Keffer and Craddick See Eye to Eye

Keffer is Worse (0.00 / 0)

Craddick is a smooth operator but he will work a deal.  Jim Keffer is a TRUE believer.  I once heard the guy talking evolution in an unguarded moment with a colleague of mine.  He really doesn't get it...let's keep him outta da chair. 

---

by: Texas_Admiral @ Mon May 14, 2007 at 17:54:07 PM UTC

It doesn't matter who we get... (0.00 / 0)

As long as the chair gets vacated with 2 weeks left in the session, there's a power vacuum.  Perry's threat of a special session will be a non-starter because he won't be willing to risk a House in uprising (the one thing the Lege has that ties it together is the contempt for Perry's latest initiatives) to pass his agenda.

Going into the next elections, it's a win/win for D's.  "Craddick was too tough, and even the R's tossed him out.  Now we're stuck with someone just like him.  Wouldn't it be great to get a D as speaker?  Vote D and restore order to the House."

There's no sense browbeating Keffer -- he's got everything in common with all previous Speakers (rural, sharp political mind) and not much in common with Craddick's style (he's respected).

Whoever says Craddick is better than Keffer doesn't have a good long-term memory.

---

by: Michael Redding @ Mon May 14, 2007 at 19:33:14 PM UTC

Personally speaking... (0.00 / 0)

I worked with Keffer and his staff as a reporter in Mineral Wells a few years ago. Keffer was more of a double edged sword. He was always very accessible and easy to work with, visited various towns within his district quite often and had quite a sense of humor.

On the flip side, he seemed to tout the party line when it came to his views. So he was the typical run-of-the-mill partisan.

So you could say that he's more of a mysterious once whose approach to any potential future House leadership position remains to be seen.

www.completethewar.com

---

by: sfagrad02 @ Mon May 14, 2007 at 19:56:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Alliance for Life (3.00 / 1)

  This post raises an interesting question.  Is recognition from Alliance for Life and Texas Eagle Forum a negative for politicians and political candidates?  Since the post was  written collectively by the editors, and not by one individual, could somebody answer this question:  under what circumstances would BOR ever endorse a pro-life, anti-choice  Democrat?

---

by: Buck Smith @ Tue May 15, 2007 at 12:25:34 PM UTC

That's a Good Question (0.00 / 0)

To be honest, the only way I know how to answer that is by seeing two real candidates side by side. 

We do most all of our endorsements by consensus, so I am speaking for myself, but I know it would be hard to endorse any candidate that wants to repeal Roe v. Wade or limit the ability for groups like Planned Parenthood to do their job.

Personally, I believe freedom to choose is inherent in our social contract, and I have a hard time supporting any candidate that disagrees with that.

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

---

by: Matt Glazer @ Tue May 15, 2007 at 13:11:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Missing the Point (0.00 / 0)

I actually have to agree with Burka on this one.  ANYONE is better than Craddick.  Why are we even worrying about who takes over at this point?  Get the SOB outta there!

---

by: Butter Woman @ Tue May 15, 2007 at 12:52:02 PM UTC

Pena is talking... (0.00 / 0)

He has some words about this topic over at this blog:

http://www.acapitolb...

---

by: domeobserver @ Tue May 15, 2007 at 14:15:45 PM UTC

It's not just ideology that counts (0.00 / 0)

Would he be a bully?  Would he let things he disagreed with get a voice?  That also is really important.

"I love America more than any other country in this world, and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually."- James A. Baldwin

---

by: Timothy @ Tue May 15, 2007 at 20:25:20 PM UTC

What about Pitts? (0.00 / 0)

Aren't Jim Pitts' votes essentially similar?

---

by: Gritsforbreakfast @ Wed May 16, 2007 at 11:56:53 AM UTC

Key Difference (5.00 / 1)

He indicated he would lead with a consensus whenever possible and was asking for the minority wing of his party and Democrats to be involved with the 80th Session.

Keffer has shown no indication that is what he wants to do.

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

---

by: Matt Glazer @ Wed May 16, 2007 at 12:54:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

So that's a yes? (0.00 / 0)

So that's a yes that Pitts' votes are essentially similar, right? I don't see a substantive difference. Obviously Keffer plans to reach out to Ds and promise to lead from the center - what other strategy could he have to defeat Craddick?

If you liked Pitts, you like Keffer, or should - that's why they're called ABC's: Anybody But Craddick. You're not going to get a D unless Dems win a bunch more elections.

---

by: Gritsforbreakfast @ Wed May 16, 2007 at 14:57:17 PM UTC

why are we debating pitts or Keffer? (3.00 / 2)

if they aren't going to try to vacate the chair this session what's the point?  decide which Republican is best to replace craddick after the 08 elections?  If we could pick up 6 seats in '06 why not pick up 6 or  7 seats in '08 and the debate can be on which Democrat should be speaker.  The make up of the house will be different next session, starting this debate now (if there isnt going to be a motion to vacate) is just absolutely pointless.

---

by: TexasDem @ Wed May 16, 2007 at 15:12:27 PM UTC

Not exactly pointless (0.00 / 0)

Because reiterating Craddick's weakness is not a bad thing in and of itself.

But certainly not where the first focus should be.  I'd put that on Dewey's attempt to clothesline Whitmire to force debate on the vote stealing measure that Frazier's carrying water for.

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

---

by: boadicea @ Wed May 16, 2007 at 15:26:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]