These Democrats Stick With Craddick

Good grief... (1.50 / 2)

Is this what it's come to?  We're supposed to divide and arm-twist our own party members for revenge on Craddick?  He's not worth it.  It's just not worth it to in-fight over which of two conservative Republicans are going to step on us in this legislature.

Let your own conscience be your guide, but I would cut the Dems some slack and raise hell with the Republicans who are behind Craddick.

---

by: Whosplayin? @ Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 03:13:01 AM UTC

Makes no sense (0.00 / 0)

Republicans logically would continue to stay behind Craddick. There is no reason for Dems too. Not anymore.

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 03:23:22 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Agreed... (0.00 / 0)

This offense is worthy of retribution come election season.  If a single one of these Reps doesn't face a primary challenge and that challenger is not very well funded/supported, then we have failed.  This is a blatant act of betrayal and we must punish these reps...

---

by: David O. @ Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 03:34:23 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Self-defeating (1.50 / 2)

Which would you rather have: More Democrats, or just defeat the ones that you don't agree 100% with? 

We can and should have opposed primaries when a representative stops listening, but folks, we have districts where Republicans ran uncontested.

I really think our energy and efforts are best focused on the positive, which is reaching outside of our narrowly focused cliques to bring more good people into our fold, and thus elect more Democrats in other districts.

I'm going to work really hard to find a Democrat who will run in my district in 2008.

---

by: Whosplayin? @ Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 21:03:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Umm... (0.00 / 0)

Look up my record.  I defended Cuellar and Lieberman for those reasons!  I'm MORE than willing to work with people I don't agree with 100%!  More than pretty much ANYONE on this blog.  HOWEVER, a LEADERSHIP vote is the one single vote that DEFINES a Democrat.  If you don't vote with our caucus on that, then how on earth are you NOT a Republican?

---

by: David O. @ Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 23:24:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Multitasking (5.00 / 1)

We can and must do both.

Enforce party discipline at the ballot box, and challenge Republican incumbents.

Visibility, accountability, and effectiveness. These principles must become the spine from which every political action we undertake derives.

Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us at TexasKaos.

---

by: boadicea @ Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 15:06:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I agree, but I wonder about one thing (0.00 / 0)

I always thought it was an outrageous idea for a Democrat to vote for any Republican for Speaker, regardless of the reason.  If I were a Representative, voting for Pitts would not make my stomach any calmer.  He may be the lesser of two evils, but that still means he is evil.  Voting for evil on a day-in day-out basis, well, that's why I can't stomach politics much any more.

---

by: Wanderer @ Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 03:58:12 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

don't be a fool (5.00 / 1)

Craddick has a proven record as a corrupt mismanager. At least a vote for Pitt as a caucus shows Democratic strength and cleans the house a little bit.
Pitt will be less awful if he's relying on the Democratic caucus for his seat.
It's not a perfect world, we don't get to be the Justice League, all we can do is the best we can.

Any comments I make are my own personal opinion and do not reflect the opinions of any client or consulting firm I may be associated with.

---

by: SmartyPants @ Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 13:17:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What, I'm a fool for agreeing? (0.00 / 0)

Or for exercising my mind to think for myself?  As it turned out, most of the Democrats supporting Pitt voted for Craddick.  There was only one evil in the race, and they voted for it.

---

by: Wanderer @ Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 21:34:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Question? (5.00 / 2)

If there is nothing wrong with supporting Craddick - then why sneak in the back door?

---

by: tired of weakness @ Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 14:31:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

These people are supporting a guy... (0.00 / 0)

who has been the prime mover on so much of the disastrous Republican agenda. Why the hell should they be 'cut slack'? Their vote for Craddick is essentially a giant 'fuck you' to their constituents, to ethics reform, to rebuilding TRS, to voter protection, etc.

 

---

by: McBlogger @ Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 15:13:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Amen! (5.00 / 2)

Like I said, this is a defining moment for the Texas blog community.  FAR moreso than the state party chair or even Cuellar!  This is an example of utter and complete betrayal on the most important vote one can cast... leadership!  This is why we ELECT Democratic legislators!  There is ZERO difference between the furthest right wing wacko and Rose/Dukes/etc on this issue, the one that, in MY mind, DEFINES where your loyalties are.  We must get an opponent for EVERY one of these guys and get that opponent at LEAST 500k to play with.  Retribution must be swift and it must be overwhelming.  No punch is too low...  I'm already thinking of slogans "Every Rose Has a Thorn"?  "The Dukes of Austin"?  You can see how much FUN this will be! :)

---

by: David O. @ Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 15:55:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

primaries (0.00 / 0)

"Their vote for Craddick is essentially a giant 'fuck you' to their constituents, to ethics reform, to rebuilding TRS, to voter protection, etc."

I really don't get the fundamental premise of those lusting for primary challengers against certain Ds.  Which of these issues are more likely to change under a Pitts speakership than a Craddick one?  They'll shuffle the cards a little, but the numbers are still the same, and Pitts is a conservative Republican, just like Craddick.  The style might be more genteel, but the results will be largely the same. 

I can't help but wonder if all this remonstrating about primary opponents is being driven by ambitious, probably younger, Ds who have put in a lot of blood, sweat and tears during recent campaign cycles and who have decided it's now time to get a taste of holding office rather than electing others.

---

by: JUICE @ Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 16:41:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I Think That This Comment (0.00 / 0)

Has great merit. Primary opposition for supporting one Republican in contrast to some other Republican is indeed a weak premise. 

---

by: TexasLiberal @ Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 16:49:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What defines a Democrat? (3.00 / 1)

A) Am I young?  Probably.  Do I want to hold office?  NOPE!  You couldn't PAY me enough money to run for office.  Not my cup of tea at ALL. 

B) Why do I (who typically speaks out AGAINST primary challenges) speak so fervently against these people?  Simple.  This is about discipline.  This is about a bunch of "Democrats" who are voting against LEADERSHIP!  That's the ONE vote that defines a D.  We will NEVER have power if they aren't loyal to the party during a leadership vote!!! 

C) Anyone who argues Pitts and Cradick are the same needs to SERIOUSLY reevaluate that!  Will our bills get a floor vote under Cradick?  NOPE!  Under Pitts?  Probably.  Will we have a chance to offer amendments?  YES!  Will we have a chance to participate in the process?  MUCH moreso.  This is about having a chance to govern.  Is Pitts a conservative Republican?  Yes, but he's at LEAST willing to give us the right to represent our districts and participate in the process... something the minority party has always historically had in Texas.

---

by: David O. @ Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 17:11:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

former candidate (0.00 / 0)

Are you upset that Senfronia Thompson, who runs around the state trying to impose "discipline," is, at least in print, refusing to committ to Pitts?  If what you say is true, should she not be leading the charge, rather than perhaps sulking about not being consulted about the McCall-Pitts arrangement?

And I should have added to my earlier post that I also wonder how much of this consternation is driven by political operatives looking for future work, and other players who fancy themselves kingmakers.

---

by: JUICE @ Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 17:45:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

For shame! (5.00 / 4)

Senfronia Thompson is a hero who has lead the charge for change.  She will be voting Pitts today.  I could care less about drumming up "new business," what I care about is making Texas better.  This vote will do that!  My question to you, good sir, is why on earth are you so opposed to positive change?

---

by: David O. @ Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 17:56:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's a big, wide world of speculation out there... (3.00 / 1)

I have to wonder if half the carping about criticism is from oldsters who are scared to death they hear their replacements coming up behind them.

Po-tay-toe, Po-tah-toe, I expect.

And if you want to criticize Senfronia, leave the misogyny at home. 

Objecting to high handed behaviour from the majority party is not sulking, and I trust Senfronia's political instincts a lot more than your knee jerk comments here.

Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us at TexasKaos.

---

by: boadicea @ Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 18:54:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Was (0.00 / 0)

it mysogynistic to criticize her (rather mildly I might add) because she is a woman? 

Were my comments "knee jerk" rather than "considered" simply because you disagree with them?

I don't get it . . .

---

by: JUICE @ Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 19:11:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Referring to a woman who's pissed people off (0.00 / 0)

as "sulking" is the comment that seems misogynistic to me. 

And they are knee jerk because they're unsupported and condescending to one of the leaders of the Dems in the legislature.

Wedge Republicans. Unite Democrats.

Can you get that?

Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us at TexasKaos.

---

by: boadicea @ Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 19:34:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The prize is for supporting corruption (0.00 / 0)

As Rep Coleman put it, there's a differences between change and more of the same.

Push for change, or make way for someone who will. 

Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us at TexasKaos.

---

by: boadicea @ Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 17:29:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Have you SEEN what State Reps make? (0.00 / 0)

No, it's not about running for office (I can't afford the pay cut).Yes, there are a number of things Pitts would do differently. It's not only about getting good legislation passed, it's also about keeping bad legislation off the floor. Craddick is a known quantity on that front.

It's time for a change.

---

by: McBlogger @ Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 18:09:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Norma (0.00 / 0)

Chavez is as corrupt as they come, and she is the shame of El Paso. One hopes that this is the last term she slops at the public trough. 

---

by: Jesus B. Ochoa @ Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 06:03:23 AM UTC

Norma (0.00 / 0)

Granted Norma has done some bad votes in her day, however, I truly doubt she's the shame of El Paso.  With her, and the argument of what a representative should do, it's a question of strong party loyalty vs. getting items done for her district, and I think she weighs more what she can get done for her district (and this is why she received 70% of the vote versus a well funded candidate who even used school finance as a bullet against her).  She knows the needs of her area, she knows how to organize, and she recognizes that, sadly, she has to cross to the other side once in a while to accomplish to get her work done.  I hate that she has to do it and it gets me very angry when she does it (I told her she's my friend but she's lucky I don't live in her district), but out of the five state reps in El Paso, she is the only one with a committee chairmanship, and I do not think we had an El Paso Representative in a chairmanship spot in a long time.

Now, is she really a Democrat?  Some people doubt it, but I will say this in her defense, out of the four Democratic state reps from El Paso, and minus Dukes and Deshotel out of the Craddick D list, she is the only one who is a sustaining member of the Texas Democratic Party.

Can she do better, I think so, but I think we have more disgraceful people in El Paso.

---

by: michaelapodaca @ Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 00:38:00 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Just a question... (0.00 / 0)

If these Democrats do vote for Craddick and he wins, and if these Democrats earn, with their votes, choice spots in powerful committees, then doesn't that help the Party out a little?  I mean, Pitts says that he'll be bipartisan, but ambitious politicians are at their best when making empty promises.  I'm just implying that these Democrats could receive some sort of favor in committee selection if the vote goes for Craddick, which no Democrat should be upset about and every constituent wants from their representative (maximized policy influence).  That being said, I don't like Craddick one bit, but I also don't care for Pitts at all.  The "lesser of two evils" argument only personifies the dilemma imposed on Texas Democrats, who have little in the way of legislative power anyway.  The lesser of two evils is ultimately still not good for the Democrats.  Further, I do not endorse the notion of employing the same tactics we deplore Craddick for using to dispose of representatives that deviate from party-line ideology.  Threatening current reps with hostile and wildly partisan primaries is the specialty of Leininger and similar Republicans, who have done a great deal to damage their own Party's current standing.  I say that these Dems that have brought Party influence to the Texas government in a staunchly conservative state aren't the villains that many are making them out to be.  There is a method to the madness.

---

by: lmachic @ Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 19:09:36 PM UTC

PItts Withdrew (0.00 / 0)

Moot point about them voting for Craddick.  I can only hope they vote Present, Not Voting or something.

Dammit.

Disclosure: Former Political Director for Lee Leffingwell for Mayor of Austin ('09)

---

by: sccs @ Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 23:31:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

it will help THEM out (0.00 / 0)

NOT the party.

Do you think the party's image is being helped in Houston because Sylvester Turner has a nice committee assignment?

Is it being helped in El Paso by Norma Chavez?

It isnt about helping the Democratic Party. For the most part, it isnt even about helping their constituents. Its about helping themselves.

---

by: David Mauro @ Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 07:00:49 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

one more point (0.00 / 0)

What Democratic ideas have Craddick Ds like Turner, Dukes, Rose, Chavez, etc been able to advance as a result of their association with Craddick?

Name ONE great Democratic bill that has passed through because they sold their souls. I would love to hear about it.

---

by: David Mauro @ Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 07:02:25 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

we've got the no votes (5.00 / 1)

posted at http://texaskaos.com


Fudd's first law of opposition: Push something hard enough and it will fall over.

---

by: annatopia @ Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 04:58:33 AM UTC

Norma's Bills (0.00 / 0)

Since I sparked up a conversation about Norma, I do want to highlight the bills she did author and passed in the 79th session.  Before I do that, I want to discuss Aaron's comment about being a TDP sustaining member. 

True, and your right, giving a monthly donation to the Texas Democratic Party doesn't give you the Yellow Dog Democratic Member of the Year Award, and Norma would probably get the same amount votes as Mark McGuire did trying to get into the hall of fame (Hell, I wouldn't vote for her either if I was on the committee, and especially in the last round had she even made it that far) however, it does add some points because out of all the Reps and Senators who are sustaining the party, there's only 15.  Since I sit on the sustaining membership committee on the SDEC, its amazing that most of our Democratic Legislators are not even helping the party with 10 bucks a month. Even if me, poor college student, can do it (and I do make around the same amount as a State Rep annual), they could too. Now, a person who would be worthy of this Yellow Dog Democratic Award would be someone like State Rep. Paul Moreno.

Norma authored 10 bills that became law and most (or all) went through her committee.  here's a rundown:

HB 3426: This bill created a Substance Abuse task force for El Paso, since this has been a major problem in our area.

2421: This bill creates a workforce program through grants for rural and medium size counties.

2420: Creates a new way of reimbursing medical graduate students who conduct their practice in the border area, hopefully increasing the number of doctors.

1582: creating a study on mortgage foreclosure rates to investigate if there is any predatory lending, especially for low-income families.

1562: giving the City of El Paso access to emergency services to the Tigua reservation

1107: This bill would take into consideration poor counties and changing the formula when they fund new highways projects rather than matching the exact amount.

1099: This bill transfers the inspection license for migrant labor housing to another authority to ensure that stricter sanitary measures are met. 

925: This bill creates a study on border issues and also forms the Texas-Mexico Strategic Investment Commission to have the border counties and their Mexican counterparts to see what are the areas that are needed for improvement.

980: This bill adds the fiscal responsibility training to workforce programs. 

Now, to end this discussion, I'm not saying that Norma is the best thing in El Paso, however she is definitely not the worst as previously mentioned, and, at least what I know of, she has not broken any state laws like Gilbert Serna did. I have a love-hate relationship for her as a member of the state party, because she does stupid things like voting for Craddick, but she also serves her district, and, to a point, for that reason she makes up for it.  When we end the session, each of the Craddick D's, in my opinion, has to be evaluated differently because there are some who serve their districts well, but then there are some who are completely worthless, and starting now we need to keep a close eye for each one, their actions, votes, and the bills they make that actually becomes law. 

And for why Pitts lost, most of it was not due to the Craddick D's, it was Pitts organization of his supporters.  Apparently he did a piss-poor job keeping them in-line, and probably did not have a well thought out game plan. I was at his pep rally (Press Conference) and I believed and hoped he would win, but the best pep rallies don't win you football games, and he did some bad plays. All Democrats voting the same way would helped, but it seems many of the R's were double dipping in their support.

---

by: michaelapodaca @ Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 10:15:44 AM UTC

There is one positive for Speaker Craddick... (5.00 / 3)

and I should have said it on my previous post, and I'll quote Rep. Richard Raymond:

"As a Democrat, in purely partisan terms, you remaining Speaker may well be best for my party. Since you were elected Speaker in 2003, Democrats have gained seven seats in the House and stand just a half dozen seats short of claiming a majority. Time and again, you have forced Republican Members to cast votes that conflict with the interests and views of their constituents….your inflexible leadership style have created a DeLay-like public persona."

It's all about working hard in those swing areas around the state and taking those seats back in 2008.

---

by: michaelapodaca @ Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 10:31:16 AM UTC

While that may be a silver lining politically (5.00 / 1)

It's a very expensive one for the people of Texas.

Personally, I'd be willing to go without it for a chance to kill bad legislation aborning, and get some to the floor that will help Texas' working families instead of corrupt corporations lining up for dosh and loot from the public trust.

Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us at TexasKaos.

---

by: boadicea @ Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 14:32:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Exactly... (4.33 / 3)

People here are acting like we're weighing two equal Republicans and the Craddicrats just made a decision that was in their best interest.  The truth of the matter was they were weighing their own personal selfish interest against the DEMOCRATIC PARTY becoming the single largest member of a governing coallition.  That means, in order for the speaker to hold power, he'd have to maintain DEMOCRATIC support!  Wonder if he'd have been nice to us??  I'm not saying it would be a Democratic leadership team, but I will say he would have been FORCED to be evenhanded and fair.

To everyone saying "you cannot judge on one vote," I say this.  I believe in a big tent party.  I welcome in pro-life and pro-choice Democrats.  I welcome in socially conservative and socially liberal D's.  I welcome in free trade and protectionist D's.  I welcome in fiscally conservative and more socialist D's.  I welcome in pro-war and anti-war D's.  I can think of no real issue that REALLY gets my blood boiling.  However, I ask ONE thing from my D's.  I ask they vote with the Democrats on LEADERSHIP!!!!!!!!  It's not too hard a request, is it?  Just vote as a party when it comes to getting control of legislative chambers.  This is the SECOND chamber we've lost this year, Pennsilvania was the first.  This is far more aggregious than that was. 

If you've voting AGAINST our leadership, what good ARE you?  When elected the voters expected two things out of a state rep.  One, they expected him/her to lead with his/her own convictions on the issues.  Two, they expected (particularly party line voters) for that person to be a DEMOCRAT.  When you betray your party on LEADERSHIP you pretty much fail in that last one.  You stab your entire party in the back so you can get a plum committee assignment.  You ensure good bills don't get heard and Democrats remain completely in the dark for your own egomaniacal aspirations!  And you ensure that your constituents no longer have someone who works to advance the party. 

KT: You mentioned possibly putting something on the front page about these 15 people?  Have you thought about a daily fact (something really negative about one of them) along with a box with the list of their names that, when you click on their name, brings up an email to their office with a form letter complaining about this vote/their record/etc...

---

by: David O. @ Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 14:52:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Evenhanded and fair was the goal in this race (0.00 / 0)

Craddick is a known quantity, and no Democrat (who isn't named Patrick Rose) would describe him with those words.

Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us at TexasKaos.

---

by: boadicea @ Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 15:09:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]