Are the brave 111 for Straus solid or broad & thin?
Most followers of Texas politics have no doubt recently read about the list of 111 Pledge Card" signers that Texas House Speaker Joe Straus announced will support him for Speaker next Session. However while history is replete with brave individuals defending family & principle from harm this list of 111 certainly fades in comparison. Word on the street at least in Austin since Straus announcement has been that the list of 111 is broad but thin". And that comes from some on the list of 111 itself. So whats going on?
Well lets start with long-time politico Royal Massets quote from earlier this week in which he stated
The 81st legislative session was the strangest one Ive ever seen. The lesson Ive learned from this session is that our Texas legislature is almost superfluous. As long as the Executive Branch keeps on functioning Texas can keep buggering on without a legislature. The big truth here is that the legal structure and form of our Texas government is almost meaningless. What does count is leadership. Power in Texas government belongs to those who exercise it." (emphasis added by the editor.)
This is especially interesting because it comes from one who fought so long & hard from a position within the Republican Party of Texas to reach exactly the position Republicans now find themselves … in the majority with power.
Truly many in Austin are wondering about the state of the Pledge Card" practice or tradition. More specifically the question being asked while unspoken is one of power". Given the under-current of the just-adjourned Session as well as the inherent political positioning for power many are wondering especially after the past two years when more pledges have been broken than kept whether pledges are even worth the paper theyre written on.
Most politicos acknowledge that whether one chooses to exercise it or not holding a position of leadership inherently includes having the ability to direct policy & legislation. This direction is usually based upon ones philosophies. So whether or not one is interested in directing policy holding the position that directs power is
always the starting point. Its a question of or the point of holding a position of power.
Another starting point one would wisely assume at least for those out of power is planning how to get it. For in politics one can always rest assured of one thing … youre never standing still; youre either moving forward or youre moving backwards.
Having visited with legislators from both sides of the aisle and from both the House & the Senate suffice to say every Session ends in disappointment for various seemingly unnecessary reasons … and this Session is no different. Just it is being said like none ever seen before.
As a result legislators are being forced to contemplate when theyll be called back for a Special Session to address unfinished business just as they had hoped to be returning to business or focusing on family. In the meantime when idle minds are the devils workshop analysts see that Speaker Strauss list of supporters includes many conservative and liberal leaders in both parties and wonder what is really going on.
The contention from the Speakers team centers on this showing great support for the Straus team and their goal of the job of speaker focusing on process more than concerns like end results or the benefits provided the Texas voter/taxpayer. Representatives Brian McCall (R-Plano) and Jim Pitts (R-Waxahachie) campaigned for the Speakers slot in 2006 and 2007 with the exact same creed its about process. At the time this was seen by most as a slap against the current Speaker Tom Craddick (R-Midland) and his leadership style".
In the just finished Session the Straus style" of leadership allowed his team of supporters ostensibly to make virtually all of the critical decisions about scheduling votes for particular issues for bills written by particular members and the specific content of the legislation.
Without question Straus demonstrated his preference for decision-making as one of being led by other members as opposed to by himself.
This does certainly represent a contrast with the style of previous Speaker who made most decisions himself after discussing concerns with his team of supporters. But at least members know who was in charge and who made most of the decisions from 2003-2008.
The central issue now as Straus couches it lays in exactly what do members of the House want? And as much reflecting on the Session goes on legislators themselves not to mention political consultants & analysts alike are trying to determine whether the new style" of leadership facilitated the legislative results hoped for.
It was a bi-partisan group of House Members who chose Joe Straus over sitting Speaker Tom Craddick perhaps in hopes of either changing the team advising the Speaker or with hopes of a greater individual voice for themselves. But the initial list of Straus supporters included 69 Democrats and scarcely more than a hand full of Republicans.
Many of the current 111 supporters make a strong case that the opportunity for their voice to be heard amongst the members has & did increase. However that did not and does not translate into a greater voice for a set of principles. Principles other than process are rarely a discussion topic with Straus or his team and in fact Straus has allowed the more liberal membership a greater voice. Naturally this comes at the expense of the voice of conservatives and conservative principles.
Speaker Straus will argue that a partisan split of 76-74 has forced that change a very legitimate point. Nonetheless the question for conservatives moving forward is if the conservative ranks return with a rise in numbers will Straus recognize conservatives and re-strengthen their voice?
One can rest assured the liberals & Democrats are also pondering the same question. Each side is also asking a bigger more concerning question perhaps: Where would one so concerned about process" over philosophy" come down when making such a decision?
Add to this uncertainty another set of memories still latent in legislators minds: While the legislative decision-making process may have changed the process for selecting a Speaker has changed as well and many think not for the better.
While Straus was chosen by a coalition of mostly Democrats and a few Republicans many of the very Republicans and Democrats nominating him had given such said-same pledge cards" to Craddick yet conveniently switched their vote at the end.
Others even pledged a vote for Speaker to multiple candidates.
In past elections a Pledge Card" represented the honor & word of the member. If a member chose to change their vote which is of course their right the member asked for the pledge card to be returned before a pledge was given to another.
Of course each race for Speaker included members in violation of this trust. However the victors in past races chose to punish those violators with assignments and duties reflecting the dishonorable action of pledging to multiple candidates. Without naming names members are well aware of their colleagues that chose to pledge to multiple candidates and even more aware of the rewards provided to those same colleagues.
The net effect of these double-pledges and rewards is members now see little or no punishment for retribution of pledging to any candidate that asks for a pledge.
With that new reality why not pledge to Straus? What do you have to lose? If you vote for someone else in the end its no big deal.
Apparently that is acceptable practice these days.
While this column is not intended to question the integrity of any member it is intended to bring to light certain realities about how a list of 111 supporters came to be. Many of those 111 will not seek reelection. Others will not return as voters will choose another candidate either in a primary or general election.
Perhaps all 111 will follow through and support Speaker Straus for re-election in 2011 or perhaps the Democrats will pick up two seats and secure the majority for themselves in order to elect a Democrat Speaker. Others believe Republicans have a golden opportunity to pick up seats in a non-presidential year begging the question of putting a more conservative philosophical" leader in power.
Most likely for today however is that most members see Straus as the only current candidate for Speaker so why not commit to him?
Many members would like to fashion themselves as a candidate for Speaker yet none have shown the bravery to step out and openly challenge Straus. At the moment each of the aspirants continues to look for an opportunity to emerge a leader and challenge Straus. Until a member challenges Straus he will continue to keep the promises of the majority of members.
As for the Brave 111 what does this mean for voters?
Its a fair question to ask Who made the decisions in the Texas House last Session and who provided the leadership on legislation and policy?
While the answer may vary by issue when the dust finally settles from the 2009 Legislative Session voters & prognosticators alike can decide whether they agreed or if change is needed in who it is that is controlling the power of making decisions.
