Republican Kay Bailey Hutchison, dismissed by Rick Perry earlier in the year in the GOP gubernatorial primary, should expect a crowded primary field for her United States Senate seat should she decide to run again. Courtesy of the Star-Telegram:
"She personifies everything that the Tea Party is fighting," said Konni Burton, a member of the Northeast Tarrant Tea Party steering committee. "She is a Republican, but when you check her votes on many issues, they are not ones that conservatives are happy with."
Adrian Murray, president of the grassroots 912 Project Fort Worth, said: "For the sake of what's left of her own reputation and credibility, she should not run again. She got shellacked in the primary, and that should have been [a] signal enough that we're done with her. KBH epitomizes the slick career politician that so many in the movement despise."
You are quite likely to have better luck guessing Texas Lottery numbers than you are guessing if Kay Bailey Hutchison will run again for the U.S. Senate or simply retire. God only knows, honey. Her motivation for running for governor against Perry really settled on the fact she was angling for that Governor's mansion as a retirement home. However, given her tarnished record and personality at the hands of Republican Perry, Hutchison may be forced out of her seat whether she wishes to be or not. The likes of Weatherford car salesman Roger Williams and Railroad Commissioner Michael Williams all claim to be running regardless of Hutchison's plan. They've seen this horror flick before after all, having been bit by Kay's capitulation in the past.
I'm not certain that Hutchison is politically savvy enough to know what is going on here, which is that moderates in today's Republican Party are not welcome and becoming far more extinct with each passing day. The withering fire and utter chaos that has erupted in the recent race for Speaker of the Texas House between the moderate Joe Strauss and his extreme challengers Warren Chisum and Ken Paxton is indicative of what is occurring throughout the country with this marriage of convenience between the GOP and the Tea Party. As Kay Bay can attest to, and now Strauss as well, the Tea Party doesn't play fair, they play nasty with a mission to tarnish, burn, and ultimately destroy one's reputation. Hutchison has proven once before she really doesn't have the stomach for the type of race that Tea Party extremists like Rick Perry run. As Joe Strauss is realizing within the Texas House, politicians like he and Kay Bay could be all that stands between an ultra-conservative, extreme takeover of the modern Republican Party and the destruction of GOP moderates along the way.
Should Republican Speaker of the House Joe Strauss be strong enough to retain his powerful position he'll have his hands full in holding together a very volatile GOP caucus. Republican extremist Warren Chisum is certainly fraying Strauss' pledges for the Speaker's job so we don't know where this race will end. This nasty and contentious race for the Speakership of the Texas House is most certainly a preview of the upcoming 82nd Session, which will pit moderates against extremists for overall influence and direction of the Texas GOP. Most certainly newly elected Teapot extremists, combined with the fringe GOP that was already in the legislature, have winnowed the influence of moderate Republicans and we see that pent up anger on the part of the extremists coming to fruition now.
We saw this battle between moderates and extremists first unfold when Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison challenged Rick Perry for the 2010 Republican nomination for Governor. Hutchison had long been considered a pragmatic moderate never of the extreme mold that Rick Perry chiseled for himself. Republican Perry defeated the moderate Hutchison in the primary and continued his extreme campaign against the moderate Democratic candidate, Bill White. The former Mayor of Houston retained many platform points and themes that Hutchison utilized in her race against Perry, but the pragmatic, moderate White lost the most recent November 2nd General Election.
As a result of the recent November 2nd elections the Republican legislative caucus increased to Super Majority status, and along with it entered a new crop of extreme elephants that threaten to trample what is left of moderates in the Texas GOP.
The following very contentions issues are likely to cause this internal party battle between moderates and extremists to continue and boil over into the public:
The estimated $20-25 billion dollar budget shortfall
With a "no new taxes pledge," newly elected extreme Republicans and their allies are already talking up the possibility of opting out of the federal Medicaid program. Doing so would leave a large swath of Texans, including seniors and children--the most vulnerable in our society, without health insurance. Rick Perry even proclaimed that Texas can run its own program without federal assistance, which essentially means Republicans will end Medicaid and do nothing to provide Health Care for the most vulnerable amongst us who rely on it. If Medicaid is on the cutting block you know that the Children's Health Insurance Program is too. And as we all know, public education has long been a favorite target for a slash and burn Republican approach to governing. Higher education is a target too. All this to say, the moderates, or what is left of them, are all that stands between a full dismantling of government as we know it, and perhaps trimming the sides a bit. Look for the budget shortfall to be one of the top contentious issues that could cause the Republican caucus to explode with internal family strife.
Voter Suppression
If ever a case existed in which politicians are attempting to craft a solution to a problem that doesn't exist voter suppression legislation ranks high. In a divided 81st Legislative session Republicans were very close in passing "Voter ID," had it not been for the Democratic caucus chubbing the legislation to death. With a Super Majority, Republicans certainly have the votes to ram through the long desired extreme Indiana-style legislation that would disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of voters including seniors, veterans, and minorities. Republican moderates attempted to reach across the aisle to Democrats and work out compromise legislation in 2009 with no success. If moderates that are left don't warm up to the most extreme Indiana-style voter suppression legislation preferred by the new extreme Republican majority, look for this contentious issue to result in a traditional family reunion-like quarrel.
Arizona-style Immigration Reform
Republican Debbie Riddle, arguably the chair of the extreme element of the Texas Republican Party, championed not only Arizona-style immigration legislation, but something tougher then even that. Rick Perry took a moderate position in the recent gubernatorial election, recognizing that attacking the fastest growing population in the country's 2nd largest state is not smart politics for the future of the GOP. Will newly elected Republican extremists get the message that Arizona-style legislation, or tougher, is not good for Texas or the GOP? If not, this contentious issue could become the proverbial nail in the caucus coffin.
As we have seen from the Washington D.C. policy-making process, having super majorities doesn't always result in the legislation the majority party expects. A Party such as the GOP that has prided itself on caucus discipline married itself to the most extreme, fringe elements of Republicans in order to win this cycle. Given the contentious and pressing issues facing all legislators in 2011, this marriage could very well end in a bitter divorce two years from now.
Rightwing voter suppression tactics may cause the death of any legislation passing out of the Texas House.
This is a simple situation of the far right not being able to agree with the moderate Republicans in the House who are trying to at least attempt to compromise with Democrats. There are a large group of Democrats who want to preserve the ability of every Texan to vote, and so it is the middle of the pack on both sides of the aisle who will get this bill passed.
Brandi Grissom of the El Paso times sums up the fight in a piece yesterday.
GOP lawmakers unwilling to compromise on strict voter identification requirements they have made a priority at the Capitol may be the very ones who kill the effort in the Texas House, state Rep. Todd Smith, R-Euless, said Wednesday.
"If the far right is unwilling to accommodate on this legislation to any extent, then they do have the power to succeed in killing voter ID, and I will certainly allow them to do so," Smith said.
In the wake of a new, more restrictive bill, the Texas Democratic Party is urging people to contact the House Election Committee and request a hearing on this controversial bill.
Today, House Elections Committee Chairman Todd Smith circulated a new, more restrictive version of the Republican Voter ID bill that absolutely requires a Photo ID before a voter would be allowed to cast a regular ballot. The Committee could consider and vote out this legislation on short notice as early as this afternoon or at any time called by Chairman Smith.
Call the House Elections Committee members and tell them you support House Democrats' call for Chairman Smith to schedule a public hearing on this unacceptable version of the Voter ID bill before the Committee even considers taking a vote.
How is the new bill more restrictive?
According to Dave Montgomery at the Fort Worth Star Telegram, the bill takes away all of the compromises and moves it more in line with the Betty Brown, Warren Chisum, Tom Craddick wing of the party.
Smith, R-Euless, backed away from his original plan, which allowed voters to present a photo ID or two forms of non-photo ID, after 71 of the 76 House Republicans issued a statement insisting on a strict photo ID law.
In another major change, Smith also modified a provision in his earlier proposal that would have kept the bill from taking effect for four years in order to educate voters about the new ID requirements. Now it would become effective in January 2011.
Voters who are indigent, have a religious objection to the documentation, or live in a nursing home would be exempt from the photo ID requirements in Smith's revised plan. The bill would also exempt voters who are at least 70 years old and never had a birth certificate because their births weren't recorded with a state vital statistics office.
It's important to note these changes make the House voter suppression bill worse than SB 362.
As the Texas Democratic Party points out, Voter ID requirements place costly and time-consuming new bureaucratic barriers between voters and the ballot box that will make it harder for all of us to vote. There is no evidence of voter impersonation and Texans face far more urgent problems, but Texas Republicans are following a national Republican agenda to keep failed leaders in office with laws that would reduce turnout among seniors, students, people of color and those with lower incomes.
The fact that SB362 and ever other voter suppression bill is legislation in search of a problem may be a big reason why nobody in the Republican Party can agree on how to legislate it.
The Austin Chronicle has an incredibly impressive write up of the on-going shenanigans. Lee Nichols talked with Republican Todd Smith who said:
"But they want it without any money for registering voters, or without a transition period, or without a signature verifying process," Smith continued. "Then I don't get the marginal votes. It's time to find out whether Rep. Brown and Rep. Harper-Brown want a voter ID bill, because my distinct impression at this point is that they do not. For whatever reason, I am under the distinct impression that they want to kill it, and I may give them the opportunity to do that."
There are only a few weeks left, and the fact the target is moving around so much is the exact reason why more public input is necessary. People's ability to engage in our democracy is too important to have a thrown together piece of partisan legislation.
There are only two solutions. 1) more public input to work through possible problems and legal challenges or 2) refuse to pass a radical, restrictive piece of anti-voter legislation.
In either case, Speaker Joe Straus and Election Committee Chair Todd Smith are the two people in the drivers seats now.
There is no word on his replacement, but Frank Corte is definitely relinquishing his control of the House Republican Caucus.
Laylan Copelin write's Corte will not seek re-election as chairman of the Texas House GOP caucus.
Corte was late to support fellow Bexar county Representative and fellow Republican Straus (if he ever really did). In fact, Corte has been a loyal Craddick lieutenant which is where his influence came from.
He said some people thought it would be good to have the speaker and the GOP caucus leader from San Antonio. Others thought Corte might be put in the awkward position of criticizing a member of his local delegation.
Corte said he's interested in helping rebuilding the House GOP majority and thought he could do that better outside the caucus leadership.
Corte, Craddick, and Chisum have lost control of the Texas House and they are quickly losing control of the state. It will be interesting to see how many bills these men pass with little influence.
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.
As Matt mentioned, there is a group of House members rumored to be approaching Rep. Warren Chisum about a possible run for speaker. And again as Matt said, such a move reflects the misplaced priorities of Republican House members and how increasingly out of touch the Republican leadership is with Texas families.
Rep. Chisum wasted precious legislative time this session as he fought tooth and nail to pass two bills (HB 2683 & HB 2685)that sought to regulate and tax marriage using funds designated for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). These bills were killed many times throughout the session, but somehow Chisum kept reviving them and dragging them along. As Miss Thompson said, "Even Lazarus only came back from the dead once".
At any rate, Chisum and the Republican leadership set forth and passed these bills that would "alleviate poverty" by promoting "healthy marriage". The state is directed to take money intended for needy families and dole it out in the form of grants to marriage counselors. Couples that take counseling can then receive a discount on their marriage license. Taking classes run by the clergy also qualifies you for a discount from the marriage tax. The thinking goes that if poor people just get married and get a little counseling, then they won't be poor anymore. Never mind investments in job training or public and higher education, taking money from needy families and spending it on marriage counselors should do the trick.
A recent ruling from the Republican Texas Supreme Court found that a clergyman is also allowed to divulge secrets from counseling sessions without any sort of repercussion. A woman confided in her clergyman that she had had an extramarital affair, and the clergyman then turned around and told the entire congregation. The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that she would not be able to sue him in order to hold him liable for divulging facts told in confidence during counseling sessions. Rep. Chisum, Speaker Craddick and the rest of the Republican leadership in this state prefer to take money from needy families to send it to people that will not be held accountable if they violate the trust of those who come to them for marriage counseling.
Tell me again how that alleviates poverty? I'm ready for some leadership in this state that has mainstream, sensible solutions to the issues facing Texas. The current far right wing agenda was crushed on the national level, it's time for some of that change to trickle down to our state.
The Texas Republican Party has been on the losing side of a lot of battles lately. Looking back just 2 years Democrats have won 7 state House seats, picked up 2 Congressional seats, won all but one special election, defended every incumbent in Austin. Remember that Tom DeLay guy? He is gone too. Not to mention the fact that Dallas County is blue and Harris is on the tipping point.
It’s a good time to be a Democrat in Texas. We are learning to win again, and with John Cornyn vulnerable we are starting to factor in to the national debate.
The Wall Street Journal wrote a piece few could have hoped for in 2004, The Troubled Texas GOP. Where did the GOP stranglehold on Texas go?
Don't believe that voters would ever draw such a conclusion in Texas? In June several national polls found younger voters are turning away from the GOP. One of them, conducted by CBS News, the New York Times and MTV, found that 54% of 17- to 29-year-olds would vote for a Democratic candidate for president, while only 32% would vote Republican.
[...]
"There's a certain inevitability in demographics," [Royal Masset] told me. "We knew that if we could win 40% of the Hispanic vote," as Mr. Bush did in 2004, "we'd control Texas until 2030." But in 2006, the number of Texas Hispanics who voted Republican fell to between 30% and 35% (depending on the poll).
This shift alone spells trouble for Republicans. Many conservatives may not want to hear it, but Mr. Masset puts the blame on talk radio and cable TV reaction to immigration reform. He says an uncompromising attitude toward comprehensive reform and appeals to fear sometimes carry a whiff of racism that alienates Hispanics. "Houston is no more than six years behind Dallas," he warns.
Extremists have hijacked the Republican Party and they are driving their own party further out of touch with average American’s.
Ed. note: This is a lengthy post, we know, but worth the extended read.
For those that like parliamentary theater, last night's House debate was one of a kind -- and one where the House Democrats, led by the ever relentless and powerful Rep. Senfronia Thompson, came close to defeating one of the worst bills of the session.
Yesterday, the Texas House was scheduled to take up HB 3678 by Rep. Charlie Howard (R-Sugar Land). The bill is supposed to ensure that school districts cannot infringe on a student's religious freedom of expression. From the bill analysis:
C.S.H.B. 3678 codifies these court decisions and the constitutional ways a student, or groups of students, may express their faith at school and at school sponsored events.
Proponents of the bill argue that too often a student's right to free speech -- namely, religious expression during class time or at school sponsored events -- are limited by the school district. In reality, this bill is a result of the Bill O'Reilly "War on Christmas" fight (Source), which makes mountains out of molehills. Rep. Howard and others stated on the House floor that students are being told they can't say "Christmas" in school, and the state should step in and clarify for school districts exactly what is allowed and not allowed in schools.
[Interesting side note: The landmark 'Bong Hits 4 Jesus' student free-speech case is scheduled to be heard before the Supreme Court. Source.]
After no more than a couple hours of debate, Rep. Warren Chisum decided that, after a couple amendments, he'd heard enough from House Democrats protesting the bill and moved to limit debate on all House amendments. That's right, Rep. Warren Chisum and 25 of his House colleagues decided it was best to limit the debate on a free speech bill.
Ultimately, the motion to limit amendments failed. Rep. Thompson demanded, and successfully won the right, to have the names read from the front mike, and the bill was "courteously" postponed until Monday. But not until Rep. Thompson had a showdown with Speaker Craddick though -- and won.
The larger question, though, is why try to limit the debate on free speech in the first place? Was it because Rep. Chisum believed everyone had made up their mind and the House was wasting time on a bill everyone already knew how they would vote on (as he stated on the House floor)? Or was it because he was scared the bill would be defeated?
Rep. Warren Chisum, R-Pampa, said learning about the Bible is necessary to understanding America and Western culture.
Interesting, but I must disagree. I believe what is necessary to understanding America and Western culture is our children understanding the United States Constitution. Specifically things like freedom of religion and separation of church and state. For good measure I'd throw in United States history as well, but go ahead and toss in a bit of World History too. Kids in Japan can recite the first 10 presidents of the United States and the best our high school students can do is recite the top ten contestants on American Idol.
