More on the anti-Craddick revolt
Burka has a long take on what happened in the Lege Monday night.
Our editor, Evan Smith, asked me this morning who was to blame for what has gone on this session. I waffled, but I think that there can be only one answer. The speaker has it in his power to set the tone. He can be magnanimous, or he can be confrontational. He has chosen the latter from day one of his speakership. The opposition Democrats cannot pass any significant bills on the regular calendar. They can't serve on major committees unless their seniority allows it, which occurs in only a few cases. Calendar rules and the dividing of property tax cut legislation made it impossible for them to present their alternatives in debate. Whatever happened to the saying, Keep your friends close and your enemies closer? The Democrats have no stake in the session. They have nothing to do except figure out ways to torture Craddick on the floor, day in and day out. Idle minds are the devil's workshop. Do you think that Pete Gallego would be trying to bust Craddick every day if he were vice-chair of Appropriations? Do you think that Jim Dunnam would be scheming against Craddick with every breath he takes if he were vice-chair of Civil Practices? Do you think that Craig Eiland would be lending his rhetorical and analytical skills to the anti-Craddick effort if he were carrying the teacher retirement bill?
Emphasis Burka's. That feels right to me. We've seen the bogus rulings on points of order, the priority given to some bills and not to others, and on and on. For all the talk of a new Craddick that came up during the Speaker's race, it's clear that the actions have spoken louder. There's only one way this will change - the Observer
thinks it might be happening, Burka is less sure. I want to believe the former, but unfortunately I think Burka is more likely to be right. Show me a candidate, and get back to me after the 2008 election.
Posted by Charles Kuffner on May 09, 2007 to That's our Lege