It was a sea of people. Capitol staffers, reporters, dozens of elected officials from both sides of the aisle, and a few tourist all mixed under the rotunda today.
Every balcony was full with camera flashes and inquisitive pointing.
I sat front and center among TV cameras from across the city and state. Constantly bumped by paper media, citizen journalist and the unfortunate souls simply at the wrong place at the right time.
Because of the size, I broke the press conference into two parts-- Straus and Straus supporters.
The reality of it was that Straus spoke, his supporters from both sides of the aisle spoke, and then he took nearly 5 minutes of questions. The Q&A was particularly interesting because Craddick has avoided cameras since November 2008. Already we see a huge departure of access and transparency in the Speakers office.
Straus has already announced 96 Representatives pledged to support him or roughly 2/3 of the entire House of Representatives. One of the few names surprisingly missing is Rep. Frank Corte who also represents San Antonio. It seems Representative Corte would want a Speaker from San Antonio in order to better serve his district.
There is a certain point at which keeping track of the new pledges will be pointless but so long as there are people that think there is a speaker's race still going on, we'd be remiss not to post the latest additions.
There were the original 85 pledges and they will be rewarded more than most. Then Turner (D), Guillen (D), and Button (R) added their support to make 88.
Then overnight there was Rep. Mike "Tuffy" Hamilton (R) and Patricia Harless (R) for 90.
And 6 more have been released for a total of 96 publicly listed. Kronberg says 98 but he's either double counting 2 votes or those two haven't been released yet. We're checking that out.
Republicans Rep. Rob Orr (withdrew support from Smithee)
Joe Driver
Wayne Smith
John Davis
Harvey Hildebran
Democrats Al Edwards
That leaves Democrat Harold Dutton as the only Democrat who has not pledged to Straus.
(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.
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.
(Taking a quick break from developments in the Speaker's race, here's an item of interest to Austin politicos. The Statesman story on this suggests that another month-long delay for Leffingwell's presumed mayoral campaign could prove costly to him in terms of fundraising and momentum - a fact which I'm sure is not lost on McCracken's team. Here's the memo McCracken wrote to the City Legal department. - promoted by Matt Glazer)
In his continuing quest to eliminate his main rival from the upcoming Austin Mayoral race, declared candidate Brewster McCracken has come up with a new legal twist that could delay his presumed opponent Lee Leffingwell's entry into the race by another month.
In the current understanding of state law, a candidate with more than a year remaining on his/her term who files for another office triggers an election for the vacated seat that must be held within 120 days. Leffingwell has pledged not to cause the city to hold an election separate from the already scheduled May municipal election, as it costs approximately $400-500k to hold an election. Vacating 120 days before the May election (which would be next week) would allow the special election to be held on the same ballot as the regular election, thus avoiding extra cost.
In the latest twist, McCracken and a college buddy have drafted a legal memo which posits that it is not sufficient to simply have a special election within 120 days, but that the vacated seat must actually be filled within 120 days. With threestrongcandidates already lining up to contest for Leffingwell's vacated seat, the possibility of a run-off is strong. If a run-off election occurs a month later, it will occur approximately 150 days after Leffingwell vacated the seat (assuming vacation next week). McCracken's analysis states that Leffingwell cannot vacate and declare until mid-February in order to comply with the 120 day requirement.
McCracken's legal maneuvering came in the form of a memo drafted and forwarded to City Legal for an opinion. City legal is generally very hesitant to provide legal opinions to candidates for office regardless of their status as current officeholders, so this memo can be interpreted as a shot across the bow to Leffingwell's campaign. Either McCracken forces him to delay his announcement a month (reducing fundraising and campaigning time), or if Leffingwell calls the bluff, he establishes a legal position for a lawsuit changing the date of the special election. I don't believe there would be any case for disqualification of Leffingwell; this appears to be a doomsday device alleging that a Leffingwell entry next week would cost the city money.
How should Leffingwell respond? My thinking is that he should call the bluff and declare next week. If McCracken or an ally files a lawsuit against the city forcing the special election to be moved forward, it would be McCracken costing the city money, not Leffingwell. Furthermore, voters tend to dislike petty electoral games, so Brewster could suffer a double political hit.
Of course, this assumes that City Legal doesn't advise the Council in either direction. If the city attorney returns an opinion concurring with Brewster's legal position, then Leffingwell should comply and wait until next month. Times running out, so we should know shortly.
Section 11 - TERM OF OFFICE EXCEEDING TWO YEARS IN HOME RULE AND GENERAL LAW CITIES; VACANCIES
(a) A Home Rule City may provide by charter or charter amendment, and a city, town or village operating under the general laws may provide by majority vote of the qualified voters voting at an election called for that purpose, for a longer term of office than two (2) years for its officers, either elective or appointive, or both, but not to exceed four (4) years; provided, however, that tenure under Civil Service shall not be affected hereby; provided, however, that such officers, elective or appointive, are subject to Section 65(b), Article XVI, of this Constitution, providing for automatic resignation in certain circumstances, in the same manner as a county or district officer to which that section applies.
(b) A municipality so providing a term exceeding two (2) years but not exceeding four (4) years for any of its non-civil service officers must elect all of the members of its governing body by majority vote of the qualified voters in such municipality, and any vacancy or vacancies occurring on such governing body shall not be filled by appointment but must be filled by majority vote of the qualified voters at a special election called for such purpose within one hundred and twenty (120) days after such vacancy or vacancies occur. (Added Nov. 4, 1958; amended Nov. 6, 2001.)
Strauss will stop the GOP hemorrhaging seats in the chamber, and possibly deny Democrats a majority until after redistricting? How? Why? Because Strauss is the GOP establishment. He'll bring money and power to a House Republican campaign organization that needs it. He'll bring a fresh, less controversial face-one that will be awfully hard for Democrats to hang on GOP incumbents necks' like an albatross come 2010. It means less gains in seats for Democrats, and, possibly, less Democratic holds.
Vince is expressing an opinion I've heard repeatedly, by Democrats inside and outside the blog world -- that Democrats would have been better off to keep Craddick in the Chair. So when I refute this, I'm not just picking on Vince -- I'm legitimately concerned that this will be the conventional wisdom, and we'll have to spend the next 22 months explaining ourselves.
The House Democrats are stronger than ever.
I mean, seriously -- the caucus laid out 64 names in writing, and delivered, as a block, over 70 votes to Straus. Party unity of that magnitude is only a negative in a world of purely pavlovian psychosis, where the commenter is trained to think that anything a Democrat does must be wrong.
It's OK to be happy about winning. Really.
Demographics are only in our favor.
The growth in suburban and ex-urban communities largely favors Democrats. Rep. Harper-Brown is gone with a strong opponent (which is already being recruited). Rep.-elect Ken Legler will be a very vulnerable freshman Republican. Who knows what West Texas retirements may bring us -- so far, they've brought us Rep. Joe Heflin and Rep.-elect Joe Moody. Volunteers in Dallas & Harris counties can focus on state races and not the Obama campaign.
Politics are still very much in our favor.
Yes, Tom Craddick will no longer be Speaker. But we still have David Dewhurst and Rick Perry running the show, both of whom are staunch conservatives -- potentially even more so than Craddick -- who are not going to be catering to any progressive policies any time soon. A challenger Democrat can still say "Republicans in Austin" just as easily as he/she could say "Tom Craddick."
We alson don't know what will happen with Straus/Smithee as Speaker. We have to wait and see -- but there's no guarantee that we're going to suddenly have an incredible shift towards progressive policies. The only change will be framing that discussion about issues to constituents and large donors, to ensure we have the votes and money to put that message in play. But we have to wait and see where session takes us, first. Which brings me to....
The policies are still in our favor.
When we talk about "restoring CHIP" we don't mean just getting back to the May 2002 level of 529,000 children enrolled. The estimates are much closer to around 725,000 children that should be enrolled in CHIP -- and that's just using the 200% federal poverty limit standard. The new administration is likely going to make it easier and encourage states to raise the FPL limit. Texas isn't going to go from providing the worst health care coverage for kids to the best health care coverage for kids just because a different Republican is Speaker. (Remember, Dewhurst was the real obstacle in 2007).
We need at least a tuition freeze, an increase in funding for our schools, and more Top Tier universities. But even the Austin American-Statesman doesn't think we should have more Top Tier schools. Granted, it's because UT-Austin doesn't want it b/c UT-Austin could never have enough money....but that's another fight for another post. The point is, whatever we accomplish this session (and it should be more than last time), we won't be done fighting for full tuition relief for Texas families.
Insurance rates. Homeowners coverage. Utility relief. Margins tax reform. School finance changes. Forward-thinking renewable energy policies and 21st new technology planning. Those issues aren't off the table just because we have a new Speaker. Those issues just have a more honest hearing in the Texas House -- which is a tremendous step in the right direction, but we still have a ways to go.
There will be politics & policy for Democrats to run on in 2010. There should still be major funders, provided that we still have strong candidates, strong GOTV plans, and a large network of staffers capable of executing the strategies. And our Democratic Party unity should be as strong as ever, so that if we can just pick up a few more seats, we can elect a Democrat Speaker in 2010.
Whether it is Rep. Joe Straus or Rep. John Smithee, those scenarios remain the same, with only marginal changes based on how well we can cooperate to put policies ahead of politics for the next five months. But come election season, Democrats will be Democrats, Republicans will be Republicans, and we'll all still be beating each other up over the best direction for Texas. As it should be, and as it will always be.
The only difference is now with Craddick gone, the fight will be fair, and focused on issues. And I'm never going to think that is a bad thing.
The likely ascendance of San Antonio moderate and two-term Republican, Joe Straus, to the Speakership signals a clear shift in leadership, tone, and overall direction not only in the House, but also the Texas Republican Party. It also signals an opportunity for Democrats to move forward with a moderate progressive agenda that is good for Texas and actually receive a fair hearing in the House.
The Tarrant County Democratic delegation signaled clear support for Straus. Talking with Representative-elect Chris Turner, he came away very impressed with a weekend meeting with Straus:
There are a number of reasons why he will be a good speaker, but the most important to me is his commitment to run the House in a fair and bipartisan manner. If we have a fair process, I am hopeful we can get some meaningful things accomplished for the people of Texas.
Representative Paula Pierson echoed some of the same sentiments on Straus:
He [Straus] is bright but he is fair. He is not a bully. I believe he wants what is best for Texas and not himself.
Representative Marc Veasey added the following in a phone call last night:
Straus is a pragmatic, down to earth, good guy who gets along with Democrats and Republicans. I'm confident the Democratic agenda will be heard, that all sides will be heard, and although we might not always agree that we will find more common ground then we have since I've been in Austin.
The Star-Telegram quoted Representative Burnam as having highly favorable opinions of the new incoming Speaker of the 81st Legislative session as well. For the first time in six years a heavy hand on the gavel will give way to a pragmatic one.
One thing is for certain, a fight for the soul of the Republican Party has boiled into the public domain with the more extreme wing versus the more moderate wing jockeying for leadership of the Texas GOP. It remains to be seen whether Straus has the backbone to withstand a withering fire from the more extreme wing or be forced to do more dealing with moderate Republicans and Democrats in order to pass legislation that is good for Texas. If the latter is the case, the more extreme wing will be boxed into an irrelevant corner. That signals a new day in politics in Texas.
Considering that Representative Straus appears to have majority support amongst the House, he deserves an opportunity to restore bi-partisanship and pragmatism to Texas politics in order to set a more constructive tone to the upcoming legislative session.
As pointed out in this comment, it's not uncommon for speakers of the Texas House to rise to that position after only a brief time in the legislature. In fact, some rather powerful and effective speakers were elected early in their terms.
Now past performance is certainly not an indicator of future success but for all those trying to make a big to do about longevity in the house an issue, I thought I'd highlight this.
Time is running out for Tom Craddick and John Smithee. Joe Straus has added three more to his list.
As KT reported earlier, Straus announced a list of 85 pledged votes. With the addition of the below mentioned Representatives, Straus is sitting on 88 or nearly 60% of the entire Texas House.
Speaker Pro-Tem Sylvester Turner
Representative Ryan Guillen
Representative-Elect Angie Chen Button
The h/t goes to Elise Hu who is doing a masterful job reporting the pre-session craziness.
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.
Dave Carney, a consultant to the political committee that backed GOP House incumbents in this year’s elections, told me Craddick will win another two-year stint as speaker, further suggesting that anti-Craddick sentiment doesn’t reflect general voter concerns. He said it’s driven instead by “guys sitting around in their underwear” writing political blogs.
List now fully updated indicating the Gang of 11 and former Craddick D's (may that name now be retired!). I'd also like to note that Burnt Orange Report was the only place that reported Doug Miller's alignment with Straus becoming one of only 4 non-Gang of 11 GOP members on Straus' list.
Here is Straus' pledged votes for speaker in full.
Republicans (15 total)
G11 indicates member of the Gang of 11 Republicans that selected Straus.
Dan Branch
Byron Cook (G11)
Rob Eissler (G11)
Gary Elkins
Charlie Geren (G11)
Delwin Jones (G11)
Jim Keffer (G11)
Edmund Kuempel (G11)
Brian McCall (G11)
Tommy Merritt (G11)
Doug Miller
Jim Pitts (G11)
Burt Solomons (G11)
Todd Smith
Joe Straus (G11)
Democrats (70 Total)
CD indicats Democrat who voted for Craddick in 2007. Some had since pulled support.
Alma Allen
Roberto Alonzo
Carol Alvarado
Rafael Anchia
Valinda Bolton
Lon Burnam
Joaquin Castro
Norma Chavez (CD)
Ellen Cohen
Garnet Coleman
Yvonne Davis
Joe Deshotel (CD)
Dawnna Dukes (CD)
Jim Dunnam
Craig Eiland
Kirk England
Joe Farias
David Farabee
Jessica Farrar
Kino Flores (CD)
Stephen Frost
Pete Gallego
Helen Giddings (CD)
Veronica Gonzalez
Yvonne Gonzalez Toureilles
Roland Gutierrez
Joe Heflin
Ana Hernandez
Abel Herrero
Scott Hochberg
Terri Hodge
Mark Homer
Chuck Hopson
Donna Howard
Carol Kent
Tracy King (CD)
David Leibowitz
Eddie Lucio (CD)
Diana Maldonado
Barbara Mallory Caraway
Marisa Marquez
Armando Martinez
Trey Martinez Fischer
Ruth Jones McClendon (CD)
Jim McReynolds
Jose Menendez
Robert Miklos
Joe Moody
Elliott Naishtat
Rene Oliveira
Dora Olivo
Solomon Ortiz
Aaron Pena (CD)
Joe Pickett
Paula Pierson
Chente Quintanilla
Richard Raymond
Tara Rios Ybarra
Allan Ritter
Eddie Rodriguez
Patrick Rose (CD)
Mark Strama
Kristi Thibaut
Senfronia Thompson
Chris Turner
Allen Vaught
Marc Veasey
Mike Villarreal
Hubert Vo
Armando Walle
Democrats Not on Straus's List: (4 Total)
Harold Dutton (CD)
Al Edwards*
Ryan Guillen (CD)
Sylvester Turner (CD)
*Note: Al Edwards was not in the lege in 2007 but had been a Craddick Supporter prior to his primary defeat by Borris Miles, who he in turn defeated in 2008 to return to the legislature.
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.
