A Modest Proposal: Ebay the Speaker’s Apartment

Today we receive the news that former Texas House Speaker Tom Craddick, and his spendthrift wife, Nadine, went on a $169,400 spending spree during the last week he was in office - after announcing he would not stand for re-election - liberating these funds from the State Preservation Fund to put the finishing touches on their $1.3 million remodeling project. A project to remodel the 1804 square foot Speaker’s apartment that lies beyond the Speaker’s private door to the House chamber.

By my reckoning, that comes to about $720 per square foot.

During the last week of his term, the Speaker placed orders for 2 paintings totaling $45,400, a crystal chandelier for $75,000, $26,500 for a piece of furniture, and another chandelier for $22,500.

Leaving a grand total of $18.50 in the remodeling fund.

To what end Craddick did this, I can only guess, but I imagine that since it was Tom Craddick who got his wealthy contributors and lobbyists to pony up the 1.3 million in the first place, the last thing he was going to do was let that horse racing promoter Straus use it.

Well I have a modest proposal.

Let’s send a message to these two people, who will forever be remembered as symbols of gratuitous excess and opulence. Let’s put all of this stuff on Ebay.

Then let’s use the proceeds to buy office supplies for the Texas Legislature for the next 10 years.

W Will Leave DC on the 20th and Fly to . . . Midland?

I couldn’t think of anything more appropriate. When George W. Bush flies over the crowd assembled to watch Barack Obama be sworn in as the 44^th President of the United States, his first destination will be Midland, Texas.

Midland, where when it rains, it rains mud.

Midland, just a hop skip and a jump from . . . Odessa.

Midland, the armpit of Texas.

Midland, the home of Tom Craddick.

It turns out that Midland, Texas is where Bush celebrated his big send-off in January 2001. Midland.

So in order to come full circle, they have arranged to receive Citizen Bush in the exact same place where President-Elect Bush departed from.

I guess it’s sort of like how Barack Obama plans on taking the same train trip from Springfield to DC that Abe Lincoln took when he took office in March 1861.

OK, not really.

But just imagine how nice it will be for Midlanders who will be the first to celebrate the fact that George W. Bush is no longer President. I imagine Tom Craddick (R - Midland) will be there to welcome his good friend home. And why not? It’s not like he is going to be extremely busy at the beginning of the legislative session.

I guess that’s one of the percs of being shown the door by his ex-friends and 70 Democrats.

And I guess that’s something Tom and George will have slightly in common, huh?

George figuratively, Tom literally.

Joe Straus is the New Messiah

Why not? In a time when we are on the rebound from “Joe the Plumber,” from “Joe the Anything,” why not “Joe the Messiah”?

That is what a bloc of eleven Anyone But Craddick (including Joe) Republican state house Members must be thinking. That and the hope that they can get the votes of 64 Anyone But Craddick Democrats.

The Dallas Morning News story summarizing it all also says this about the man chosen to save the Texas State House from the reign of the tyrant Tom Craddick:

“Straus is seen as even-handed and smart and someone who has worked with members on both sides of the aisle. He also is seen as a newcomer, which might cause some members to balk at elevating him.”

A newcomer he is, with only 3 years in the state body, although he has served in several Republican appointed positions during the Reagan and Bush-41 administration. He is also known for his family affiliation, the Straus family of San Antonio, which brought horse racing, and I assume pari mutuel betting, to San Antonio.

So Joe Straus seems to be a betting man.

A man who is betting that his very weakness, his lack of years in the state house compared to Craddick’s 4 decades of state house service, will be seen as his chief strength. He is known long enough to be seen as one who reaches across the aisle, but not long enough to have placed too many knives in the backs of his colleagues.

Something we cannot say about Tom Craddick.

Now I guess the only questions left to the 64 member ABC Democratic bloc in the House are these:

a) Is this guy named Tom Craddick?
b) If not, can they work with him?
c) If so, will Straus create a rift within his own caucus?

If the answers are, respectively, No, Yes, and Maybe then the way seems clear, doesn’t it?

On the Perils of Addition

I follow a canon in life that has served me well over the years. On its face, it seems a little obvious, and that’s part of its elegance. It’s a simply stated obvious fact, but I think people forget about its truth sometimes. Here it is:

Some of it plus the rest of it equals all of it.

Now where am I going with this? It has to do with the public pronouncement of 64 Democratic Texas House Members who have publicly proclaimed that they will vote for Anybody But Craddick on January 13^th.

Now 64 votes don’t make a majority but that’s the point. These 64 ABC votes represent the “some of it” in my equation. The announcement comes on the heels of the notice that a 12^th House Member has thrown his hat in the ring to become Speaker. These 12, a mish-mash whose views run across the political spectrum, represent “the rest of it.” The intent here is to demonstrate that there are 76 ABC votes out there and Tom Craddick’s hope for a 4^th term as Speaker is doomed.

That is, if indeed we have 12 actual “rest of it” votes, and I’m not so sure we do. And therein lies the rub: when we do this addition, we need to be certain we have the right numbers.

First we have the enigma that is Sylvester Turner. Now Turner announced that he was running for Speaker just before the end of the 80^th Legislature. Right at about the time that he was supporting Craddick’s refusal to recognize a motion to remove him from the Speaker’s office. Sylvester Turner, I think, is not part of “the rest of it” and from the lack of his signature on the ABC 64 document, he’s not part of “some of it” either.

And you really have to wonder about the sincerity of Dan Gattis. Is this guy still playing the role of stalking horse for Craddick? Granted I am influenced by his filing of a constitutional proposition that seemed on its face to be anti-Craddick. Now you have to wonder, as Matt Glazier does on BOR, whether this is just another ploy.

All of this has such a familiar ring to it, you know. This is how things were playing out the last time we went through this. We have conflicting lists of supporters now as we did then. Indeed, the only names on that list of 12 that I think are “for real” is Senfronia Thompson, Scott Hochberg and Pete Gallego.

We see mostly the same Democrats not signing on to an ABC document. Flores, Dukes, Giddings, Peña, Dutton, Guillen, King, McClendon, and Turner. However, two former Craddick supporters, Rose and Lucio, are now aligned against him.

So the shell game is afoot again and it would normally be such fun to watch, except that there is more at stake this time than last.

Let’s All Run for House Speaker

In the wake of a near-nuclear melt-down in the waning days of the Texas House 80^th Legislature, when House Speaker Tom Craddick refused to recognize a motion from the House floor to remove him as Speaker, you would think that there would be a deliberate line-up of ducks to avoid a repeat performance.

You would think.

But the only line-up we are seeing in the days leading up to the January 13^th vote to elect a Speaker is the line-up of twelve, count ‘em, twelve declared candidates for the spot.

Among the Republicans we have Craddick, of course, along with Delwin Jones, Jim Keffer, Tommy Merritt, Burt Solomons, Edmund Kuempel, and now, just announced today, Dan Gattis.

Among Democrats we have Senfronia Thompson, Pete Gallego, Scott Hochberg, and Sylvester Turner.

That field, however, should thin by mid January when the vote comes up. It always does. Case in point. Tom Craddick was the only House Member nominated in the 2007 Speaker’s race. Even with all of the jockeying for pledges that took place in the run-up to the January 9^th election of Speaker Craddick to a third term, in the end, the vote went to Craddick when he demonstrated his supporter base and maneuvered through the maze of setting rules for voting for Speaker.

This last announcement by Gattis has all of the earmarks of many of the other Craddick challengers. A former shill for Craddick, Gattis has publicly turned on his former patrón. In fact, the common denominator among these Republican candidates (and Turner) is that they are former Craddick allies – in public anyway. In fact, Gattis came out against Craddick in a big way two weeks ago when he filed a constitutional proposition that would allow for the removal of the House Speaker by a 2/3s vote.

And we are now seeing Craddick-esque behavior by Keffer who laid out a smokescreen before the general election saying that his election as Speaker is a done deal and he has the votes.

So the shell game is now being played in earnest. The winner will be the one who plays it best. In the past that has been Tom Craddick. But with a net gain of 3 House seats by the Democrats, my bet is not on Craddick this time. Democrats missed getting parity by a narrow margin, but hopefully they will play a cannier match this time around and not squander their pledges on meaningless advances and advantages.

Texas House District 105 in a Cliff Hanger

What better way to end this election season in Texas state politics than by having a state rep race go from an under-the-radar sleeper to a cliff hanger whose outcome has monumental consequences for the political make-up of the 81st Legislature?

This year, incumbent State Rep Linda Harper-Brown (R-Dallas) was faced by poorly funded Bob Romano who also ran against her in the 2006 general election, and lost to her with a total of 21,568 votes cast, Romano getting 8,865 votes (41.1%) to Harper-Brown’s 11,881 (55.08%).

Prior to that, Mike Moore achieved about the same results when he ran against Harper Brown in 2004 and garnered 14,884 votes (40.8%) to Harper-Brown’s 21,599 (59.2%).

But we are learning about Dallas, aren’t we? The Dallas area continues its swing to the left, making 3-term incumbent Harper-Brown’s safe Republican district anything but safe for her.

This year, with a total of 40, 243 votes cast in the race, Romano and Harper-Brown are in a virtual dead heat with only 29 votes separating them (unofficial Secretary of State results have 25 votes separating them), Harper-Brown leading.

The race will be decided within the next day or so by the counting of 17 overseas ballots that were received today and the counting of provisional ballots.

At this hour with overseas votes having been tallied, Harper-Brown’s lead has widened by 5 votes, and she is now 34 votes ahead.

What lies ahead is the counting of provisional ballots, roughly 230 of them are regarded as valid.

Who wins makes for some interesting times in the Texas House next year. If Romano is the winner of this race, the Democrats will have picked up a net of 4 seats in the House, bringing the total number of Democrats in the House to 75. Yes, if Romano wins, the State House is evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans.

Not only will this seal the fate on the re-election plans of Tom Craddick as House Speaker, with all of the frills and power that comes with the position, but it just could mean the next Texas House Speaker will be a Democrat.

Now I am pessimistic by nature, but I wonder what are the chances that a Republican will cast a provisional ballot in this state? Isn’t it more typical for Democrats, who historically have been far more lackadaisical and disorganized with respect to their voter status?

I guess we’ll find out tomorrow.

UPDATE:

The provisional ballots have given Bob Romano a lift, but not enough to close the gap and surpass Harper-Brown's total.

So . . .

RECOUNT.

Not just the name of a great HBO film on the 2000 Florida recount (judiciously debuted just before the 2008 elections as a small nudge to voters), it is the official request of Democratic candidate Bob Romano.

From the TDP Press:

“I am proud and humbled that so many voters in our community believe I should be our district’s voice in the Texas House. In the coming days, my focus will be on doing everything I can to see that every ballot is counted and that every voter’s intent is known. We must respect the voters, and protect the trust they have placed in our democracy. To that end, I intend to request a re-count of the ballots cast in this election.”

-Bob Romano

The Texas Democratic Party has pulled out all stops to ensure that this recount is fair.

Now with Dallas County totally enveloping HD 105 all eyes will be firmly fixed on their county elections office, and their elections administrator.

A guy with the improbable name of Bruce Sherbet.

I’m kind of partial to the orange variety of that.

How Craddick Was My Olivo?

Just as in the novel How Green Was My Valley, where the main protagonist, Huw (Hugh) Morgan is the smarter brother who wants to rise above his condition, Ron Reynolds is the smarter candidate who wants to rise above Texas House Speaker Tom Craddick’s machine politics.

Early on, after Ron Reynolds made his announcement that he was going to run for his party’s nomination for State Representative for Texas House District 27, before his opponent, Dora Olivo, indicated her desire to run for another term, Reynolds received a telephone call from Texas House leadership probing the possibilities of his support for a 4th Tom Craddick Speaker’s term for the 81st Legislature.

At that time, Reynolds stated categorically to his caller that he was opposed to the dictatorial tactics of Tom Craddick and would oppose his candidacy for Speaker.

Tom Craddick dearly wants to be speaker of the Texas House for another term. He cherishes the power, the prestige and the perquisites that go with the job. Not to mention the fact that he can order money thrown at or withdrawn from anyone he wants.

And because of this, and the fact that Craddick is running out of friends in his own party, and may lose some allies next week from primary challenges within the party that opposes him, Tom Craddick is looking for some new friends.

Some new Craddick D’s.

And where better to look for new friends and allies than in a primary where a progressive Democrat has mounted strong opposition against a moderate Democratic incumbent? A Democratic incumbent whose campaign contributions have lagged behind her upstart opponent’s war chest?

We have been talking about these campaign contributions for awhile. In this piece, I made some noise about Olivo’s acceptance of a $1000 contribution from one of Tom Craddick’s favorite PACs whose disbursements he is said to control: HillCo PAC. This is a very exclusive club of Craddick’s most loyal friends. The club includes, but is not limited to the following Republican State Representatives: Phil King, Betty Brown, John Davis, Mike Jackson and Mike Krusee.

Nice bunch of bedfellows, don’t you think?

Reference to this funding was also made in this piece which reproduced a Ron Reynolds flyer that was circulated in order to beat back a smear campaign that had been mounted against him by the Olivo people.

I have also been watching contributions from the Texas JOBS PAC, a Craddick-run political action committee that got a huge cash infusion from Tom Craddick’s campaign early this year. The next day the PAC made huge cash contributions to several state representatives, all of them former supporters. Only Dawnna Dukes, a Craddick D who is fighting a primary challenge in her district returned the $50,000 wad of cash.

And now, to Dora Olivo, a check for $2,500.00.

Perhaps to keep things below the radar, Texas JOBS PAC made a very recent (recent as in February 26th recent) contribution to State Rep. Dora Olivo’s campaign fund, a not so insignificant $2,500 donation. One wonders why this entry was placed in the TEC campaign report form with the PAC’s full name (Texas Builds Jobs & Opportunity For A Secure Future PAC INC), to confuse and befuddle people?

To hide something?

No, what we have here is an incipient Craddick D. Vince at Capitol Annex, who has written, in the past, some uncomplimentary words about Ron Reynolds, is also somewhat alarmed at these events. He asks the question “So, what is the deal? Is Craddick trying to buy her love (and her vote)…”?

My question is rather, since these contributions have not been turned away by Olivo, when did Dora Olivo start becoming a Craddick D?

And if you have not voted yet, it’s time to get off the dime and vote for the man who will not be Tom Craddick’s pawn in the next session.

Ron Reynolds.

And, oh yeah, vote for Barack Obama, too.

How Much Does It Cost to Be Texas Speaker of the House?

According to the complaint filed by the watchdog group Texans for Public Justice, it’s going to take at least 250 large if Tom Craddick has his way.

I don’t know, it looks pretty blatant to me. You be the judge and take a look for yourself. Here is the 30-Day before primary February 4th 2008 electronic filing for the Texas Jobs PAC, a PAC that had a zero balance in its January 15th semi-annual filing, but all of a sudden had well over 300 thousand in contributions in its February 4th filing. One of the largest contributions is to be found at the bottom of page 5, a $250,000 contribution from the Tom Craddick Campaign Fund. This contribution is dated 10 January, 2008. On the very next page, the political expenditures, shows three payments of $50,000 each to House Democrats, Kevin Bailey, Kino Flores, and Aaron Peña – all dated 11 January, 2008. Another such payment allegedly went to Dawnna Dukes, but it is said that she refused the contribution. Of the other three, only Kevin Bailey has commented on receipt of the funds.

I mean, really, it takes only one day and the money is laundered? Has it gotten so perversely corrupt in Austin? One day the Jobs PAC gets a tremendous boost, and the next it is all but gone to three House Democrats who supported Tom Craddick in the last speaker election? Can the intent be any more clear? Here is the gist of the complaint:

"Under the so-called speaker’s statute, speaker candidates are prohibited from using any political funds accepted under Title 15 of the Election Code to aid their candidacy. The $250,000 that Texas Jobs PAC received came from Craddick campaign funds that were accepted under Title 15. "

Well, according to the Chron story, the case, filed at the Travis County DA’s office, as are all complaints of criminal malfeasance of public officials filed in this state, is currently under review in their “Public Integrity Unit”. Out of this same organization sprang the criminal money laundering indictments against Tom DeLay, indictments that are still hanging over his head.

That investigation, by the way, cost Tom Craddick’s campaign fund $75,000 in lawyers’ fees. 75 grand just to get his name taken off the DA’ suspect list.

I wonder how much it will cost him this time?

A Democratic Speaker in the Texas State Legislature?

Let’s take a break from the presidential hustings that have now shifted to New Hampshire. God knows we need it. I want to look back to state politics for a second and make some observations.

In 2008 there will be 26 Democratic challengers to Republican incumbents in the State House. Twenty-six. If this seems like a big number, then you are not wrong. Some of these challenges are in arguably safe Republican districts, but I am certain that if you asked the Republicans who live in Dan Barrett’s HD 97, they would have said the same thing. Granted, some districts are still too red to flip, but consider the odds. All we need are one in five odds in order to turn 5 house districts, and that, means a 75-75 split in the Texas House. One more and the Democrats have a majority. If we win one in four house races, we have a majority.

And then do you know what happens next?

We have a new Texas Speaker of the House.

A Speaker elected by the new majority. A Democratic Speaker.

There are just a whole bunch of Republicans who want to unseat Tom Craddick, the Republican state rep who has exercised what amounts to autocratic rule over the House. Some still side with Craddick, but with a Democratic majority, I think we don’t have to worry any more about which moderate conservative we want to elect.

Now that we have Democrats running for the Speaker’s spot.

These Democrats include State Rep Senfronia Thompson and State Rep. Sylvester Turner. Both have filed in the race for Speaker, the election to be held in the early days of January 2009. Of the two, I am guessing that Sylvester Turner will be garnering whatever votes the Republicans don’t cast for their own party’s nominees. Turner, you see, turned his back on his Democratic colleagues in the waning days of the 80th Legislature, as he stooped to support Tom Craddick in his lust for absolute power. When Tom Craddick wasn’t at the speaker’s desk turning away Democratic calls for removal of the speaker, State Rep and Speaker Pro Tem Sylvester Turner was there, doing likewise.

This leaves only one obvious Democratic candidate for Speaker of the House, and that is State Rep. Senfronia Thompson.

So when we retake Texas, by retaking the State House majority, we will have a new day in Texas, and a new Speaker of the House: Senfronia Thompson.

Texas AG Abbott Sides With Craddick

Just hours before the opinion’s deadline, Texas Attorney General issued what amounted to a moral victory for House Speaker Tom Craddick. Moral victory in that in his opinion, the AG found that Craddick, as House Speaker, held a statewide office, and as a statewide office holder, could only be removed by impeachment in the Texas Senate.

Some would say that that is a flat out victory for Craddick, and its effect does amount to victory. Curiously, Abbott refused to cross the line and issue an interpretation on House rules.

“This office will adhere to the Texas Constitution's separation of powers doctrine and long-standing precedent in declining to answer questions requiring an interpretation of Senate and House rules or questions regarding legislative parliamentary decisions.”

Oh please. Are we not full of ourselves? Abbott does not deign to make an opinion on House rules because why? Would his opinion become House rules? Does his opinion carry the force of constitutional law? No, Abbott did not go there because in going there he would be finding all of the statements made on parliamentary procedure in all of the briefs filed to be absolutely valid. Craddick overstepped his authority in claiming that his power was absolute. Craddick cannot refuse to recognize a member. To do so would be to disenfranchise every constituent in the member’s district.

Abbott knew this, so he just left it alone, giving the inviolability of the separation of powers as his reason.

How does that work? How do you issue an opinion that the House Speaker is a statewide office holder, and that’s OK, but on the other hand refuse to render an opinion on House rules, because the Executive Branch can’t meddle in the affairs of the Legislative?

It works because you just say it works, that’s how that works. But AG Abbott is fooling no one here. Keffer and Cook alluded to a football metaphor in saying that AG Abbott punted and fumbled. I’ll go them one better by observing that what AG Abbott really did was take the game ball and hide it somewhere.

OK, Have To Nip This One In The Bud

I noticed that Kuffner mentioned my two stories on Ron Reynolds, who will oppose Dora Olivo in the Texas March primary for the HD 27 seat. He mentioned Dora’s ’06 opponent then also:

“What I recall from the '06 primary is that there were questions about whether Brown was being backed by Tom Craddick. I know that Brown himself denied these rumors, and offhand I don't recall any evidence coming out to demonstrate that he had financial backing from Team Craddick, but the questions were there anyway.”

The first thing I thought upon reading that is that someone is going to throw that one at Ron Reynolds, too. It’s already happening in other districts, as Vince pointed out here:

“Evidently applications are now being accepted for the position of “Craddick D’s” in El Paso.”

“Marisa Marquez (D-El Paso) has announced she will challenge Rep. Paul Moreno, the state’s senior Hispanic Democrat and the “conscience” of the Texas House.”

Someone is bound to lay this one at Reynolds’ feet as well.

Here is what I can say about that: Reynolds told me at Saturday’s Democratic Party function that he indeed had been approached by the Craddick camp about running against Dora Olivo, offering him support from The Speaker’s deep pockets. Ron turned them down flat. Ron said that he was definitely not going to be supporting The Speaker, that he was a progressive Democrat like Dora, but that they differ on a few issues. Issues we have already mentioned before. He also re-emphasized to me his desire to help other Democrats win in their races. [I had a John Kerry sign on my lawn in ’04. I’ll bet Ron did, too.]

So let’s not let that one rear its ugly head.

Besides if all of the many, many people who know Ron Reynolds well hear someone say that he’s a Craddick D, I’m afraid that an earthquake will hit HD 27. The first earthquake in geologic history triggered by foot stomping, back slapping, tears in the eyes hilarity.

Behind the Scenes In The Legislature: May 25th 2007

You really have to wonder how many individuals there are out there who are poring over the Texas House archived video from the night of May 25th starting around 7:30 or so. This is archived footage, but as I watch it again, there is so much traffic downloading this bit of history, that the viewing of these events of last month is fraught with pauses in the action as the Realplayer struggles to receive the streaming video.

Why go over this again? I was reading Laylan Copelin’s Sunday rehash of that fateful evening's brouhaha in the House as Tom Craddick struggled to stay in power. It really is an interesting read and really fills in some of the gaps that you can’t see in the video.

Gaps like filling in the fact that Rep. Harold Dutton Jr., (D-Houston) was sitting just off camera to Craddick’s right, rule book in hand. Here is an excerpt from Copelin’s article.

“Dutton, a Craddick supporter, said later that he was there to ask Craddick's advice on how to resurrect one bill and the timing of others. Instead, Dutton may have unwittingly played a role in the resignation of the parliamentarians.”

“Under scrutiny from Dunnam, Craddick can be seen on the House video, first turning to his right, toward Dutton, and to his left, toward Davis, as if looking for an answer.Dutton said he just volunteered — out loud — that a speaker didn't have to recognize a member for a motion to remove him."

"He said he hadn't been part of Craddick's inner circle and didn't consider himself conferring with Craddick — or usurping the parliamentarian as Craddick's adviser on the podium."

“In hindsight, Dutton said, ‘You can read that into it. But why would Craddick be taking advice from me?’"

“Dutton said he had researched the same question about recognition years ago when then-Speaker Gib Lewis refused to recognize him. He learned, he said, that the title ‘speaker’ comes from being the only member who can speak without being recognized.”

“When Dutton popped off an answer to a second question from Dunnam, Craddick seemed to hesitate, and Dunnam shot back, "Do I need to ask Mr. Dutton?"

With that, Dutton said, he slipped off the podium, but not before Davis stood, turning to her deputy, and said, 'Can you believe that!'"

There is no doubt that the video segments from the night of May 25th 2007 will be viewed over and over again by consultants, legislature members and staffers, and people like me, for months to come.

Airing segments of the streaming video in political adds in 2008, however, is unlikely due to rules in the legislature that forbid use of the video in political commercials. And that, is really too bad.

Too bad, because no one will ever believe what actually went on without viewing the actual video.

Primarying Craddick D’s. What Is The Prognosis?

Vince posted an interesting opinion on the part of Professor Jerry Polinard, at the University of Texas Pan American excerpted from here. Here is a quote:

“I don’t think that support of Craddick has strong negative consequences for any of the Valley Craddick Ds, particularly because they have been able to use their influence to bring goodies home to the district.”

For those, and other reasons, I think it is safe to say that four of the fifteen Craddick D’s are secure in their districts. Even if a primary challenge is mounted against Norma Chavez, Kino Flores, Ryan Guillen or Aaron Peña, they are doomed to failure. In fact, after looking at some data, I think it is safe to say that of the fifteen Craddick D’s nominated for primary challenges, primary challenges to only a mere five of them stand a good chance of a successful outcome.

Here is a summary of each of the eleven remaining Craddick Ds vis-à-vis the possibility of a successful primary challenge.

Kevin Bailey, Houston, District 140: Was unopposed in November. A primary contest is possible here. In 2006 his primary opponent got 30% of the vote. The district is 71% Hispanic although only 52% are registered. A primary challenge is doable but his opponent needs to be Hispanic – his ’06 primary opponent had an Hispanic surname.

_____
Joe Deshotel, Port Arthur, District 22: Won 90.75% of the vote against a Libertarian-opponent.. He was unopposed in the ’06 primary. A primary challenge is possible but success is nowhere near assured. The district is just over 56% African-American. Deshotel has served 5 terms, he has a strong union backing. On the other hand, successful bills that he has authored do not bring much to his district. A possible exception is HB 3634 gives his local waterway and navigation district the power to collect fees to offset security costs.

_____
Dawnna Dukes, Austin, District 46: Polled 85% to a Libertarian opponent. She was unopposed in the primary. A primary contest is doable, and rumor has it that she will have at least one opponent next March. Demographically, the district is very evenly divided, while Hispanics outnumber all other groups, they don’t vote proportionate to their numbers. Arguing in her favor, her two successful bills do appear to benefit some of her constituents. They both deal with making it easier for people to obtain health and unemployment benefits.

_____
Helen Giddings, De Soto (Dallas Area), District 109: Polled 90% against a Libertarian opponent. She was opposed in the ‘06 primary but 90% voted for her. She is highly respected. The district is just over 50% African-American. She has served in the House since 1993. Opposing her in a primary will be difficult; Giddings is fairly successful in getting her bills passed. She is one of the leaders in this group with eleven sent to the governor for signing.

_____
Harold Dutton, Houston, District 142: Polled 94% against a Libertarian opponent. He was unopposed in the ’06 primary, had mild opposition in ’04, and no primary opposition in ’02.. Like Giddings, Dutton has been in office for a long time. He has been criticized for some bizarre legislation (spanking). A prolific introducer of legislation, Dutton was successful in 12 of his bills in the recent session. A majority of these bills had to do with child protection and child custody issues. His support of children’s issues (except for maybe the spanking thing) makes him a nice guy. I’d say the prognosis is poor in a primary challenge here.

_____
Tracy O. King, Eagle Pass, District 80: Got 100% in his unopposed race, he was also unopposed in the ’06 primary. King has served several terms in the House. His district is overwhelmingly Hispanic and the district does hug the Rio Grande Valley. Among his successful bills, one grants hunting rights to the Kickapoo Indian tribe, another allocates startup funds for rural rail development and yet another annexes the Bermuda Reservoir to a water improvement district within his district. I see King as highly vulnerable in a primary challenge. His opponent does need to be Hispanic. He faced an opponent (Hispanic) in the ’04 primary, who garnered 39%. In ’02 Timo Garza unseated him in a primary runoff, although King won the seat back the next term after Garza got into an ethics problem.

_____
Eddie Lucio III, Brownsville, District 27: Received 64% of the vote in an election opposed by a Republican (23%) A primary challenge here is possible. In the ’06 primary Lucio barely won with a 51% victory against 3 challengers. Lucio has been opposed and was nearly toppled in 2006. He was unopposed in the ’04 and ’02 primaries. What is needed is a single Hispanic opponent. There is a reason Lucio denounced Craddick at the end of the session and this is it. Lucio stands alone among his Rio Grande Valley delegation, of losing his seat in a primary challenge.

_____
Ruth Jones McClendon, San Antonio, District 120: Received 85% of the vote against a Libertarian opponent. She was unopposed in the ’06 primary. She is well-established with 5 terms in the House. Her district has diverse demographics, dominated by Hispanics but Hispanics in her district vote disproportionately low to their numbers. Her opponent in the ’04 primary, an Hispanic, got 16% of the vote. McClendon’s HB 2514 might be viewed as being of direct benefit to her constituents in San Antonio. Her HB 2751, while decreasing benefits and increasing contributions, guarantees that San Antonio’s Fire and Police Healthcare Fund will remain solvent past projected 2023 bankruptcy. McClendon looks out for her constituents. I just don’t see any primary contest resulting in an unseating taking place here.

_____
Robert Puente, San Antonio, District 119: Got 100% of the vote in his unopposed race; he was also unopposed in the ‘06 primary as he was in ’04 and ’02. His Hispanic primary opponent in ’00 got less than 30% of the vote. This district is overwhelmingly Hispanic and they come out and vote.. He authored successful bills HB 3 and HB 4, both water conservation bills. Indeed, much of Puente’s legislation is concerned with water-related issues. Puente looks well-entrenched to me.

_____
Patrick Rose, Austin, District 45: Got 60% of the vote in November. He was opposed by a Republican who garnered 36% of the vote. In the primary, he was unopposed. Rose stands the most to lose, and the Democratic Party stands the most to lose by opposing him in a primary. Unseating him will almost certainly return District 45 to Republicans. Rose has gotten a steadily greater percentage of the vote as time has gone by – Republicans vote for him because he is Rose and they see him as a conservative. To primary Patrick Rose is to kiss District 45 goodbye.

_____
Sylvester Turner, Houston, District 139: Got an unopposed 100% of the vote in November and was unopposed in the ’06, ’04,’02 and ‘00 primaries. Turner has the biggest target painted on him, due to his Craddick-like behavior near the end of the session. Rumor has it that two individuals will challenge him in the March primary. Turner is an 8 term house member, his district is over 50% black and overwhelmingly black and Hispanic. Prognosis – a primary challenge would be difficult. He authored HB 109 which restored CHIP to over 130,000 children. He has openly broken with Craddick in his declaration for candidacy for House Speaker in the next session. Does this get him off the hook? It depends on how many of his constituents see him in action with replays of him holding the Speaker’s gavel. My thought: not many will.

Now there could be things that I have ignored or overlooked. That has happened before. But from where I sit, I just don’t see much in the way of positive outcome here. My belief is that the DINOs have all been rooted out and what we have left are people who, like the Rio Grande Valley delegation, are those who are simply out looking after the best interests of their constituents.

Craddick's Press Secretary Guilty of Opprobrium

Today Texas House Speaker Craddick was asked a very pointed question by State Rep. Jim Dunnam. He asked the speaker whether he was aware that there were rules of conduct for posting news releases on the House website, and that a news release had been posted the day previously that was very derogatory of some House Members.

Craddick confessed that he had no knowledge of rules of good behavior that were to be followed in posting news releases.

Dunnam was rather miffed that this news release was posted, and asked that it be removed.

Craddick said that he would “look into it”.

That’s pretty funny. “Look into it”. It was Craddick’s own Press Secretary that wrote and posted the news release. It’s gone now, but I made sure that it would be preserved for the life of this blog.

Here is the release by Alexis DeLee, Tom Craddick’s Press Secretary:

STATEMENT REGARDING THE EVENTS THAT TOOK PLACE IN THE HOUSE
For Immediate Release

Sunday, May 27, 2007

(AUSTIN) - Alexis DeLee issued the following statement regarding the events that took place in the House:

"Once again, some members chose to divert the House away from important matters and instead tried to drag the members into a Speaker's race while we are in session. Speaker Craddick made a promise to the members of the House that he would make sure their bills would be heard so their constituents concerns would be met. This evening a number of bills were put into jeopardy - bills that would protect our water, fund our parks and historical sites, lower electric rates, enhance air quality, and require steroid testing in our public schools. It is his intention to take up and consider these and other pieces of legislation before the session ends tomorrow at midnight."

CONTACTAlexis DeLee at 512-633-2620

Texas Democratic Party Chairman Boyd Richie on House Revolt Against Craddick

RICHIE: REPUBLICAN LACK OF LEADERSHIP COSTLY FOR TEXAS CITIZENS

"Throughout three regular legislative sessions, five special sessions, and two election cycles, the Texas Democratic Party has warned Texans about the dangers of abusive one party rule that was put in place in a 2002 election effort marked by the TRMPAC scheme that toppled Tom Delay.

Speaker Craddick's abuse of power has created a crisis that threatens the legislature's ability to address the basic needs of Texas families and communities.
The chaotic breakdown on the floor of the Texas House is the culmination of four years of failed Republican leadership that has repeatedly turned its back on the best interests of Texans in a blind pursuit of power.

This weekend, despite the Republican Party of Texas' continued support for a Speaker who has embarrassed and shamed the House he was elected to govern, House Members from both political parties are attempting to replace a leader who has pursued partisan power and catered to special interests at the expense of the people of Texas.

We pray that Members of the Texas House are able to restore integrity and fair, bipartisan leadership to the Texas House."

What Republicans are saying about the Craddick failure and abuse of power

“I knew we had a speaker, I didn’t know we had a dictator.”…Rep Charlie Geren (R-Fort Worth) – Fort Worth Star Telegram

"It is clearly an abuse of power and an abuse of office."…Rep. Todd Smith (R-Euless)

– Fort Worth Star Telegram

My take:

There is another way to take this, I think. Chairman Richie is correct that the Texas Legislature is in such a bad way that open warfare has come to the house floor between Pro- and Anti-Craddick Republicans. What I have started to wonder about, since Friday is whether this whole thing has been staged to avoid finishing the business of having a budget to work with for the next two years, forcing the legislature into special session.

A special session where Craddick will be shown the door.

Texas House Chamber Develops an Echo or Why Doesn’t Craddick Just Hand Over The Mike?

“We will furthermore direct you . . . “ “we will furthermore direct you . . .”

“The chair made a decision . . ." “the chair made a decision”

“The chair’s power of recognition is absolute . . .” “the chair’s power of recognition is absolute.”

“The chair recognizes Representative Menendez . . .” “The chair recognizes Representative Menendez”

“That is correct . . .” “that is correct.”

It’s positively eerie.

House parliamentarian Denise Davis and assistant parliamentarian Chris Greisel apparently quit their jobs last night over what appears to be Tom Craddick’s lies to Rep. Todd Smith, R-Euless when he pressed Craddick over whether he ignored Parliamentarian Davis over rulings that would preserve his job.

Craddick responded, ''I don't know if she agreed or disagreed with it.''

They knew he was lying because they had run these questions by Davis before bringing them up on the floor of the House. Craddick’s answers and Davis’ answers did not match.

So after Davis resigned, House Speaker Tom Craddick got a replacement, former state rep. Terry Keel, once representing HD-47, but now Tom Craddick’s puppet master. Keel’s voice is loud and it gets picked up by the speaker’s microphone. Several who are watching the livestream have commented on it.

And this morning, Keel the puppet master is pulling Sylvester Turner’s strings. Turner is quite unused to it and works not to echo Keel, but in doing so, sometimes has to stop when he is interrupted by his own string puller.

Even Crazy Bob Talton noticed this, voicing his observation when he questioned Turner over whether Turner could hear him.

Turner: “Yes I can hear you, Representative Talton”.
Talton: “That’s good because of the echo that has appeared here.”

Will Craddick survive until Monday? Yes, if the House insurgents can’t find a way around the autocrat’s stone wall. Parliamentary inquiries won’t do it.

Time to think out of the box, Members.

CRADDICK KILLS CHIP BILL AUTO-CRADDICK RULE ONCE AGAIN FAILS TEXAS KIDS

I am just going to pass this on on with no written comment. I really don't trust myself right now with civility.

Below is a statement from Texas Democratic Party Chair Boyd Richie on Speaker Tom Craddick’s decision to send back to committee HB 109, a bill to restore funding for the Children’s Health Insurance Program:

“By killing legislation that would restore much-needed CHIP funding, Speaker Craddick killed the chance for thousands of Texas children to finally obtain health care without an emergency room visit.

Under Craddick’s heavy-handed rule, our state’s uninsured rate continues to climb, while the CHIP rolls drop. This is yet another slap in the face for the hard-working Texas parents who simply can’t afford for their kids to get sick.

I applaud Democrats in the State Legislature who have worked to undo the damage caused by the Republican failure to restore full funding to CHIP and remove the red tape that has prevented far too many children from getting the health care they need.”

HR 4 Fails – How They Voted

You can find the list of Texas House members who voted Nay on HR 4 here. I like to concentrate on my two favorite groups of Democrats. And one Republican.

My favorite two groups of Democrats The Craddick D’s and the Courage 27 had slightly different voting tendencies today as the votes were entered on HR 4, the motion to suspend the rules and allow bills to be considered before 60 days into the new legislative session. Texas’ 80th Legislature promises to be a contentious one.

I got to see a little of the debate on streaming video, and it got a little heated at times, causing Speaker Pro Tem Sylvester Turner to admonish his colleagues to “take a chill pill”.

What was established during debate was that individual bills could be considered in committee, and voted on the floor, but they would have to be individually allowed by 4/5th vote if HR 4 failed. And it did fail by a vote of 108 Aye to 34 Nay (31 votes would have done the job).

All 15 of the Craddick D’s voted Aye, so no change there. Three Courage 27 votes went over to the Ayes in this vote, Juan Escobar, Juan Garcia, and Richard Raymond.

Paul Gallegos didn’t vote.

But the resolution failed because of the votes of an additional 10 Democrats, and one lone Republican vote.

New to the list of Democratic House members who wanted to send a message loud and clear to Tom Craddick were the following: Alma Allen, Rafael Anchia, Valinda Bolton, Ellen Cohen, Yvonne Gonzales Toureilles, Scott Hochberg, Joe Pickett, Paula Pierson, Mike Villarreal, and Hubert Vo.

The message? Who knows? Maybe each had their own reasons. But my guess is that it was a message to Speaker Craddick that he’s got to reform from his rough and rowdy ways. Absent that, any time the opportunity arises to send him a zinger, that’s exactly what is going to happen.

Really, as a substantive issue, it wasn’t one. It was pointed out that in past legislative sessions anywhere from 2 to 10 bills were actually voted on within the 60 days after the start of the session. Not a huge impact.

So it really was a symbolic “Up Yours”.

Especially from the lone Republican Nay voter: Bob Talton. Talton is so mad at his committee assignment that he says he won’t attend any of its meetings. Startlingly, the committee in question is heavily packed with Democrats and has a Democratic chair. Vince at Capitol Annex points out that Criminal Jurisprudence was, in all probability, packed with Democrats as it has little chance of seeing any significant legislation come through to it for consideration. Don’t know about that one. Looking here I see that 22 bills were referred to this committee today. Seven of them alone concern in some way or another, sex offenders, two on car burglary, one on Indian tribe gambling, one on prostitution, one on gang activity around schools . . the list goes on and on.

Gee . . . that stuff sounds like grist for Talton’s mill.

Will the 60-Day Rule Be Suspended Again?

An interesting twist that comes out of the Craddick committee appointments is how the vote will now go in the Texas House to suspend the Constitutionally-mandated 60-Day Rule. Texas Speaker Tom Craddick is requesting all House members attend Tuesday to vote on suspension of the 60-Day rule. This rule has been suspended at the beginning of every congressional session but one awhile back. It prevents members in the House from bringing any votes to the floor until March 1st.

Craddick wants it suspended again so that he can start the year with a bang (as if it hasn’t already) to continue to press his conservative agenda that is so harmful to so many Texans, but helpful to the moneyed interests that support him: those who brought us the Republican Majority in 2002 and have continued to help fund Craddick's speaker's PAC—Stars Over Texas. This PAC has helped Craddick retain power through its contributions to the campaigns of key Craddick allies as well as to the campaigns of challengers to anti-Craddick Republicans.

But here’s where it gets interesting. Craddick needs a 4/5ths majority to suspend this rule. That’s 4/5ths of 150 votes. Thirty-one votes will keep the rule in force.

Now before the committee assignments were announced, Laylan Copelin at the Austin American-Statesman wrote an intriguing article on how Craddick was blaming the ice storm on the delay of his committee assignment announcement. Then Copelin mentioned Tuesday’s vote, and how Craddick could delay the announcement until after the vote in order to get those 121 votes.

Now we know that won’t happen, and we also know that there are at least 27 votes out there from members who cannot possibly be any more marginalized than they already have been by Craddick in their speaker committee assignments.

That leaves a grand total of 4 more votes to stop Craddick until March 1st.

Think they can scrounge up 4 more votes?

Is The Pope German?

Craddick Comes Through With the Payola

You have to give the man credit where credit is due. Texas Speaker Tom Craddick delivers on a promise, and the 15 Craddick D’s got exactly what they paid for . . . I mean paid their votes for.

The Big Losers are Dawnna Dukes and Eddie Lucio III. No Chair or Vice Chair positions went to them, although they both rated Chairman for Budget Oversight (CBO) jobs. Geez, guys, hope it was worth it.

I have a talent for data analysis that I utilized in a previous existence. What I want to do is show you two spreadsheets that list each Courage members and each Craddick D member, and their committee assignments. I got the data from here. The first column is their names, the second is the committee they chair or vice chair, the third is any CBO job, the fourth is a Craddick appointment, and last are seniority appointments – that is, the only one that Craddick doesn’t have control of – I think . . .

In other words ordered from left to right are highest Craddick repayments to lowest (none). The results are quite startling in the way they so clearly show how he rewards his friends and crushes his enemies. By the way you can download these spreadsheet images by clicking on them. Hat tip to Susan who showed me how to do this.

Then you also want to look at the number of Craddick D’s that got seats on the powerful Appropriations committee: five out of fifteen. How many Courage 27 got on Appropriations? One. Rick Noriega.
How many Craddick D’s got on the more choice committees by Seniority? three out of fifteen. How many Courage 27? Eighteen.

And finally how many Craddick D’s got on the Agriculture and Livestock committee (aka Siberia)? None. How many Courage 27? Two. He’s really sticking it to Juan Garcia, although putting him on the Defense Affairs committee was a no-brainer and it would have been too darned obvious if Craddick kept Naval Aviator Juan Garcia off that committee.

And the biggest data anomaly on this is the Government Reform committee. How many Craddick D’s were assigned to that committee? None. Nope, nada. Government reform implies giving up the percs and advantages of power. How many Courage 27s were placed on Government Reform? Three.

That’s like putting them in charge of selling air conditioners to Eskimos