Battle For Speaker is Joined ... and Then Withdrawn

I tried to get the streaming video at work during my lunch break but discovered that the State House's server was fully subscribed. With the traffic we get at work I doubt it would have been able to handle it anyway.

So I got home and logged on to find that the video portion of the streaming video has been disabled, and only the audio is up. Smart move on that. Now its the more the merrier.

And I was able to listen to the debate on HR 35 the resolution determining whether the House vote for Speaker would be a public vote or a secret vote (the Merritt Amendment actually required that the vote be counted and destroyed). Motion to table the Amendment was carried by 91 Ayes to 51 Nays.

Craddick will get his public vote if HR 35 is passed. Moments later at 5:06 PM, the resolution was passed 132 to 16.

I can now say that I have personally witnessed the dynamics of this. You can't see the nervous fear of retribution, but you sure can hear it. Thirty five votes swinging to the dark side.

5:21 PM

HR 36 by Allen Vaught and an amendment introduced.

After Candidates are nominated, SOS will recognize candidates in order that they were nominated. Candidates speach will not exceed 10 minutes in length

5:25 The resolution is withdrawn.

Chair Recongnizes Representative Pitts: (here it comes):

I don't want members to put in a public record how they voted. That didn't happen today. So it's time to heal. So reluctantly I would like to withdraw from the race. I will not be nominated as speaker.

Well that's it. Craddick gets to be speaker for another 2 years. Honestly it looked like he had the votes anyway. In the end, all Pitts could muster was 51 votes, nowhere near the required 75. That's my take. Votes to keep the ballot public = Votes for Craddick.

OK now on the Democraddicks, as they have come to be called. The numbers: 91 Craddick votes, 14 of them (at last count) Democraddick votes. 91 - 14 = 77. According to Hal's Law of Totality, [some of it - Republican votes] + [the rest of it - Democraddick votes] = [All of it]. And guess what, in this vote, [the rest of it] didn't matter, did it?

5:35: Talton is addressing now. As you know Mr. Pitts has withdrawn. I stood with him as long as he was in the race. We need to allow the process to work.

A general conciliatory speech.

5:38 - Jean Morrison - Nominates Craddick.

5:45 - Aaron Pena - 1st seconding speech.

5:49 - Warren Chisum - 2nd seconding speech

5:50 - Patrick Rose - 3rd seconding speech

5:52 - Dan Gaddis - 4th seconding speech

Now all we need are 69 more seconding speeches and Craddick is automatically elected . . .

I wrote some more stuff, but with all the open processes and Real Player running, my system ran out of memory. Pity. I was brilliant, but now I just want to drown my sorrows in some iced tea.

Pitts/McCall Announcement: Craddick’s Methods Similar to Democrats Who Eat Their Young. And Pena Gives Me Pause.

I watched the Pitts/McCall press conference today at the Texas House archived press conferences. Muse wasn’t impressed, but I’m always impressed when a little bit of history is played out.

McCall stood up to the dais first and talked about the meetings that had gone on between he and Jim Pitts. He set the stage and talked about the power politics of intimidation and bullying that Craddick was such a master of. This practice of not letting House members vote for the good of their district because of Craddick’s intimidations struck a chord in me. All of a sudden I sat up and started taking notes. This is what he said on Craddick’s methods:

“Individuals who are threatening to raise whatever money it takes to beat whatever member in a primary in the next election because they have the audacity to think about who their speaker of the house should be is unheard of.. Well we’re standing here because we think it’s time to put a stop to it.”

Holy bat guano. Isn’t what I have been saying all along about liberal Democrats plotting and planning political action in primaries to unseat Democrats is so-called safe districts who vote for Craddick? It just struck me that those ruthless tactics that they so decry of Craddick are exactly the same tactics that they are promoting. What is it guys? What’s good for the goose is good for the gander?

All I am proposing is keeping a level of civility here. Let’s let House members vote in the interests of their constituents, and not intimidate them with promises of revenge at the polls for a single vote that they make.

Still unconvinced? How about this? To mount a successful campaign against a House member with name recognition in a safe district, when they are guilty of just one lone Republican vote, you are going to need resources. Raise money. Lots of it. Let me ask this: aren’t these resources that are available to elect Democrats better spent on races where there is a Republican opponent? Why waste money electing a Democrat in a safe district?

Then McCall introduced Jim Pitts.

First he outlined his “consensus candidacy” and all the efforts to oust Craddick and Craddick's harsh ways. On having the necessary votes, he said this:

“I am gratified to say as of last night and today that we have more than enough votes to bring a change in leadership to the Texas House and a change in Texas.”

That remains to be seen. No pledge list was presented, and no numbers. He just said that some of the names of Craddick’s list were on his. Again, banging away at Craddick’s methods and intimidations, Pitts later said:

“Members do not feel that they can openly announce their support that they risk retribution for doing so, and quite frankly that is one of the best reasons, and THE reason I am running for … Speaker of the Texas House.”

"I told you I would not play the list game in this campaign, and that has not changed Last week before you in this room I would not put a member in jeopardy, that I would not reveal names of support. But I guarantee you the race is over.”

OK, now I’m interested. Go over to Aaron Pena’s blog and see that, while not specifically mentioning Craddick’s name, his forecast is that the one who will win the speakership will not be Pitts. Why he didn’t say Craddick will win is beyond me but maybe it’s like the Oracle of Delphi. Pythia would make cryptic forecasts, often leaving their predictions subject to interpretation.

And I had to think about that and wonder what could be a possible good outcome of another two years with Tom Craddick as speaker. And then Jim Pitts’ words came out from nowhere to haunt me:

“We hear a lot about the public’s lack of trust in government. Too few people vote, many don’t think it matters. They are sometimes disgusted by the behavior of their elected officials. With my candidacy, I am hoping to make one small step toward restoring public trust in the way we conduct the people’s business in the Texas House of Representatives.”

And then I knew why this isn’t such a bad thing, bad as it is.

If Pitts wins the speakership, he promises to win the trust of the voters back. With Craddick as speaker we can treat Texas voters to two more years’ of Republican Craddick/DeLay behaviors that are turning off so many voters. So they finally see the light and what happened in ’06 everywhere else will happen here. Texas can finally get a Democratic majority in the House in ’08.

Who knows, maybe a Pitts speakership will lull voters into a “Republican-majority-can’t-be-all-bad” mentality.

Either way we win. That is, we win if we show restraint in eating our young.