05.09.07

Mad House Wrap-Up

Posted in 80th Legislature, Commentary, The Lege at 11:31 am by wcnews

There’s buzz of a vote to vacate the chair for Speaker in the Texas House, but don’t get your hopes up, it’s not likely. While a majority of members might now be willing to vote Craddick out, it’s doubtful that anyone on the GOP side would want to be on record doing it, because it would probably kill their chance of ascending the dais. Not to mention make the party look bad.

Wrap-ups analysis from Monday Night’s action are here:

Burka thinks Craddick will survive the session, House Erupts in Protest Over Craddick Ruling.

Where does this leave Craddick? As I see it, the mob has stormed the Bastille and liberated the prisoners, but they have let the king keep his head. For now. It’s clear that there is a growing body of Republican elders that no longer supports Tom Craddick in the way he runs the House. It is also clear that they respect the institution too much, and Craddick as well, for all that he has done over the years, to take the drastic step of moving to vacate the chair. There will be no public beheading in the Place de la Concorde. At some point a delegation of elders may call on the speaker in private and ask him not to seek another term.

Kuff agrees, but wouldn’t mind if he didn’t, More on the anti-Craddick revolt.

I want to believe the former (vote to vacate), but unfortunately I think Burka is more likely to be right. Show me a candidate, and get back to me after the 2008 election.

DMN has this from Karen Brooks, Some say Craddick on shaky ground. The excerpt below clearly shows Craddick’s lack of leadership skills, the “iron fist” is all he’s got:

Some lawmakers say that Mr. Craddick may have overcorrected, that he pulled too far back and stopped giving the members direction. Others, like House Insurance Committee Chairman John Smithee, R-Amarillo, say he’s walking a tightrope, evidenced by a testy chamber willing to revolt.

“There is not this reluctance to challenge the [speaker] that we’ve seen in the past,” said Mr. Smithee. “Some of that’s a good thing, but if you get too much of that, you get a mob.”

QR says Craddick just thinks members are still bitter from the Speaker’s race:

Craddick added that he believed he has followed through on promises earlier this session to give committee chairmen more freedom with the allowance that he always thought that he had given them large amounts of freedom. In the end, it was “just bitterness carrying over” from the failed Speaker’s challenge that led to the move to overrule, he said.

But it’s the last paragraph in this Clary Robison piece, Technical setback loosens Craddick’s iron grip, that caught my eye:

The outcome of next year’s legislative elections also may affect Craddick’s future. The Republicans hold an 81-69 edge in the House. Some Democrats believe Craddick couldn’t survive if Democrats pick up enough seats to close that gap significantly.

There’s quite a bit in that sentence. That’s 6 seats to tie, 7 to take the majority. How many seats, out of 7 let’s say, do these “some Democrats” think would be enough to be “significant”? Hopefully the new reality is, that what this session should make clear to every Democrat, is that if there is a choice similar to the one that presented itself at the beginning of this session, to elect a better Speaker, then Craddick is not an option. And even if the gap isn’t significantly closed, which I believe it will be, it’s time for a change. Hear that Craddick D’s?

While most, except Craddick and his closest allies believe we’ll have a new Speaker come ’09. That does seem likely right now, but January 2009 is a long way off.

Permalink