After posting this item yesterday, I received a number of calls saying that it was wrong. The first came from a Democratic operative who has been working with Democratic members to help prevent the very concern that I was writing about. The second came from Mike Villarreal. Later, the operative arranged a conference call with Gallego, Raymond, and Ritter. Finally, late in the day, I heard from Eiland. All said the same thing: The Democrats are trying to stay on the same page, talking with each other, trying to avoid rifts in their ranks, wanting to be ready for whatever happens on November 4. They have scheduled a caucus meeting in Austin on the day after the election. I am taking these comments at face value. Well, what about the report that led to my post of yesterday? I think the best explanation is that witnesses to an accident do not always agree on what they see. One man’s rift is another man’s abyss. Everybody is having preelection jitters, and minor incidents can be blown out of proportion. I’m going to accept as true the version that the Democrats told me yesterday:Whatever rift may have existed, however briefly, no longer exists, if it ever did. We’ll know soon enough if that is true–or false. This is unbelievable. Well, no, it isn’t really. After all, these are Democrats that are involved. A serious rift has opened in the Democratic caucus over — guess what? — the speaker’s race. We have four days of early voting to go, and a week until election day, and already two Hispanics are at loggerheads, and a WD-40 is getting sucked into the maelstrom, and are the D’s totally nuts? This is beyond stupid. The person who is most likely to benefit from a Democratic rift is Tom Craddick. Even if they win a majority, the egos are so huge that I doubt that they will be able to hold their own caucus together, much less run the House. Lunacy!
Get All Our Stories in One Daily Email
It’s free. It’s daily. And it’s full of great reads, y’all.
- Share on Facebook
- Share on Twitter
- Email a link to this page