So yes -- one of the House Parliamentarians is using an exposed-anonymous name to post a letter that argues that he should keep his job. But hey -- whatever works. From the comments (emphasis added is mine):
This letter was issued by Rep. Harold Dutton to Burt Solomons:
After reading in the newspaper quotes attributed to you that were extremely disturbing to me and other members, I initially considered it best that I not put my thoughts in writing. I don't recall the actual quote in the newspaper but after reading the quote, I remember letting the dog do his business on it and I quickly discarded the paper with the dog poop. However, I also remember thinking how in the hell does Burt Solomons know what I want, do or think. Or what gives him the right to disparage me? I haven't spoken to you since last session and unless you have some cosmic powers I am not aware of you can't know what I have been doing, thinking or desiring. Yet you attack me and several Democrats without speaking to either of us.
I did question who is Burt Solomons talking to and more especially who is he listening to. Do you remember the king who had no clothes? It's worst to have no thoughts-of your own.
As you critique my past support for Tom Craddick, let me put it bluntly, with a majority Republicans in the House, I stayed with Craddick because I failed to grasp why I would change a Midland Republican for a Waxahachie Republican. You can throw in-- a Carrollton Republican -- if the shoe fits.
I assume the media accounts are correct that you are running for speaker. That's good. I just wish we had a rule that if you run for speaker and lose, then your seat is vacated and you must leave the House. That would force speaker campaigns to be less tasteless. It would certainly reduce the number of show horses and blowhards, leaving only serious candidates who must speak with each member and more especially listen to every member. Certainly it would be most unlikely that a candidate would begin a campaign by disparaging other members. I think you get my drift. Running for speaker does not cloak you or anyone else with the right to be stupid. That should be reserved for those who would vote for you.
The media quote you as suggesting that the House is so divided and can't come together under Tom Craddick. What? And you begin your campaign by attacking members and now you have even targeted the parliamentarian. If that's your method to heal the House and bring members together, you leave me speechless-almost. When I last checked the speaker appointed the parliamentarian. So, all you have to do is become speaker and you get to choose your parliamentarian. As my coach was fond of saying-stay focused. Abandon the pit bull attack.
Your December 5 Memo further states that your House colleagues joined you in calling for Terry Keel' resignation. First, as one of your House colleagues, you do not speak for me. Secondly, Terry Keel and I had some rather spirited debates on the House floor but I always maintained the highest respect for Terry Keel as a lawyer and a legislator. I still do.
Leadership is defined as "the catalyst that changes struggle into progress." So far, your leadership style seems to be consumed by a last session hangover. Let that go. When your rear view mirror becomes larger than your windshield, Texans don't progress-we just struggle. Every Speaker candidate and each member of the House must commit themselves to transform our independence into an interdependence that fosters a better Texas. Democrat or republican, that's the kind of member Texans want-and deserve. Speaker, too.
Harold Dutton
I've got to say -- arguing that someone is being too negative and acting like a pit bull, only using negative pit-bull attacks to make your point, doesn't make the most effective of arguments. For me. But Rep. Dutton's point and opinion is an argument that carries as much weight as any other's, and his arguments are real and felt not just by him, but by other Members.
Rep. Dutton, though, isn't arguing for Craddick as Speaker. Remember this quote:
Dutton suggests that Democrats embrace Craddick because on his watch, Republicans have frittered away the 26-seat majority voters gave them in the 2002 elections.
Could be, Dutton said, that Craddick gets two more years on top and Democrats recapture their House majority in the 2010 elections.
My experience was Rep. Dutton is that he spoke his mind, whoever and whatever the position may be. I say that to suggest to our readers that his letter isn't necessarily a defense for Craddick, but just an honest assessment of how he feels Rep. Solomons has carried out his campaign to this point.
Rep. Solomons has taken an aggressive approach. There's some logic to that approach -- you can't beat a hardball politician if you're not willin to play hardball. Craddick sure isn't leaving anything to chance, and though he has yet to release more than 13 names of support a full month after Election Day, I'm sure he's still doing everything he can to retain power.
Rep. Hartnett -- one of Craddick's largest supporters -- has suggested that it will come down to the first day of session. We could be in for an interesting few weeks -- remember, two years ago, all the real "action" for the Speaker's race happened after Christmas.
I'm excited that I'll be in Austin for the first day of session, whatever happens.
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.
Remember the Craddick 15. The 15 Democrats who helped Tom Craddick retain his seat as Speaker of the House. As a result, here are the assignments Papa Bear Craddick gave to his children:
Sylvester Turner: Speaker Pro Tempore; CBO of Regulated Industries; Calendars; Appropriations
Kevin Bailey: CHAIR of Urban Affairs; Business & Industry; General Investigating & Ethics
Norma Chavez: VICE CHAIR of Calendars; Appropriations; CBO of Financial Institutions
Joe Deshotel: CHAIR of Economic Development; Redistricting; Transportation
Dawnna Dukes: CBO of Culture, Rec & Tourism; Appropriations; Calendars
Kino Flores: CHAIR of Licensing & Administrative Procedures; Redistricting; Ways & Means
Helen Giddings: CHAIR of Business & Industry; VICE CHAIR of House Administration; Higher Education
Ryan Guillen: VICE CHAIR of Appropriations; Calendars; Natural Resources
Harold Dutton: CHAIR of Juvenile Justice & Family Issues; General Investigating & Ethics; Public Education
Tracy King: CHAIR of Border & International Affairs; Environmental Regulation
Eddie Lucio: CBO of Environmental Regulation; Appropriations; Local & Consent Calendars
Ruth Jones McClendon: CHAIR of Rules & Regulations; CBO of Pensions & Investments; Appropriations
Aaron Pena: CHAIR of Criminal Jurisprudence; Ways & Means
Robert Puente: CHAIR of Natural Resources; Local Government Ways & Means
Patrick Rose: CHAIR of Human Services; Higher Education
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.
