That’s the Way the Game is Played, Bubby
As I write this, charges of obstructionism are flying in the House — that’s apparently the worst slur Speaker Straus, ever genteel, can muster — but it seems clear to me that it is the House Republicans, rather than the House Democrats (or the Senate Republicans, as Kronberg says), who have something to answer for here. The Senate Rs decided they were okay with upending decades of tradition in spiking the two-thirds rule at the start of the session, and because there were enough Rs to do it — elections have consequences — they were well within their right. I may not like it, and you may not like it, but they had the procedural authority at their disposal. Over in the House, where the split is 76-74, because the last three election cycles have seen the GOP squander a much larger majority, the Rs are powerless, really, to stop the Ds from exercising a similar, and similarly legitimate, procedural authority. Even the Speaker himself concedes that point (via QR):
“Democrats have been using the process that’s available to them to use in a way that I wouldn’t suggest is helpful,” he said in an impromptu gaggle with the press during floor discussion of the Top 10 Percent Rule debate. “I would say the more they talk, the more explaining they have to do and I feel like the entire Republican caucus agrees with me on that. And I just hope they put aside some of this, some of the abuses of the process – legitimate – but I think ill-timed beyond just making their point.”
Had Craddick not be ousted, had they still hovered somewhere just south of 90 members, etc., etc. But the fact is, he was, and they don’t. So it’s up to the House Rs, not the House Ds, to get the train back on track. They’re the ones who have to get the Ds to compromise, because unless they do, the Ds can use, in the Speaker’s parlance, the process that’s available to them. Mr. Schminciple may not like it — and he’s right that tactics are not an endgame — but to quote David Mamet in what we may as well call Glengarry Glenn Smith, “That’s the way the game is played, Bubby.”
As for the explaining to be done, I would say it falls to those people who are so hell-bent on passing voter ID ahead of windstorm, insurance sunset, and other bills that pass the test of pressing need. Does voter ID pass that test? Honestly? I understand the reason for it, and I can even accept that every check on possible fraud is worth having in place, provided it doesn’t disenfranchise upstanding voters. But can anyone who supports it, in the Senate or the House, look me in the eye and tell me it’s more pressing than, or even as pressing as, the other issues presently languishing?
Anonymous says:
It seems to me that in the very evenly divided house, the argument of whether voter ID is worth it, doesn’t work unless you’ve already come to the conclusion that voter ID is a bad bill. Why are the Democrats willing to jeopardize windstorm, insurance sunset, for the sake of stopping voter ID? Both sides are willing to accept significant consequences, so the argument has to go back to whether there is significant fraud that needs to be addressed, and whether there will be significant difficulties in voting for some portion of the populace that should not be allowed.
Reply
Texun says:
Can’t the Republicans break the log jamb by either tabeling or withdrawing the bill? Should we really be blaming Democrats for keeping windstorm, etc. from votes? Republicans decided that other issues were less important than voter supression.
I suspect that the primary target is the elderly. AARP has testified to that effect. Anybody who has worked with the elderly will tell you that every obstacle you place in their path to the polls makes it much less likely that they will be able to do so in person.
Will the bill discourage illegal voting? A forger of even modest capability should be able to concoct evidence, of the kind that is accepted now and is still allowed in the proposed legislation. Pre-printed bank checks? Utility bills? Surely an aspiring political boss can come up with bales of qualifying evidence!
Reply
Glenn Smith says:
Ah, to write like David Mamet! Mamet’s eight short words get right to the point. But I’m no Mamet, but I’d like to reply to anonymous # 1 anyway.
The GOP leadership set the calendar. The GOP has decided to kill insurance reform and other important bills rather than risk the loss of their top priority, the Voter ID bill. They have rebuffed every effort at compromise. They have filed blanket objections to calendar changes. They know that to do so might risk Voter ID.
That’s their decision. They’ll be forced to suffer the slings and arrows (gratuitous reference to the stage, I know, but hey, Mamet and all…).
Reply
Tony Sanchez's Bank Account says:
Hey Glenn,
How’s that “unlikely voter” theory of yours working out?
Reply
Tony Sanchez's Bank Account says:
BTW, can you mention one time, under Republican or Democrat leadership, that a bill has been pulled from major state? I’ve been around for a loooooong time and I can’t think of one. So, it comes down to this, Glenn, had the Democrats not decided to chub every local and consent bill, TDI, windstorm, etc, would have already been debated by now, as well as voter ID.
Here’s the dirty truth no one (read Glenn) is not talking about. This is not the partisan issue partisans like Glenn claim it is. If it were, the bill would already be dead, considering last time both Merritt and Delwin Jones voted against is and Kuemple is unable to vote. I wasn’t a math major, but even I can do that basic subtraction. The fact is, Dunnam is desperate for this bill not to come up for a vote because he knows it will pass. And the reason it will pass? Because of votes from Democrats like Joe Heflin, David Farabee, Patrick Rose, Mark Homer, Chuck Hopson, and Stephen Frost, just to name a few. Just look at the list of Democrats who refused to participate in this embarrassing “strategy.” This bill will pass thanks to Democrat votes… oh the delicious irony!
Reply
Glenn Smith Reply:
May 26th, 2009 at 10:00 am
Hiding behind a pseudonym, now that’s courageous.
But I do enjoy expressions of outrage from those who assume their superiority and authority is and should always remain beyond challenge.
By the way, will you hold to these views when the minority party in Congress uses rules at its disposal to subvert the wishes of the majority party?
Reply
Anonymous Reply:
May 26th, 2009 at 10:20 am
Way to not address the issues, Glenn. Bt then again, you can’t because you know the poster is right — Democrats are the ones who will pass this bill. If that weren’t the case, Dunnam wouldn’t be throwing this hissy fit.
For just one nanosecond, you need to put the “party” aside, take a deep breath and realize that considering voter ID is, conservatively, a 70% issue in Texas — across party lines — what the Dems in Texas are doing in subverting the wishes of Texans.
Chew on that, Bubby
Reply
Glenn Smith Reply:
May 26th, 2009 at 11:09 am
More anonymity. That’s okay.
You know as well as I do, Anon., that simple-minded push questions on voter ID will register well. The responses are much different when it’s spelled out that the proposal is for multiple forms of ID regardless of whether a person appears on the rolls and has a voter registration card, that confusing new bureaucratic requirements will be placed upon the fundamental right to vote.
Also, over and over again in the polls, voters say new ID requirements are about as urgent as naming a new state butterfly. Insurance reform, jobs, education, transportation…just about every issue you can think of finishes ahead of voter ID.
So don’t give me that phone 70 percent crap.
Y’all are jumping to some mighty big conclusions about who would and who would not vote for what final form a voter ID proposal might take.
memo says:
Oh Wow, I sure hope the voter I.D. bill passes.
Then the insurance companies get keep on screwing everyone.
Reply
Anonymous Reply:
May 26th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
poll questions along the lines of “do you support requiring a photo ID to vote” is not a push question. You know better, and are being quite disingenuous. The Democrat position is that “the people” are either ignorant, or simply wrong (or to quote richard raymond, “racist”).
If voter ID is not a priority for people, I wonder why dunnam is trying to protect certain D’s from a record vote on it?
Reply
Anonymous says:
Check out Illinois. They accidentally sunsetted part of their insurance code — the part about regulation of rates — and illinois ended up with some of the lowest rates in the country. Sounds like a good deal to me!
Reply
Austinmom says:
…it seems clear to me that it is the House Republicans, rather than the House Democrats (or the Senate Republicans, as Kronberg says), who have something to answer for here…
Indeed – if the Senate had not been hellbent on Voter ID (instead of some more important issues, like public and higher education), if the R’s had brought Voter ID (and other things, like higher education and unemployment insurance) to the House floor sooner, we would be wrapping up a very different session.
What was it Truman said about being in power, “the buck stops here”…
Reply
boadicea says:
The only people, and I do mean only, to whom this voter suppression bill is of paramount importance are Republicans staring down the barrel of a changing voter landscape.
They can change their minds, and for Texans sakes, I hope they do.
But they wanted the power-they’re desperately trying to hang on to that power by created a “fraud” measure that has never, not one time, and no matter how much money Greg Abbott threw at investigating it, effected the outcome of ONE SINGLE election in Texas– so if they chose to misuse it, Dems should use the tools available to them.
Reply
Harold says:
How cute – Burka just ended up on a “ten worst” list, placed there by the boss. Cheer up, some days you get the bear, some days the bear gets you.
Reply
Jeff Crosby says:
House Republicans are saying they won’t break tradition by taking up other bills out of order. Ironically, Senate Republicans destroyed rules and traditions when they jammed through Voter ID in the first place.
Reply
Anonymous says:
in response to glenn smith at 11:09:
if you’re so sure about where those democrats stand, then WHY NOT VOTE? oh yeah, cause you don’t have the votes. the math is real simple…. i’m sorry you can’t understand it, but with 76 republicans, tommy merritt clearly against and kuemple in the hospital, advantage democrats, right? nope. many…. enought… dems are voting for this because they’re voting their districts.
wake up, glenn. this isn’t a partisan issue when you have repubs and dems voting for it.
Reply
Glenn Smith Reply:
May 26th, 2009 at 11:52 am
Why block? Because the Republican leadership cannot be trusted. There is no predicting what form a House voter ID bill would take, there’s no predicting whether it would even pass, despite your harping on a small number of members of each party who are undecided or thinking of voting with the other side. If it did, who knows what would come back from conference. When a fundamental right — the right to vote — is at stake, every means should be used to protect that right.
As for those very few who might vote differently from their party, they are only exceptions which prove the rule: Voter ID is a extreme partisan GOP voter suppression effort intended to disenfranchise women, minorities, poor and middle class voters the GOP fears will toss them from office. Since there is no voter impersonation at the polls, there is no other reason for the GOP effort.
Reply
Mean Rachel says:
He always told us it took brass balls. And, apparently, nine and a half minutes.
Reply
John Cobarruvias says:
It could all be over if the republicans would do the work of the citizens of Texas before they do the work of their party.
But they won’t.
Reply
Jim says:
Re: Glenn Smith at 11:09
I agree wholeheartedly that if you ask Texans to name the biggest problem facing the state (or the nation, for that matter), photo ID or the problems the legislation allegedly addresses don’t register at all. And if you check with folks, about 40% already think it’s a legal requirement. That should tell you something.
That said, to call the poll we did that got the 69% result “a push poll” is ridiculous. Did you look at the item? I suspect not, so here it is:
“Some people argue that requiring registered voters to present government-issued photo identification at the polls reduces voter fraud and does not place major obstacles on anyone who is legally entitled to vote. Other people argue that such a requirement has a negligible effect on voter fraud but places significant obstacles on elderly, low-income, disabled, and minority voters. Do you agree or disagree with the idea that registered voters should be required to present a government-issued photo id at the polls before they can be allowed to vote?”
The question is a little clunky, and we can (and do) always argue about different wording. But to call the above a “push poll” because you don’t like the result is at best shooting from the hip (which is what I’ll choose to believe) and at worst, to borrow a phrase, practicing the politics of deceit…
Reply
Anonymous Reply:
May 26th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
Jim, don’t stop Glenn in the midst of a mud tsunami, where he throws everything out there hoping it will stick. We can sort through the facts after it is too late.
These guys love to mention poll results when they like them. Look how much they gloated over earlier Perry poll numbers.
Glenn and his team are also spending a lot of time making false comparisons to our nation’s past, calling R’s a bunch of racists. Unfortunately for them, they are calling those 69& a bunch of racists too.
Reply
Glenn Smith Reply:
May 26th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Well, I like your phrasing there at the end. People should buy the book.
Point is, voter ID is an election issue only for those who would have been forcibly disenfranchised by new bureaucratic, government-imposed limits on who can and who can’t vote — limits aimed at particular populations who conservatives fear will vote against them.
All the Jim Crow laws were once “popular” with voters, too, when by “voters” people meant only white, well-off people the sheriff would allow to vote instead of hanging them or burning down their home.
Anyway, Jim, I did not intend to disparage any given poll. Republicans are exploiting a greatly simplified concept of voter ID to disguise their extraordinary suppression campaign. I do not blame poll respondents, I do not blame pollsters. I do maintain that come election time, voters will be much more angry that the GOP blocked insurance reform than they will opposition to voter ID. And I have seen no poll which tells me anything differently. There’s just no great emotional demand for it, except among the few authoritarians who would like to make sure that only the “right” people can vote.
Reply
Texun Reply:
May 26th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
The question is unreasonably long–and it includes two references to “voter fraud.” Thus, it presents “voter fraud” as something that does exist.
What intrigues me is that anybody really believes that the pending bill would prevent fraud. Like the old poll tax receipt, it creates an incontrovertible identification, one that could be faked easily. Read the bill, please.
Reply
Jim says:
Happy to provide the plug! Would have included an Amazon link, but the comment field here at TM provides only limited HTML.
While I understand the benefits of framing the issue as an “extraordinary suppression campaign,” it’s almost too grandiose for what started as a fairly craven and pedestrian attempt to appeal to Republican primary voters. Don’t get me wrong — it’s hard to argue that the measures discussed increase the costs (conceived broadly, not as a dollar figure) of voting, and, all things being equal, can be expected to have the effect of reducing turnout among populations most likely to feel those increased costs. But the legislation has been prioritized, it seems, as much for its symbolic appeal to some conservatives as for any major effect they expect it will really have. Which, in my view, makes it an even more cynical exercise, especially given what it’s going to cost in terms of killed legislation. Certainly, around the capitol the last few days, there are plenty of people who are openly happy to see legislation dying without anyone having to lift a finger (or, therefore, leave their fingerprints).
Reply
Jim Reply:
May 26th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Oops, sorry, multitasking, and left out a critical word (”don’t”). That should be,
“…it’s hard to argue that the measures discussed DON’T increase the costs (conceived broadly, not as a dollar figure) of voting,…”
Reply
Glenn Smith says:
I agree about the motivation being an appeal to some in the conservative base. I think more substantive issues — like secession
!! — might trump voter ID with those voters.
I also agree that the argument about suppression isn’t as easy as the cost of multiple ID requirements don’t seem high, though they are high. Even my daughter had her license stolen two days before the city election. Had the hard-line proposal been the law, she would not have been able to vote. But people struggling with unemployment and a decimated economy have other things on their minds these days. Which is one reason there’s no emotional oomph to voter ID, except with the lynch parties.
Simplest argument: When you put additional hurdles between people and any activity, fewer will participate in the activity. And that’s the goal of multiple ID requirements. Fewer voters.
Reply
boadicea says:
You know what will break the logjam in the House?
Removing the key log that’s holding everything else up-Voter Suppression.
C’mon Republicans, Craddick showed you what happens when you put Party over all else.
You’ve wanted the power. You’ve got the power. Here’s a chance to choose your constituents over your Party.
Kicker is, if you actually accomplish something other than killing the regular session on the altar of voter suppression is, you get to look much better to your voters at re-election…
Reply
boadicea says:
Q: What do these things have in common? windstorm insurance, solar, energy efficiency & air quality, texdotsunset, unemployment
A: They are all less important to Texas Republicans than their precious voter suppression bill.
Reply
Glenn Smith Reply:
May 26th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
Well put, boadicea!
Reply
James says:
Sorry, but this pointless gesture will only result in a special session (likely called over TWIA). Here, there is no “blocker bill” or 2/3rds majority tradition in the Senate.
Voter ID will get added to the call and it will pass, with several D’s in rural districts voting yes. That is the problem: the bill had the votes and it had enough D’s to not be able to make it strict D vs. R.
The other difference here is that it is the D’s killing bills by the dozens. This is only a bad 10 worst list thing if R Reps like Arlene W. do it. If D’s cause even more carnage, well, that is not the same thing for obvious reasons (like, the D after their name).
Reply
boadicea says:
The real difference is that the Post Craddick Texas House is not that much different from the Pre-Post Craddick Texas House.
Republican leadership still puts the good of the Republican Party of Texas in front of the benefits to the people of Texas.
I think Vince over at Capital Annex has it exactly right. Why the Last 5 Days Will Hurt Rep and Help Dems in 2010.
Reply
Anonymous Reply:
May 27th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Bodadicea, I wonder if several Texas House Republicans will pressure Governor Perry to call a special session to make sure Voter ID passes this summer and Perry signs it to give the Religious Right red meat to tear up.
Reply
Texun says:
I’m not sure just how those Texas House Republicans would pressure Perry? Threaten to support KBH?
Reply
boadicea says:
Anonymous, I think it depends on whether they calculate they get more out of the gamesmanship of the special session or it’s of greater benefit to keep their lovely poison pill to kill measures they don’t want, but haven’t the guts to take an actual vote against.
I am assuming the special would ostensibly be called for another reason, because I don’t THINK they’re stupid enough to call for the expense of a special with just Voter ID as its centerpiece. I can’t remember the rules governing special sessions to be certain they limit to specific issues, but if they can’t roll voter ID in with something else, I think they’d be monumentally idiotic to try a session for only that.
That’s no guarantee, mind you.
Reply
boadicea says:
And I’ve just been reminded by people smarter than me that the call for the special would have to include Voter ID.
So, I think it all depends on what other issues they have to beard the voter suppression measure.
Reply
boadicea says:
Oh, but the Gov could add to the call retroactively.
You know, I used to think AZ had weird politics, then I moved to Texas.
Reply