For Democrats, Intraparty Strife Over Speaker’s Race Plays Right Into Republicans Hands

Karl-Thomas over at Burnt Orange Report has a post up on Democratic “fallout” as a result of Democrats still on Craddick’s pledge list.

I posted a comment to that which sums up my thoughts on the issue.

I want to share part of that with you:

[I disagree...]…although I respect your opinion.

In the final analysis, there are more factors to be considered. I’ve discussed a lot of those at Capitol Annex previously so I won’t rehash them.

However, seats like Hopson, Rose are forever lost if those two are defeated in primaries. I don’t think it is sound strategy to advocate that votes in the speaker’s race should result in these or other Democrats being challenged in the primary.

Rather, such a decision is based on the totality of circumstances including votes, the makeup of the constituants, etc.

I will reiterate, however, that for many of these people, things their constituants desparately need rely on their support of Craddick should he win. Many of these reps know that, more than their carrers would suffer over a speaker vote, their constituants could suffer.

I don’t care if you have the legislative prowace of Lyndon Johnson or Sam Rayburn, but if you end up on the wrong side of Craddick and he’s in charge, nothing your constituants need will come to pass.

Do I belive Craddick should be re-elected? Hell no.

But this isn’t utopia.

For us to be talking about “fall-out” before a vote is cast is premature. For one thing, if the vote is secret (which I doubt), we won’t even know who voted how.

Contemplating going after (or encouraging the thought) people like Dukes, Aaron Pena, Hopson, Guillen, Rose, etc., over a pledge alone (which, I believe, they are under no legal obligation to actually honor) is simply premature.

And, it’s exactly what Craddick wants. We’re playing into his hands right here and now. Remember: the Republicans love to see nothing more than us eating our own puppies in the Primaries.

So, win for Craddick or not, we’re giving his party what he wants.

And, come on, let’s face it: we are playing right into the Republicans’ hands.

I am sure if this trend toward ostracizing these representatives as a result of their pledges (a VOTE HAS NOT EVEN BEEN CAST YET, I remind you! A pledge is almost worthless in my view with this many candidates anyway!) as opposed to based on the totality of their service the Republicans will be salavating as they anticipate a host of “open seats” that will result from quality, loyal (I’ll explain in a minute) Democrats being defeated in primaries.

Now, let me explain that “loyalty” bit. Yes, there are a couple of Democrats on Craddick’s pledge list I would have to say should perhaps go the way of Al Edwards. But, the others in my mind are fairly unblemished. They’re loyal to their constituants and the party for the most part.

We are the party of the big tent. I believe in a right to chose, couldn’t care less who marries whom, and think everyone should have equal rights. Do I understand that some people in our party have a differing opinion? Sure. But, are we on the same page on a lot of other issues? Without a doubt.

Is there a line to be drawn? Sure. There were races last cycle that were good examples of when and where the line must be drawn and the decision made, “Democrats, the district’s constituants, and Texas would be better off with a primary contender.”

But, we cannot draw that line arbitrarily and we cannot draw that line based upon a single issue (in most cases).

There are some districts where we know we will never, ever, ever, ever have a Democratic Representative who is pro-choice. And, if we suddenly did find ourselves with a liberal, pro-choice Dem in those districts, we might as well write those districts off because the constituancy may be Democratic (or even turned Democrat), but will never be pro-choice.

It’s just a demographical fact. You can turn any district blue—I firmly believe that—but you cannot turn a district pro-choice or flip it from being “anti-homosexual.” (save instances of urban flight over years and years and years)

You can teach a district to be more tolerant and to not cast their votes based solely on those “wedge issues.” But, it’s very hard to change minds when it comes to wedge issues. You can convince them to vote for a Democrat and ignore those issues, but changing minds is very difficult because it involves issus of religion and culture, and on and on and on.

And, if we start running candidates in areas that don’t mesh with the constituancies (regardless of their pedigrees) of their districts, we stop gaining and start losing.

HD 32 is a good example. Garcia fit his district like a glove, and that helped him win.

Just my two cents.

Tweet This Post   Ping This Post

Bookmark It