s race.

What speaker’s race? The story that is going around is that Chisum has been inviting members to his ranch. He has emerged as the most likely candidate of the hardline conservatives, if they decide to put up a fight, but the problem is that he can’t decide whether he wants to be on the inside or on the outside. He really wanted to be on Sunset, but that was never going to happen.

For conservatives to mount a challenge to Straus, four things must happen:

–First, hardliners must win some races in districts that are currently represented by mainstream conservatives. Brian McCall’s district offers such an opportunity. Two hardliners, Van Taylor and Wayne Richard, are running hard and mean against Mabrie Jackson, a mainstream conservative. Delwin Jones is in a similar battle against mainstreamer Zach Brady and hardliner Charles Perry. Todd Smith is fighting for his life against hardliner Jeff Cason. Chuck Hopson, born again as a Republican, is another vulnerable mainstream conservative; he has two opponents, one of whom charges, on Facebook, “Don’t be fooled! . . . Chuck Hopson is no Republican!” [ellipses are original] In the race to succeed Dan Gattis, longtime GOP hatchet man Milton Rister, the former director of the Legislative Council, is the hope of the hardliners. Vicki Truitt has three challengers who are running at her from the right.

–Second, Republicans must regain some of the seats that they have lost in the last several election cycles. Diana Maldonado, a freshman who established a Democratic beachhead in Williamson County, is one of the most vulnerable D’s. Also high on that list is Mark Homer, one of the few remaining WD-40s. Joe Moody in El Paso and Kristi Thibaut in Houston are targets as well, but Bill White may provide cover for Thibaut in Houston.

–Third, the hardliners are going to have to woo some disillusioned and discontented Democrats. These are D’s who were prominent in the battle to unseat Craddick but believe that Straus did not reward them appropriately when he handed out committee chairmanships. The R’s may also find fertile ground among the former Craddick D’s.

–Fourth, the hardliners must exploit the jealousies of mainstream Republicans who are tired of seeing the ten remaining cardinals and Strausian insiders get more than their share of the goodies.

But the conservatives have suffered some losses of their own. Except for McCall, the retirements in the House have been very favorable to Straus. Hardliner Frank Corte is out. He will be succeeded by Lyle Larsen, a mainstream Republican. Hardliner Carl Isett is out. He is likely to be succeeded by Mark Griffin, a mainstream Republican. (Isett gave Griffin’s opponent, John Frullo, $30,000 from his campaign fund.) Hardliner Joe Crabb is out, and the three candidates who are vying to replace him do not appear to be hardliners. Hardliner David Swinford is out and the race to succeed him is between Victor Leal, a Panhandle restaurateur whom Swinford has endorsed, and Walker T. Price IV, known locally as “Four Price.” Price is endorsed by Parent PAC and Leal home schooled his kids. [Previous information that Leal advocates vouchers was incorrect.] He has been the subject of two controversies: he moved into Potter County (Amarillo) to run, and he received a $65,000 contribution from megacontributor Bob Perry, which may be an indication that Republicans have figured out that they need to elect more Hispanics.

While the outcomes of the Lubbock and Amarillo races are by no means sure things, Straus will certainly gain two supporters from retirements, and perhaps more. The Gattis seat could also end up going his way. A four-or-five seat gain by Straus would put a quick end to rumors about a speaker’s race. In short, a sitting speaker is odds-on to win the support of any new Republican member, even a hardliner.

Tagged: Brian McCall, Joe Straus, speaker's race, warren chisum

Before election day, when it still seemed as if Tom Craddick might win reelection as speaker, Terral Smith told me about what he hoped to do with committee assignments. Rather than use vice-chairmanships as a reward for loyal team members, Smith wanted to replicate the relationship between Rob Eissler and Scott Hochberg in Public Education. He hoped to have a strong Democratic vice-chair in every substantive committee. This would resemble what occurs in Congress, where the majority party has the chairmanship and the senior member of the minority party is the ranking member. On most congressional committees, these relationships are very good. I thought it was a great idea, but neither Terral nor I was sure that Craddick would agree to it. I hear that they have had other things on their minds since then.

I think it would serve Straus and the House well if the vice- chairmanships became meaningful positions, something more than an opportunity to mount a gavel on a wall plaque. The vice-chair should be a strong member from the opposite party of the chairman. This situation would formalize working across party lines.

Note to would-be commenters: Just because it came out of Craddick’s office doesn’t mean it is a bad idea.

Tagged: Joe Straus, Rob eissler, scott hochberg, speaker's race, terral smith, tom craddick

Note to readers:

This original post (scroll down below the asterisks) noting the ironies for both parties surrounding the presumed election of Straus as speaker, has kicked up a bit of a furor. I unwittingly blundered into a fierce debate among Democrats. Party people such as Matt Angle think that the party is better off with Craddick as speaker. They want him to continue committing the excesses that have benefited the Democrats politically. The legislative leadership believes that lawmakers are elected to get things done for their constituents and the state, and that this was not possible for Democrats so long as Craddick was speaker. The party’s position is tantamount to saying, Yes, the house is on fire, and yes, you have a hose, but we prefer that you keep throwing gasoline on the flames.

In the section of the blog that is reserved for comments, I posted a reply to a commenter, citing a conversation I had had with Jim Dunnam during the previous speaker’s race. Here is what I wrote: “Dunnam told me once, about the effort to get rid of Craddick, that three things could happen, and two of them were bad. The worst thing for the Democrats, he said, was a good Republican speaker. The next worst was that the Democrats would win a majority but might not be able to govern. The best outcome was for Craddick to stay, because he would continue to make the Republicans in the House and the entire party look bad. So, yes, they knew what they were doing when they voted for Straus. They did the responsible thing. But responsibility may come at a high price.”

It wasn’t too long before I heard from Dunnam himself. He said–I wasn’t taking notes, so this is a paraphrase–(1) that he had never said that the worst thing for the Democrats was a good Republican speaker, (2) that all he has done for the last several months is work for the election of a good Republican speaker, and (3) what he had said on several previous occasions was that the worst thing could happen to the Democrats was the election of a Republican who was just like Craddick, only without the rough edges (my paraphrase). He volunteered that he had often joked that winning a majority could be a problem, like the dog catching the car. My memory of the previous conversation was not far off, but it was off by enough, and the situation is sensitive enough–there are still people working to blow up the coalition speakership–that my reply to the commenter called Dunnam’s sincerity into account. This was neither my intention nor my reading of the situation.

The original post appears below:

* * * *

I wonder if any Democrats are having second thoughts about supporting Joe Straus for speaker. Do they realize what they have done? They have removed from public visibility the number one villain in Texas politics, Tom Craddick, whose moss-draped political philosophy was out of touch with anything east, west, north, or south of Midland, and who was totally incapable of governing the House. Craddick was the Democrats’ meal ticket. The chaos he created fed the opposition party’s resurgence. It is no coincidence that the only footholds the Democrats have in Texas are urban courthouses and a near-majority of the House. In Craddick’s place, the Democrats have helped to install an intelligent, public spirited, moderate Republican aristocrat whose family has resources to use in political campaigns that dwarf Stars over Texas. Straus is perfectly positioned to build a mainstream Republican majority that can last for years. And who is upset about this? Not the Democrats. It’s the Republicans! He’s the best thing that could possibly happen to them, and yet even members I regard as top-drawer were telling me things like, “I can’t go with him” and “he’s going to be a one-term speaker.” No, you dummies, he’s going to be lieutenant governor. He’s going to be governor. If he wants to be. Here you have people in two political parties that worked assiduously against their own best interests. The Democrats can be excused. The Republicans can’t. I can understand why the Democrats supported Straus. They were tired of having Craddick kick sand in their faces and they wanted a chance to participate. They understand that their job is to help fashion good public policy for Texas, not to develop some grand political design for the future. But I can’t understand why the Republicans didn’t instantly rush to support Straus. They were so wrapped up in their internal debates over who is conservative and who isn’t, over whether Craddick could still win or couldn’t, and over whether they could stand the prospect of working with Jim Dunnam, that they missed obvious fact that Straus was the member of the House who could best protect their majority—and Craddick was the worst. You know who figured it out? Dan Branch. He’s from Highland Park. He understands the power of aristocracy.

It’s easy to get so caught up in the maneuvering of the House that you miss the big picture. It happened to me; my first reaction to the naming of Straus was that the ABCs had blown it, because he didn’t have a following, while Burt Solomons did. That was stupid of me. I forgot to read my own writing. I had been saying for weeks that whoever the chosen one turned out to be had 64 Democrats and 11+ Republicans and there was nothing Craddick or any other Republican could do about it. A speaker’s race is like “Field of Dreams”: Build it and they will come. The coalition was built; it just took awhile for the Republicans to come.

Tagged: burt solomons, dan branch, jim dunnam, Joe Straus, speaker's race, texas democratics, tom craddick

The worst mistake that the Straus regime can make is to be sore winners. Doesn’t anybody learn anything around here? Craddick was a sore winner. He rubbed the Democrats’ and the ABCs’ noses in the dirt for three sessions. Laney once said, jokingly, that Craddick had done what he could never do, which was unite the Democrats. It was no joke. That unity is one of the main reasons Craddick lost the speakership. He made them hate him.

At least, when Craddick kicked sand in the Democrats’ faces, he had an 88-62 majority. Straus is working with a coalition that is topheavy with Democrats. He needs more Republicans, even if they are catching the late train. Straus and the ABCs can’t afford to alienate anyone at this point.

This is not a theoretical discussion. At least one incident has occurred, involving Straus himself. Undoubtedly, the story has spread through the Republican ranks. This sort of thing can happen to anybody; at times I have had a genius for saying the right thing in the wrong way.

What happened in 2003 is that the Republicans had been in the wilderness for 130 years. Now it was their turn, and they couldn’t resist sticking it to the Democrats. I remember Beverly Woolley’s announcement that amendments to the redistricting bill had to be submitted by noon on Mother’s Day. Straus and his followers are going to have the same bad impulses that the Republicans had six years ago. It’s human nature to be sore winners. But it is also self-defeating. A lot of Republicans are very angry. They have lost their daddy and they don’t know what to do. This is a time for reconciliation and reassurance, not recriminations and revenge.

Tagged: abc's, Joe Straus, speaker's race, tom craddick

Add Tom Craddick to the list of speakers whose careers ended for reasons other than their own choosing.

Byron Tunnel, 1963, had his sights set on a second term, but was forced out of office by Governor John Connally, who gave him the choice of a soft landing of a Railroad Commission appointment or defeat at the hands of Connally’s protege, Ben Barnes.

Ben Barnes, 1965-67, ran for lieutenant governor in 1968, served two terms, and ran for governor in 1972. He finished third in the Democratic primary when voters were in an anti-incumbent mood due to the Sharpstown scandal.

Gus Mutscher, 1969-1971, was convicted of conspiracy to accept a bribe from banker Frank Sharp and sentenced to five years’ probation.

Rayford Price, 1972, was elected to succeed Mutscher. He was defeated for reelection by Fred Head in the Democratic primary.

Price Daniel Jr., 1973, announced that he would serve for only one session. He ran for attorney general in 1978 and was defeated by Mark White. He was shot and killed by his wife.

Bill Clayton, 1975-1981, was accused by the FBI of accepting a bribe and stood trial on corruption charges in 1980. He was acquitted in a jury trial. Clayton explored a race for land commissioner in 1982 but received little encouragement and chose not to pursue elected office.

Gib Lewis, 1983-1991, pled guilty to charges that he had illegally accepted a gift from a San Antonio law firm and resigned his office as part of a plea bargain.

Pete Laney, 1993-2001, hoped to serve a sixth term but his chances ended when Republicans won their first majority in the House since Reconstruction in 2002.

Tom Craddick, 2003-2007, sought a fourth term but failed to receive sufficient support to be reelected.

Tagged: ben barnes, bill clayton, byron tunnel, gib lewis, gus mutscher, pete laney, price daniel, speaker's race, tom craddick

Birds of a feather, Alamo Heights and Highland Park, both rooftop districts. School finance will be fun.

Tagged: dan branch, Joe Straus, speaker's race

The frustrating thing about John Smithee is that he has chosen all his career to perform at 60% of his ability. He has never wanted to get out front, or draw upon all the respect he has earned over the years. One “Dear Colleague” letter from him in the past seven weeks could have ended Craddick’s speakership. He wouldn’t do it. His decision to wait from Friday until Monday was typical. He doesn’t yearn for power. His reticence doesn’t stem from fear. It’s just his personality. The two day delay from Friday makes it hard for him to pull it together. It may be too late now, depending upon whether Straus has gained some new recruits, and how many. The pool of uncommitted members is shrinking, particularly on the Democratic side. The only reason for D’s to switch to Smithee is if Straus can’t close the deal and Craddick stays viable. Otherwise, why would they go for a rural guy at the backside of his career than an urban guy on the way up? On the R side, the only way for Smithee to get traction is for Craddick to give up and pass the torch. Something about “cold dead fingers” comes to mind. Smithee would have to get every Republican except the ABCs–that’s probably around 60 at the moment–plus the Craddick D’s, some of whom may have already found safe shelter. I’m certainly not going to say that Straus is a lock until I have more information, but Smithee has a narrow window–and it’s closing.

Tagged: Joe Straus, john smithee, speaker's race

Here’s where I think the speaker’s race is headed. I should credit a commenter to my previous post with a similar analysis. If Straus gets to 80+ by Sunday afternoon and lays out the names, he’s going to be the next speaker. If he hasn’t proved up his 76 votes by the time of the Craddick meeting, the question becomes whether Craddick gets enough support to stay in the race. If he stays in, Straus will be speaker. If he gets out, the speaker’s race will be between Smithee and Straus. The case for Straus winning is that he has most of the Democrats. The case for Smithee winning is that members know he is the more experienced hand and can step into the role more comfortably. Either way, viva la revolucion.

Tagged: Joe Straus, john smithee, speaker's race, tom craddick

Gary Scharrer has posted a story in the San Antonio Express-News quoting Joe Straus as saying that he has the votes to be speaker. Here are the first three paragraphs:

Republican lawmaker Joe Straus said he has collected enough pledges from House colleagues Saturday to oust incumbent House Speaker Tom Craddick.

“We’re in good shape. We’re at 76, and we’re adding them up,” Straus said Saturday of the threshold number needed to clinch the top leadership spot. “I feel real good about our numbers.”

Straus, who emerged as the consensus candidate of 11 maverick House Republicans Friday night, planned to formally announce his victory Sunday when he hopes to have close to 90 pledges.

OK, if you say so, but it sure would be nice to see the names. I can’t see the case for not doing it. The fear factor? A paper tiger. Lay out the names!

This has been an incredible day for rumors. Two of the best:

* Some of the Craddick D’s have broken loose for Straus. Surely fellow San Antonian McClendon is one.

* As many as 40 R’s may skip the Craddick meeting on Sunday–this from one of the ABCs, though my information is second-hand.

Here’s my take on Straus: I am very impressed with how he conducts himself. He has the personal gravitas to be speaker. His critics will say that he hasn’t done anything, but the fact is that he did what a very junior member is supposed to do, which is listen and learn. His decision last year to vote for a secret ballot and for Craddick as speaker was well thought out and showed political skill.

In Texas Monthly’s February 2008 issue, we named Straus as one of 35 future leaders of the state–although we didn’t foresee that the future might be only 11 months away. He has the Republican pedigree and the family affluence to go as far in politics as he wants to. Those Republicans who want to see their party change, to break the grip of the evangelicals and the social conservatives, should gravitate to him. He represents the future. The person he is running against represents the past. Tom Craddick has no affinity for the concerns of urban Texas.

Straus’s limitations are inexperience and a life spent in the bubble of Alamo Heights. The reason Texas has always had rural speakers is that rural politicians know people from all walks of life. They know what motivates ordinary folk. They have a better feel for the game than people who live in affluent suburbs and get into politics through their churches or Republican men’s clubs. I have no doubt that Straus has the intelligence to be speaker. I do wonder whether he has the political instincts–whether, as Lyndon Johnson’s father once said to LBJ, he can walk in a room and know in two minutes who is for him and who is against him.

I have heard a lot of skepticism about how much knowledge of the process Straus has absorbed during his brief tenure. Speakers don’t have to take a pop quiz, you know. What is the subject of Article II in the appropriations bill? Explain the 72-hour rule. What happens if a motion to reconsider and table a bill ends in a tie vote? Why are so many school districts facing insolvency? Sure, there is a lot to learn, but the pace of a legislative session is languid until that moment in early April when it dawns on everyone that they have run out of time. Straus strikes me as the kind of person who has been doing his homework since he got here.

The odd man out here is Smithee. His timing was off. Had he come out for speaker before the ABCs meeting, he would have snapped up the uncommitted Rs and perhaps made some inroads among the Democrats. But the ABCs meeting preempted him. As much as Smithee is respected, I think he would have had a hard time getting Democratic votes. Too rural.

If Craddick is going to be competitive, he needs more Republicans. Where is he going to get them? The momentum has been in the other direction. I can’t see the Gattis four crawling back. I can’t see Smithee returning to the fold. Chisum has a smile on his face and a dagger in his hand. Too few Republicans think Craddick can still win, and I don’t think he can peel off enough Democrats. But he’ll try to the last breath.

Tagged: dan gattis, Joe Straus, john smithee, ruth jones mcclendon, speaker's race, warren chisum