The Truth About Turner

C'mon (0.00 / 0)

Give Me A Break!

So they guy cuts deals - that is politics.
Why don't you write up everything he has done too, and then we can have a honest comparison (I would but don't really have time)

---

by: gb1437a @ Fri Jun 08, 2007 at 16:33:18 PM UTC

Uhhhh ... that's the point (0.00 / 0)

While Matt's analysis is not exhaustive, he hits the high points on key issues that ought to matter most to Sylvester Turner -- and to progressives.  If Sylvester's taking a fall on issues like instructing the budget conferees about his own precious CHIP program, what kind of leadership is that? 

Yes, politicians cut deals, and Sylvester was an effective and able legislator through the 1990s.  But for the last four years, he's been the Democrat most responsible for "enabling" Tom Craddick's reign as Speaker.  Has it paid off?  Are the 100,000 children who got booted off CHIP in 2003, and did NOT get back in the program under this session's laws, better off than they were four years ago?  Are utility customers better off than they were four years ago?  Is his district better off than it was four years ago? 

The answer, unfortunately, is no. 

---

by: Boddhisattva @ Fri Jun 08, 2007 at 16:48:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I just saying (0.00 / 0)

Maybe we should contact Sly on this - but lets not just hit the negatives, and get a balanced look at what he has done.  I know for one he has done a lot of TSU - like preventing them from going to the governor - but their are many other success he has had.  I know a lot of them are not the big ticket items, but I think they add up.  And, he was lucky to stop the Chip bleeding at 100,000, you remeber is was a lot worse initially.

His district is undoubtledy better off... he is like a Robert Byrd - district first type.

---

by: gb1437a @ Fri Jun 08, 2007 at 17:40:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I totally disagree. (3.00 / 1)

I totally disagree.  Turner is nothing more than a political opportunist, and, to that end, he has put his own political ambitions ahead of a solid future for T.S.U.  Representative Coleman created a rider in the budget that would have prevented a conservator from  taking controle of T.S.U.  Representative Turner was largely responsible removing this rider.  In fact, if you recall, that rider removal was the controversy that ignited the movement to vacate the chair on Friday, May 25th.  The Craddick/Turner team took the unprecedented step of opening the budget, after it had been agreed upon in conference, solely to remove this rider.  Coleman's rider would have saved T.S.U.  Now there's still a possibility that the University will be placed under a conservator.  In my opinion, no one cares more about T.S.U. that Garnet Coleman.  It lies in his district, and He's been an unwaivering leader on T.S.U.'s behalf.  Sylvester Turner only cares about Sylvester Turner. 

Furthermore, Turner isn't running for speaker to promote a fairer House, more able to pass progressive legislation.  He's running so that Craddick Ds won't suffer primary defeats in the wake of the Craddick controversy.  If Democrats retake control, they'll elect someone other than Turner -- someone better than Turner.  If Republican's hold onto control, they'll never elect a Democrat Speaker.  Turner won't be speaker either way.  True to form, this is all about politics.  Turner's simply looking out for #1.

---

by: Evan L. @ Fri Jun 08, 2007 at 19:04:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

All successful politicians are opportunists (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Wanderer @ Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 04:03:46 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

That excuse doesnt cut it anymore (n/t) (5.00 / 1)

---

by: Tejana @ Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 04:45:21 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's not an excuse (0.00 / 0)

It's a fact of life that has not changed in thousands of years.

---

by: Wanderer @ Sun Jun 10, 2007 at 17:35:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not Sure (0.00 / 0)

Umm... I don't think your history on TSU is accurate.  While Coleman was raising a fuss - Turner was convincing the Governor's office not tp place TSU under conservatorship, today they have a carefull balance and TSU is free.  You know nothing of Sly Turner if you think the only thing he cares about is himself, sorry but that is the fact.

I won't rehatch everything - but Turner, and his staff, are responsable for the TYC issues coming to public light.  He did not take the credit, but it all came from his office if you talk to the people who were there.

---

by: gb1437a @ Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 07:07:27 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

... (0.00 / 0)

Please tell me how you know that Turner was the one to get the Governor to not place TSU under conservatorship. 

And please stop giving Turner credit for the TYC issues.  You messed the story up when you posted it the first time and Turner did in fact claim credit for it.

His staff are fantastic people - incredibly talented and dedicated.  It's Turner and his willingness to sell out to Craddick that is the problem.

---

by: Joe @ Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 20:41:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

why (0.00 / 0)

Because when TSU students and alumni came to the hill he told them that he was.  And, I asked friends who were involved who was responsable.

Turner was able to lead on TYC because he has spent decades being a leader with Juvenile issues - that is why his staff have that experience.  He derserves kudos for bringing to light the most corrupt agency in decades.

---

by: gb1437a @ Sun Jun 10, 2007 at 06:40:30 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

not what I asked (0.00 / 0)

Look, you've expressed outrage because people are attacking a person you respect.  Fine.  But back it up.  You make sweeping references crediting Turner for random good acts of the Legislature and back it up with "somebody told me".

In fact, that's what most of the trolls are doing as well. In the end you're content with giving the man credit for whatever he claims credit for, and denying any culpability for the rampant destruction of state services that has resulted from his staunch support of Tom Craddick.

When people attacked Turner for his support of Craddick you attacked them for having the gall to voice dissent because they hadn't set foot in his neighborhood.  Stop with the blind support and realize that he's letting them take $10 from your right pocket so that he can give a speech about how he's putting $1 in your left pocket.

---

by: Joe @ Sun Jun 10, 2007 at 07:47:32 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

. (0.00 / 0)

The difficulty is that people on the hill know Turner as back room dealer who gets things done- and the people at BOR only see is support of Craddick... I am extremely busy and don't have time to spend my weekday gathering information on Sly and writing a diary - sorry.  He doesn't have large acts of progessive legislation, that ain't going to happen in the current political climate, but he does liberalize nearly everything that goes through the house.  And, for a lot of progressive groups (Like the ACLU with TYC), he is an important conduit and advocate for getting anything done in the current climate.  He is probably the most prominant Democrat in the House and is certainly no John Sharp or Grandma in terms of selling out.

Sorry, i can't post what my friends say as state employees - they cannot support a leg.

I think to be balanced we should seek his rational, and get some opinions from people on the hill.  I agree his public face isn't great right now, but  I think BOR underestimates the amount he gets done.

---

by: gb1437a @ Sun Jun 10, 2007 at 17:20:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

extremely busy (0.00 / 0)

but with enough time to troll every comment to make sure you give Turner credit for every good bill that came out of the Lege?

---

by: Joe @ Sun Jun 10, 2007 at 18:47:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

. (0.00 / 0)

yeah, at 2 a.m.

---

by: gb1437a @ Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 00:06:17 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Points to diary link on sidebar (0.00 / 0)

Feel free to contact Sylvester Turners office and see what they have to offer in explanation.

It's the beauty of a community site that we can all right content to be critiqued by the rest of the site.

Seriously, if it matters that much to you, bestir yourself instead of expecting it always to be done for you.

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

---

by: boadicea @ Fri Jun 08, 2007 at 19:04:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

maybe you weren't watching (0.00 / 0)

it wasn't sylvester that kept trying (over and over and over) to kill a bill to hold TXU and other utility companies in check.

sylvester was the one fighting on behalf of consumers.

your implication is that he is to blame, but the record very clearly reflects exactly who was shilling for TXU and the utility companies...and believe me, sylvester was their worst enemy on this issue.

Please refer to KT's signature.

---

by: colin @ Fri Jun 08, 2007 at 21:11:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm not sure those changes matter once Craddick is gone (0.00 / 0)

Turner clearly made his changes because of pressure from Craddick.  With Craddick gone, I feel safe in assuming that Turner would no longer be subject to such pressures, and no longer prone to such changes.

---

by: Wanderer @ Fri Jun 08, 2007 at 16:52:43 PM UTC

That's what he does in order to stay Speaker Pro Tem (0.00 / 0)

What would he do to be Speaker?

---

by: Joe @ Fri Jun 08, 2007 at 17:29:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It depends (0.00 / 0)

If we can pick up the seats to win back the house - he'll have a progressive agenda.  If not, he'll be preventing terrible R bills from reaching the floor.

---

by: gb1437a @ Fri Jun 08, 2007 at 17:42:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Isn't it time for a change? (0.00 / 0)

I think Mr. Turner might as well realize he's got a ways to go to be considered distinct from Speaker Craddick. Some Texas politicians need to realize all they are is dust in the wind...

---

by: Elsbeth @ Fri Jun 08, 2007 at 19:50:37 PM UTC

First in a series??? (0.00 / 0)

So, you're going to be calling out EVERY Democrat in the House who has horsetraded votes and/or cut deals and/or sold out??

I'm anxiously awaiting.

Please refer to KT's signature.

---

by: colin @ Fri Jun 08, 2007 at 20:15:16 PM UTC

Nice work. Thanks for the effort. (0.00 / 0)

---

by: SouthTexasDemocrat @ Fri Jun 08, 2007 at 20:42:44 PM UTC

Turn your head for one second.... (1.00 / 1)

This is comical and clearly reflects an objectionable basis against Sylvester.  Before you guys start attacking the aforementioned line, please review the rest of this post.

Where to begin...

How about child support enforcement?  Sylvester put well over $450 million dollars into that Strategy, while legal services only has about $150 million (legal services that include assistance for the poor, mind you). That's plenty for the agency to carry out its child support enforcement responsibilities.

I don't remember the last time either chamber moved to instruct conferees on the budget.  You don't want to tie their hands on any deals that will need to be negotiated with the other chamber.  That strategy worked out well considering he got the CHIP funding.

Those vote switches didn't impact the ultimate outcome of those bills.

Your five point analysis of a "conservative Sylvester" is pretty poor…what else you got? 

And as for Coleman’s TSU rider, Cloeman struck a deal with Gov. Goodhair to give TSU a one-year “grace” period before being placed under a conservatorship.  It was a delay tactic with the intent for that university not to remain independent…

---

by: Yosef @ Fri Jun 08, 2007 at 21:31:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"Those vote switches didn't impact the ultimate outcome of those bills." (1.00 / 1)

By your same logic, if I'm wearing a condom, does it no longer count as cheating on my wife because my actions won't impact the outcome?

---

by: SouthTexasDemocrat @ Fri Jun 08, 2007 at 22:47:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Wearing a condom isn't cheating on your wife (0.00 / 0)

But using it is.

---

by: Wanderer @ Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 04:05:54 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

What are you talking about? (3.00 / 2)

This post doesn't claim that Turner is "conservative;" it proves that Turner is spineless.  Where did Matt claim that he was conservative.  This post simply illustrates that Turner is always happy  to sell out to power, even if it means refusing to instruct the conferees on his own bill. 

---

by: Evan L. @ Fri Jun 08, 2007 at 23:10:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Proof? (5.00 / 1)

The post doesn't actually prove anything until you compare to the actions of all the Democrats in the House.  There's no point of reference...pick the votes of your favorite D and I bet they're not as perfect as you all think they are.

---

by: Yosef @ Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 04:04:36 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

At least (0.00 / 0)

He didn't take a check from Utilities Companies to screw over old people and poor people. 

That's selling out.......it just happens to be for cash instead of goods and services for the district.

---

by: fyhendrix @ Sun Jun 10, 2007 at 02:49:26 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

This is the point (3.67 / 3)

Turner is a reliable vote for the Speaker and the Republican leadership. He is not a reliable vote for his Democratic colleagues. He walks votes and disappears during vote verifications. Craig Eiland, Jim Dunnam and Garnet Coleman had good sessions, proving that you don't have to sell out to get legislation passed. You just have to be a good lawmaker.

---

by: Tejana @ Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 05:05:41 AM UTC

Were you blind? (3.50 / 2)

I find it amazing that some of you have simply overlooked the fact that the great Jim Dunnam " your professed keeper of the flame" singlehandedly killed the only bill that would have given an electric rate decrease to poor folks in this state. He did it not once but twice on a point of order.

You also seem to have conveniently glossed over the fact that your hero Jim Dunnam sponsored the amendment that would have watered down the Texas Top Ten Percent Law. This law guarantees admission to U.T. and A and M for those who graduate in the top ten percent of their high school.

While more young black men are incarcerated than in college in Texas Dunnam's position is reprehensible. Additionally he has a considerable population of African Americans in his district in Waco. LET'S SEE HOW HE EXPLAINS THAT IN HIS NEXT PRIMARY.

Garnet Coleman isn't effective he is sad. He curses out someone at the Capitol and is caught on tape and it's aired throughout the state. He assaults a teacher and his young children's school in Houston. He can't pass a glass of water on the House floor and you want to glorify him. Give me a break.

Craig Eiland is the most effective D in the Lege. He is smart. He is articulate and picks his battles while quietly passing and killing bills in his constituents' best interests.

Compare his record of passing bills to either that of Dunnam's or Coleman's.

Eiland would make a great speaker. The other two are just foot warmers.

---

by: D. Davenport @ Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 13:16:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Give me a break (0.00 / 0)

The TXU bill was dead from the get go. There were people lined up to kill that bill with sustainable points of order and Dunnam just got to the back mic first. Your personal feelings about the Democratic leadership don't change the fact that they had successful sessions without selling out. Still, with Turner's position in the Craddick leadership team, he managed only a 20% pass rate. The moral of this story is that you don't have to carry Craddick's water or kiss his wrinkled old white West Texas ass to get things done.

So, tell me why Turner is a reliable vote for Craddick & the Republican leadership but walks off the Floor when the Democrats need him.

You didn't explain that in your rant.

---

by: Tejana @ Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 17:57:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Gimme a Break (0.00 / 0)

Where was your defense of the Great Savior Jim Dunnam's efforts to kill minority students chances to go to U.T. and A&M?

Your selective indignation is amazing!

What about the poor peoples electric bills?

You forgive all these transgressions as long as Dunnam and Coleman continue to whine and slobber about Tom Craddick.

I have news for you there is no difference between Tom Craddick, Jim Pitts, Jim Keffer or Brian McCall. They all would have conducted themselves the same as Craddick did during redistricting and beyond.

You say that the utility bill was dead because there were other sustainable points of order waiting in the wings. The last time I checked you were not on the podium. Since you were not the Speaker you have no clue as to what was sustainable or not.

Dunnam and Coleman are content along with your undying and  unconditional support, to fiddle while poor people and minorities continue to suffer in this state.

You can continue to support rich and privileged politicos who take the position that they would rather take NO LOAF than a half a loaf.

Sell that high and mighty line to the homeless on the corner of San Jacinto and Pierce.

Peddle that political babble to the kids who benefitted fron the CHIP's bill that did pass without the help of your two heroines.

Coleman nor Dunnam have obviously not missed any meals. They don't need half a loaf.

There are many wonderful citizens out there in Dallas, Houston, Dime Box, San Antonio and Odessa who are depending on that half a loaf to live.

Give them your political psycho-babble and see how far you get.

---

by: D. Davenport @ Sun Jun 10, 2007 at 00:15:13 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

But the fact remains that (0.00 / 0)

Sylvester Turner is a sellout. If he believes that his constitency is better served by selling out to Tom Craddick & the Republican leadership, then so be it. To him (and to you), it's worth it. He had his name on major legislation this session, and was an influential member as he has been for the past three sessions - by selling out. I don't know why you are telling me that I think Dunnam is some type of great savior (your words, not mine).  All I said was that Jim Dunnam was a good lawmaker. What he is not, what Coleman is not - are sellouts. Through their leadership, not Turner's, the voter ID bill, vouchers and Craddick's authoritarian reign over the House are dead. If Turner hadn't sold out to Craddick to begin with, if he had refused to be a part of kicking 300,000 kids off of CHIP in 2003, maybe if he hadn't supported redistricting, we wouldn't be patting him on the back for HB109 today. The way he protected Craddick two weekends ago was disgusting. He has certainly earned the distrust of Democrats by those actions alone.

---

by: Tejana @ Sun Jun 10, 2007 at 18:19:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not the voter ID bill (0.00 / 0)

meant to say HB159

---

by: Tejana @ Sun Jun 10, 2007 at 18:35:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The Truth About Dunnam and Coleman (1.00 / 1)

I guess I'm having a little trouble with some of your definitions of a "successful" session.  I looked at all of Coleman's bills and all of Dunnam's bills and their votes on key issues important to the little guy and this is what I discovered.

Mr. Coleman had a total of 8 bills that passed this session (not 15 like his press statement headlined) Oh, and it's not fair to count bills and say what they "would have done" if they didn't pass....like his press statement did.

His bills most meaningful to the masses would be:

1. Relating to educating parents about the benefits of immunizing certain children against the flu.

2. Relating to the requirements for filing an annual financial statement by a municipality.

3. Related to the elimination of sexual assault against inmates confined in a facility operated under contract with TDCJ.  (And Coleman and Co. have the audacity to say they voted against the utilities bill because the laws were already in effect)

4. Co-Authored with Dukes - Relating to the office for the Elimination of Health Disparities and their Task Force. (Oops, did we catch Coleman playing footsies with a Craddick D?????)

Now these are particularly important for the women and children of the state.
5. Relating to the boundaries and board of directors of the Harris County Improvement District No. 6.
6. Same as above but Improvement District No. 9
7. Relating to the Buffalo Bayou Management District
8. Same as above but Greater Southeast Management District.

Looks like the ColeMan will have the best managed District in the state!!!!!  Whoopeee.  He can explain that to his senior citizens who won't be able to run their air conditioners this summer.

As for Dunnam:

He Authored a whopping one bill.  HB 3659 Relating to the disclosure of the name of a student minor who is involved in an improper relationship with an educator.  (Must be a big problem in Waco).

To be fair he did have a crap load of congratulatory resolutions.

Both Dunnam and Coleman voted against AARP, Acorn and every other consumer group that favored SB 482 to get thier electricty bills lowered.  It is rumored they both got big, fat checks from TXU to "sell out" to the Utilities Companies.

Oh let's give Dunnam the credit for trying to kill Top Ten Percent too.......... (Guess the little white boys in Waco don't like having to stand in line behind African Americans for college entrance).

So, WHAT THE HELL DO YOU CONSIDER A SUCCESSFUL SESSION????

---

by: fyhendrix @ Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 20:55:20 PM UTC

For your first and only comment all you can do is bitch about two (0.00 / 0)

good and hard-working Democrats?

I have just one question: Who's watching the underside of the bridge while you're posting here?

---

by: SouthTexasDemocrat @ Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 21:02:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Actually No (0.00 / 0)

I could give you the bill count and questionable voting records of some others but none of the others seem to have this "No loaf is better than a half loaf" mentality!!!!!!

You folks are so boring.  You can't win elections against Republicans so you spend all your time and energy trying to defeat Democrats.  Smart.......real smart!

---

by: fyhendrix @ Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 21:11:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's in their talking points... (0.00 / 0)

It's quite sad that the only way Slimy Sly and the other Cradick D's have to defend themselves is by putting down Coleman, Dunnam, and other good Democrats.  However, for me at least, it makes it very very easy to decide.  You can either chose to back Democrats or them.

The part I find most amusing about the whole thing is that their techniques are the EXACT same as Rove and the other Bush campaign people have used.  Rather than address the attacks, attack harder onto your "opponent" to distract people and make everyone look dirty.  Make it as personal as possible, even attacking staff members/journalists/anybody who dare call you out. 

---

by: David O. @ Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 21:19:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

No Personal Attack (0.00 / 0)

I simply looked up the success rate and voting records of those who are held out to the be champions of the Democratic Party.  Tell me I misread something or that the Texas Legislature Online intentionally misstated their records.  There were no personal attacks. 

Both are constantly beating on the "Craddick Ds" whom even apparently Mr. Coleman acknowledges have a better pass rate than he (he got Dukes to co-author). 

Look, Burnt Orange started this by stating Mr. Turner's record.  Why is his record free game and the records of others are not?????  Fair is fair........  Just because Mr. Turner and Co. were able to get things done this session while Mr. Coleman and Mr. Dunnam "sat the bench"......that doesn't mean they should let the green eyed monster of jealousy continue to beat up on those that are successful.  They should be happy that the people in the state will benefit from what the Craddick Ds were able to accomplish.  They should also be spanked for killing bills that would have benefited old people and poor people.  Shame on them for that.

---

by: fyhendrix @ Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 21:38:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Really?? (0.00 / 0)

I haven't yet heard Dunnam or Coleman EVER attack them or even speak out on this issue!  They very easily could have and I just missed it, but I certainly haven't heard either of them attack Slimy Sly or any of his other Cradick D's.

You're exactly right, Cradick and his agenda advanced this session.  As a chief Lt. in the regime, Sly was able to at least appear like he was doing something, unlike Dunnam/Coleman/the Democratic caucus, which wasn't even allowed the right to get their agenda in front of the whole body due to Cradick's authoritarian rule! 

Should all Democrats be jealous of the Republican leadership because they have power?  ABSOLUTELY!  It's only once we get jealous that we'll get hungry; that we'll really WANT to win.  Once we can almost taste that porterhouse steak with a nice blue cheese butter known as success and power and the ability to pass meaningful laws to help out Texans, we'll run as hard as we possibly can to retake the house from the Republicans and give it back to the people of Texas!  I can tell most people on the blogs long for that taste as much as I do (even the vegetarians!!).  We won't settle for the few measily scraps Cradick occasionally throws onto the floor for Sly and his band of traitors to lick up.  We want the ENTIRE steak!  And we'll get it, too.  You cannot EVER underestimate the power of a bunch of smart people fighting for the good against corrupt and incompitent people.  It happened in DC in 2006, when we knocked down the Delay/Abramoff machine.  It'll happen soon here in Texas, when Cradick and his supporters, of ALL stripes, will be forced out (hopefully wearing stripes or an orange jumpsuit... whatever prisons use nowdays!) :)

---

by: David O. @ Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 23:04:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Because the Craddick Ds are sellouts (0.00 / 0)

Whatever they are getting in return for selling out must be worth it. We simply admire people who refuse to compromise their integrity by enabling Craddick and policies that keep Texas with our dubious distinctions in education and public health.

---

by: Tejana @ Sun Jun 10, 2007 at 18:43:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's about Leadership (0.00 / 0)

It's about the people of Texas and serving with integrity and principle, upholding the constitution despite Craddick & his leadership team's desire to stay in power at all costs. Craddick is out, vouchers are dead, the voter ID bill is dead and hell yeah, those Craddick D's have every reason to look over their shoulders this next election season. Sometimes a fancy title isn't worth being a rat. Voters expect some level of integrity, and Democrats expect their elected representatives to stop eating shit and being happy about it. Stand up and do what is right. The excuses just don't cut it anymore.

---

by: Tejana @ Sun Jun 10, 2007 at 18:31:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Turner should not be speaker, but this attack is unfair (0.00 / 0)

Matt, I could easily come up with a list of Turner's votes and actions, particularly on the appropriations committee, that would counter those you cite, on criminal justice but also, as others have pointed out, on CHIP and utilities.

I like Turner. I respect him and his staff. His chief of staff Alison Brock is the person who heard the rumors about the TYC scandal in West Texas, investigated and finding fire behind the smoke, helped propel the issue into national headlines. The story would never have come out without her.

That said, Turner should not be Speaker. To my mind, he forfeited the needed legitimacy to wield that authority when Terry Keel told him not to recognize members for motions to vacate and he did the parliamentarian's bidding. That was wrong, and to me it means he can't be the consensus leader that the House desperately needs.

If Dems want a different Speaker, I suggest you win a bunch of House races. Until then, Democrats will continue to accept half a loaf or none at all.  Turner is a master accumulater of half loaves, and for that IMO he should not be criticized.

---

by: Gritsforbreakfast @ Sun Jun 10, 2007 at 01:14:01 AM UTC

Good (0.00 / 0)

Thanks for a rational explanation.  Glad to see somebody can be objective.

---

by: gb1437a @ Sun Jun 10, 2007 at 06:49:55 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Pop Quiz... (1.00 / 1)

KT--

Out of curiosity, are all of Turner's supporters coming from unique IP addresses?  It seems suspicious that NONE of these people posted here before this...

---

by: David O. @ Sun Jun 10, 2007 at 05:58:01 AM UTC

I know why I did (0.00 / 0)

I live out of state and read BOR for my daily political updates in state.  And, this is the first time that BOR really upset me by attacking somebody I greatly respect - and have always admired for his ability to get things done while in the minority.  Since then I've enjoyed posting on other things - but, really ya'll just made me mad.

---

by: gb1437a @ Sun Jun 10, 2007 at 06:49:06 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

They are different IPs (0.00 / 0)

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 00:43:53 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Why I decided to post (0.00 / 0)

I have been reading Burnt Orange, Pink Dome and other Dem blogs for years.  I too, am desperate for wins but I know that is only possible when we work together to defeat Republicans.  I have noticed that Burnt Orange spends far more time beating up Democrats (Craddick D's) than they do beating up Republicans.  I do not understand how ANYONE believes that will be helpful in defeating Republicans. 

Fair criticizm is great but Burnt Orange seems to have this huge hard-on for Turner and Co. and anyone who differs with Burnt Orange on their opinion of him.

While I have been content in the past to be a reader and observer, I find myself unable to keep quiet about it any longer.  It is my understanding that 3 of the regular writers and posters on this blog work for Dunnam, Coleman and Gallego.  That explains a lot but to be fair you should rename this the Dunnam, Coleman, Gallego blog so that regular folks looking in will know that you write with a bias. 

---

by: fyhendrix @ Sun Jun 10, 2007 at 12:58:34 PM UTC

To Be Fair (0.00 / 0)

Our main writers, including myself, do not work at the capitol.  Eddie Rodriguez is an attorney in San Antonio, KT works for Act Blue, Todd lives in Dallas, and I am a contract worker (mostly internet strategy) in Austin.

The things we write here do not reflect the opinions of any person that we have worked for or work for, and for you to imply that it does is libel.

The reason we go after Turner is because he is running as a Democrat for Speaker, and he is doing it to help Craddick. 

If you want Democrats to support a Democrat, Senfronia Thompson is amazing and she is running for speaker of the Texas House.  We want to make that point clear.

As for general content, the Craddick D's are on a short leash as far as I, Matt Glazer, am concerned. 

Remember the line, "the power of the chair is absolute"? Turner was one of two people to say that, and his support for Craddick created that insane interpretation of the rules.

I support the Democratic party and I support Democrats, but when Democrats support Neo-Con Republicans to lead our state and dictate (arm twist) public policy, they don't get a pass for that.  When they do something good, we will publicize that.  Problem is, instead of coming on here and talking to the BOR community, they take our links of blogrolls and fail to return calls and e-mails.

Help build a progressive movement in Texas. Join Progress Texas.

---

by: Matt Glazer @ Sun Jun 10, 2007 at 14:27:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

How Do you Know (0.00 / 0)

How do you know he's doing it to help Craddick?

Ms. Thompson is amazing.....actually, that is an understatement but the sad fact is that even if (and I think we can) we take back the house, it will be very, very marginal.  Ms. Thompson cannot secure enough Republican votes to win the Speakership.

Show me where (cite the archive) where Turner says "the power of the chair is absolute".  Craddick said that but I have never seen where Turner said that.  I think you made it up.

We have been the minoity party in this state for years.  In order to acquire anything for the people, it has required cooperation with Republicans.  That's the way it is.  Those that have not cooperated end up with management districts and congratulatory resolutions.  The ones that do, get CHIP funding, University funding, parks, etc..........things that are truly important to the people of the state.

Craddick is evil but there were never enough votes to take him out....not at the beginning of the session and not at the end.  There was a lot of lip service in the back rooms but when it came down to the nut cutting, the Republicans didn't have the guts to do it on either end.  So, we are left with a delimma.  Do we continue to beat up Democrats or do we move forward and educated folks about why we HAVE to get rid of the Republicans.

You guys really need to stop talking to each other, get out and talk to people who are not involved in politics at all and hear what they think about the all or nothing attitude of the Democratic Caucus and the Republicans.  People are sick of both parties because of this general attitude.  They also think that the losers are the people.

So, Matt, I intend to continue to read Burnt Orange.  I'm hopeful that you guys will hit on the educational aspect of why Republicans are bad for our state and nation and stop focusing on Democrats that may not agree with your all or nothing philosphy. What you have been doing is not helpful and not at all persuasive. 

---

by: fyhendrix @ Sun Jun 10, 2007 at 15:17:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The Power of the Chair is absolute. (0.00 / 0)

Matt, Turner never said the power of the chair is absolute. You are as the early colonists did, practicing revisionist history.

Turner said the same thing that former Speakers Bill Clayton, Gib Lewis and Pete Laney said and practiced. "The power of the chair to recognize is absolute and not subject to appeal".

I reference Texas House Rules 5 Section 24 and Rule 1 section 9.

The reason you and your friends are shocked is because none of you saw fit to read the rules.  Former democratic Speakers frequently refused to recognize members for motions of all kinds. Ask Paul Moreno how many times Laney refused to recognize him on the highly privileged motion to adjourn.

I guess it is OK for democratic Speakers to exercise that kind of power. You no doubt would call that benevolent.

If a republican does it with rules inherited from democrats it is ditatorial.

That is intellectually dishonest.

If you are going to make accusations make sure they are accurate. There are lots of people who read this blog that know better.

Many of us have not had the need to respond to blog entries in the past but feel compelled to do so now. Welcome to America.

And oh by the way there is no such thing as a motion to "vacate the chair" either. It is a myth not based in fact. I dare you to cite us the Texas House Rule that sets it out. You can't because it isn't.

It was a made up, propped up, conjured up excuse to bypass the regular rules adopted by the house.

You and your friends just decided it was worth burning the barn down to kill a mouse. How sad.

---

by: D. Davenport @ Sun Jun 10, 2007 at 17:58:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Concurring Dissent (0.00 / 0)

I, too, have read site for some time now and I’m expressing my opinion for the same reasons that Davenport and others have mentioned. But for me, there's this 500lb gorilla seated at the top left corner of this website that no one seems to acknowledge.

Has anyone noticed that since 2003 only minority "Craddick D's" have been punished by the party?  Let's be fair, all Dems except for 5 in 2003 and 2 in 2005 voted for Craddick, but only the Black and Hispanic members were challenged in democratic primaries (with the exception of maybe Bailey).

There have been a number of votes that should have warranted a couple of white Dems to be targeted as well (tort reform, 2003/2005 budgets, etc.) but they were all given passes as you looked away to blame people like Jamie Capelo, Roberto G., G. Lewis, Sylvester and others.  You don't accept that it was Laney, Dunnam, Coleman, Pete Gallego and others that were at the helm when they sold out to build George Bush's presidential platform. It could be argued that Laney favored the many Republican’s in his inner circle as he passed over minority Democrats who were vice-chairmen to put a white male Republican as chair of his committees.  You think those members forgot those slights?  Where was your loyalty then? 

That's why I'm posting.  I'm tired of you democrats telling me that as an African American democrat, I have to model myself after Coleman or Senfronia.  Sylvester, Helen and Harold are masterful statesmen/women who can be effective for their districts regardless of who has the gavel. 

The Texas Democratic party has a problem with their minority Democrats being moderates, and are just a little too eager to punish us when we leave the plantation! 

---

by: Yosef @ Sun Jun 10, 2007 at 22:00:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I made this same point (0.00 / 0)

Two years ago, as SDEC Committewoman from SD 15, I fought Charles Soechting on this same point.  Minority members have always been held to a different standard. 

The anti-Craddick forces were demanding his removal because he "wouldn't let them represent the interests of their districts".  The self-proclaimed gurus of the Democratic party and Burnt Orange hate Hispanic and African American Craddick Ds when they represent the interests of their districts.

What's good for the goose if good for the gander.  Be fair.

And before you start pissing backwards about this being my first post........I'm not a plant and my name is Roppolo. 

---

by: Srope1 @ Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 01:39:35 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes, there is a motion to vacate the chair (3.00 / 1)

It's not in the House rules and doesn't have to be - it's a foundational principle of American parliamentary democracy going back to Jefferson. The ultimate power of the assembly to vacate the chair has at least two historical antecedents in the Texas House and has been recognized in all parliamentary systems since time immemorial. Even Craddick didn't make that claim, he just said no one was recognized for that motion.

And I dispute that Turner never said the power of the chair is absolute - he did so not in words but in actions when Terry Keel told him not to recognize members for the motion to vacate and he did as he was told. You don't have to SAY you have absolute power when you're exercising absolute power - you just exercise it.

---

by: Gritsforbreakfast @ Sun Jun 10, 2007 at 22:31:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The Nonexistant (Unicorn) Motion to Vacate (0.00 / 0)

Once again I challenge anyone to produce this unicorn this mythical "motion to vacate" in the Texas House Rules.

Gritsforlunch professes to 'Bubble Bubble Toil and Trouble" conjure up from the cauldron of not-so-noble dissent a convoluted map to this fairytale land of Oz. In this land of Oz we will finally meet the Motion to Vacate perched atop the back of a lovely spotted unicorn.

Again what rule and section number can you point to where this motion resides? Answer NONE!

Rule 14 Section 1 of the Rules of the House adopted by all members of the house in January states that "when the rules are silent as to order or practice" the house is to look to other authorities such as congressional precedents and Manson's.

This rule has always been construed to apply to questions of procedure NOT substantive issues particularily when there are statutes and Constitutional provisions that apply.

Since when did Mason's and Congressional precedents have more  authority than Texas Statutes and the Texas Constitution? NEVER!

In this case the Texas Constitution provides for the manner of removal of the Speaker. Additionally the house rules also require that any member can be removed or expelled by a two-thirds vote.

NOWHERE IN THE HOUSE RULES IS THERE A MOTION TO VACATE.

---

by: D. Davenport @ Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 04:00:56 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

True but trivial (3.00 / 1)

Yes, D. Davenport, I granted that it's not in the House rules. Too bad you're too busy jumping up and down to acknowledge that the motion has twice been voted on in the Texas House, even though you claim it doesn't exist. How could that happen? Oh yeah, you don't know what you're talking about.

Go study the history of parliamentary procedure and you'll discover that House rules rely upon Congressioal precedent and other parliamentary history that does has the force of rule, and the motion to vacate is perhaps the most imortant such precedent, again, going back to Jefferson's original Senate rules and the founding of parliamentary democracy in America.

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

---

by: Gritsforbreakfast @ Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 12:38:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Doesn't matter (5.00 / 1)

Precedent counts.

Furthermore, the idea that a truly Democratic body would be allowed to install a leader...but not replace that leader is silly.

Please refer to KT's signature.

---

by: colin @ Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 17:21:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]