I will not vote for Tom Craddick for speaker of the 81st Legislature under any circumstances.
While the House Democratic Caucus had this to say in their press release:
As Texans first, House Democrats have worked and continue to work to bring change to the Texas House of Representatives. Moving Texas forward for all Texans with policies that improve the lives of our constituents has been our overriding goal. Allowing each House Member to represent their constituents to the best of their ability, and allow ideas, bills and policy to be dictated by the merits is the best way to achieve that goal. We are eager to work with like-minded Republicans in a bipartisan manner.
Rather than listing all the people that signed the pledge, it is easier to list the familiar few who did not:
Harold Dutton, Jr.
Al Edwards
Ismael (Kino) Flores
Helen Giddings
Dawnna Dukes
Ryan Guillen
Ruth Jones McClendon
Tracy King
Aaron Pena
Sylvester Turner
This is a familiar list for anyone who pays attention to the legislature. All of these Democrats supported Craddick in the 80th Legislature and most received plush committee assignments in return.
However, not signing the pledge is not the same as a vote. I remain optimistic that some of these elected Democrats will vote for leadership in the Texas House. All of them represent Democratic areas with DPI's ranging from 55% in Tracy King's district to as high 76% in Dawnna Dukes' district.
These are Democratic strongholds and their values must be represented-- something Tom Craddick clearly does not do.
There are no grudges from 2007. We are all looking at 2009 as a clean slate. BOR looks forward to seeing more names added to this list before the session begins.
Quick Math Update: The following 12 Republicans have publicly stated they will not support Tom Craddick-- Reps. Dan Gattis, Rob Eissler, Joe Straus, Charlie Geren, Edmund Kuempel, Brian McCall, Jim Keffer ,Burt Solomons, Byron Cook, Delwin Jones, Tommy Merritt and Jim Pitts.
There are now 64 explicitly named Democrats and 12 explicitly named Republicans. That is a grand total of 76 actual names against Craddick. Yet Craddick still refuses to release a list of his supporters. Interesting.
The Statesman has pointed out that Gattis was one of Craddick's lieutenants during the 2007 session but has been uncommitted since the November election.
Staying with the non-filers, what about Gattis? He is one of the most talented members of the House. He didn't have a good meeting with the Democrats-he stuck up for Keel-and some of them see him as a stalking horse for Craddick. I worry that Gattis doesn't have enough seasoning to assume a leadership responsibility, or whether he is willing to smooth the rough edges of his ideology. Some members regard him as brash and abrupt. So what? Talent covers a multitude of shortcomings.
One of two things is happening: 1) Republicans smell blood in the water and are leaving Craddick to create their own political power, or 2) Craddick is playing a game. He could be getting his lieutenants to run for Speaker so he can have some sort of control in the 81st Session or at the very least be a king maker to a more conservative speaker.
Regardless of why Gattis is in, it is becoming clear Craddick doesn't have the votes. He is either creating a safety net for himself or can't even keep his most vocal supports from challenging him.
Those who have followed Phillip's greatcoverage of the Speaker's Race would already know that we have the numbers. Tom Craddick will not be the speaker of the Texas House of Representatives for its 81st general session, pending only a formal vote choosing an actual successor. But now, a longstanding figure of the mainstream media in Texas politics agrees. From Harvey Kronberg's Quorum Report:
If the Dems can deliver their promised 64 votes, there are now 75 declared votes against Craddick's re-election as Speaker.
Today a group of House Republicans met in Austin and, along with some of their colleagues participating by telephone, mutually affirmed their support for a new Speaker other than Tom Craddick.
Sharing the sentiments in the room, Rep. Rob Eissler (R-The Woodlands) said, “I don’t have a problem with Tom Craddick. I don’t think he has the votes. I think we need to look for a new Speaker.” His colleague, Rep. Joe Straus (R-San Antonio) added, “We affirmatively agreed that it was time for selecting a new Speaker from the group in attendance.”
Rep. Charlie Geren (R-Fort Worth) said that in addition to those present today, there are other Republicans who will be coming forward when the group announces its consensus candidate on Jan. 2.
If I understand what I read correctly, this also means we can move Rep. Rob Eissler to the "Not-Craddick" column. Previously, he was part of Speaker Craddick's ceiling. The new numbers, going off of Phillip's previous work:
Rep. Dan Gattis declared that he is "uncommitted" in the race, moving him out of Craddick's camp to "Toss Up." That brings our new Speaker's race public tally to:
Not Craddick 76, Craddick Ceiling 61, Toss-Up 13
Previous Tally: Not Craddick 76, Craddick Ceiling 62, Toss-Up 12
The SREC adopted a motion for public ballot for Speaker. But, as Kronberg noted, they use secret ballots in their own elections. No one is surprised by the motion, or the hypocrisy.
Rep. Byron Cook and Rep. Ed Kuempel -- two Republicans -- filed for Speaker. Each of them were outspoken critics of Craddick before. There are now 12 announced Speaker candidates and 13 announced supporters for Tom Craddick for Speaker.
One aspect that few have written about regarding the Speaker's race is -- where's the lobby? Normally, these few months are used by lobbyists to identify who will sit on which Committees, and which Members of the Committees they should send their legislation to. But with the Speaker's race up in the air, there are many lobbyists stuck either hedging their bets (which is annoying for them) or waiting until someone takes command of the race (which is even more annoying for them). Just something to consider.
As always, official numbers and links are below the fold.
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.
The State Republican Executive Committee -- which, based on Burka's writings, appears to be little more than a tool for Speaker Craddick -- shocked no one by endorsing a public ballot for Speaker today.
Here is Rep. Merritt's reaction to it (the only one I've received or seen so far):
Rep. Tommy Merritt, R-Longview, is very disappointed with the State Republican Executive Committee’s decision today to adopt a resolution that condemns selection of a new Speaker of the Texas House by private ballot.
“The private ballot is part of the foundation of this nation and should not be undermined by a few party activists more interested in seeing Speaker Tom Craddick re-elected than giving House members the same right when they vote,” Merritt said. [...]
Merritt went on to tout his own position in the Speaker's race:
I know the next Speaker will be a Republican and I am pleased with the support my candidacy has garnered,” he said. “I think I will win this race, but until the members know that they will cast their votes privately – as has been done in almost every contested Speaker’s election – no candidate for the position should announce the list of their supporters.”
Merritt is urging all Speaker candidates and Members to attend a “Speaker’s Summit” in Austin on Dec. 17 to discuss the race, the rules for running the House and the private ballot issue.
The House Rules should not ever become a complex set of protective measures for the Speaker, but rather should always remain simply as “our” Rules in how we conduct business and the process for passing legislation; and, not as an “us” versus “them” set of procedural nonsense. [...]
I must respectfully call for you to step down as Parliamentarian prior to the first day of the 81st Session and not as a Temporary Officer in the capacity of Parliamentarian on the first day of the session. It is my conclusion that a majority of my House colleagues are not confident that your advice and parliamentary interpretations will be unbiased, and you will continue on a parth of tortured interpretations and rulings designed solely to protect the current Speaker and frustrate the House parliamentary process. From your statements and advice since the beginning of your service as parliamentarian at the end of the 80th Session, it has become apparent to my House colleagues and myself that you are working for the current Speaker and not the body.
We are joining with Rep. Burt Solomons today and calling for House Parliamentarian Terry Keel to resign his position. Additionally, we believe Ron Wilson should also step down immediately. We need a Member’s Parliamentarian, not a Speaker’s Parliamentarian. It is clear that Mr. Keel and Mr. Wilson are more interested in serving Speaker Tom Craddick than serving the entire House. We need to begin the 81st Legislative Session with a clean slate. The replacement of Mr. Keel and Mr. Wilson will send a clear signal that this next Legislature is making a clean break from the last Legislature which led to embarrassing floor fights over power and put the people’s needs behind the needs of the Speaker.
Burka was on this early this morning. He emphasized the push for the secret ballot in Solomons' letter -- something Rep. Merritt also discussed in a second letter (another component I'll write about later). However, I want to focus on the Terry Keel resignation ask first:
House Parliamentarians are not supposed to be polarizing figures. The House Parliamantarians are employees of the House, not the Speaker. The importance of the House being comfortable with the Parliamentarians is incredibly important:
If a House Member needs to go to the front of the House to ask for anything -- to speak against a bill, to get clarification on whether or not a Point of Order should stand, to file an amendment, to get clarification on a procedural matter, anything -- then they talk with a Parliamentarian first. In this role, the Parliamentarians are invaluable gatekeers of the business of the House Floor. If the House, as a body, is not comfortable with who is protecting them -- even if the perception is there that their concerns or questions will not be fairly listened to or addressed -- then they cannot be comfortable operating on the House floor.
Ultimately, this is about a secret ballot. On a member-to-member level, though, it's about cordiality vs. intimidation. That such a letter would even need to come from Rep. Solomons et. all -- in the very public glare of a Speaker's race, no less -- should be a strong signal for how discontent House Members truly are with Craddick at the front, and how little confidence anyone has that Craddick would reform his current practices in the least.
The list of five Democrats and three Republicans running against Craddick includes conservatives such as Republican Jim Keffer, who represents Granbury, and Burt Solomons of Carrollton. But either would need a centrist majority of both Democrats and Republicans to win.
Correct! Craddick can't win without Democrats, and neither can any Republican. Kennedy went on to mock the recent "OMG the liberals are coming! the liberals are coming!" letter that is floating around, correctly noting that Craddick is beholden to Democrat votes as much as any other Speaker candidate.
For now, let's forget the idea that Democrats will support Craddick. If he can't win any decisive block of support from Democrats (and he can't), no one Democrat should support him (they won't), and there are too many important issues this cycle for anyone to make a power play for their own losing benefit at the expense of good public policy.
But, that's just an argument. Anyone can have an opinion.
The problem is when Kennedy get into some strange cocktail napking math that refutes public records that are out there:
At least eight of the 76 Republicans either think Craddick stinks or are running against him. On the other side of the aisle, eight Democrats think Craddick’s a great guy.
So if everybody votes as expected, the cross-party math shows Craddick clinging to an edge as thin as one vote.
No, no, no, no.
There are 11 Republicans, as I've tallied preivously, that are publicly opposed to Craddick. Again, here are the eleven:
Add those 11 to the "64 strong" Democrats, and you have 75 "Not Craddick" Members of the Texas House. Add in Rep. Al Edwards, who e-mailed me to tell me he is not supporting Tom Craddick (so I am taking him at his word), and you have 76 House members that have publicly stated they are not supporting Tom Craddick this election.
Of course, you cannot then attribute the remaining 74 to Craddick's camp (as Kennedy does), because there are still at least 12 "toss-ups" out there that have not definitively publicly declared who they will support:
(Click "There's More" for the rest of the numbers)
In a letter, Turner asked that contributions be made in the next two weeks because the speaker’s race is a “time-sensitive matter.” After the speaker’s election is over, Turner said he would refund the balance if he loses.
Typically, speaker candidates use the money to travel to members’ districts to court support from their colleagues.
There has been a discussion on BOR about whether Sylvester Turner, who in the past has been a loyal lieutenant to Tom Craddick, is running a serious race or is just running to provide cover for Democrats who will ultimately vote for Craddick.
Phillip recently wrote a very convicing post in which he argued that those who say Turner is a stalking horse for Craddick are wrong. I was skeptical at first, but I think I've come to agree with Phillip's analysis. Some Democrats had been waiting for an indication that Turner was actually actively campaigning and this is the closest thing we've got so far.
Also, I don't know if I've ever heard of a candidate promising to return contributions if they lose. Perhaps someone can shine some light on this for us.
Although it is disappointing that Turner is actively seeking lobbyist money, the aggressive nature of the letter does make it seem like Turner is running for his own reasons and not those of Tom Craddick, which is certainly good news.
But we also should remember that the speaker's race is not just about getting rid of Craddick (though it certainly seems like it at times). It is about ending the pay-to-play practices that have given us a state government that all too often puts the special interests above the people's interests.
Defeating Craddick will help immensely, but we should be careful not to get too caught up in the ABC (Anybody but Craddick) fever that we wind up with a new boss who is just the same as (or dangerously similar to) the old boss.
Having said that, there is a lot to respect about Rep. Turner outside of his past association with Craddick and I'd be interested to see his response to the Statesman's report.
Cartoon image from 
