Paul Burka Analyzes BOR's Analysis of Speaker Race; "Great Job, But Naive Feel"

burka misses the boat a bit (0.00 / 0)

if this isn't a race, then grits ain't groceries.

if burka really thinks this isn't a race he wouldn't be spending so much time on it.

no reasonable person denies that there are multiple candidates challenging craddick and that his numbers are far below majority.

there is definitely a competitive air between MSM and bloggers who tend to do things a little differently.

phillip's analysis is sound.

Please refer to KT's signature.

---

by: colin @ Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 16:02:36 PM UTC

Yep, (0.00 / 0)

Agreed.

I don't think we're in the minority in our opinion.

Best,
David

---

by: David Kobierowski @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 00:40:33 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sometimes Burka seems like he's 100 years old because ... (0.00 / 0)

his method of approaching an issue is so incorrigibly anti-information-age that he could make a Luddite roll his (contact lens free) eyes.

This is one of those times.

Burka sounds like a grizzled farmer shaking his fist at the National Weather Service for predicting a hurricane based on all of their "fancy radar."  If the farmer had a good record of making weather predictions more accurately than the best available data, you might give that farmer some credence, but Burka wasn't ever very accurate and he's never been less accurate when he's expressing his views where his gut instincts vary from the best available data.  Burka wants to be a contrarian, but fails in that role because he's too seldom correct when he "bucks the conventional wisdom."

Phillip's analysis is exceptionally sound (and actual data is invariably a thousand times sounder than Burka's gut).  It's true that predicting a Texas House vote based on the public statements of the members is not an error proof method, especially when you have a history of rampant douchebaggery from some of the least honest and least qualified Democrats trying the leverage their minuscule power by betraying their party in exchange for committee appointments.  Still, there is no better means of predicting the outcome of a vote than a detailed analysis of the members' public statements.

The truth is that Craddick has been poison for the Republicans in the House, and -- as a direct result -- there are more ABC Republicans than Craddick Ds.  While it is not yet clear which of the less autoCraddick Republicans will be the recipient of this mathematical advantage, there is no realistic pathway for Craddick to reach a majority, and there is no likely speaker candidate in either party who's so divisive that he or she would coalesce votes behind Craddick because Craddick has an established record of failure, divisiveness, vindictiveness, selfishness, shortsightedness, autocracy, corruption, cronyism, and fiscal recklessness in funding boondoggle projects.

---

by: StopCornyn @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 16:10:45 PM UTC

Strong Post. (0.00 / 0)

Refreshing to hear someone speak with conviction and courage.

I don't know Burka or Craddick as well as you do, so I can't "yet" directly respond on your specifics above.

But I can say, from what I've learned from my primary and secondary sources, you'd have a lot more agreement than disagreement from the "inside baseball" folks.

Best,
David

---

by: David Kobierowski @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 20:50:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]