A small group of liberal Republicans, cheered on by House Democrats, disrupted the Texas House last night and are continuing their attempted coup today. At one point last night, the Sergeant at Arms was forced to physically restrain Rep. Rick Noriega (D) when he rushed the dais after Speaker Craddick called a recess.
This is the wrong time for such nonsense to be happening. The session ends Monday and there are still bills that need to be considered. If this coup were to be successful, it would be disastrous for conservative legislation that remains in the balance.
Conservatives across Texas need to take a hard and fast stand on this. Rarely does anyone receive a clarion call to contact your state representative on a Saturday, much less on a weekend honoring the very people that sacrificed their lives so that we could have a voice in government.
Some may say that Speaker Craddick deserves this because he is an autocratic, iron fisted dictator in the House. I don’t know about that, having never worked for him, but I can tell you that most successful people have their detractors. Leadership at times requires such measures in order to move one’s vision forward.
No one can seriously question the Speaker’s conservative principles. Conservatives tend to expect perfection from the politicians that they vote for and that isn’t possible. But consistency is possible and Speaker Craddick has consistently supported conservative causes. We sometimes forget that he almost single handedly pushed through the original appraisal cap bill which was later killed by Lt. Gov. Dewhurst and other less conservative Republicans in the Senate hiding behind the Rosebush rule.
One need look no further than the leader of this pack of wayward Republicans trying to oust the Speaker. None other than Fred “The Hoe” Hill, the one guy that has consistently blocked appraisal caps and lower overall taxes in his position as chairman of the Local Government Ways and Means committee. If “The Hoe” is successful in his push to drive out a conservative speaker, disaster awaits the homeowners and taxpayers of Texas.
Think about this scenario. Fred “The Hoe” Hill, a couple of wayward Republicans and the majority of Democrats take control of the House. Is there any conservative in their right mind that thinks this is a good thing? Every day will be a day like last night, when I listened to Rep. Harold Dutton (D) try to block a $5 fee on strip clubs with one exception - he’d be successful.
At the end of the day, there may well be a more effective conservative that could take over as Speaker. That is a decision best left for the next session. Call your representative today, Saturday, and tell them how critical it is to keep Speaker Craddick in his position.
Find your representative here.
Filed Under Uncategorized · · · · 
Print This Post
··
Comments
67 Responses to “Liberal Republicans Try Takeover in Austin”Search
Our Sponsors
Poll
Loading ...
BTW, I did call my rep today. His staff says that he is under tremendous pressure but will continue to support the Speaker.
Bigjolly
If he has the votes what Craddick problem?
Remember this session is for two years
Unfortunately my Rep. is a Dem. Was redistricted out of Charlie Howard’s district.
Well, I emailed Van Arsedale and pleaded with him to support Craddick. If Ed the Hoe is against Craddick, that is one reason to be for Craddick, EPJ’s comments notwithstanding.
What the House needs is a Dan Patrick! Too bad Dan can’t duplicate himself about a 100 times!
This does not bode well for Craddick.
Adee
Even if your rep is a dem he/she is YOUR rep. Let them know your stance. Enough folks give them down the river and it can/will have an effect.
My 5
Correction, I meant “Fred” not Ed! /ducks head in shame
Curious. Hill’s break with Craddick appears to be genuine.
It’s too bad that both sides of this dispute can’t lose though. Craddick is a terrible speaker and a tax and spend RINO in his own right. Regulars may recall that he is the second Defendant in the CLOUT lawsuit, and just like Dewhurst he’s been fully supportive of Greg Abbott’s frivolous attempts to impede the suit from getting a hearing in court. OTOH, Hill is also indirectly a defendent in the same suit because he’s a member of the Legislative Budget Board, and he too favors the tax and spend position. So it’s basically one snake fighting with another. The best we can hope for out of it is that both emerge damaged from the fight and both see their legislative clout diminished.
Conservatives need somebody like Talton to run.
Phil, I have to disagree on this one. Craddick not capitulating to CLOUT doesn’t make him a RINO at all. Truth is, another conservative doesn’t have much of a chance right now. Talton wouldn’t come close. It would fall to a far more liberal person than Craddick. He may well be a terrible speaker (I’m not saying that he is) but he is better than ANY of the candidates that have filed thus far.
A far more interesting scenario is playing out over at the Burnt Orange Report.
The silver lining in the Fred Hill revolt is that there is no way that Craddick will reappoint Hill to chair Local Ways & Means if the revolt fails.
And that means that meaningful caps on local taxation can pass.
Phil
#10
Please read what Bigjolly wrote:
Do you actually think that Fred (the hoe) Hill is more conservative, after taking the hoe to appraisal caps, which Craddick supported? Fred Hill is the biggest liberal in Congress! He gets cheered on by the liberal dimocraps!
#11 & 13 - I do seriously question Craddick’s conservative principles, and cite his tax and spend record as evidence. He’s been Speaker now since the ‘03 session and what do we have to show for his watch? A couple bones to the social conservative movement on abortion and gay marriage.
Beyond that we’ve gotten next to nothing. Government is growing larger than ever. Nothing meaningful has been done on immigration. The spending cap has been lifted for the current session. TXDOT is running amock and the TTC open borders crowd waters down any bill threatening ti impede them. The spending caps are lifted. Craddick has openly fought the CLOUT lawsuit to reign in spending. Craddick sent money to and PERSONALLY campaigned for liberal RINO state reps Roy Blake and Carter Casteel, who we took out with conservative challengers in the last primary.
Craddick’s most newsworthy accomplishment in office sums up exactly what he’s all about: providing himself a million dollar renovation of the Speaker’s apartment. And remember - EVERY SINGLE ONE of those committee chairs we conservatives complain about for impeding meaningful legislation got to where he was through Craddick. The appraisal caps, the immigration reform bills - all of it gets bottled up by people who owe their power to do so to Craddick and Craddick alone.
It’s a slick political move because it lets him block conservative legislation that the Austin lobby doesn’t want by using surrogates, all while pretending to support it in stump speeches to the base. That line is old, tired, and transparent. It’s all “Don’t blame me - I supported your bill, but that committee chair who’s been one of my loyal lieutenants for the last 20 years and who I appointed to his current position is against it. So blame him, but there’s nothing more I can do!”
Garbage. You can’t be the most powerful officer in state government and simultaneously have no ability to bring forth your own purported legislative priorities because the people YOU appointed object. The two are mutually exclusive. Either you support the bill and appoint lieutenants who share your views, or you appoint people who you know are going to block it. Craddick did the latter.
How do you think Fred Hill got where he is today? The answer: He was a dyed-in-the-wool Craddick loyalist and floor lieutenant until about a week ago.
If Craddick really wanted property tax caps (or spending cuts, or immigration reform, or real transportation reform, or school vouchers) he would appoint different committee chairs. But he doesn’t. And that makes him directly complicit in everything they do as well. The guys challenging him are nothing to be proud of, but Craddick is in this mess entirely by his own doing and deserves no sympathy from the right.
Also on the stuff about Harold Dutton - has anyone bothered to look who’s sitting in the Speaker’s chair right now fending off all the challenges to his boss Tom Craddick?
That’s right. Sylvester Turner. The kooky Democrat from the next district over.
Either way you go, the “Republican” Speaker ends up empowering the biggest liberal Democrat wackos in the House. Now it’s Sylvester. Next it could be Dutton. And if it’s not one of those two, it will be Paul Moreno. Or Dawnna Dukes. Or Elliot Naishtat. Or Senfronia. Or Frankenstein…oops…I mean Ellen Cohen. That’s just how the business is played with these RINOS, Craddick included.
Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.
Anarchy baby!
Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.
Yepper.
Phil_M is absolutely right. Fred Hill did not make himself chairman of local government ways and means, Craddick did. Craddick knew that the was killing these bills by sending them to his committee, just as he knew he was killing Leo Berman’s illegal immigration bills by sending them to state affairs (chaired by David Swinford).
I don’t think he has done much for the pro-life cause, either. If he was serious about getting the pro-life bills passed, he would have made sure there were no sustainable points of order. The major lobby bills always seem to make it out okay. Why not bills that are important to the grassroots? It is also worth noting that his calendars chair (who gets to decide when/if bills come to the floor), Beverly Wooley, is pro-choice.
Are any of the announced speaker candidates ideal conservatives? Not really. But the only reason why the RPT leadership has come out so strongly in favor of Craddick is because the big money interests who keep Craddick in power also fund the party.
Just hope they both “hoe” each other to death.
@15 - actually if Craddick went down they’d have a speaker’s race immediately. Turner wouldn’t just get it automatically, is how it’s been explained to me, though he would preside over the election of a new speaker.
This honestly isn’t a conservative/liberal issue, IMO - see what I wrote on Grits about it - and some in Craddick’s faction as well as the Ds are letting partisanship drown out more fundamental concerns. I think you ought to reconsider this one bigjolly. This is the kind of stuff Adams and Jefferson were willing to revolt over - honestly. Viewing the dispute as purely partisan ignores the fact that we all have stakes in protecting democracy that are bigger than our political agendas.
#19 Grits’ association with the ACLU (see his blog above) can’t help but bring a political slant with it.
See Grits’ comment #4 on The Dan Patrick Effect thread from Friday for another example of his slant…
grits, I did see your commentary yesterday and was shocked and disappointed. The hyperbole and adjectives used in this debate are such that it makes people want to distance themselves from the process. Perhaps that is the intention.
We live in a representative democracy. Adams and Jefferson would never have revolted over parliamentary procedures and politicians playing hardball to keep their positions. We, the people, had our vote. And we will have it again because of the sacrifices of people that gave their blood to do it.
And FWIW, I don’t think it is purely partisan politics. I think that a few people smell blood and are trying to further their political careers. That they use people of opposite views to do that is nothing new.
It’s quite disheartening to see a writer of your capability say what you said.
bigjolly: If you feel that way, then IMO you misunderstand the stakes.
Democracy has no meaning if what Craddick did stands, and it doesn’t have anything to do with liberal or conservative.
We live in a representative democracy, but our representatives currently can’t/don’t run the House of Representatives - this autocrat now does.
I can promise you, if you look at Jefferson’s writings about the role of parliamentary rules he thought that the ONLY thing that kept democracy able to function were firm restraints on the chair by the legislative body, and his Senate rules (which are the overarching foundation for American parliamentary procedure including Roberts Rules) were specifically designed with a primary aim of subjecting the chair to the will of the legislative body.
That is why the Texas House parliamentarian resigned - Craddick’s actions are an affront to democracy that’s bigger than any partisan or ideological dispute. It must not stand.
And for those who want to label me a liberal, have at it. But you’re missing the point - democracy is more important than liberalism or conservatism. It’s all meaningless if our elected representatives are not allowed to represent us.
Democracy isn’t just some concept we use to justify starting wars, it’s a real system whose governance plays out in legislative halls under parliamentary rules. The right of our elected representatives to run the government is literally what American troops are fighting and dying for, and if they can’t then our democracy has lost any substantive credibility and risks them dying in vain.
I know that sounds harsh, but if democracy is worth anyone dying for, this is the reason why.
grits, a quick drive by before I leave, but our representatives elected the Speaker. They knew what they were getting. The biggest part of this argument is that of a schoolyard sore loser.
Craddick specified what it would take - impeachment. Whether you disagree or not, that is his position. Why has no one tried to do that? And we also have a judicial branch. Why has no one taken that route?
There are many things worth dying for. I don’t care if you are a liberal, conservative or to the right of the Aryan nation - helping ruthless politicians unseat another ruthless politician ain’t one of them. To advocate that it is, in the context of this particular debate, only serves to ratchet up the rhetoric.
I completely understand the human minds ability to rationalize something. What I don’t understand is how an intelligent mind could be swayed to that extent.
There will be an election next year, come hell or high water, because people gave their lives for it. No one has been “disenfranchised”. Impeach him, go to the courts or stand down.
Then what is so great about democracy that’s EVER worth defending?
You overstate the importance of elections, frankly. Those are mostly about TV ads and a few national issues. Actual state governance happens in 140 days every two years, and how government functions THEN is what determines whether a democratic system has meaning or if it’s all just a facade. I’ve come to believe party labels don’t mean very much in the legislative process - whether a pol has character and respects the process matters much more on the ground.
Also, I do think the insurgents should go to court and am surprised they haven’t - I don’t know any of the law around that. best,
My My….Republicans eating Republicans….What will they think of next?
Simple
RINOs eating Republicans, maybe?
Grits: The issue isn’t ‘allowing’ our Representative to represent us, the problem is getting them to represent the electors wishes and not their own. Democracy seems to have evolved to be the domain of which group or party affiliate can work the sneakiest deals.
Perhaps its just a ploy to help them get nothing done?
Umm, aren’t some of these “insurgents” veterans of the flights into Oklahoma and New Mexico when they didn’t like what was going on in the Lege but didn’t have enough votes to stop it? So they denied a quorum and created paralysis until they got what they wanted.
Our form of government is not a democracy, it is a representative republic (”If you can keep it”–B. Fanklin).
Correction: B. Franklin
FWIW, Craddick’s latest interpretation of the rules move essentially makes the parliamentary motion to vacate the speaker’s chair - a legitimate motion by any standard - meaningless unless the speaker himself agrees to it. But that defeats the entire purpose of the rule, which is to oust a poorly performing speaker.
The fact that Craddick resorted to his present interpretation of that rule also tells me that he knows he’d lose a vote if he allowed the motion. It is truly a last resort move by him to hang onto power.
San Antonio Express News has a good article on Craddick’s hypocrisy.
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA052707.21A.speaker_lookback.35564a2.html
He was one of the “Dirty 30″ who took on Gus Mutscher back in the Sharpstown scandal and participated the exact same type of privilege motions that he’s attempting to kill now. To students of history, Mutscher was the sleazy Democrat Speaker who, along with Ben Barnes, got booted from office for complicity in a massive stock fraud scheme during the 1971 session.
Asked about it, “Craddick suggested that perhaps Mutscher made a mistake giving his enemies the forum.” To basically the guy is a lying scumbag and a hypocrite who’s turned his back on everything he used to stand for.
Where do I find a list of what all these initials ya’all use mean? There has to be a code somewhere lol.
FWIT
American woman
#34
Oops on my #35
FWIW = For what its worth
http://www.acronymfinder.com/
#25 gritsforbreakfast says
Really? Elections aren’t important? Last I looked, most of the people on your side of the aisle were doing cartwheels when the not-so-important Federal election took place last November and both Federal House’s changed party’s.
What about in this State when Dallas County switched? Or when the margin between the party’s in the Texas House shrunk to the point that we have what we have today? Do you think this nonsense would be happening if so many Republicans had not lost in November?
I understand your frustration with the Speaker not giving in to politicians that are closer to your positions. Imagine how conservatives feel after electing people for years that didn’t do what they said. But elections still matter, more than anything in our country, grits. Nothing in our government comes close to the right to vote. Nothing.
Even if the majority of the population casts their votes based upon slick campaign marketing.
#33 Phil_M says
I fail to see how your quote makes Speaker Craddick the names you call him. Because Mutscher didn’t have the same amount of fortitude and allowed his “enemies” to overthrow him?
Is it any wonder that good people do not want to get into politics?
“I understand your frustration with the Speaker not giving in to politicians that are closer to your positions”
bigjolly, that’s really not my concern at all, and if you think it is we probably have little more to discuss on this one. One either respects the process or approaches it with cynicism. This comment tells me you may not be able to get past a cynical view of politics to concern yourself with more fundamental concerns about the integrity of democratic institutions and how they operate. That’s a shame, but if it’s the case it’s fruitless to try to argue past it.
I didn’t say elections weren’t important, btw, just that you overstate their importance. They’re not the endpoint of a democratic system of governance, only the beginning. best,
grits, I can well get past the cynicism. In fact, unlike many fellow conservatives, I don’t see politicians by and large as crooked and agree that there is very little difference between the parties.
Did you happen to catch the first hour of the House today? I watched from the prayer to the first actual order of business. If you can tell me that anyone that approached the podium (with the exception of one young man against Craddick and 3 for getting down to business) cared one whit about process, well, I’ll buy you some grits for breakfast.
Elections are the beginning and endpoint of the process of a representative form of governance. The body deliberative in the middle is what we are seeing self destruct because of the political ambition of opponents of the Speaker.
Nowhere did you see me endorse what Craddick is doing, only that he shouldn’t be removed at this point in the session. He outlined how he could be taken out and NO ONE is taking advantage of that. No one. Why? You never did answer that, except to say that you too expected it. Could it be that they have no cause for action?
I’ll tell you who is going to lose because of the path Craddick took. The Republican Party. When the Democrats take over the House next year and meet in 2009, there will be a Dem Speaker. I’m not just whistling Dixie, that is going to happen. Call it cyclical or call it because voters were tired of Republicans not doing what they campaigned on. It will happen.
The Republicans that pushed Craddick into this corner should be held accountable for that because it will not be pretty when the new Speaker has this precedent on his or her side. But even then, you will not see me or any other conservative say that his or her actions are deserving of what you said they were deserving of.
big,
Nothing lasts forever and that includes any political party’s hold on power. The smart plan and count on this fact. Only the foolish believe otherwise.
Simple
SS, who believes otherwise?
” Call it cyclical or call it because voters were tired of Republicans not doing what they campaigned on. It will happen. ”
yep i will vote dem next election - they didnt do what the platform outline or what the issues said in the primary.
i have some pubs on a state level but they are not up. i will vote dem on almost every level next time - cause they will p - o the folks worse than what we have then the pubs will have to play blockem. they seem better at that anyway.
Power is certainly what this is about. Nothing will get done because of this. You would think these elected representatives would be able to say, “We need to do what the citizens of this state elected us to” instead of fighting over who should be in charge. The citizens of this great state are paying the price because of egos. What a tragedy. These same insecure individuals have lost the real focus of government.
Its a vote for speaker - not the end of mankind, just the end of Craddicks career
Now if this were a certain italian grandmother we’d be all over it eh?
#38 - Read up on the Sharpstown scandal and you’ll see why Craddick’s deserves the hypocrite label.
Gus Mutscher was as dirty as they come. He used the Speaker’s office to force through a banking bill as a favor to Frank Sharp so that Sharp could artificially drive up the price of a junk stock he was selling on one of his banks. When the stock price peaked, Sharp and all the Democrat elected officials he controlled unloaded their holdings onto a group of priests over at Strake Jesuit who were told they’d be making a good investment for the school’s endowment. The stock crashed, and Sharp, Mutcher, Barnes & Co. were laughing all the way to the bank.
News of the deal broke out during the middle of the 1971 legislative session, and a group of about 30 members (all of the Republicans and about 20 renegade Democrats) tried to force an investigation of the banking bill. Mutscher responded by using the Speaker’s office and all his loyalists (who had also received stock payments and other bribes from Sharp) to basically shut down any inquiry from being launched on the floor. The 30 rebel legislators responded by using parliamentary moves to bring the session to a halt until the Fed investigators had enough to take down Mutscher & Co. that summer. He was convicted of taking bribes a year later, as were several of his lieutenants. Voters gave dozens more of them the boot in 1972.
To make a long story short, one of those rebel legislators who fought back against Mutscher’s heavy-handed attempt at self preservation was a freshman Republican from Midland named Tom Craddick.
When Craddick implies that Mutscher’s treatment of the dirty 30 was too lenient, he’s turning his back on the principles he used to jump-start his own political career. For that, he’s a flaming hypocrite of the worst order.
When Craddick calls this Mutscher’s “mistake” he’s also directly implying that Mutscher would’ve been justified in saving his own political hide by clamping down even harder on the 30 renegades. For that, he’s a defender of a thuggish criminal’s abuse of power, and thus a scumbag by his own association.
More re #38:
Because Mutscher didn’t have the same amount of fortitude and allowed his “enemies” to overthrow him? Is it any wonder that good people do not want to get into politics?
Gus Mutscher was not a good person by any measure. He was a corrupt Democrat scumbag who enriched himself by helping a sleazy developer scam a group of priests out of millions of dollars. You can’t get any scummier than that.
Mutscher deserved everything his “enemies” threw at him and then some. The fact that Craddick justifies his own heavy handedness by favorably comparing it to Mutscher’s indicates that he too is little better than the predecessor he once helped to topple.
48
Oh we could find someone scummier - now it may take awhile - but we could
All this talk about democracy makes me wretch! The Founders had nothing but loathing and contempt for democracy as democracies always result in chaos followed by totalitarianism. We are supposed to have a Constitutional Republic with a very limited Federal Government. Unfortunately, the Constitutional Republic was overthrown by the traitorous 39th Congress, controlled by the Radical Republicans, which illegally imposed a Congressional Dictatorship and forced ratification of the loathsome 14th Amendment at bayonet point. We haven’t had constitutional governments at ANY level since that time.
#50 txpat
You may have a point there, but what took place late last night looked much more like a bunch of spoiled brats, who didn’t like the way the game was being played, so they took their marbles and went home.
Lest anyone think I’m a Craddick supporter - you are wrong. I don’t know enough about him to either support or loathe him. If I would support him at all, it is for his efforts (how ever misguided or heavy handed)to try and keep the House on track doing the job we sent them to Austin to do, rather than wasting the remainder of the regular session wrangling for some sort of claim to the position of top dog.
Interesting development last night. Pat Haggerty (R-El Paso) made a speech on the floor and began an informal roll call vote to oust Craddick. It begins at about 10 hours, 45 minutes into the video stream.
http://www.house.state.tx.us/fx/av/chamber80/052707p.ram
Notice that the anti-Craddick effort is anything but a Democrat ploy as RPT would have us believe. Haggerty is a 9 term Republican member. He was targetted by Craddick in the last primary for breaking from the leadership. They brought in Rick Perry toadie Ted Delisi (aka the husband of Perry’s chief of staff and the same guy who also ran Hamric’s campaign against Dan Patrick) to run the challenger’s campaign against Haggerty. The powers that be threw everything they had at him but he prevailed in the primary.
Also note who Tom Craddick picked to be his personal champion in this battle: Liberal Democrat Sylvester Turner. Turner interrupted him at 10:49 to stop the vote, but Haggerty plowed ahead. Turner interrupted again at 10:51, then Haggerty led a walkout of the House that broke quorum.
If you watch the video continue you can also see that Turner is being spoon-fed word for word what to say by Craddick’s two parliamentarian lackeys. One of them is former Democrat State Rep. Ron Wilson. The other is former Republican State Rep. Terry Keel, who was defeated in the last primary when he ran for the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.
Phil, the play against Craddick is two-fold: a small group of Repubs smelling blood and the majority of Dems smelling blood. Just looking at the people supporting the ouster, it is easy to see that this has little to do with the process or the sanctity of rules, certainly nothing to do with democracy.
Read the blogs on the left and you’ll be shocked. The names you call Craddick pale in comparison to what is going on in Dem circles. And you point out that Haggerty doesn’t like Craddick for personal reasons, nothing whatsoever to do with democracy.
I watched the stream live. As BSue noted, they acted like spoiled brats when they didn’t get their way.
As for your comment about the new parliamentarians spoon feeding Turner, they do the same with Craddick. As did the parliamentarians that resigned Friday.
#54 Jolly
The spoonfeeding of words to Craddick late Friday night/early Saturday, combined with what looked like a facial droop, and slight slurring of speech, made me wonder if he was having a stroke. At one point, I asked Squawk why he didn’t just give the mic to Keel and be done with it, but decided as I spoke the words that THAT wasn’t gonna happen.
I need to turn on the feed, now that 2:00pm has arrived, to see if they have a quorum when they reconvene.
Bigjolly - #54 - I’ve stated in plain language many times that I have little sympathy for the political views of the anti-Craddick faction. Nor would I expect the Dems to do anything other than capitalize on this for political reasons. But that is beside the point here.
My entire argument is that dislike for Fred Hill is NOT a sufficient reason for conservatives to rally around Craddick and pretend that he’s a conservative stalwart and standard bearer. In many ways, Craddick is just as bad as the people challenging him. I’ve already outlined several examples of how Craddick is NOT a conservative, and how he brought the current mess on himself by choosing people like Hill to be his committee chairmen in the first place. The bottom line is that Craddick’s a big government RINO who deserves no sympathy from the right. Pretending that he’s anything else other than that only fools us into taking a hit for Craddick, which is exactly what RPT wants us to do right now.
And frankly, I don’t care what the left wing blogs are calling Craddick right now. They call Republicans everything horrible they can think of when they smell blood, and they’ve been doing it for years so it’s neither significant nor unexpected. What is significant, though, is Craddick’s tenure as Speaker and that tenure has been bad for the status of conservatism in Texas. Lashing ourselves to the Craddick ship only damages the conservative position further. I’ve stated before and maintain right now that Craddick is a sleazy hypocrite and cite his about face on Mutscher as proof. When conservatives defend Craddick they inadvertently end up associating themselves with his sleaze and hypocrisy. As the old saying goes, lie down with dogs and get up with fleas.
Also on Haggerty - you’re exactly right he has a personal reason involved here. And he’s completely justified for having it. Haggerty bucked Craddick on the school finance and spending bills in the special session last year (as in the same bills that busted the constitution’s spending cap), and Craddick tried to take revenge on him in the primary.
As is often the case with politicians, the incestuous relationship between the Speaker’s office and Governor Hairspray’s team of cronies stepped right into the middle of it. Craddick tapped his lieutenent Diane White Delisi’s son, who’s married to Perry’s chief of staff, to run the campaign against Haggerty in the primary.
Haggerty has every right to be pissed about that, just as you and I would be pissed if the Austin lobby hired some out-of-town Perry crony and sent him here to run a primary campaign aimed at stopping Dan Patrick (oh wait…they did that too using the same guy, Delisi). The point is that Craddick does this kind of garbage all the time. He meddles in local Republican primaries, and it’s almost always to help out RINO liberals like Roy Blake and Carter Casteel. He penalizes people who buck him over committee assignments, and appoints RINO Republicans like Hill and liberal Democrats like Turner to key leadership posts. (BTW, the fact that Craddick needs Keel whispering in his ear on how to run the House is evidence in itself that this guy is not qualified to be on the Speaker’s podium. Knowing the rules yourself is a central part of the job description. Craddick evidently doesn’t, even though he’s been there for over 30 years!)
If you run the House the way Craddick does, sooner or later somebody’s gonna hit back and Haggerty did last night. It’s not just a liberal thing either, despite what’s being presented by RPT. Robert Talton has been throwing procedural motions out at Craddick all session, and he’s one of the most conservative reps up there. For every RINO attacking Craddick, there’s another RINO like Diane White Delisi carrying his water. For every Jim Dunnam chearing on the “insurgents” there’s a Sylvester Turner serving as Craddick’s #2 on the House floor. I realize it’s a dirty business, but this spat isn’t a “good guys” versus “bad guys” or “conservatives” versus “liberals” thing. It’s much more complicated than that, and picking sides when the guy your cheering for is completely undeserving only portends disappointment for conservatives in the future.
#51 - I disagree. Far from being “spoiled brats,” they made an effective parliamentary move to protest Craddick’s efforts to block a vote against him. He denied the vote on the motion to vacate, so they denied him a vote on his bills by breaking quorum. This sort of thing happens all the time - in the legislature, at political conventions, even at Harris County Republican Party executive committee meetings. In this case, considering that Craddick essentially declared his rulings unappealable, it was the only move they could effectively make.
The insurgents did not lose any real procedural move here and decide to leave because its outcome wasn’t what they wanted. The motion never played out because the Speaker is basically cheating at the game. He even dismissed the referees of the game - the parliamentarians - when they told him he was cheating. When dealing with a cheater the only realistic option you have is to exit and deny him the ability to proceed with the game.
Phil_M, you make many compelling arguments. Well thought out and well analyzed. I believe I have another email to send to my Rep.
Phil, at some point, the term RINO needs to leave the lexicon. It no longer means anything. The Republican Party of Texas is a party of big government, just not as big as the Democrat Party of Texas wants to be.
Craddick is more conservative than 90% of the Republicans in the party. You’re correct, Talton is more conservative but notice how he pretty much stayed out of this one. Yes, he threw many wrenches in the works over the course of the session but in this fight, he vowed to stay neutral. Gotta ask yourself why on that one.
At any rate, he survived. It would surprise but not shock me if he allowed the vote at the end of the evening. The reason I say it wouldn’t shock me is because it is clear that he will not be speaker again, he knows it and if he can maneuver a way to get one of the members that remained loyal to him into the post tonight, I think he’d do it.
And when I look closely at the players in this, I remain convinced that it wasn’t about some lofty, high moral ground position, it was just petty personal politics.
#60 -
I’ve yet to see the evidence of that from any point in his term as Speaker. Instead from Craddick, I see only a record of out of control spending, failure after failure on most major conservative policy agendas, and a tenure at the helm marked by personal extravagence and meddlesome power struggles as he rewards his cronies and tries to get back at those who cross him. He might have been that a couple decades ago, but as the Mutscher comment reveals much has changed about Tom Craddick since then.
The man’s most loyal defender is Sylvester Turner for crying out loud!
And Sylvester’s probably riding high atop the Craddick gravy train.
Talton’s neutral position in this fight is a respectable and conservative position. He knows that the Fred Hill crowd is an unacceptable alternative, but at the same time he knows that Craddick isn’t any better. Talton certainly hasn’t put anything on the line to help Craddick overcome this challenge, and he certainly isn’t trying to rally the GOP base to display unearned loyalty to a tax and spend Speaker. If he’s smart, he’s probably just enjoying the fireworks and hoping that it makes both sides damaged goods when the next special session rolls around.
Phil_M
#61
Well said. I cannot disagree with you on any of your points.
p.s. not that anything I say makes any difference.
Lest anyone think that the Democrats are pulling the strings behind the revolt against Craddick, a group of 15 of them held a press conference this afternoon praising him for helping them get their agenda through. Here’s the list of those in attendence.
D’s for Craddick:
Aaron Pena (D-Edinburg)
Ryan Guillen (D-Rio Grande City)
Kino Flores (D-Palmview)
Ruth Jones McClendon (D-San Antonio)
Joe Deshotel (D-Beaumont)
Dawnna Dukes (D-Austin)
Kevin Bailey (D-Houston)
Norma Chavez (D-El Paso)
Robert Puente (D-San Antonio)
Helen Giddings (D-De Soto)
Chente Quintanilla (D-El Paso)
Sylvester Turner (D-Houston)
Note that these are some of the worst of the worst. Dawnna Dukes is known in some circles as the Sheila Jackson-Lee of the Texas House. Turner and Bailey are well known far left wingers from the Houston area.
Here is Sylvester’s handout at the press conference where he talks about all the wonderful liberal democrat legislation that Craddick is helping them accomplish:
http://www.capitolannex.com/IMAGES2/80thlege/DEM_REFORM_HANDOUT.pdf
Phil, re your #64, as I’ve stated several times now, the insurgency is led by a small group of wayward Republicans for personal gain, supported by the majority of Dems. The list that you present are the ones that supported his speakership, less two.
Would you rather have had one of the other guys whose supporters include Senfronia Thompson? Or any one of countless far left Dems? Do you have information that a speaker could have been elected without Dem supporters? I haven’t heard of anyone that could have kept the Republicans voting as a block.
#66 - It’s really a no-win situation for conservatives. Go with Craddick and you get Dawnna Dukes. Go against Craddick and you get Senfronia. Call it six in one and a half dozen in the other, it’s still the same bad outcome.
And once again, my point in posting this is NOT to promote sympathy with the insurgent Republicans, nor do I contend that they’re doing this for anything other than personal reasons. That’s simply what politicians do.
I did say that the personal reason of at least one of them - Haggerty - is completely justified considering Craddick’s attempt to oust him in the last primary as payback for his votes. But I’ve also stated many times in plain and clear language that I find a Fred Hill candidacy horrible.
Nevertheless, dislike for Fred Hill is NOT a sufficient reason to earn sympathy for Craddick. I’ve already made the case why Craddick, at least as judged by his tenure as Speaker, can in no reasonable way be called a conservative. I’ve also made the case of Craddick’s personal shortcomings and hypocrisy. And I’ve shown that some of his strongest allies and cohorts are people like Sylvester Turner and Dawnna Dukes - the most liberal of the liberal Democrats in the House. All of this goes back to my original contention - it is NOT a wise move for conservatives to sympathize with Craddick in this fight because he is no better than the worst of the insurgents. Put another way, he is no better than Fred Hill. In fact he previously enabled Fred Hill to kill the tax caps when Hill was one of his closest followers. Hill jumped ship last week, but that doesn’t change the fact that Craddick directly enabled him. It’s simply a case of vultures turning on their own because they percieve a weakness in the flock. So before supporting Craddick because of Hill, remember that the enemy of your enemy is not always your friend.