From the Rio Grande Guardian, there's news that one of Barack Obama's top South Texas surrogates, State Rep. Eddie Lucio III, thinks Hillary Clinton should be Obama's vice-president.
Asked if he would like to see the so-called Dream Team of Obama and Clinton at the top of the Democratic ticket in November, Lucio said: "I am for that Dream Ticket 1,000 percent and pray every night that happens because that will trickle down to every Democratic race across the country."
Of course, not all Obama supporters agree. Two days ago, Kos wrote:
Clinton would be a disaster on the ticket, re-energizing moribund and demoralized Republicans and giving the GOP an easy hook for their floundering fundraising efforts.
A poll taken earlier this month by CNN showed that 54 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents wanted Obama to pick Clinton, including 60 percent of Democratic women.
Even as a former Clinton supporter, I am not quite sure what should be done, though I adamantly disagree with Kos.
Whether one supports or opposes the actions of the Craddick D's last session, they chose to establish themselves as a separate group in the Texas Legislature. Calling themselves "Democrats for Reform," they laid out an agenda at the start of session. At the end of session, they claimed their agenda was a success, and that the key successes for Democrats this session were the result of the deals they had struck with Speaker Craddick. They also touted the personal victories they won for their district by supporting Craddick, and many were proud to call themselves "Craddick D's."
It should be noted, though, that only a handful of those who attended the first press conference (announcing the Democrats for Reform, at the start of session) attended the second (after the challenge to Craddick at the end of May). More over, the voracity to which "their agenda" can be called a success was called into question.
With the announcement that Chairman Robert Puente will retire, I thought it would be appropriate to see exactly how those "Democrats for Reform" are doing today. This is merely meant as an update -- trying to keep track of our Democrats in the Texas House. I select them out as a group not out of hostility, but because they chose to set themselves apart from the House Democratic Caucus.
Update: To clarify, I designated whether or not any of the following State Representatives would "still vote for Craddick" based on their last known public position -- which I sourced as best as possible in the middle column. Any additional news that any of the Members or anyone else wish to share, please send me an e-mail or post a comment, and I will update the chart appropriately.
The Craddick D's: Where We Are Today - October 22, 2007
Voted "present, not voting" during Rep. Haggerty's roll call speech; Rep. Chavez was quoted in the Houston Chronicle saying she would support new leadership in 2009.
No
Deshotel, Joe
Voted "against" Craddick during Rep. Haggerty's roll call speech.
No
Dukes, Dawnna
Though there were rumors that some in Austin were looking for a primary challenger, none have surfaced. The last known public statement was that Rep. Dukes stands by Craddick - though I'm not certain she'd vote for Craddick again.
Was one of the handful of Democrats proudly trumpeting the "Democrats for Reform" agenda at the end of session. No other public indication of her stance, and no primary news to date.
Yes
Guillen, Ryan
No challenger, no news. Though if the budget committee is still this hard, would he want it?
On the motion to vacate at end of session, was said to be "flip-flopping." No news, though with Rep. Puente's retirement, she is the only Craddick-supporter in San Antonio.
Of the 15, there are definitely 5 fewer supporters for Craddick, two "maybes" (three, if you include Rep. Turner), three Craddick D's facing primary challenges, and maybe a few more who would no longer call themselves Craddick D's.
Patrick Rose and Eddie Lucio III are no longer with Craddick. Both men were instrumental in Craddick maintaining power this session, and rewarded for their loyalty.
Rose was given the charimanship of Human Services after giving a stunning speech blaming Democrats for failing to work with Craddick in the 79th Session and Interim. Now he has changed his tune.
I respect the Speaker and his family but I believe the House has to be governed from the middle.
The drumbeat is getting louder as the day progresses.
(Oh how I love numbers... - promoted by Sam Jones)
Here's a list that's been on my mind since last year, a list of the hundred "least-educated" "cities" in the country. Texas features prominently.
The level of education is measured by the percentage of people with (or without) high school diplomas or college degrees, and "city" is defined as a place with a population of 5,000 or more. Many are merely "census-designated places" rather than actual cities. The "least-educated city" list, of course, signifies much more than educational attainment level. The cities and places tend to be low-income, low-opportunity and isolated--they are pockets of poverty--the poorest of the poor. Fifty-four are in California, 24 are in Texas.
I want every Democratic activist to remember this list during the entire 80th Legislative Session - the 15 Democrats who enabled Tom Craddick to retain his undeserved Speakership:
Kevin Bailey
Norma Chavez
Joe Deshotel
Dawnna Dukes
Kino Flores
Helen Giddings
Ryan Guillen
Harold Dutton
Tracy King
Eddie Lucio III
Ruth Jones McClendon
Aaron Pena
Robert Puente
Patrick Rose
Sylvester Turner
Before I get into the heart of my argument, I want to give credit where credit is due. Democratic Leaders in the House, like Representatives Thompson and Dunnam and Gallego and Coleman, did yeoman work in holding 54 of 69 Democratic votes. Two sessions ago, Democrats couldn't get 50 votes for anything (just ask the trials). Two months ago, no one would have believed that Tom Craddick would have to endure am unprecedented 6-hour spectacle on the first day of session to retain his gavel. Now we're within striking distance of taking down the Speaker.
We witnessed real acts of courage from good democrats; Ritter and Eiland risking their chairmanships to do what was right, Hopson taking a principled stand at a critical moment, Martinez returning to the Democratic fold, and Raymond challenging the Speaker directly.
Despite the great work of these great Democrats, it is impossible to ignore the fact that the 15 Craddick Democrats provided Craddick with the margin he needed to get re-elected Speaker. These 15 Craddick enablers put their own best political interest ahead of their party and their constituents. Had just 7 of these 15 Democrats voted their conscience, voted their convictions, or voted their constituents - instead of merely voting their own selfish best interest - we would have kicked Craddick's ass off his $1000 throne.
We should thank each and every one of the 54 Democrats who had the courage to try and make Texas a better place. But let us never forget the Craddick 15.
