Today's Speaker Race update: Craddick confidence

The theme I'm seeing today is confidence being expressed by Craddick supporters. To wit:

Sylvester Turner:

Rep. Sylvester Turner, D-Houston, Craddick's appointed speaker pro tempore, said he has called at least 30 House members, both Democratic and Republican, in an effort to expand Craddick's support. Only two members declared their allegiance to another speaker candidate, Turner said.

Rep.-elect Borris Miles, D-Houston, said he welcomed Turner's New Year's greeting Monday before telling him that he favors McCall.

"I don't believe in leadership by fear," Miles said, adding that if Craddick backers are "calling me, a freshman legislator, that's a call of desperation."

Turner said he was just trying to be inclusive.

"The door is still very wide open for people to come and be a part -- and to join," Turner said.

As for Pitts being a kingmaker, Turner repeated that Craddick already has more than the 75 votes necessary to win.

"The votes are already there," Turner said. "I don't want to beat anybody over the head over it, but it is what it is."

Dan Flynn:

"I have made more phone calls than I can even count and all are strong supporters of the speaker," Flynn said.

Rep. Brian McCall (R-Plano) said last week that he has enough pledges of support to unseat Craddick. Rep. Jim Pitts (R-Waxahachie) has also said he has enough commitments to make a challenge.

Both lawmakers' numbers are off, according to Flynn.

"Craddick has 109 signatures of commitment," Flynn said Saturday. "We got 84 we could verify pretty quickly and all he needs is 76."

While a signature of commitment is not legally binding, Flynn believes those who have said they support Craddick will stand by their pledge.

"I think if you make a commitment such as this, then it stands for something," he said.

Aaron Pena:

It is the middle of the week and as expected the much sought after evidence in the speaker's race is becoming increasingly apparent to the members. Today I expect increased clarity. Look for public statements from leaders, news reports and listen for converts.

Every member has been measured and remeasured. With some reasonable degree of certainty the participants at the center know what the numbers are. Like good advocates each is putting their best foot forward. The question that remains is do the contestants, with the small remaining uncertainty, allow this to go to a final vote on January 9. I don't think so.

[...]

If left unresolved for opening day, I am confident that the candidate, I observed yesterday increasing his lead, will prevail. More likely than not his opponent will withdraw before the final vote.

I'm making an assumption here, since Pena never says who the candidate he observed is, but given that Pena has been on all of Craddick's lists of supporters, and that he cited the Flynn story, I think I'm on solid ground drawing this conclusion. If I'm not, I will be happy to issue a correction.

I daresay that a lot of this is confidence in another sense - it's a confidence game, designed to counter the bad news cycles that Craddick has had and make him look as strong, and as beloved, as ever. The story line so far has been all about Craddick bleeding support - his ever-shrinking pledge list, his unfaithful committee chairs, the late bid by Jim Pitts that caught Alexis DeLee by surprise. These statements are designed to make it look like all that was overblown, just a handful of malcontents and gripers taking advantage of a slow news week. And hey, maybe they're right. We'll know in six more days, that's for sure.

Along the same lines is this tack by Cathie Adams of the Eagle Forum:

The head of the conservative Texas Eagle Forum warned Tuesday that the move to unseat Republican House Speaker Tom Craddick would effectively return power to the Democrats who had ruled the chamber for the 100 years before the GOP takeover in 2002.

"Our conservative agenda would be DOA," said Cathie Adams, who is trying to rally GOP base voters to pressure lawmakers to stick with Craddick as he battles two Republican colleagues for leadership. "We've worked too hard for too many years to win a Republican majority in the House just to hand it over to the Democrats."

Adams said the only way Republican state Reps. Brian McCall of Plano or Jim Pitts of Waxahachie could win would be by consolidating support among the outnumbered House Democrats and picking off enough dissident Republicans to deny Craddick the 75 votes he needs to secure a third term as speaker.

State Rep. Jim Dunnam of Waco, who leads the Democratic caucus, said Republicans will control the House regardless of who becomes speaker.

"The fact is, they have the majority and we're in the minority," Dunnam said.

This is the weak spot of McCall's bid, and it's what Jim Pitts has been trying to exploit. I can't blame any Republican for being leery about joining a coalition that's 75% Democratic, but for some of them it's that or continue to live under the thumb of someone who keeps trying to kill you.

Veteran state Rep. Pat Haggerty, R-El Paso, rejected any assertion that backing a consensus-builder for speaker would be an act of disloyalty to the Republican Party.

"Give me a break," said Haggerty, an 18-year House veteran who has had sharp differences with Craddick. "I'm going to vote for somebody who's going to allow me to represent my constituents and allow everyone to represent theirs."

The question, as it has been from the beginning, is whether there are enough Pat Haggertys to join with the Dems and form a big enough bloc to oust Craddick. Some people are likely to go soft at the last minute. Others may surprise Craddick by abandoning him. Royal Masset is right: A lot of what is being said right now is not the truth. The truth will come out in the voting.

Best bit of the story:

Another House Republican, Corbin Van Arsdale of Tomball, said the caricature of Craddick as an arm-twisting tyrant is overblown.

"There is a lot of misinformation out there that seems to be feeding on itself," said Van Arsdale, who was elected in 2002. "In private conversations, I'm hearing a lot of support for Craddick, even from some members you might think are with Brian. So I just don't see all this dissatisfaction that we're seeing in the media and on the blogs."

Hey, thanks for reading the blogs, Corbin! Since none of the Republican blogs are talking about the Speaker's race (sole exception), I can only presume that you're reading folks like me. We appreciate the business, and hey, don't be a stranger. Leave a comment, or send an email.

Outlier among the stories:

Rep. Jim Pitts, saying he would like to avoid a bloody speaker's race, said he met for two hours Tuesday with incumbent Speaker Tom Craddick and talked several times with fellow GOP challenger Rep. Brian McCall.

"My personality is to try to get something -- you know, see if we can spare the members and see what we can do and not make an ugly deal on Tuesday. But if we have to, we have to," Pitts, R-Waxahachie, said in a telephone interview, referring to the speaker election set for the opening day of the legislative session next Tuesday.

Pitts entered the speaker's race last week after McCall of Plano announced his bid against Craddick, R-Midland.

"I think that's the feeling of all three of us, is that we'd like to get something resolved. I don't think we're going to be able to do it," Pitts said. "I don't think we can today. But there's always a tomorrow."

[...]

McCall and Pitts met three times over the holiday weekend and discussed hatching a deal in which Pitts would throw his support to McCall, said someone close to the McCall campaign who said he was not authorized to speak publicly.

The discussions are ongoing, the source said, and a deal is "much more of a possibility than not a possibility," he said. "If it happened, it would be Katie, bar the door."

Pitts, who had lunch with McCall and Rep. Craig Eiland, D-Galveston, on Sunday in Dallas, left voice mail Monday night saying he hadn't endorsed McCall, although he said he was asked to do so in the meeting. "That subject was brought up, and I said, 'No,' " he said. "I told them, 'No' on endorsing McCall."

On Tuesday, Pitts said the subject hadn't come up.

And finally, a little laissez-faire in Seguin:

[State Rep. Edmund Kuempel, R-Seguin,] did not say if he would back Craddick or his two challengers.

"I am sitting back and watching," Kuempel said.

Kuempel said he has a good working relationship with Craddick.

"We get along well," he said.

Whether Craddick comes back as speaker or if McCall or Pitts succeed him, Kuempel wants a positive tone for the Texas House..

"I don't want to see it [House] as partisan, but non-partisan and to do what's best for the people of the state of Texas," Kuempel said.

If that's really what he wants, then the choice is clear. Like I said, we'll know soon enough. Stay tuned.

Posted by Charles Kuffner on January 03, 2007 to That's our Lege | TrackBack