| Here are some quotes from Paul Burka, going back no further than December 24. Emphasis added is typically mine. Wednesday, December 24: "The Speaker's Race: The 1/2/09 Meeting" Straus (not filed yet) brings impeccable Republican credentials to the table. If he were elected, there would be no retaliation by the Republican estblishment against the members who voted to defeat Craddick, because the Strauses ARE the establishment. He is probably the most moderate Republican in the House. Good for Democrats. Bad for conservatives. Straus has a great political future, but speaker in 2009 is too much too soon.
Friday, December 26: "More on the ABC meeting." I had a conversation with one of the ABCs. His comment: “It didn’t look like they were close to an agreement.” This does not come from an attendee, but from the proverbial “knowledgeable source”.... These guys had better get their act together. They are running out of time.
Monday, December 29: "No Time for Tom" 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).
Tuesday, December 30: "The Next Speaker" It will be Dan Gattis, John Smithee, or Burt Solomons.
Tuesday, December 30: "79 and counting...make that 80."
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.
Friday January 2: "Can Straus hold the votes?" Didn’t the ABCs forget what their main objective was, which was getting rid of Craddick? This opens the door for Craddick. Maybe I’m totally wrong. I’ve been out of the picture all day, wrapping up a story on the governor’s race under a deadline... But if this goes south, and Craddick somehow survives, this will be one of the ghastliest mistakes I have ever seen in Texas politics.
---------------- Between December 24 and today, I didn't post a lot. Part of the reason was because when news moves so fast, I don't think writing about things I don't know is very responsible. The only post I did write was focused on broader discussions of Speaker dynamics. But at that point, the real developments were private, and trying to pretend otherwise and guess wouldn't have done much good. Good news analysis finds a way to use facts and research to create a thesis. That's what I worked on back on November 13, when I wrote my original post: "Speaker's Race: Not Craddick - 74, Craddick Ceiling - 63." In that post, I laid out a list of names of those who were previously publicly for or against Craddick. Was it the perfect way to count names? No. But I think it's better than listening to rumors, that's for sure. And in the end, it turned out to be more accurate -- because common sense just prevailed. This is what I wrote: - The numbers just aren't there. As I'll detail below -- complete with sources and everything -- there are 74 public opponents to Tom Craddick. Additionally, there are at least 13 publicly "toss-up" Members that have not declared whether they support Craddick or not, though most have indicated they do not want a return of Tom Craddick's style of leadership.
That means there is an easy path to 80 (if you evenly split the "toss-up" Members) for no support of Craddick.
- The likelihood that Speaker Craddick would retain all 63 "public" supporters is ridiculous. Because there is no recent "public" information on who those 63 Members may or may not support, I give them all to Speaker Craddick. But doing so is extremely generous -- it is much, much more likely that he has only 1/2 or, at best, 2/3 of that support.
The criticism was always that "anybody but Craddick isn't a candidate." While an accurate criticism, that didn't mean my entire method for public accountability was ridiculous. And as I wrote in the only post I wrote over the last couple weeks, there are many barriers and obstacles that must be overcome in order to build legitimacy and support and create the organizational capacity necessary to enter and win a Speaker's race. We just have to have the patience to let them play out. Straus now has 92 names of support. Once the dominoes get moving, the move quickly. Why? Because in the end, legislators are much more like you and me than anything else. They are humans that want to understand their environment, do what's best for them and what's best for their constituents. Sometimes that means acting with great leadership -- as Rep. Dunnam, Coleman, and Gallego did over the last few weeks, months, and years. Sometimes itmeans hanging back, and being the "clinching" move. In either case, it requires patience and an understanding of the environment you operate in. For us at BOR, that means fact-based reporting, original analysis, and knowing when to avoid speaking/writing just because. That's a principle all at BOR believe in, and something we'll continue practicing throughout the legislative session and city council races over the next five months. |
