No surprise that Cathie Adams, the head of the conservative Eagle Forum, is for Craddick, but she raises an interesting point about the speakers race in a comment she posted on Dallas Blog. The first part of her letter deals with Jim Pitts’ announcement for speaker; it’s the final point that bears on the speaker’s race.
“I agree completely with Mr. Pitts comment about moneyed interests buying legislation. However, I find it most interesting that the majority of House members voted for the corrupt legislation. It seems to me that the PRINCIPLED position would have been to vote NO on the corrupt legislation and to encourage their PRINCIPLED peers to join in their opposition.
One can only conclude that corrupt politicians voted for corrupt policies and are now trying to place the blame on someone else: Speaker Craddick.
”BRAVO to those few who’ve voted consistently against corruption, but don’t now make the mistake of voting for a Speaker beholden to the Democratic minority. Know for certain that he’ll dance [with] those who elected him, which will be a majority of the Democrats. December 29, 2006 Cathie Adams”
I don’t think Adams is right about this. If McCall wins the speakership, the makeup of his coalition will instantly change, as most Republicans, if not all, will sign on with McCall. Some of the Craddick Republicans will get chairmanships. It would be self-defeating (and hypocritical) for McCall to practice the same sort of payback, pettiness, and partisanship that Craddick practices with such relish. Would the Democrats get more chairmanships? Yes, but not solely because of their support for McCall. The Republican majority dropped from 87-63 to 81-69 (a Republican will win the late Glenda Dawson’s seat), and the Rs do not have a working majority on many issues. Even if Craddick wins another term, he will have to deal with that reality.