Via Laylan Copelin at the Statesman comes words of Tom Craddick's last ditch attempt to salvage his collapsing speakership. But seeing the end, it's likely that he's going to release his pledges from his iron grasp.
There was an impromptu meeting in the speaker's office this afternoon with about eight members, including Dan Gattis and John Smithee.
Gattis reportedly has dropped his speaker's bid in favor of Smithee who's trying to gather support to bloc Joe Strauss.
Craddick began considering releasing his pledges with the news that four Craddick D's, including Austin's Dawnna Dukes, has signed on with Straus.
There is some degree of sweet cold justice that Rep. Dukes is standing Craddick up and that Tom could only pull together 8 members at this office this afternoon. Assuming that the reign of Craddick is about to terminate, the only real surprise is how quietly he goes into the night and if runs for re-election in 2010 out in Midland.
It's like tumbleweeds rolling across an increasingly empty playing field.
Democratic Representatives Joaquin Castro, MALC Chair Trey Martinez Fischer, Mike Villarreal, Joe Farias, Roland Gutierrez, and David Leibowitz have all just announced their "enthusiastic support" for fellow San Antonian Republican Joe Straus.
Democratic members of the Bexar County Delegation have enthusiastically thrown their support behind Representative Joe Straus (R-San Antonio), who will be elected Speaker of the House of Representatives on January 13th.
After bipartisan discussions this weekend in Austin, Representative Straus has been selected as the consensus candidate to run the House of Representatives. He is expected to have the majority of votes from House members, including the support of most Bexar County Democrats.
Representatives Joaquin Castro, Trey Martinez Fischer, Mike Villarreal, Joe Farias, Roland Gutierrez, Jose Menendez, and David Leibowitz have all extended their full support to Representative Straus and believe his election as Speaker will be a historic victory for the Alamo City, especially in a moment when the stakes are so high.
Representative Straus will significantly help advance San Antonio's agenda in the upcoming legislative session.
During the 81st Legislative Session, lawmakers are expected to name a third top tier research university in the state, making the University of Texas at San Antonio a front runner for consideration. Straus as Speaker of the House would make up for the absence of a San Antonio member on the important Texas Transportation Commission, and a Speaker Straus will be invaluable in securing funding for critical infrastructure projects, and private sector development in Bexar County.
Democratic members of the Bexar County Delegation are excited to join Republicans and Democrats from across the state to support Representative Straus in his candidacy for Speaker of the House of Representatives, and they look forward to the opportunities this will present for San Antonio in 2009. The Delegation urges other uncommitted lawmakers to throw their support behind Representative Straus.
Representative Straus is expected to publicly identify his list of more than 76 supporters within the next 18 to 24 hours.
The most interesting part of this whole release is the very last paragraph.
Aaron Pena's twitter feed has been solid since the Speaker race started moving.
Pena points out Quorum Reports point that Rep. Senfronia Thompson has withdrawn from the race and thrown her support behind Republican Joe Straus.
Meanwhile, Speaker candidate QR Rep. Senfronia Thompson (D-Houston) has withdrawn her speaker candidacy and is contacting her supporters endorsing Straus.
Thompson told QR, "I am going to support this guy. I looked at the other candidates but he is the best. I think it might be the beginning of something different."
In addition, Pena confirms rumors that John Smithee has faxed in his paperwork to the Texas Ethics Commission to be a candidate for Speaker. However, sources are reporting Smithee's candidacy is a day late and a dollar short. It appears that Straus has locked this up. The question is who will be last to the Straus camp.
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?
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.
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:
