From the Senator's Desk . . .
December 30, 2008
Everyone wants to attend Craddick’s funeral, but the corpse is still breathing—barely. One more nail in the awaiting coffin: The Democrats published their names. It’s vital, as January 13 approaches, that the insurgents do everything possible to bolster their credibility, and the best way to do that was lay out the names. The most important thing about this list is that the D’s won over the five members whom I had previously identified as the most likely new recruits for Craddick: Heflin, Marquez, Olivo, Quintanilla, and Rios Ybarra. The pool of members from which Craddick can plausibly seek votes has shrunk.
Written by Paul Burka, www.texasmonthly.com
Below are a collection of Texas Monthly´s most recent Burkablog entries regarding the Texas Speaker of the House race.
The speaker’s race
Sunday, December 28, 2008
The long Christmas weekend is about over. Keep an eye on the Ethics Commission tomorrow (Monday) for new filings for speaker. Gattis is a possibility. McCall is a possibility. It was this time last year that he filed.
I talked to one of the ABC’s on Saturday. He said that no more names of supporters are going to come out before the January 2 meeting from which a speaker candidate will emerge. Nobody wants to paint a target on his back and subject himself to pressure.
Does this sound familiar? It is what Pitts said at his press conference last year, that he had the votes but nobody wanted to go public because of the pressure. As the vote on the Geren amendment proved, he was just running a bluff. The uncommitted members are going to be paying close attention to how the ABCs conduct themselves. The insurgents need to establish their credibility. Bluffing will be fatal. Those who are afraid to go public are making a mistake. The safest course is not to hide in the shadows. It is to sign up and let yourself be counted. There’s safety in numbers. Once the names get to 80 and beyond, the die is cast. As Benjamin Franklin said about signing the Declaration of Independence, Either we hang together, or we hang separately.
Let’s assume for a moment that the ABC’s get enough names. Three scenarios are possible: (1) Craddick bows out gracefully before the session starts. (2) Craddick fights to the finish and plans to win back the speakership in 2011. (3) His hardcore conservative supporters nominate one of their own for speaker. Maybe Phil King, maybe Chisum. The point is not to win but to hold the insurgent Republicans accountable in the 2010 primary elections for aligning with the Democrats. The vote for speaker is the starting point for the next speaker’s race in 2011.
In the long run, the conservatives are better off with (3) than they are with (2). Even if he manages to win the speakership, Craddick is just too controversial in his own caucus to be able to lead the House effectively. As long as he occupies the dais, his struggle for survival will overshadow the day to day workings of the House. If the conservatives want to take on the insurgents in the primaries, they are better off without the distraction of trying to defend Craddick.
No Time for Tom
Monday, December 29, 2008
Everyone wants to attend Craddick’s funeral, but the corpse is still breathing—barely. One more nail in the awaiting coffin: The Democrats published their names. It’s vital, as January 13 approaches, that the insurgents do everything possible to bolster their credibility, and the best way to do that was lay out the names. The most important thing about this list is that the D’s won over the five members whom I had previously identified as the most likely new recruits for Craddick: Heflin, Marquez, Olivo, Quintanilla, and Rios Ybarra. The pool of members from which Craddick can plausibly seek votes has shrunk. The bad news for the insurgents is that the Democratic leadership has not been able to win over any of the Craddick D’s. Why should they commit to either side now? Sylvester Turner is playing his cards well. At the crucial moment, he may be the kingmaker.
But events may have overtaken the Democrat-ABC coalition that has 75 votes against Craddick. Gattis’s candidacy for speaker provides members with a chance to realign in coalitions FOR someone instead of merely against. Suddenly the timing is off for the ABCs. Their announcement of a candidate won’t come until the end of the week, and in the meantime Gattis can be adding to his list of supporters, currently reported to be three (Kolkhorst, Hamilton, Harless).
Those who have said that Gattis’s announcement gives the insurgents 76 votes against Craddick are wrong. Gattis is not an ABC. He is a mainstream Republican. I would bet a hundred bucks that he is not committed to be the 76th vote.
Is it too late for Gattis? (or Smithee, who says he will decide in the next 48 hours?) Not necessarily. I think there is a constituency out there for a coalition of the uncommitted–the members on both sides of the aisle who make the process work and know that Craddick has lost the ability to govern. It’s the R’s and D’s who aren’t comfortable with the current leadership of their parties and want to move on beyond Craddick. It’s Kolkhorst and Hamilton, Branch and Madden, Anchia and Eiland, Hochberg and Strama. Some will view Gattis as a stalking horse for Craddick. I don’t believe it. Nobody who went to stand at the back microphone on the day of the local calendar rebellion is going to go back to the House as it was. That was the crossing of the Rubicon.
But it’s risky. It means asking the insurgents to give up the hand they hold and reshuffle the deck. Will the Democrats remain in their coalition with the ABCs, or will some of them follow Gattis? What about the ABCs? Will they continue to stick together, or will some break away? A redeal could mean new opportunities for Craddick. But I think he’s out of opportunities. He’s drawing to deuces now. The only question left is whether he plays out a losing hand—or folds.
The Next Speaker
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
It will be Dan Gattis, John Smithee, or Burt Solomons.
Gattis has to build some momentum. The test, in a speaker’s race, is not whether a candidate can reach out to other members. It’s whether other members, believing that a candidate is for real, reach out to him. These next few days are crucial to Gattis. He needs more Republicans. Keep your eye on Dan Branch. Do you remember the dog and pony show he and Gattis did during the water bill debate, on that Possum Kingdom lake amendment? I think he may end up with Gattis.
Smithee’s advantage is that he has a geographical base. Those West Texans think it’s in the constitution that the speaker has to come from west of Interstate 35. If he gets in the race, he’ll have more initial support than anyone else.
Solomons is still very well positioned, assuming that he gets the ABC “nomination.” The Metroplex is a stronger geographical base than West Texas. The Democrats are more comfortable with him than they are with Gattis, for now.
Craddick still has the most votes, of course, but as the dominos start falling, he will not be able to keep them. All of the speaker candidates are going to be chasing the same votes, the Republicans who haven’t committed to Craddick. I’m guessing that this is around 25 members. The largest bloc of members on the Republican side is the 30 or so hardcore conservatives. I wouldn’t be surprised to see someone—Warren Chisum, maybe, if he doesn’t become a candidate himself—organize them and take them as a group to one of the contenders, most likely Smithee. Solomons and Gattis cannot afford to let this happen, so they have to be working the hardcores too. There is going to be some fascinating politicking going on in the next two weeks.
Conversations with Craddick
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
A noncombatant Republican, not a member, sent me this e-mail about several conversations Craddick had over the weekend with supporters, which were duly reported to my source:
Over the weekend, there were some telephone calls made by Tom Craddick in which (according to the report from one of the people on the receiving end of a call) the Speaker sounded ‘worn out, tired, and despondent’ and that for the first time in several months, the Speaker was calling on others to ask them to report what that members were hearing, rather than the Speaker himself being the provider of news as to the current state of battle between the Speaker and the ABCs. It sounded like Tom Craddick for the first time in a long time, actually found himself to be somewhat out-of-the-loop and truly unaware as to who the ABCs plus the Dunnam D’s would unite their support behind on January 2nd and what it would mean to Craddick’s future it they are able to actually pull it off.
The report I received was that the Speaker felt unsure as to how best to move forward between now and January 2nd because he has no credible intelligence to suggest who the consensus candidate might be. The Speaker did discuss additional filers for Speakers coming in the next few days. Further, both Chisum and Swinford had spoken to Smithee to see if the reports they were hearing were true and Smithee responded by saying that he was indeed seriously thinking about entering the Speaker’s race. Dan Gattis’s entry on Saturday means one fewer R vote for Craddick, while Smithee getting into the race would mean the dam is getting ready to bust the flood gates wide open and that Craddick is in serious jeopardy of losing dozens of current supporters. Craddick seemed unsure how to react—a unique position for a Speaker who is always operating from a well orchestrated script.
I have somewhat edited this report to protect the innocent, and I cannot vouch for its accuracy, but my source has on several occasions provided me with very good information on what certain Republican members are thinking.
I don’t think Craddick deserves to be reelected, but I can’t rejoice at this report. It’s sad.
79 and counting…make that 80
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
That is how many members appear to be committed to a course to elect a new speaker. It’s the 64 Democrats plus the 11 members of the ABC coalition (some of whom are not hardcore ABCs) plus the Gattis 4. It’s time to count Smithee in this camp, judging from his public remarks about the state of the House. That’s 80. What does this mean?
What it does not mean is 80 votes against Craddick for speaker. Depending upon how the speaker’s race develops, some of the R’s could end up with Craddick. What it does mean, I think, is that on the procedural issues—secret ballot, for example, or dumping Keel as temporary parliamentarian—these are yes (that is, anti-Craddick) votes. And if there is a secret ballot, it is hard to imagine Craddick being reelected.
And what about the Democratic pledges to vote against Craddick? The Craddick camp claims that they have six Democratic pledges from people who are on Dunnam’s list. Maybe they do. But I think the wobblies will be inviting primary opposition if they vote for Craddick. They signed pledges. How do they explain away going back on their word? A guy selling flowers on the street corner could beat anybody who does that: “He broke his word to his colleagues and he’ll break his word to you.”
Related Stories