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.
For the last few weeks we have been listening to wall-to-wall coverage 24/7 about the flamboyant governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich, and pay-to-play politics. As we all know by now the Illinois governor is charged with criminal conspiracy for attempting to sell President Elect Barack Obama's U.S. Senate seat. Rod Blagojevich is clearly another crooked and arrogant politician who thinks he is above the law. But at least this one found himself impeached by the Illinois House.
It is nice to know some states have lawmakers who have an ethical spine where such blatant corruption and beyond the pale pay-to-play politics are concerned. Too bad Texas is sorely lacking in this area. But one has to remember the Party that is running the state at this time, although not all Democratic politicians would receive A's in ethics and integrity departments either.
When the Blagojevich scandal broke, several of the cable TV talking heads and pundits appeared especially outraged by pay-to-play politics and so I promptly sent off an email to MSNBC and CNN and suggested that if they are so livid about pay-to-play, they ought to send their research staff down to Texas to see how it works in a state where purchasing elections and pay-to-play is business du jour. Apparently other folks from around the U.S. contacted the media with the same request. Chris Matthews of Hardball responded with a chart that listed the most offending states. Texas is among them.
Paul Burka kicked up a fuss on his blog when he incautiously and not-quite-correctly re-cycled from memory some old thoughts from Democrats about how Tom Craddick did us a favor by remaining in office. I think the necessary corrections have been made there. But it does beg some questions that deserve longer answers.
Should Democrats have helped unseat such an unpopular speaker as Craddick in favor of a youngish, polished, urban moderate like Straus? That's two questions really. The first's about Craddick; the second about Straus.
My answer to the first: Political opponents are not deer. They don't get fatter and grow bigger antlers next season. You have to defeat them when you can, because you don't know what tomorrow holds. It's too cute by double to believe you can out-think all of tomorrow's political uncertainties. Anyone remember progressives voting for John Tower in the 1961 special election for the U.S. Senate, under the assumption he'd be easy to beat in a general? Good guess, that.
My answer to the second -- what about Straus -- has to do with why I'm a Democrat in the first place. Maybe Burka's right and he turns around the Republican Party. I doubt it, because that party is simply on the wrong side of history.
But I'm a Democrat because I care about children's health, about public and higher education, about jobs, about the availability of health care, about the quality of Texas air, water and soil, about safe communities, about fair and open elections in which scandalous, artificial barriers to voting are removed.
I don't know where the new prospective Speaker is on these issues. But I believe he will certainly be better than Craddick. Democrats are one vote shy of demanding a Democratic speaker. Republicans chose Straus. I'm for change.
Burka was wrong when he implied some Democrats would game the system for future political advantage. That would be bad politics. And I don't know how it could be explained to today's eight-year-old Texan who can't get to a doctor, is stuck in a going-nowhere education system, whose father lost his job and whose mother is still treated as a second-class citizen.
Who among us could look that eight-year-old in the eye and say, "Just wait 'till your 12. We promise."
For the past few days I have been reading about Texas House Speaker Tom Craddick's fall in the Houston Chronicle and here at BOR. The Burnt Orange Report, by the way, has provided excellent moment-by-moment coverage of this fascinating drama. Huge kudos to the outstanding diarists here. The Craddick/Straus issue including BOR's coverage was front page news on Daily Kos on Monday.
Yesterday morning the Houston Chronicle's Lisa Falkenberg wrote an excellent and very revealing commentary on how Houston would benefit from a House Speaker who is from a large urban area.
After reading the article this life-long urban dweller and native of NYC who has lived in Houston for over 20 years, finally understands why I have been so frustrated by how our Austin lawmakers operate. Falkenberg's article nailed it for me. Texas has been run by a bunch of country boys who are more concerned about boll weevil eradication and transporting hogs to markets than they are a big city's crammed prisons, crumbling inner city schools, over-extended hospitals, torn up roads and gridlocked freeways.
Phil's story about the changeover in rooms at the Capitol was classic, and I take particular schadenfreudesque pleasure in that the office used to be that of Carter Casteel, my former hometown representative and 2005 Texan of the Year.
It reminded me though of a wonderful post by Paul Burka titled "the Revenge of Carter Casteel". I'll except the relevant point below.
[Carter] Casteel's loss was a different story. She was a solid, well respected member, albeit a bit on the crusty and theatrical side. A former teacher who was a strong defender of public education, she had friends on both sides of the aisle. But her opponent, a political unknown, had so much money available that on election day, aircraft were circling over polling places with anti-Casteel banners. She lost by 46 votes.
The consequence of these races was to scare the hell out of Republican members who might entertain the idea that they were entitled to vote in a way that represented their districts. The message was clear: Tom Craddick cares more about his supporters outside the Capitol than he cares about his supporters inside the Capitol. If you don't toe the line on issues that matter to Craddick, this could happen to you.
Fear alone does not make a rebellion. It has to be accompanied by a sign of weakness. When the Republicans lost five House seats to Democrats on election day 2006, to go with a seat in Austin that had been lost in a special election earlier in the year, the scent of blood was in the water. Craddick had to fight to hold onto the speakership, and it was Democrats who provided him with his margin of victory.
But the speaker's race did not end with Craddick's election on the first day of the session. Republican members who entertained thoughts of independence still faced the same threat. They knew that Craddick's ties to Republican donors enabled him to amass a huge warchest to be used against Republican members. They knew that Craddick would not hestitate to use that money, even against talented members like Casteel. They knew that Republican donors and friendly PACs would be afraid of contributing to Craddick targets, for fear of retribution. And so, they realized that they couldn't afford to wait until the next election of the speaker, in January 2009, to unseat Craddick. They had to do it during the session, before the 2008 primary elections, before Craddick could bring his nuclear arsenal of big money into their races. The closer it got to the end of the session, the more imperative it became to make the move, and that is why, on that amazing night in late May, they sought to move to vacate the chair, only to have Craddick flee from the podium and return three hours later, with new parliamentarians and his claim to absolute power. But at a price: By turning on his own members, Tom Craddick has become THE issue. This is the revenge of Carter Casteel.
As popularized by Star Trek: Wrath of Khan, the phrase "revenge is a dish best served cold" is equally accurate here. As wikipedia notes, It means that to be successful, revenge should be a considered and planned response enacted when the time is right, rather than a hasty and 'hot-blooded' action which will increase the chances of failure.
A sign of things to come perhaps? Laylan Copelin details Straus' Speaker transition team (emphasis added):
Former San Antonio Sen. Cyndi Krier and former Rep. Clyde Alexander will head the transition team for Speaker-designate Joe Straus.
Krier, a Republican, is a former state senator from San Antonio and Bexar County judge.
Alexander was a Democratic lawmaker from Athens.
The role of Speaker comes equipped with a much larger office and an apartment. Problem is, Tom Craddick has a bunch of his stuff in Joe Straus' future office and residents.
As Elise Hu points out, capitol staffers have been wondering will Craddick will move to. Capitol offices are based on seniority, and Tom Craddick is the most senior member of the House.
Craddick is going into his 20th consecutive term and if he finishes this session he will serve 40 years in the House. Straus on the other hand is going into his second full term.
Straus currently offices in the extension in E2.314, but as that change the question is, "where does Tom Craddick go?"
While it would be funny to see Craddick in the extension with all the freshmen, sophomore and junior Democrats he helped elect with his reign, I doubt it will happen.
Straus (not filed yet) brings impeccable Republican credentials to the table. If he were elected, there would be no retaliation by the Republican estblishment against the members who voted to defeat Craddick, because the Strauses ARE the establishment. He is probably the most moderate Republican in the House. Good for Democrats. Bad for conservatives. Straus has a great political future, but speaker in 2009 is too much too soon.
But events may have overtaken the Democrat-ABC coalition that has 75 votes against Craddick. Gattis’s candidacy for speaker provides members with a chance to realign in coalitions FOR someone instead of merely against. Suddenly the timing is off for the ABCs. Their announcement of a candidate won’t come until the end of the week, and in the meantime Gattis can be adding to his list of supporters, currently reported to be three (Kolkhorst, Hamilton, Harless).
That is how many members appear to be committed to a course to elect a new speaker. It’s the 64 Democrats plus the 11 members of the ABC coalition (some of whom are not hardcore ABCs) plus the Gattis 4. It’s time to count Smithee in this camp, judging from his public remarks about the state of the House. That’s 80. What does this mean?
What it does not mean is 80 votes against Craddick for speaker. Depending upon how the speaker’s race develops, some of the R’s could end up with Craddick.
Didn’t the ABCs forget what their main objective was, which was getting rid of Craddick? This opens the door for Craddick. Maybe I’m totally wrong. I’ve been out of the picture all day, wrapping up a story on the governor’s race under a deadline...
But if this goes south, and Craddick somehow survives, this will be one of the ghastliest mistakes I have ever seen in Texas politics.
----------------
Between December 24 and today, I didn't post a lot. Part of the reason was because when news moves so fast, I don't think writing about things I don't know is very responsible. The only post I did write was focused on broader discussions of Speaker dynamics. But at that point, the real developments were private, and trying to pretend otherwise and guess wouldn't have done much good.
Good news analysis finds a way to use facts and research to create a thesis. That's what I worked on back on November 13, when I wrote my original post: "Speaker's Race: Not Craddick - 74, Craddick Ceiling - 63." In that post, I laid out a list of names of those who were previously publicly for or against Craddick.
Was it the perfect way to count names? No. But I think it's better than listening to rumors, that's for sure. And in the end, it turned out to be more accurate -- because common sense just prevailed. This is what I wrote:
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.
The criticism was always that "anybody but Craddick isn't a candidate." While an accurate criticism, that didn't mean my entire method for public accountability was ridiculous. And as I wrote in the only post I wrote over the last couple weeks, there are many barriers and obstacles that must be overcome in order to build legitimacy and support and create the organizational capacity necessary to enter and win a Speaker's race. We just have to have the patience to let them play out.
Straus now has 92 names of support. Once the dominoes get moving, the move quickly. Why? Because in the end, legislators are much more like you and me than anything else. They are humans that want to understand their environment, do what's best for them and what's best for their constituents. Sometimes that means acting with great leadership -- as Rep. Dunnam, Coleman, and Gallego did over the last few weeks, months, and years. Sometimes itmeans hanging back, and being the "clinching" move.
In either case, it requires patience and an understanding of the environment you operate in. For us at BOR, that means fact-based reporting, original analysis, and knowing when to avoid speaking/writing just because. That's a principle all at BOR believe in, and something we'll continue practicing throughout the legislative session and city council races over the next five months.
(I still have the napkin on which Al wrote up the contract with Matt and me. I hope you'll consider Al's request and we'll put the Too Close to Craddick PAC to bed, just like we did to Craddick. - promoted by Karl-Thomas Musselman)
I started the Too Close to Craddick PAC in December, 2006 to support viable primary challengers to Democrats who supported Tom Craddick's election as speaker in the 80th Legislature.
In the March, 2008 primary, Too Close to Craddick supported three challengers and helped elect one--Armando Walle versus Kevin Bailey in Houston. Our funding of Walle's field campaign resulted in a heavy election-day turnout for Walle, swamping Bailey's lead in early voting.
We raised over $33,000 and $32,000 went to the campaigns. The rest went to BOR and Austin Chronicle ads (for fund-raising) and website development.
Two great Democrats--Karl-Thomas Musselman and Matt Glazer--helped with web development, and I would like to raise about $300 owed to them before closing shop. Our agreement was "subject to the availability of funds," and they've told me not to worry about it, but I am not wired not to worry. And they deserve it.
And I will close shop. Assuming the 72 Democrats now pledged to vote with the House Democratic leadership follow through, I will dissolve Too Close to Craddick. Any surplus funds will go to Paint Texas Blue.
I undertook this effort--supporting challengers to Democrats who voted against their leadership--"more in sorrow than in anger," as the Bard wrote. I will be glad to be done with it, and I hope for a great outcome on January 13th.
Elise Hu of KVUE took this clip, interviewing Rep. Hartnett tonight who has been one of Tom Craddick's spokesmen through the Speaker's Race. While the information may get out of date if Rep. Smithee ends up pulling out of this race in the next 24 hours, it is insightful to watch given that the King has given up his throne.
Republicans, with an assist from disciplined and unified Democrats, appear to have successfully unseated Tom Craddick as speaker of the Texas House. Moments ago, Rep. Joe Straus of San Antonio is releasing the names of 80+ House members who have pledged their support for him in writing. It's being reported that Craddick will release his pledges shortly.
Over the last six years Craddick has led the House into an unprecedented era of corruption, special interest focus and division within the House. Texas newspapers have called for his removal. House members, who suffered Craddick's retro-extremism along with the rest of Texas, got the job done.
There will be a lot of analyses written about this remarkable turn of events. Since I have watched much of the effort from close-up, I hope the analysts will give credit to those House members from both parties who took great risks over a long period of time in the hopes that honor, integrity, openness and honesty could be returned to the House. It has taken a great deal of hard work, none of it glamorous but all of it critical, to get this done.
Straus' gathering of a significant majority support is not the end, of course. Members must still cast a formal ballot when they convene on Jan. 13. Some Craddick supporters may try to revive the corpse of their rule, rallying around day-late-dollar-short John Smithee. But we have reached a major turning point in the history of the Texas Legislature.
