Where's Tom Craddick? The Capitol press knows the beleaguered House Speaker has called a meeting today for his "team," meaning a meeting of his mythical majority. And it's the mythical nature of that majority that's causing him to play hide-and-seek with his meeting.
The Gang of 11 (anti-Craddick Republicans) guarantees 11 votes or more for Joe Straus. The Democrats have released 64 votes committed to voting against Tom Craddick. John Smithee has all but announced. Warren Chisum is trying to talk Craddick out of the race, and he puts Craddick's support in the 50s. That's 77 members, two more than half the House. It's a clear majority, even if Chisum retreats back to Craddick the way he's retreated from some of his public comments.
Some members formerly known as "Craddick Ds" appear to be walking away from that dangerous adjective, "Craddick," before the "D." And they will vote against Craddick.
Uncommitted members of both parties are meeting and talking one-on-one with Straus, who has collected more pledges already, making that easy-to-count 77 even bigger.
Some time today Craddick (R-Midland), is having a meeting. However, the location of the meeting is more illusive than Craddick's support for re-election.
So far the list of rumored locations includes:
Agriculture Room in the Texas Capitol
Sullivan's Steakhouse
The Austin Club
Ruth's Chris on 6th Street
With three very different venues and the needed space small, its hard to tell where Tom Craddick will go.
Craddick has never been one to shy away from announcing his numbers or shielding his supporters. Why now? Simple answer, he doesn't have the votes and he is playing hide-and-seek with the press and public to hide his obvious vulnerability.
That's why we need your help.
We can't be at all of these place at once (and there's no certainty the meeting will be at any of them). We need your help finding Craddick's super secret meeting and if possible getting video of it. Who was there? Who wasn't? Did the press show up? What did the press miss?
This is citizen journalism at its best and your help, well, helps.
This wouldn't be BOR if we didn't offer a super secret prize to anyone who gets video of the meeting or a verified list of its attendees. Or even correctly identifies the time and location.
We continue to speculate that Craddick doesn't have the votes. Phil has shown his shrinking ceiling. Now, help us uncover the ceiling under which Craddick's shrunken support will huddle. Look for venues where 50 or so could gather n private. No need to look for larger venues.
Update: The more will not be the merrier for Tom Craddick. A source tells me that the members still pledged to Craddick will ask him to release them and withdraw from the Speaker race today. He doesn't have the votes. His people know he doesn't have the votes and nobody wants to be the last one to rally to the new speaker.
Will Craddick honor his few supporters and withdraw?
Some tidbits you may or may not know about the ongoing Speaker's Race.
We have a high degree of confidence in telling you that Rep. Elect Doug Miller (slayer of Macias) is supporting Rep. Straus for speaker. He has been previously uncommitted to Craddick but not part of the Gang of 11. His district also borders that of Straus.
R.G. Ratcliffe takes a look at Straus's cash on hand: $621,902
Elise Hu reports on Dawnna Dukes. Tongue twisters are involved.
The Democratic Caucus has met, but no announcements. That matches what I'm hearing in that the members are still wanting more info on his background and style. Different members have different reasons for being hesitant with committing even though the only choices are Craddick, Gattis, and Straus at this point.
It seems that there can't be an overall consensus on whether Joe Straus would be a good speaker for Democrats or not. He's a fiscal conservative that doesn't get along terribly well with the socially right-winged, but he is a stalwart member of the Republican establishment, too.
To illustrate the differences between possible opinions, look at what Vince thinks at Capitol Annex compared to what conservative David Barton of Wallbuilders.com thinks.
As a follow up to the message you received earlier about the Texas Speaker, the first step has been taken to install an anti-life, anti-family Texas House Speaker. The 11 dissident Republicans selected Rep. Joe Straus as their candidate for Speaker, and that selection is expected to be supported by 64 anti-life and anti-family Democrats.
Unfortunately, Rep. Straus (who has been in office for only two sessions) has developed a clear voting record that demonstrates overt hostility toward unborn life and traditional family values.
Straus as Speaker would be a complete and utter unmitigated disaster for Democrats.
Perhaps from a public policy standpoint, he won't push some of the exceedingly right-wing Leo Berman-style garbage like denial of education benefits for immigrants, but you can bet that he'll still push a far-right-of-center agenda that has nothing to do with tuition re-regulation, electric re-regulation. But, you can bet his agenda will be all about right-wing issues like voter identification, bogus property tax "relief" schemes that will take more money away from important programs, and school vouchers.
Worse than that, Strauss will stop the GOP hemorrhaging seats in the chamber, and possibly deny Democrats a majority until after redistricting? How? Why? Because Strauss is the GOP establishment. He'll bring money and power to a House Republican campaign organization that needs it. He'll bring a fresh, less controversial face-one that will be awfully hard for Democrats to hang on GOP incumbents necks' like an albatross come 2010. It means less gains in seats for Democrats, and, possibly, less Democratic holds.
For Democrats, there really isn't a clear issue, except that the 64 who signed the pledge should stick to that pledge. I think policy-wise we will be better off with almost any Republican not named Craddick, but it would be hard to determine who the best Republican for that job would be. Vince also makes a particularly strong argument that Democrats should stay voting in bloc for a Democrat.
It's our duty to Texans to ensure that we don't let Tom Craddick get another term as speaker. So the Democrats who pledged against him should stick to that pledge. Beyond that, they probably should just vote the way they think best for their constituents.
The 64 Democrats could easily prove to be a power player if they wanted to unite behind one Republican. But is there really one Republican you could justify Democrats uniting behind?
This election might take a few ballots. Hopefully not a few hundred, but it would not shock me.
I caught this interesting bit of process story from the Statesman's report on the meeting of the 11 Republicans who selected Rep. Straus as their nominee for speaker.
House members had been anticipating Friday's meeting of the 11 ABC Republicans to give direction to the speaker's race.
Ten of the lawmakers met at the Tarrytown home of Rep. Byron Cook of Corsicana, for more than two hours.
Rep. Rob Eissler of The Woodlands was on the phone and a webcam. Reps. Burt Solomons of Carrollton and Ed Kuempel of Seguin were thought to be front-runners, but after three ballots, the less-experienced Straus won the support of his colleagues.
Except for Eissler and Rep. Delwin Jones of Lubbock , who left early, the group emerged together to announce their choice. They all emphasized Straus' GOP credentials and his ability to unify the House.
Brian McCall, who ran to be Speaker of the House in 2006, filed paperwork late today to seek the office again.
He is one of the eleven Republicans meeting right now in Austin to determine a consensus ABC candidate for Speaker.
This leaves seven of the eleven representatives as declared candidates for Speaker. And, theoretically, we will know by the end of the day which member the group will stand behind. It will be one of the following: Representatives McCall, Kuempel, Solomons, Keffer, Jones, Merritt or Cook.
Happy New Year, everyone. We just finished off what, in my mind, was overall a satisfying 2008. Not everything was perfect, but it was one of the better years in the past 10 for Texas Democrats.
Not much news is expected on this New Year's Day, but keep in mind that tomorrow the ABC Republicans will meet to decide on their consensus candidate. Hopefully they will choose a member that Democrats can respect and easily vote for.
But today, comfortable and relaxing celebration of 2009 is what's on the plate. Enjoy it. After the celebrations, we'll get to work on making 2009 even better than 2008.
Craddick lieutnant, Appropriations Chairman Warren Chisum, R-Pampa, admitted to me that the speaker is short the votes for re-election and his chances now are largely dependent on the opposition's inability to align behind a candidate.
"I think he (Craddick) is within five or six of getting there. And he may be able to pull that rabbit out of the hat. Now you're getting down to: nobody's got enough right now," Chisum said.
So now we know Craddick's natural ceiling is down to 70 or 69 53 or lower. Which means he can't get there with the same base he had in the 80th session. Chisum's frank discussion makes it look like another candidate might get in this thing.
The two names most rumored are Republican Joe Strauss and Republican John Smithee.
Regardless, it is going to take real, bipartisan support for anyone to be the Speaker of the 81st session.
Update: Chisum was even more forthcoming to the Star-Telegram.
"I'm guessing in the numbers of 50 to 53, but that's not enough to get there,'' Chisum said. Craddick's camp says the speaker has more than the needed majority but has not released a list of supporters.
"At the end of the meeting, we're going to have a plan," Chisum said. "And the plan is that he stays and we're going to do this and this. Or he decides that I can't make it so you all need to move on."
One possibility, Chisum said, would be a "Plan B" option in which Craddick would withdraw and endorse another candidate.
The bar has moved lower. If Craddick stays in, the clock is ticking. With Chisum, one of Craddick's top lieutenants, saying he doesn't have the numbers it becomes imperative Craddick release his pledge sheet or allow his pledged supporters to someone else.
The interesting thing is how Chisum is directly refuting what Rep. Will Hartnett and Craddick spokersperson Alexis DeLee have been saying for weeks. Both have claimed he has the votes and he will be Speaker for the 81st session. Well, now we learn he isn't close to having the 76 votes he needs and he will probably not be Speaker ever again.
Ed. note: This is part one of a three part series I've worked on over the break about understanding the Speaker's race. Part one will focus on the problem -- why isn't someone else Speaker yet? Part two will focus 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 One: Why Someone Else Isn't Speaker Yet (And Why That's Not a Bad Thing)
"Directly challenging existing gatekeepers does not necessarily mean they are destroyed and disappear. It means they bleed influence and power. To make that happen, you need to evaluate your target gatekeeper and determine the source of its power, and then supplant it."
Tom Craddick does not have the necessary support or legitimacy an incumbent Speaker of the House should have. An incumbent should always have a built-in-advantage; even the great prophet Dave Carney would have to admit that an incumbent who is tied is actually losing. Why, then, is Tom Craddick still in this thing?
Let's look at five questions that we'd need to answer in order to understand the problem:
What is the purpose of electing a new Speaker of the House? Answer: To choose a Speaker that treats all Members fairly.
Perception or reality, Craddick does much more than play favorites. Arm-twisting and high-dollar challenges are prevalent among Craddick's reign as Speaker, and Members want a Speaker that will let them have an honest run at their own legislation, and that allows them to vote their districts without the threat of political retribution -- either outside or inside the Capitol -- constantly hanging over their head. No one expects unilateral disarmament; but everyone is tired of the constant call to arms (from both sides of the aisle) that is prevalent under Craddick's regime.
What are the barriers to becoming Speaker? Answer: The lack of legitimacy & organizational capacity of a challenger in a Craddick House.
If there is a general agreement on purpose, then, why is Craddick still in this thing? Today's story in the Dallas Morning News highlights the anti-Craddick unity that has formed among a solid majority of Texas House Members:
The drumbeat to replace House Speaker Tom Craddick is getting ever louder, as Republicans and Democrats add their names to a growing list of representatives who say they refuse to support him for another term.
On Monday, the number supporting someone other than Mr. Craddick grew to 79, more than enough "no" votes to oust him from his powerful, agenda-setting position as head of the 150-member Texas House.
He needs 76 votes to maintain his spot, and if declarations are to be taken at face value – a big "if," to be sure – that would mean he doesn't have them.
Why then won't Craddick step down? Because right now, he has the best public grasp on the three prongs of the "strategic trinagle" that is apparently so well loved among business organizations. Here's a quick look at the triangle I'm talking about:
The idea of this strategic triangle is that each of these pillars influences the other. In order to increase the perceived public value of your candidacy, you need to strengthen your legitimacy/support and/or your organizational capacity, and so on around the triangle. The more you can place yourself inside the triangle, the better.
Craddick has tremendous organizational capacity -- he has "lieutenants" like Rep. Will Hartnett that can speak on his behalf in the press. He has members like Rep. Warren Chisum who have long-lasting relationships with House Members and who will stand up on Craddick's behalf. He has a natural base of Committee Chairs -- including the 10 Democrats that have not pledged against him yet -- that form the core of his constituency. And he has support from lobbyists, large donors, and a Republican Party infrastructure that is very conservative and, by definition, not eager to change.
Dwindling or not, that core organizational capacity and the legitimacy afforded him by his incumbency are significant assets to his campaign -- and they are barriers the challengers (understandably) struggle to overcome.
How do individual members interact with those barriers? Answer: They can't avoid power that is ever-present everywhere, even if that power upsets them.
In what ways do those interactions impact members' understanding of group dynamics? Answer: They move towards the group, not the person, that is aligned with their purpose.
Do those group dynamics help or hurt a new Representative rising the ranks to become Speaker? Answer:Hurts. Without a built-in coalition, and with 150 Members all spread out across the state, you can't make group gains. It has to come one at a time, which is yet another inherent disadvantage of challenging the incumbent.
Atop this post, I quoted Markos' writing about gatekeepers. Craddick is a gatekeeper for power in the Texas House -- even those who are Chairs or sit on Appropriations have, at some point, been instructed about how to proceed. Lobbyists have tons of these stories; I've written about the struggle for power I saw Craddick pursue before, so I won't repeat it here. But if the source of Craddick's power is his operational capacity and the legitimacy of his incumbency, then how do you supplant it?
The seductive thing to do is simply to build and accumulate power for yourself. I think that's what some of the ABC Republicans tried to do in 2007, and that's why they failed. Interacting with a strong organizational capacity vs. a single person promising the world, a Member is going to perceive a large supportive group (even if it's Craddick's) as more trusting.
The reason Paul Burka writes that January 2 is such an important date is because it is one of the few times that the challegners to Craddick will have an honest, public megaphone to establish their organizational capacity. What they say (public value) matters little. If they can demonstrate that they have the organizational capacity to oust Craddick, then they will automatically gain the legitimacy and support they need to defeat Craddick.
The need for the large public megaphone is why group dynamics inhibits an easy challenge to become Speaker. A press release isn't convincing enough; a phone call can work for one person, or maybe a few on a conference call, but not 76. The press conference is the first time the challengers will have a megaphone. But I don't think it will be the last, or the most decisive.
That's my understanding of the problems of the Speaker's race. They are problems that shouldn't be minimized; I often read others' quick dismissal of the challengers inability to immediately supplant Craddick and laugh. The Speaker's race comes in stages:
Prove Craddick can be defeated
Figure out the main challenger(s) to his candidacy
Get the names.
We've just entered stage 2...but there's still lots of time in a game that's just begun. It's not easy to supplant a strong gatekeeper of power. It takes time, struggle, sacrifice, and hard work. I'm going to let Markos close it out for now, and I'll write more this afternoon about how to find solutions to the problems outlined above:
"Before we confront the gatekeepers, we must first understand that leaders are not promoted or ordained. We now live in a rapidly evolving entrepreneurial age, and so the first rule is that we must speak our mind, follow our heart, and question all authority. We cannot wait to get permission before we act."
Introduction: A Lesson in Patience in an Impatient World
"Some of the legislature are for it, and some against it; which has the majority I can not tell. There is great strife and struggling...here at this time. It is probably we shall ease their pains in a few days. The opposition men have no candidate of their own, and consequently they smile as complacently as the angry snarls of the contending...candidates and their respective friends, as the christian does at Satan's rage."
-- Abraham Lincoln, Dec. 13, 1836, in a letter to Mary S. Owens concerning the moving of the Illinois State Capitol to Springfield, Illinois
Even Abraham Lincoln grew impatient of politicians. But it is instructive that this impeccably appropriate quote about the impatient and frustrating natures of human behavior --- very fitting to the Speaker's race context we are all floating in -- can be found in the middle of a letter to a woman Lincoln briefly courted, before realizing that he thought her "skin was too full of fat to permit its contracting in to wrinkles." (Source)
The point: we are people, and we are not perfect. If Honest Abe got impatient with politicians and petty personal things, then what chance do the mere mortals of the 81st Texas Legislature have at being anything less than impatient?
Impatience, though, can be crippling.
Conventional wisdom gets thrust and thwarted around so violently in the middle of the Speaker's race that it becomes hard to know where to anchor. Inevitably, many anchor with familiar faces --- that's why so many at the Capitol are willing to survive the whiplash Paul Burka has given us over the past six weeks. I can't tell if he's imitating Gossip Girl on purpose or not, but I'll be damned if Harold Cook's "Paul Burpa" rendering isn't looking better by the day.
Where, then, do we anchor? Well, I like to anchor in reason, logic, and facts. I gave that a shot when I wrote about Craddick's ceiling and the documentable opposition to Craddick way back on November 13:
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.
I wrote that short paragraph about a month and a half ago, as part of my post detailing the composition of the Speaker's race. Though Mr. Burka -- the perennial gatekeeper of conventional wisdom that he is -- never believed in the post, that fact-based research ended up moving us in the BOR community away from the inevitability of Tom Craddick towards the possibility of a new person. And now we watch as the rest of the Texas political world catches up with us.
Good fact-based reasoning will do it every time. But it takes time. A lot more time than the instant, "did-you-hear-what-he-said?" nature of the Speaker's race can allow. And one thing is absolutely clear: 150 Members can't always know what every one else is always thinking or who every one else is always talking to, so the notion that any one person can easily rise to overtake the position of Speaker is ridiculous.
What, then, is needed to elect a new Speaker? I've written a few ideas about that in a short series of posts that will come online every couple of hours today titled, "Understanding the Speaker's Race." Here's what the series will discuss:
Part one will focus on the problem -- why someone else isn't Speaker yet (and why that's not a bad thing).
Part two will focus 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.
I don't have secret Democrat or secret Republican friends in the Legislature, giving me the "scoop" on what's going on behind closed doors. I'm not a paid senior exeutive editor; I'm a 24-year old grad student who volunteers to write. My interest in Texas politics isn't one of "who is aligned with whom" and what that may mean for the next SREC meeting. My interest in politics is the same as most of you, and I'll close with this reminder I wrote the day after Election Day last November:
I believe as well as anyone that the Speaker's race is incredibly important. But I would recommend one thing:
Perspective.
There are some key facts to keep in mind: House Democrats keep gaining seats, House Republicans keep losing them, and no one outside of what many may not realize is a small, small group of Texans cares about the Speaker's race.
They care about restoring CHIP. And curbing the high cost of utilities. And improving our public schools. And providing better long-term transportation options. And having any semblance, whatsoever, of financial security for their families.
We're not going to settle who is Speaker online; short of posting a lot of gossip and rumors, all we can offer here at BOR is perspective.
Perspective is all we promise here on BOR. It's what the series of posts on the "Not Craddick vs. Craddick Ceiling" were all about, and it's what today's series will be about. I hope you enjoy the series.
Dan Gattis (R - Georgetown) has announced that he has three Republican supporters: Mike Hamilton (R - Mauriceville), Patricia Harless (R - Spring), and Lois Kolkhorst (R - Brenham).
This is three more Republicans on top of the original 11 that had announced their intent to vote against Tom Craddick's reelection. That brings the count to 64 Democrats and 15 Republicans declared against Craddick: a total of 79 members of the House. The numbers keep on rising against him, yet he still remains defiant.
Craddick's spokeswoman, Alexis DeLee, said the speaker's opponents are just trying to create the impression of momentum.
"It's an inaccurate list," she said. "We continue to have the largest and most-solid support of the House."
Such defiance until the end will not only look bad for the current speaker, but it might lose him even more power than if he simply gives up. Who is he still trying to coerce? Does he really think that representatives would back off their public announcements or signatures to vote against him? Maybe.
There's still some talk, though, that Rep. Gattis may be a "stalking horse" for Tom Craddick. He refutes those claims. From Karen Brooks:
Me: So, are you a Craddick stalking horse?
Gattis: (cracking up laughing).
Me: So, that's a no, then?
Gattis: That's a Neigh.
He went on to say that, no, he's not in the race to determine for Craddick who's getting ready to vote against him, or to distract and confuse people, or any of that stalking-horse behavior that some people are gossiping about - mainly because Gattis has been seen as a Craddick lieutenant until the last year or two.
"if this is how the stalking horse is treated, I don't want to be the stalking horse," he said. "I've been threatened and cajoled and everything else. I'm not doing this for Tom Craddick, I'm doing this for the Texas House."
Time will probably tell. Perhaps Craddick is waiting for a lieutenant to succeed in gaining support before he steps back from his claims that he has majority support. Will any of the 10 Democrats who did not pledge to vote against Craddick announce support for Rep. Gattis. If so, that could be telling in several ways.
