Ed. note: This is part two of a three part series I've worked on over the break about understanding the Speaker's race. Part one focused on the problem -- why isn't someone else Speaker yet? Part two focuses on the solution -- how to emerge as a legitimate Speaker candidate. Part three will focus on the goals -- what Democrats should want in a new Speaker candidate.
Part Two: How to Emerge as a Legitimate Speaker Candidate
Barriers -- Craddick's incumbency gives him strong organizational capacity, which builds his legitimacy
Individuals -- Craddick is a gatekeeper for power, which prevents Members from moving up
Group dynamics -- When you can't trust a person, you trust a group
Rising in the ranks -- Craddick challengers need a megaphone to build organizational capacity
Originally, I wanted to write about how to overcome these barriers, but as Straus lived it out over the last few weeks, current events took much deserved center stage. So instead of looking forward, we'll use this post to look back a little -- then close out the series either Wednesday or Thursday (again, based on how busy current events are) with Part 3.
How does one overcome the barriers I've argued exist in order to get elected Speaker of the Texas House? Given that there's a purpose -- legitimate or otherwise -- to replace a Speaker, the biggest obstacle to overcome is building the organizational capacity necessary to develop group dynamics and to exhibit the values of your purpose -- trust, cohesion, shared power -- within your own circle of friends. No (wo)man is an island, and "Anybody But" is still not a valid name for a ballot; the solution, therefore, is to be a uniter (not a divider) with a strong positive narrative that (1) gives others a vision while simultaneously (2) reinforcing the negative narrative of your opponent(s).
The coalition building, in regards to the Speaker's race, requires intraparty and cross-party relationships to be built. One thing that can help make that happen is an understanding of 3D negotiation skills. I want to look at how those 3D tactics are put in play in both the intraparty and cross-party relationships we saw develop over the past month(s).
3D Negotiations: Building a Bargain Away from the Table
A quick intro on the framework I'm using -- stolen from 3D Negotiations:
Most negotiators focus on a single dimension of the bargaining process. They are “one-dimensional,” in our terminology, and the single dimension that they embrace is tactics. One-dimensional bargainers believe that negotiation is mainly what happens at the table. To them, preparation and execution is mainly about process and tactics.
But all too often, this one-dimensional approach leaves money on the table. It is inadequate to the tough negotiations in which the other side seems to hold all the cards. It isn’t well-suited to common dealmaking challenges such as many parties—not just two—tricky internal as well as external negotiations, and shifting agendas. It leads to suboptimal deals, creates needless impasses, and fosters conflicts that could have been avoided.
The argument put forth, then, is that a 3D negotiation looks at all levels of the negotiation: the tactics (1D), the deal design (2D -- creative ways of creating value), and the setup (3D). The setup requires the following (emphasis in the original):
This means ensuring that the right parties have been approached, in the right sequence, to deal with the right issues, that engage the right set of interests, at the right table or tables, at the right time, under the right expectations, and facing the right consequences of walking away if there is no deal. If the setup at the table isn’t promising, this calls for moves to re-set it more favorably.
So what are the right parties, sequences, issues, etc., to create a cohesive intraparty and cross-party group for a Speaker's race? Rep. Straus, the ABCs, and the Democrats showed us how to make it all happen:
Intraparty -- Why "Anybody But Craddick" Worked
Ben Barnes, in his book Barn Burning, Barn Building, wrote about the problems that led to the downfall of the Democratic Party back in the 1970's. From his book:
In the absence of a strong opposition party, the Democrats themselves split into two factions, the conservative / moderates and the progressives.
Unfortunately, while there was intraparty opposition to Craddick, there was nowhere for his Republican opponents to go. Governor Perry, Lieutenant Governor Dewhurst, the lobby, the SREC, the Texas GOP, Eagle Forum...every Republican group imaginable was in his pocket. Even the press was on his side -- falsely claiming Craddick gained "momentum" when it was clear he didn't have the votes.
The "ABCs" were a specific group that was a safe landing for those who were no longer comfortable with Craddick. Even if a Republican was not an "official member" of the ABC club, there was at least a public group of individuals who could create a holding environment for anti-Craddick sympathies. The players were all important, too:
Rep. Jim Keffer, a respected conservative Republican from rural Texas
Rep. Charlie Geren, a vocal buddy-buddy from Fort Worth
Rep. Tommy Merritt, an excentric but personable East Texas conservative
For the first time, the ABCs became an actual opposition party within their own party. In 2007, they were newly formed, and it was hard to work together. By 2008 and 2009, they had a better sense of themselves as a group and an organization. What's more, instead of waiting for last-minute tactic deals (like they did in 2007), they set the table and sequenced the Speaker's race brilliantly -- waiting until right after the holiday break to meet, choose a challenger, and giving them the weekend (when Members didn't need to be busy with their real jobs) to make phone calls.
And by waiting until January 2 to make their announcement, Craddick didn't know who to run against. Meanwhile, as he struggled to set up a counter to a new challenger, they had a positive for Rep. Straus, a negative for Craddick, and were making calls while Craddick was still trying to hold a meeting. You want to know how disorganized Craddick was? Look at the 2-second "Speaker race" of Rep. Vicki Truitt.
The Republican challengers set the table up right this time. But, they had some help.
Cross-party: Bringing the Democrats on Board
On the other side, House Democrats have been building their coalition since 2003. However, their coalition has not been built -- as Vince and others would argue -- as "anti-Craddick." Texas Democrats have grown in numbers by uniting behind issues that are important to Texas families. At the end of the day, those Democrats who had supported Craddick and those who didn't still agreed on the issues.
The question was simply -- who delivers the best opportunity for me, personally, and my district?
Well, a caucus that grows from 62 to 74 in three election cycles becomes, just as the ABC Republicans became, a legitimate opposition group. There were some in the Democratic caucus who did not feel comfortable with the Democratic Caucus leadership; thus, they voted for Craddick in 2007. But then throughout last session, and in the eighteen months since, Reps. Dunnam, Coleman, and Gallego have shown a remarkable amount of patience and passion to elect more Democrats.
And remember -- the House caucus was the first group to release a list of names. Speaker Craddick tried to argue that some of those names would support him, but what credibility did he have by the time those names were released? Republicans had left Craddick in the seven weeks between Rep. Dunnam announcing the list and then revealing the names. Why would any Democrat move towards Craddick when Republicans were only moving away?
Thus, the "holding environment" that the Caucus created was the list itself; a group that worked cohesively and trusted one another. During those seven weeks, the group spoke together, worked with each other, got to know freshmen Members, and then agreed to all come together and discuss whether they would vote for Rep. Straus (once he was announced).
The Solution - Building Cohesion Through Empowerment
The barriers Craddick erected were that he controlled all leverages of power, thus making him the gatekeeper for all information. The "insurgency" had to then crash the gates to take power from him, but they had to be smart about it. As we witnessed over the past few months, it's anything but easy.
The right people must be contacted in the right sequence, asked to do the right things, etc. But once Members began feeling their own sense of empowerment -- granted to them through the creation of their own intraparty and corss-party coalitions -- it became easier to step outside the box and consider other options. And with strong leaders among both the Republicans and Democrats opposed to Craddick, devising a strategy that played across the entire 3D negotiation spectum became a more realistic possiblity.
Now that there is a "solution" and that we will see a new Speaker take the gavel in a few hours, only one question remains: where do we go from here? Stay tuned to Part 3 (coming tomorrow or Wednesday) for my thoughts.
Q: How do you feel about this particular set of leaders—or this particular leader, by which I mean Speaker Tom Craddick?
Each individual leader has his own style, but the membership lets that style exist. At least 76 of the 150 members dictate who sits in that position. I was very honored—a boy from Hale Center, a town of 2,200 people—to be in the office of Speaker of the House, but it wasn’t because of me; it was because of the other members of the House. I was their second choice. They were their own first choice, but I was their second choice.
So whatever else you can say about the way the House is being run, enough of the members buy into that philosophy.
Or have let it become the norm.
This is an incredibly important insight: "they were their own first choice, but I was their second choice." The House is run the way it is because the Members choose to allow it to be run that way.
One more key point from the interview:
I didn’t run the House like it’s being run now. My take on running it is that you do it in such a way that the members are able to represent their districts to the best of their ability. Their first obligation is to their districts. They’re not there to represent the Speaker, and they’re not there to represent a political party. Now, you can’t make them represent their districts, and you can’t make them work hard, but you can have a system whereby all 149 have the same equal access to the system.
For a variety of tactical reasons, I recommend that, for the time being, you not discuss with the media your decision to support Tom Craddick. As you know, Tom prefers to keep his cards close to his chest until the optimal time to show them!
Waiting until the optimal time, Rep. Hartnett? Let's look at last time:
Tuesday, Nov. 7, 2006 - Democrats win a net of 5 seats on Election Day (Source)
It seems that the "optimal time" two years ago was the day after Election Day. And then, after losing 26 names in nearly two months, just after Christmas.
To compare, let's look at what's happened this year:
Tuesday, Nov. 4, 2008 - Democrats win a net of 3 seats on Election Day
Ed. Note: The following 2,200+ word post took tremendous research & time to write. Please take the time to read it carefully. -- KT & Matt
Using fact-based reporting and research, we can document that there are at least 74 opponents to Speaker Craddick, that his absolute ceiling of support is 63, and that there are at least 13 "toss-up" Members who have refused to commit to anyone so far.
Tom Craddick is John McCain at this point. Barring a miracle, the math is absolutely there for change.
Right now, we're just waiting to see who will bring change.
I've researched news stories on all 150 Members of the Texas House, looked at last year's Speaker's vote, re-watched the Haggerty walk-off, and studied the primary and general election results from 2008. It's amazing how original research can crystallize the picture:
There are 74 "public" opponents of Craddick.
There are 63 "public" supporters of Craddick -- this is his ceiling.
There are 13 "public" toss-up Members who are undecided.
------------------------------------
Executive Summary
We have reached the tipping point for the end of Tom Craddick's reign as Speaker. All we're waiting for is the last brave group of Members to declare they won't support him, and we can officially move on to determining who should be next in line.
Based entirely on public statements and the latest public records, Tom Craddick would have to secure every single past supporter that hasn't abandoned him yet (his 63-person ceiling) and convert every single undeclared Member to his side in order for him to retain his Speakership.
Given that reality, Rep. Jim Dunnam's statement last week seems pretty accurate:
"Stick a fork in Tom Craddick. It's over." Rep. Jim Dunnam, 11/5/08. (Source)
Here's why Tom Craddick's reign as Speaker is over:
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.
Many of our readers -- both Democrat and Republican elected officials, as well as lobbyists and consultants -- can look through that list of 63 and see several names you don't believe will support Craddick again, or are on the fence and are just waiting on the next 1-2 Members to publicly declare they won't support Craddick.
The momentum just isn't there. Speaker Craddick created a false sense of "momentum" with the official tally of the HD 105 race with Rep. Linda Harper Brown. Keeping that race in his column changed nothing; all it did was make it much more likely that a Democrat would not be elected Speaker. But Craddick himself is just as likely to not be re-elected today as he was one week ago -- when we learned that, under his reign as Speaker, Republicans lost another net of 3 seats.
It is time for Democrats and Republicans to elect a new Speaker. It must be one who embraces the idea that the status quo must change, that all Members are equal, that what happened in the past is the past, and that Members should be allowed to vote for the important issues that matter to their districts.
------------------------------------
Why Public Sources Matter
A brief note as to why I use public sources: because I believe in responsible journalism.
I know that may shatter some of your perceptions of bloggers, but I absolutely believe in responsible journalism. I am angered when I read news analysis that fails to do any research -- primarily because it leads to false stories like this one:
Legislative win gives House edge to GOP, Craddick
With a crowded field of candidates and no clear alternative to Republican House Speaker Tom Craddick, the narrow 76-74 majority appears to give momentum back to Craddick in the volatile speaker's race — and all but guarantees the next speaker will not be a Democrat. -- Associated Press (Source)
There's no momentum for Craddick. It's just that everyone in the press is listening to arguments/rumors from the people who are spinning them, and no one is willing to do the required leg work and research.
Well, I did it. Here's how I came to my totals:
Started with the 80-68 split on the Geren amendment
Adjusted totals based on public statements in May 2007
Adjusted totals based on the "Haggerty walk-off roll call" vote
Adjusted totals based on the primary election results and candidates' stated support
Adjusted totals based on the general election results and candidates' stated support
Finally, I researched quotes in recent news stories, and tallied
The resurgence of the Democratic Party has never been more clear than now. With 8 days until the election, the House Democratic Campaign Committee (HDCC) has spent $1,000,000 since July 1 to support Democrats running for election and re-election to the Texas House.
When the HDCC started in 2004, it had one contract employee, a few thousand dollars in the bank and a 26 seat deficit in numbers. No one imagined taking back the House in 3 election cycles was remotely possible. Because of the numbers and a punitive redistricting map, we thought a 10 year plan was optimistic, and only hopelessly delusional optimists thought about a majority by 2009 (apologies to Lon).
What started initially as a simple idea to form a PAC where House Democrats could help fellow Democratic members has grown to become one of the most trusted, respected and impressive political operations in Texas. You should be proud to be part of that effort.
The truth of the matter is HDCC is one of the biggest reasons why we are on the brink of taking back the Texas House. They have committed to working with newly elected Democrats and guide them through the process. They have had laser focus before and during elections to win swing seats. All the headaches Tom Craddick and Terry Keel have on a daily basis, are because of the HDCC and it's leaders.
While Tom Craddick has lost control of his 26-seat majority in his tenure as Speaker of the House, Jim Dunnam, Pete Gallego, and Garnet Coleman have picked up seats every cycle since creating the HDCC.
One State Republican Executive Committee Member, Mark McCraig said in a recent editorial, "What was once a 26-seat Republican majority in 2003 has dwindled to an eight-seat majority today, and that number will almost certainly shrink again this year."
McCraig goes one step further in his editorial in the Stateman:
An ethical cloud also surrounds Craddick because of his close ties to lobbyists. Last year, Craddick and a prominent lobbyist were sued by a tour company after a dispute over a fishing trip to Brazil that Craddick and the lobbyist had canceled. Financial disclosure forms filed by Craddick also show a business relationship with a lobbyist whose identity he refuses to disclose. In light of recent scandals, grass-roots Republicans must demand that their leaders act in a manner that is beyond reproach.
In nearly 40 years in the Legislature, Craddick helped build the Republican Party and the conservative movement in Texas. Unfortunately, his recent actions have cast a shadow on years of public service, and he must recognize that the best way to promote the Republican Party and the conservative values he claims to represent is to allow a new speaker to serve.
Rather than having a Tom Craddick appointed successor, it is time to have a Democrat lead the House.
As the letter points out:
One million dollars is a heck of a lot of money - particularly in the face of our opposition. It is the tangible result of tireless work done by Texas Democrats who want to restore a sense of balance to the Texas House. You should know that the confidence shown us by donors is really a direct result of our Caucus unity demonstrated session after session in the face of adversity. They saw us fighting the good fight, persevering in the face of overwhelming odds and standing tall for the people of Texas. Our unity of voice and effort has not been in vain.
In a point of personal privilege, I want to thank Rep. Dunnam, Rep. Gallego, Rep. Coleman, and the hard working staff at HDCC for everything y'all have done this year and the harder ones before.
That being said, we have one week left, let's take back the House today!
To read the full letter from Jim Dunnam, Pete Gallego, and Garnet Coleman to the Democratic Caucus, click here (warning it is a pdf).
I believe this is the first year the House Democratic Campaign Committee (HDCC) has had produced ads. They are clever, to the point, and draw a perfect contrast between Democrats and Republicans in Texas. I hope they continue to have the resources to do more stuff like this.
Tom Craddick's miscalculated political attacks are already having a negative impact on his party. As Phil reported yesterday, Tom Craddick has decided to go to war against Capitol staffers.
As Quorum Report and Phil quickly note the first three targets were three highly public critics of Speaker Tom Craddick.
Both House Democratic Caucus chair Jim Dunnam (D-Waco) and Craig Eiland (D-Galveston) have even been mentioned as possible speaker candidates should the House flip into Democratic control next November. Byron Cook's (R-Corsicana) personal privilege speech last session was remarkably forthright in referring to Speaker Craddick as corrupt.
As Quorum Report also notes, Craddick continues to bully "colleagues" by "ignoring the more traditional House practice of notifying members about possible improprieties and offering the members an opportunity to cure any problems. Instead, these "issues" that Phillips knew about in April went public in a May news story along with referrals to the Travis County District Attorney's office."
In any event, after the Statesman broke the story, House Administration Chair Tony Goolsby (R-Dallas) notified Dunnam, Eiland and Cook and gave them ten days to explain treating apparent part time employees as full time. We have posted Eiland's letter with a summary in a separate story.
After the Statesman broke the hit piece news story, House Administration Chair, Republican Tony Goolsby, told Dunnam, Eiland, and Cook they have 10 days to explain why employees were being listed as full time. In another moment of Republican hypocrisy, Goolsby as chair, told members to do as he says, not as he does.
Again, as Quorum Report states:
lobbyist Jennifer Shelley Rodriguez appears as a full time employee on Goolsby's Monthly Financial Statement from January to March of 2004. In January and February, her full time status earned her $500 a month. In March, she pulled down only $326.09. Rodriguez, the daughter of former Senator and current lobbyist Dan Shelley appears to have been a registered lobbyist in 2004 with at least 14 clients.
Again, according to the Monthly Financial Statement received by each House member, another full time employee making $500/month was Jennifer Fein. She held this status from September 2005 to January 2006.
In 2003, before SB1370 was passed, Goolsby had Eric Goldberg as a full time $500 month employee from January 20, 2003 to May 10 of the same year.
And finally, Ernest Stromberger, former executive director of Independent Insurance Agents of America shows up for 20 hours a week from December 2, 2002 to January 8, 2003.
We identified these issues and requested comment from Goolsby but had received none as of press time.
Republican Speaker Tom Craddick seems to be so singularly focused on keeping his job that he doesn't care who he takes down with him. As the Lone Star Project points out:
Few Republican's played a more prominent role in protecting controversial State House Speaker Tom Craddick than Goolsby. In addition to supporting Craddick for speaker, Goolsby was put in charge of "bringing in the muscle." After Craddick declared his "absolute" authority to rule the Texas State House, Goolsby brought in, "uniformed Department of Public Safety officers [who] guarded entrances at the front and rear of the chamber." It was an "unusual show of force," (Fort Worth Star-Telegram, May 27, 2007) and clearly intended to intimidate members of the legislature.
Now, rather than defending his partner in power, Goolsby is left defending himself from Craddick's politically motivated attacks. Speaker Craddick needs to take a nice long look in the mirror and ask himself if throwing his ever shrinking base of support under a bus is the best way to maintain control over the House. It seems unlikely.
Rounding out the House Democratic Leadership, Jim Dunnam has endorsed Barack Obama for President.
It gives me great pride to endorse Barack Obama for President. The constituents I serve, and all the people of Texas, are tired of politics as usual. In Texas -- and across the rest of the country -- we want a president who will finally put doing what is right above corporate special interests and radical partisan agendas. We want change we can believe in, not the same old Washington-style promises made and promises broken.
Texas House Democrats are fighting hard to improve our public schools and bring health coverage to the uninsured. With Barack Obama as president, we will have a remarkable ally in achieving those vital goals and many more.
Rep. Dunnam joins Rep. Pete Gallego and Rep. Garnet Coleman in endorsing Sen. Obama. This unity among House Democratic leaders shows the diversity of support Obama is building in the Lone Star state and the positive impact he should have in down ballot races.
Rep. Gallego told the Rio Grande Guardian earlier this week, "I just think he has this ability, an almost unnatural ability. His cadence, is very, very, good. He can really excite the mind."
Gallego is the Chair of the non-partisan Mexican American Legislative Caucus which comprises mostly Hispanic members of the Texas House of Representatives. Gallego told the Guardian he was in the process of contacting other Democrats in MALC to see who they are lining up for in the presidential election which could dramatically cut into Clinton's base.
"Part of what drives me is his life story. It's a fascinating life story. It's more than just the issues, it's his values. I think Hispanics and South Texas should really be able to relate to him."
Most interesting about these three endorsements is that it covers Houston, Central Texas (where unpledged superdelegate Chet Edwards lives), and the expansive West Texas region. In addition to the turf these endorsements cover, these are three major leaders in the Texas House with access to influence makers and voters a like.
House District 17 is the single most interesting open seats this cycle. The Republican spin is that this is a lost cause. To those Republicans (read Hans) that want you to think Democrats should just write this one off, think about how different the 80th legislative session didn't include Joe Heflin, Juan Garcia, or Allen Vaught. Three lost cause races.
How about Dan Barrett's special election victory in House District 97 or Donna Howard's just two years earlier.
Our party has become particularly adept at targeting seats and winning hard races, and House District 17 gives us a lot to be optimistic about.
Rick Perry only received 2.4 percent more votes than Chris Bell did in HD 17.
The vast majority of local county officials are Democrats.
This is a race that can be won by Democrats with a little hard work.
The Austin American Statesman ran this brief description of who is currently running to replace Robby Cook.
In House District 17, which stretches along the Colorado River from Bastrop County to the coast, two Democrats and one Republican filed to replace retiring Rep. Robby Cook, D-Eagle Lake. The Democrats are Donnie Dippel, 57, a La Grange consultant, and Latreese Ann Cooke, an executive from Bastrop. The winner will take on Republican Tim Kleinschmidt, 51, a Giddings lawyer and rancher who lost a close race in 2006 for the same House seat.
Dippel's earlier press release states that he served as Assistant Commissioner for Pesticide Programs at the Texas Department of Agriculture for six years, and worked for fourteen years total at the TDA. He currently owns a consulting firm based in agriculture consulting and has worked to protect surface water and Texas endangered species.
Kleinschmidt ran against Cook in 2006 and lost. Other than that, there isn't much out there to easily find about him or Dippel's primary opponent Latreese Ann Cooke, but we will be looking into this race in more detail over the next week.
Yesterday, House Democratic leader, Representative Jim Dunnam, sent out some good reasons for Democrats across the state to be positive. Pundits and politicos beware the numbers might surprise you.
