Busting the Myth that Democrats Will Support Craddick

by: Phillip Martin

Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 08:00 AM CST

Key point: Republicans couldn't even make quorum for their caucus meeting yesterday. Democrats had 68 of 74 Members meet the day after the election. We are the stronger party -- so everyone calm the hell down and get along, already.

There are at least two myths that I keep reading and hearing about -- from folks in our own party -- regarding Democrats and Tom Craddick. They often involve longer conspiracies, but more or less boil down like this:

1. A small number of Democrats will end up electing Craddick as Speaker again
   
   
2. Rep. Turner is a stalking horse for Craddick
   

These myths are just that -- myths. I don't know if everyone has just been bull-whipped by Craddick for so many years that they still (even after this) can't believe in change, but it's coming. And if it doesn't, then Republicans are the ones that have dropped the ball -- not us.

Why those myths are false:

1. Myth 1: A small number of Democrats will end up electing Craddick as Speaker again.
   
   FACT: Tom Craddick can't build a Democrat coalition to get him elected this year like he did two years ago.
   
   Let's be honest -- the numbers aren't there. There are "64 strong" against Tom Craddick, and only 74 Democrats in the House Democratic Caucus. That leaves only 10 Democrats, at absolute best, that Craddick could pull from.
   
   First of all, I don't think there are 10 Democrats that want Craddick back. But even if there were -- based on today's updates -- Craddick has a ceiling of only 62 (and that includes Democrat Rep. Kino Flores, who may not be supporting Craddick -- I just can't find a recent public statement suggesting otherwise). Which means there are really only 9 Democrats Craddick could pull from.
   
   62 (Craddick ceiling, which includes Rep. Flores) + 9 (Remaining Democrats, other than Rep. Flores, who have not yet signed the anti-Craddick pledge) = 71.
   
   Unless Craddick can pull away some of the ABCs, he's toast. Which means...he's toast.
   
   
2. Myth 2: Rep. Turner is a stalking horse for Tom Craddick
   
   Now, one of those pushing this idea is, at least, a credible source. Colin Strother -- who worked with Rep. Turner as part of the "Democrats for Reform" coalition two years ago -- left the following opinion here on BOR last week:
   

   turner candidacy isn't real

   it is a placeholder for Democrats that want to vote for craddick.

   by pledging their allegiance to sly, when forced to choose between 2 repubs they can say that the guy they pledged to asked them to follow him and as a result he is speaker pro tem.

   any pledge to turner should be rightfully considered a commitment to craddick.

   sly's candidacy just isn't real and i've found no evidence to the contrary.

   Here's why Rep. Turner is not a stalking horse:
   
   
   • I think Rep. Turner understands the reality of Myth 1. He can't deliver enough votes to elect Craddick as Speaker. Unless there is another Republican candidate that has announced for Speaker that is also a stalking horse (again, unlikely), Rep. Turner doesn't have the power to put Craddick back in the chair.
     
     
   • Rep. Turner -- for all the disagreements myself or others may have had with him -- ultimately comes from a place of good. He works for the best interests of Texas families, just like Rep. Dukes, Rep. Giddings, and others who supported Craddick in the past. One vote does not the person make.
     
     
   • Rep. Turner is the Chair of the Select Committee on Hurricane Ike Devastation. As such, he stands in a unique role of taking a leadership position on what is one of the most important issues of the session -- relief for Hurricane Ike. For him to be a stalking horse for a candidate that can't win would surely put him in a poor position to lead on such an important public policy issue with the new Speaker.
     
     I just don't believe he'd be willing to trade away such an important public policy issue for the potential political power of a Craddick Speakership. That's not in line with his values. He's not Joe Lieberman.
     

For now, let's forget the idea that Democrats will support Craddick. If he can't win any decisive block of support from Democrats (and he can't), no one Democrat should support him (they won't), and there are too many important issues this cycle for anyone to make a power play for their own losing benefit at the expense of good public policy.

Besides -- as I stated upfront -- we are the stronger party. Who wouldn't want to be part of the winning team?