Tom Craddick is the single biggest roadblock to a more progressive agenda ever seeing the light of day in Texas! For example, if you believe in health care for kids and the elderly, more funding for public and higher education, progressive and reasonable tax policy that benefits the middle class, and a cleaner environment, then your single biggest obstacle is Tom Craddick.
When a member votes for Craddick, he or she votes for the person who is the single biggest roadblock to our core democratic values. What they do afterwards is almost irrelevant, because they just empowered the guy who will NOT allow good, meaningful things to happen. They can vote all day to fully restore CHIP, but when they start the session voting for the guy who will block it, then the game is rigged before it ever begins.
The end result is a partial restoration of CHIP (which Craddick had to do anyway since his R's were getting killed at the polls on that issue). I would argue that for a handful of the biggest issues facing the state, the single biggest vote you cast is the vote for Speaker; in many ways it's the only one that matters since it dictates so much of what will inevitably happen on the House Floor. You can't exactly say, "I voted for Hitler, but damn if I didn't fight him all the way after that". Give me a break.
If the Craddick-Ds had voted for a secret ballot on the Geren Amendment, then we would have a new Speaker who would be beholden to 60 Democrats, not the 10-15 Craddick D's, for putting him in office. That new Speaker would have no choice but to permit a more moderate and progressive agenda.
The bare bones fact is that the Craddick-Ds placed their personal political goals ahead of moving the overall progressive agenda forward. They put their own self-interest ahead of the best interest of the Democratic Party. The end result is Craddick threw the Craddick D's a bone or two at the expense of good policy that could have helped millions of Texans, not just Aaron Pena and Kino and Sly and Kevin Bailey.
Democrats may be in the minority, but this past session they proved they could run the agenda on the House floor. Tom Craddick sitting in the Speaker's chair stopped positive, wholesale changes for more progressive public policy from happening.
Any time the House D's were in strong policy positions, on the budget, on CHIP, on schools, Craddick trotted out the Craddick D's to fight the true D's. The House had the votes to fully restore CHIP, but Sly had pledged not to try and fully restore it.
He claimed he had made a deal, and he claimed he did not want to weaken his position with the Senate. How does the House fully restoring CHIP do anything other than put the Senate in a box? Again the R's had to do something on CHIP as that issue was a big part of the Democratic Caucus picking up 6 seats last cycle. Turner was used as a tool to get rid of that issue for 2008.
On another note that Craddick D surrogates keep throwing up on this blog, I'm sick and tired of reading about how the House Democratic Caucus leaders failed because they could only unite 60 D's against Craddick.
How can anyone blame Dunnam, Gallego and Coleman for the irresponsible and self-serving actions of the Craddick-D's who continue to sell out their Democratic colleagues? Dunnam and Coleman and Gallego can't be held responsible for someone else's lack of constitution.
Let's see - 1 person voted against Craddick in 2003, 5 people voted against him in 2005, and 68 voted against him in 2007. Even Phil King acknowledged in print that the Craddick D's were Craddick's margin of victory in keeping the Speaker's gavel. The Craddick's D's put Craddick in the chair this past session - now they own everything he does.
And finally, how do you put Turner in the "maybe" category? Turner is with Craddick hook line and sinker. In the final days of session, when the house had the votes to vacate the chair, Sylvester Turner took the gavel repeatedly and shielded Craddick from the angry mob by reiterating that the Speaker had absolute power.
He could have handed the gavel to one on Craddick's other minions (Chisum, LHB, Hartnett, Phil King, or whomever) if he disagreed with the Speaker's ruling, but instead he opted to act as Craddick's bodyguard and defy the will of the House.
His "speaker's candidacy" is nothing more than an instrument of cover for the Craddick D's, so that if they get the question about who they support for Speaker in a Democratic Primary, they can give the name of a Democrat - a Democrat who is one of the most loyal and trusted lieutenants of Tom Craddick.
If Turner is the one vote Craddick needs to stay in power, Craddick will get that vote. Anyone who says otherwise is either naive, clueless, or being paid to say it.
I think the world of Phil and really enjoy his writing, but I respectfully think he got it wrong on this one.
by Phillip Martin
Mr. Phillip Martin comments on his posting:
I wrote the post as objectively as I possibly could, which was hard for me. During the previous session, I was Chief of Staff for Rep. Coleman, and naturally did a lot of work trying to do the real progressive stuff.
Rep. Coleman had me and his health care staffer as the point-person on the full restoration of CHIP, and I worked hard for months on that. I put together the press conference in January to announce 30+ Democrats had filed CHIP legislation that fully restored CHIP.
I helped Rep. Coleman and our health staffer write many of the amendments that were presented for the budget. I worked with Children's Defense Fund and CPPP throughout the session -- hell, I even paid for the parking for CDF when they came to the Capitol to testify before the Human Services committee on CHIP day (a day Rep. Turner left town).
I've read through the 100-pages of red tape the HHSC has created that makes it impossible for children to enroll in CHIP -- and it was an amendment by Rep. Coleman, and nothing in HB 109, that addressed that very serious problem.
So, naturally, I have a tremendous amount of personal feelings about this issue. Perhaps we could talk about them at some point when I'm back in Texas. But for the post, I wanted to be as fair as possible, and to do that, I could only really look at the most recent public statements.
I put Turner as a "maybe" because he has declared himself for Speaker, and therefore in opposition to Craddick. What he may really be doing, I have no way of knowing -- though you spoke at length to one possibility. I'm sure others would argue the other.
Finally, I would say I'm not naive or clueless, and most certainly am not getting paid to say it. I take it as a small victory for myself (since my goal was to be fair in my post) that you came away thinking what you did.
Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.
