It was a holiday yesterday, so you might not have been paying full attention to the Texas legislature-- specifically the Texas House.
Voter ID has slowed the Texas House to a near crawl. Republican's put the bill on the calendar and refuse to take the highly controversial bill off the general calendar.
KT then made it a point to discuss who controls what part of the legislative process. It looks a little like this:
Republicans control the Texas Senate.
Republicans control the Texas House.
Republicans set the calendar.
Republicans set the speaker.
Republicans set the agenda.
Had Craddick not be ousted, had they still hovered somewhere just south of 90 members, etc., etc. But the fact is, he was, and they don't. So it's up to the House Rs, not the House Ds, to get the train back on track. They're the ones who have to get the Ds to compromise, because unless they do, the Ds can use, in the Speaker's parlance, the process that's available to them.
Smith even quotes the Speaker himself from the Quorum Report.
"Democrats have been using the process that's available to them to use in a way that I wouldn't suggest is helpful," he said in an impromptu gaggle with the press during floor discussion of the Top 10 Percent Rule debate. "I would say the more they talk, the more explaining they have to do and I feel like the entire Republican caucus agrees with me on that. And I just hope they put aside some of this, some of the abuses of the process - legitimate - but I think ill-timed beyond just making their point."
Smith finally boils down the debate to the simplest point.
As for the explaining to be done, I would say it falls to those people who are so hell-bent on passing voter ID ahead of windstorm, insurance sunset, and other bills that pass the test of pressing need.
This is a complicated issue. Republicans control every branch of government in Texas. The far right wants voter suppression legislation over any other bill. They have made that decision... not democrats.
We have 1 day left to get to work on the people's business. It is only up to the Republican's in the House to get that done. They are the ones in power after all.
Republicans control the Texas Senate.
Republicans control the Texas House.
Republicans set the calendar.
Republicans set the speaker.
Republicans set the agenda.
But let's add one more thing to that list in regards to speed this session.
Republicans set the pace of progress. And it's been slow since January.
Ever since the Speaker's Race, we've see a general lazy pace of legislation. It began with a late appointment of committee chairs and members and continued with the slow pace of getting any legislation passed out of the house until halfway through session.
But now Republicans are wanting to blame Democrats for not allowing them to get as much done as they wanted. Democratic Caucus Chair Jim Dunnam calls them out on who started the slowdown.
Texas Observer: "We didn't take up bills on the House floor until maybe latest point of any session," Dunnam said. "Why wasn't insurance reform on the house floor weeks ago? Why wasn't the windstorm insurance bill on the floor weeks and weeks ago? Why'd we go home last week every day at 6 or 7 o'clock so that committees could go have dinner? And then turn around and say that [Democrats] are wasting time? Those were decisions that the Speaker made."
Of course, Democrats have offered over a half dozen times to take up many of the other issues that Republicans placed behind Voter ID on the calendar. Yet, Republicans each time have refused to move forward and debate the very bills they are whining about being killed. That's because in the end, they have bills that they want to kill to, but just don't want to be responsible for killing.
"[Republicans] are offering no compromise. They seem to be very pleased with the way things are going. I think that it's clear, from what they've told me, that it's because they don't want to get to the insurance reform bill."
House Republicans, led (or not led depending on how you look at it) by Speaker Straus are obstructing ruling on the points of order announced against the Voter ID bill. By withholding that information, they are now hiding behind the Democrats. They are in control of obstructing movement on the calendar.
Voter ID is nothing other than a raw political tool by Republicans to extend their lease on life for a few more years. Need we be reminded by this report by Elise Hu from 2008 that previewed this fight over a year ago?
Except that its his Calendar, Republicans chose him in their "gang of 11" meeting, and Republicans are the majority.
Mr. Speaker, if you had the balls to lead, then you'd lead. But you can't stand up to your own Republican caucus and keep this divisive issue of voter ID off the front-burner. You've caved to the extremists -- because you don't know how to lead a divided House.
Call us obstructionists -- boo-hoo. Democrats can stand on principles while you stand on politics.
Then you and Burka can go join the ten best hypocrites list in Texas.
ast Thursday I received a cryptic message from a well placed staffer in Speaker Straus' office.
Question: I hear you have a list you're working on, can we talk?
Answer: The only list I have is a grocery list for diapers and baby wipes. I am around if you want to visit.
It turns out the question was a serious one, as the staffer began to tell me about a rumor to oust SO3 from the Chair. I couldn't help but laugh because I thought it was both silly and pretty far from reality. What was funnier was that I was on a short list of folks responsible for gathering the names.
I thought this was the sort of play that was ill conceived by a junior staffer who had one too many at the Cloak Room. I laughed it off and went about my day.
By Monday this issue was way behind me- - it was an old rumor. But many learned about this for the first time yesterday when a conservative website wrote an article confirming there is an orchestrated attempt to remove SO3 (This is why there needs to be a 2 drink limit at the cloak room).
Jim Dunnam and I are the first ones on the record saying it ain't so as reported in Jason Embry's First Reading.
To be clear there is no list. I have not signed, seen or heard of anyone working on this. I am unaware of any overt, covert or osmotic effort to begin one.
Go back to your lives, citizens. Crisis averted.
P.S. Don't take candy from strangers. And don't get your info from a guy that misspells Deep Throat's real name ( Hey genius, it's Mark Felt, not Feldt)
There you go. There is no way a motion to vacate the Speaker of the Texas House happens without leaders like Jim Dunnam or Trey Martinez Fischer. It just can't happen.
I am not saying something isn't brewing, but this emphatic denial casts a very large shadow of doubt on this rumor.
Mark Feldt, Texas Insider: Word around the Texas House of Representatives is that a phantom list of nearly 76 signatures is circulating that will take out Speaker Joe Straus when the time is right. A few representatives wishing to remain anonymous have told Texas Insider they have signed the sheet calling for a motion to remove the speaker.
...
Many Democrats had high hopes for plumb chair posts and committee assignments, but when appointments came out they were surprised to see their support for Straus didn't pay off they way they anticipated.
Consequently, a large number of Democrats and a few Republicans have signed a list that may unseat Speaker Straus when the time is right. It has been rumored that the proper timing would be shortly after the budget passes the House, which it is expected to go for a vote the week after Easter (April 12).
The obvious irony in all of this, is that the coalition of 11 Republicans and 60+ Democrats who worked so hard to unseat Craddick finally have power. Rather than ensure they keep power, this same coalition made it even easier to oust a speaker mid-session by setting the bar for removal of the Speaker at 76 votes in the House Rules. A group of Republicans and a handful of Democrats failed in a vote to set the bar at 90 votes.
For the Democrats, the vote is obvious. Every Democrat would rather have a Democrat for speaker than a Republican. By removing the Republican chosen by 60+ Democrats and the 11 Republicans, Democrats hope to replace Speaker Straus with a Democrat immediately or throw the House into chaos without a Speaker.
For Republicans signing the list, the motives appear less clear. Some may hope to bring back Tom Craddick as Speaker, or simply improve position in committee assignments or with a subsequent Speaker.
I don't see how such a vote is obvious for Democrats. Sure, there is some grumbling, and to a certain extent, it is still in Democrats interest to make sure that Straus gets attacked for any type of legislation that goes forward that isn't good (Voter ID included). I don't envy Straus's position, but it's not like "throwing the House into chaos without a Speaker" helps Democrats. Even the most partisan Democrat still wants to get their mundane everyday good government bills passed. And remember, Speaker elections and upsets in the end, don't happen unless there is a candidate to replace them.
Yesterday Gov. Rick Perry continued to show his hypocrisy and lack of leadership. Perry accepted stimulus dollars after launching an aggressive campaign opposing the needed funds.
House Democratic Leader and Chairman of the Select Committee on Federal Economic Stabilization Funding, Jim Dunnam, wrote a memo to Gov Perry explaining the importance and benefits of the infusion of federal money. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act requires the Governor or the Legislature to formally request investments from the stimulus bill. In addition there is a small window, 45 days, to request the federal stimulus.
As you know, President Barack Obama will today sign into law H.R.1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, also known as the federal economic stimulus bill. The stimulus bill contains nearly $790 billion in tax cuts and key federal investments, including billions of dollars for infrastructure funding and incentives for job creation in Texas.
[...]
I respectfully request that you immediately take the appropriate action under the Act to certify both that Texas will request and use the funds provided for by the Act and that the funds will be used to create jobs and promote economic growth. Because of ongoing deadlines, we do not need to delay acceptance, as there is a great deal of work necessary. If you would prefer to have the Legislature make the acceptance of the funds by concurrent resolution, which is also provided for in the Act, I stand ready to assist in that option. And if this is the case, I would request you designate the Legislature's consideration of the Act an emergency item for this legislative session so we can move the resolution more rapidly through the process.
Rep. Dunnam copied Speaker of the Texas House Joe Straus and Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst to the letter as well. It is time to act and create and preserve Texas jobs and insulate our economy from further deterioration.
The clock is ticking. We have 45 days to accept or reject the Recovery and Reinvestment funding. The Governor can take a pass and let the legislature do the work or he can end his political posturing and help the tens of thousands of Texans in need.
There is no word on his replacement, but Frank Corte is definitely relinquishing his control of the House Republican Caucus.
Laylan Copelin write's Corte will not seek re-election as chairman of the Texas House GOP caucus.
Corte was late to support fellow Bexar county Representative and fellow Republican Straus (if he ever really did). In fact, Corte has been a loyal Craddick lieutenant which is where his influence came from.
He said some people thought it would be good to have the speaker and the GOP caucus leader from San Antonio. Others thought Corte might be put in the awkward position of criticizing a member of his local delegation.
Corte said he's interested in helping rebuilding the House GOP majority and thought he could do that better outside the caucus leadership.
Corte, Craddick, and Chisum have lost control of the Texas House and they are quickly losing control of the state. It will be interesting to see how many bills these men pass with little influence.
Nathan Macias was recruited by Tom Craddick and his allies to run take out Carter Casteel in 2006. Those are the facts.
Not surprising then that Nathan Macias is a little miffed that he lost his seat after one session to Doug Miller and his buddy Tom lost the dias.
On January 12, Macias opined via e-mail to an undisclosed list about Straus' conservative credentials (the same conservative credentials Dewhurst is trying to solidify in the Senate).
From: Nathan Macias
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 4:57 PM
Subject: My Perspective on The Apparent New Texas House Speaker
Friends:
As your outgoing State Representative I feel compelled to let you know my perspective and some facts about the apparent Speaker of the Texas House.
It appears Representative Joe Straus will be the next Speaker of the Texas House. I served with Joe Straus and have some true concerns. He is not conservative. Therefore, I don't think he will be the best representative of leadership for conservative Republicans or our great state. Below are just some of those concerns:
Rep Straus made his initial move by garnering the support of 70 Democrats and 15 Republicans. This alone will require his strong allegiance to the liberal Democratic Party and moderate Republicans. Shouldn't the Republican Speaker be elected by Republicans and not by a predominance of Democrats along with a few moderate Republicans? Now that would be best for our district and state.
Rep Straus has very limited experience, having served only one and a half sessions in the Texas Legislature. What organization would elect a Chairman of the Board with four years of experience? The Texas House needs an experienced, proven leader at the helm. That would be best for Texas.
The Heritage Alliance, a prominent conservative values organization, gave Rep Straus a 52% conservative score (the second to the lowest score earned by a "Republican"). That's not conservative. To give you a gauge this same organization gave me a 91% conservative score.
Texans for Fiscal Responsibility (limited government/lower tax group) rated Rep Straus at 71%, roughly 4% below the Republican average score. That's not conservative. As a gauge I earned a 93% rating from TFR.
Not a single pro-life or pro-family group endorses Rep Straus. As reported in the news, he was one of 23 lawmakers who opposed a bill to block the government order requiring the HPV vaccine for all sixth-grade schoolgirls. He also opposed a bill to ban gay foster parenting.
Let me also note that Straus supports statewide gambling and opposes school choice for parents. Both of these positions are in opposition to our State and National Republican Party Platforms. Joe Straus will not advance our conservative cause.
I strongly encourage each of you to contact our Rep-elect, Doug Miller, who at first opportunity chose to align himself with the 70 Democrats and 15 moderate Republicans. Let him know that the people of our district (his constituents) are overwhelmingly aligned with the conservative values and principles of the Republican Party of Texas that have made our state so grand, and that we expect him to represent our district in that manner.
Finally, please forward this message to others you believe are conservative and may not be aware of this recent development.
Serving You,
Nathan Macias
State Rep, District 73
Bandera, Comal, Gillespie, Kendall Counties
This seems to be a sign of things to come for Straus and a possible rematch between ultra-conservative Macias and the reasonable Republican Miller.
Also, it might be important to Mr. Macias, he isn't serving anyone and he is no longer the State Representative from District 73. That job has been filled but the people of District 73 are taking applications and interviewing again around 2010.
Mesdames et Messieurs, place your bets, if you please. The high stakes gaming season has commenced in earnest for the Texas Election cycle 2010. The winner will take all.
Drinks and meals will be served on a complimentary basis for the duration of the match. If one should need to take a breather from the gaming tables, massage therapy is available, at no charge. We can also arrange golf, tennis, squash or racket ball, or whenever pleases you. Hunting can be arranged, depending upon the season.
If one should be inconvenienced by an off season urge to shoot something or someone we have provided shooting ranges and weapons on the premises for your convenience.
Any other desired form of entertainment or diversion can be provided as requested. We are discreet and ask no questions.
Please make yourselves comfortable and at home. We are here to serve you.
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.
