While he was seconding the nomination of House Speaker Tom Craddick—someone that Democratic bloggers do not support—it cannot be said that he didn’t give a good speech.

I wanted to include it as well because I think it speaks to why some Democrats supported Craddick. I’ve bolded those parts I believe speak to that, and I’ll comment more after the speech:

Mr. Secretary, members, distinguished guests, family, and friends.

The currents of history are constantly crashing around us.  Throughout it all this Texas House and the Texas ideals and values it represents remain.  In 2003 after 130 years, not since the aftermath of the Civil War, had this institution seen those currents bring such change that came with the election of Tom Craddick as Speaker.

A lot has happened in the past 4 years. Say what you want about this period but often missed in the headlines and greater issues of the day is one of the single greatest achievements of this administration and in the advancement of Texas.  In unprecedented numbers, the diversity that is Texas has gained a significant role in the leadership of their government.

People like me and the people I represent for the first time in significant and meaningful numbers have assumed leadership roles in the Texas House these past two sessions.

It is no mistake that I, a son of the border, am addressing you today.  I have also not failed to note that the others who also rise to speak with me are part of the new face of Texas.  I stand here because the people I represent do not have the luxury to tilt at windmills. We were not elected to be partisans, to war with each other over questions of style. We were elected to create substance, to work on improving the lives of the people of Texas and the state we love.  We come looking for a seat at the table, not as adversaries but as brothers and sisters, diverse in our perspectives but singular in our purpose.

We see hope in a new partnership, not blinded by illusion, placing our full faith in the pragmatic politics of reality.  Whereas the pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity; the optimist sees opportunity in every difficulty.  History tells us that when the crusaders entered the holy land, they came as conquerors to dominate the land and its people.  Their experience left them however more changed by the people they sought to dominate.  This maxim of history is not forgotten here, to change the direction of policy not through confrontation and partisanship but rather through the time honed value of pragmatic politics - respect, trust and honor - placing value in a man’s word.  Above all values, the reason I am here is because one man extended his hand and I responded with my word and my honor.

Mr. Secretary, fellow members. It is my great honor to second the nomination of Tom Craddick for Speaker of the Texas House of Representatives.

I believe that the “tilting at windmills” remark is very telling. Some of those representatives don’t have the luxury of being “back benched,” because their constituants needs are so great.

Aside from that, as someone who has recently read a lot of the speeches in the House Journal for speakership elections, I can tell you that there are good ones and bad ones. I think that Pena’s speech will go down as one of the good ones in terms of the rhetorical quality of nomination and seconding speeches. After all, these speeches are kind of like the “innaugural addresses” for the House.
One of my all time favorites is the W.W. Bridgers nomination speech for Claude H. Gilmer in 1945.

What are those numbers? Democrats who voted against Tom Craddick for Speaker of the Texas House of Representatives.

The 27 are: Roberto Alonzo (D-Dallas), Lon Burnam (D-Fort Worth), Joaquin Castro (D-San Antonio), Garnet Coleman (D-Houston), Yvonne Davis (D-Dallas), Jim Dunnam (D-Waco), Craig Eiland (D-Galveston), Juan Escobar (D-Kingsville), Joe Farias (D-San Antonio), Jessica Farrar (D-Houston), Pete Gallego (D-Alpine), Juan M. Garcia (D-Corpus Christi), Ana Hernandez (D-Houston), Abel Herrero (D-Corpus Christi), Terri Hodge (D-Dallas), David Leibowitz (D-San Antonio), Barbara Mallory Caraway (D-Dallas), Trey Martinez Fischer (D-San Antonio), Borris Miles (D-Houston), Paul Moreno (D-El Paso), Rick Noriega (D-Houston), Dora Olivo, (D-Rosenberg), Solomon Ortiz Jr., (D-Corpus Christi) Richard Raymond (D-Laredo), Eddie Rodriguez (D-Austin), Senfronia Thompson (D-Houston), Marc Veasey (D-Fort Worth).

And on we carry, through the fears
Ooh oh ohhhh
Disappointed faces of your peers,
Ooh oh ohhhh,
Take a look at me, cause I could not care at all.

Had Tom Craddick been defeated today, it would have been the equivelant of winning a football game by two touchdowns with 10 seconds left in the fourth quarter. In other words, it was an up hill battle from the start.

That said, there are still positives and negatives about today’s events. I’ll hit the positives first.
First and foremost, today did show the overall strength and unity of the House Democratic Caucus. Fifty-five (55) Democrats were pledged to Representative Pitts. That shows a massive amount of unity among our caucus.

The other good part of that is it shows that, joined with the 13 Republicans I understand were pledged to Pitts at the very end, plus other Republucans and our Democratic brothers and sisters who supported Speaker Craddick but who will support our causes in other areas, we have the votes to do what we need to do for Texas on education, healthcare, insurance, CHIPs, tuition reform, etc.

More importantly, we have the votes to stop things like school vouchers, anti-choice legislation, and anti-consumer legislation.

While Craddick may hold the Speaker’s chair in the House, we—along with our moderate Republican colleagues—hold the power to stop bad legislation.

That alone is a major force for good government in Texas.

This also shows that, among the two parties in the House, Democrats are the more united. While we had a handful of our members on the opposite side of the majority of our membership (for various reasons), our Republican colleauges were far more fragmented.

Now, for the more difficult part of this post: addressing the issue of our fellow Democrats who stuck with Tom Craddick all the way through: on the procedural votes, the House Resolution Votes, etc., and even those who seconded Speaker Craddick’s nomination.

On this issue, I have little to say. First off, you will not hear me advocating for these members to have primary opponents. For one thing, evaluating something like that on one vote is simply not appropriate, especially when that vote is one that involved someone like Craddick, who has a record of intimidating people and forcing people to his side who otherwise have the good judgement not to do so.

While I am not pleased about Democrats who alleged that Democrats could have worked better with Speaker Craddick (Rep. Patrick Rose), at this point even I, the most partisan of Democrats, is willing to give the Craddick supporters a pass because I am not convinced they wouldn’t have voted otherwise were it not for the administration of fear and intimidation that has prevailed in the House the last few years.

Finally, we must consider that, though it may be a tough two years with Craddick in the chair, Republicans have unwittingly handed Texas Democrats our greatest victory.

The Craddicat will not be able to change his stripes, and will rule as he always has.  And, instead of the House flipping in 2010, it will flip in 2008. And, in that flip, more seats will flip than would under a Pitts speakership. Craddick remains a poison even unto his own party. His victory will cost his party 10-12 seats in 2008.

Clerk is reading a resolution. Williams asked if every member has a copy.  Now we’re idle again…Now he’s asking again if everyone has copies…(what’s the point of that? It’s online and they should all have laptops at their desks?)….asking again if everyone has copies…

Clerk is now reading it.

HR 33 by Geren. Hartnett is now speaking, says we want to clear through the House all procedures that everyone can agree to. This is the standard procedure, he has moved adoption. Adopted without dissent.

Anyway, the liveblogging will commence  below the jump (assuming the video works…)

In the interim, someone please IM me if, you know…a fight breaks out or something (vpltz at MSN, AOLIM, or Yahoo!)

SECTION 3.  VOTING PROCEDURES.

(a) The chief clerk shall prepare paper ballots containing a space for a member to write in the member’s choice for speaker. One ballot shall be prepared for each member and must contain the member’s name and district number and a space for the member’s signature. The house sergeant shall distribute each ballot to the appropriate member at the member’s desk.
(b)  The chief clerk shall designate a voting area and shall provide a voting box for the marked ballots. A member may mark and sign the member’s ballot either at the member’s desk or at the voting area.
(c)  Each member shall be called individually by the reading
clerk in order of the member’s district number and the member shall proceed to the voting area when called. After arriving at the voting area, the member shall fold the marked and signed ballot and deposit it in the voting box.
(d)  After all members have voted, the chief clerk shall count the ballots on the house floor. The secretary of state and the state auditor shall observe the count. A ballot may not be counted unless it bears the signature of the member for whom it was prepared. The chief clerk shall prepare a tally sheet indicating how each member voted, the total votes received by each nominee, and the total number of members who are present, not voting.
(e)  All votes taken shall be record votes with the vote of each member entered in the House Journal.

s

Sources inside the Pitts camp said the list to which Taylor referred was an out of date “prospecting” list and only two of the eleven names were ever in play.

In a joint release, the 11 issued this statement:

“We have been notified that our names (11 names in total) are listed among those voting for Representative Jim Pitts. This claim is entirely incorrect. We firmly support Speaker Tom Craddick and will be voting for him today.”

The 11 are: Wayne Christian, Brandon Creighton, Tony Goolsby, Charlie Howard, Nathan Macias, Jim Murphy, Rob Orr, John Otto, Diane Patrick, Larry Taylor, and Bill Zedler.

Most of those aren’t new names, as most were assumed to be supporting Craddick or were captured on video the other night at the Austin Club going to Craddick’s function there.

Tags: Wayne+Christian, Brandon+Creighton, Tony+Goolsby, Charlie+Howard, Nathan+Macias, Jim+Murphy, Rob+Orr, Diane+Patrick, Larry+Taylor, Bill+Zedler, Tom+Craddick, Jim+Pitts

All I have to say is that if a Democratic or progressive organization is responsible for the production of this video, this is one time I will call foul. Given the culture of corruption and intimidateion of Craddick, even now this is not a point at which we can hold this vote against these members.

The Craddick fete at the Austin Club seems to have drawn an uninvited street crowd. In addition to TV cameras, a freelance photograph took photos of arriving guests with a digital camera. You can bet that Craddick will know who showed up, so the cloud of suspicion falls on Democrats looking for material to use against the Craddick Ds in the 2008 Democratic primary. I don’t think these intimidation tactics work (except when Craddick uses them), especially when you resort to the same tactics as the guy you’re trying to replace.

Really, Paul? The “cloud of suspicion?” Aside from, perhaps, one or two misguided blog posts that have popped up hither and yon, do you have any evidence that Democrats were doing this and engaging in eating-your-young politics?

Also, how do you know it was a freelance photographer? What kind of digital camer? There is a big difference between the journalistic Cannon D-60 and a hand held model that tourists carry. Maybe it was one of the Craddickats themselves just taking photos for their scrapbook? Did you talk to the photographer to know it was a freelance photographer? Maybe Craddick hired the photographer? Maybe it was a freelancer for a mainstream media outlet?

A lot of people respect Paul Burka and seemed to think that, when he came to the Blogsphere, people would pretty much stop reading all the rest of us and worship at the shrine of All Things Burka.

However, with his “reporting” on the speaker’s race (some of which was so poorly done that many regular bloggers with only the most minimal of journalistic skills wouldn’t have written such baseless rumor) and the 2006 elections, Burka’s star doesn’t shine as bright.

All bloggers engage in speculation, as do all columnists for the MSM. However, the speculation Burka engages in above is so un-called for it is pathetic. Pathetic!

Rep. Betty Brown (R-Terrell), had this to say on her support for Speaker Craddick:

“Speaker Craddick has shepherded us through some very troubling times,” Brown said. “He served in the minority for many years and was there when he suffered defeat after defeat. He didn’t give up; he stayed with it. As they say, he’s paid his dues.”

Meanwhile, the Chron reports on so-called “floaters” who are double-pledged.

Also, the Waxahachie Daily Light has a lengthy piece on its hometown Rep—Jim Pitts, who is running, of course, for Speaker.

The McAllen Monitor examines the role of Valley lawmakers in the Speaker’s Race, and notes that Kink Flores (D-Misson), remains pledged to Craddick. The Monitor also breaks down other Valley lawmakers:

State Rep. Rene Oliveira, D-Brownsville, openly supported Craddick’s first Republican rival, Rep. Brian McCall of Plano. When McCall dropped out and endorsed Pitts, Oliveira said he was leaning toward voting for Pitts.

Even if Craddick wins, opponents would not be left out of leadership positions for long, because the race has shown the House is divided, Oliveira said.

“I believe at this point, based on what I understand is happening, that Jim Pitts will be the next speaker,” Oliveira said Thursday. “If I’m wrong — and I don’t believe that to be true — the speaker will have to reach out to everyone, because he obviously has a very fractured House under his leadership.”

State Rep. Veronica Gonzales, D-McAllen, is the only Hidalgo County representative who did not show up on the lists Craddick released of non-binding pledges to vote for him.

She would not say Thursday for whom she planned to vote, explaining, “I learned a long time ago that loose lips sink ships.”

Gonzales did say, however, that the November elections showed voters want more bipartisanship in government — something she views as lacking in the House.

“I think it’s been very hard sometimes to maintain bipartisanship,” she said.

Several other Valley representatives said during the past two weeks that they planned to vote for Craddick, including Rep. Ryan Guillen, D-Rio Grande City; Rep. Aaron Peña, D-Edinburg; Rep.-elect Eddie Lucio III, D-Brownsville; and Rep. Armando “Mando” Martinez, D-Weslaco.

Note that  Martinez has announced he’s withholding his pledge and vote until election day.

I have simply lost confidence in your ability or willingness to make the changes necessary for the Texas House to function in an ethical and fair manner.  Jim Pitts and I differ on many substantive issues.  I believe, however, that his commitment to restore the highest ethical standards at the highest levels of government and to treat each Member with respect is sincere.  I have known Jim Pitts since we arrived in the House together in 1993, and I believe his election to Speaker will give us the opportunity to end the current unacceptable era of corruption of the political process, which it appears you intend to continue.

Very, very strong words. I don’t believe we’d see Raymond or others using such strong words if it wasn’t clear to everyone that Craddick would be deposed.

However, now more than ever, I believe that Craddick’s winning or failing hinges on a secret ballot, period. With a secret ballot, Craddick loses. Without one, he wins.

If you go over to Quorum Report and click on the Daily Buzz section, you will see that Harvey Kronberg has done an excellent job distilling the debate about a secret ballot, including claims that the media doesn’t favor a secret ballot.

Also, yesterday we missed pointing you to a statement by Rep. Talton calling Rep Hartnett’s rules proposal “laughable.”

First, let’s take a look at a couple of people who have dropped off Tom Craddick’s pledge list. First, Rep. Armando “Mando” Martinez, has decided to withhold his pledge until the day of the election. It seems that a pledge card isn’t good enough for Speaker Craddick, and that Martinez has been innundated with calls about whether or not he is firmly in the Craddick camp.

Evidently, the overzealous support of Craddick’s callers has helped erode support. Martinez’s statement:

After a brief phone conversation with Speaker Craddick ‘I have withheld my pledge until January 9th . This decision was made after receiving numerous phone calls from his supporters. I have always believed that there should never be a question of one’s pledge, but when you are continuously questioned about that pledge, it has led me to believe that my pledge was not good enough, therefore I have decided to make my decision on the house floor.
I have been asked about supporting Representative Jim Pitts for speaker. In the past I have worked in both the House and in Mr. Pitts’ committee. Based on my positive experiences with Jim Pitts, I believe he is a good candidate for speaker.

Chuck Hopson (D-Jacksonville), who Brian McCall (R-Plano) mentioned in his press conference the other day as someone receiving “25 calls a day” has also switched his support from Craddick to Pitts:

We have been told that Speaker Craddick would be more open and balanced next session, but his actions clearly speak louder than his words.

I want to vote for the best person for the job for the Speaker of the House and Jim Pitts is the obvious choice.

These switches are clear indicators that, if there is a secret ballot, Craddick is finally—at long last—toast. For one thing, Hopson has a lot to lose if he votes against Craddick and Craddick wins, because Craddick will find yet another opponent for him in the 2008 General Election.

However, there is a new twist to the “secret ballot” battle. Rep. Will Hartnett (R-Dallas), Chair of the House Judiciary Committee and also a member pledged to Craddick, has filed a resolution to provide that the vote for speaker be conducted by a “random roll call.” It’s far from a secret ballot and a bad move for the Craddick allies. There is some possibility still that the rules from the Speaker’s election from the 79th could be adopted. But, with a secret ballot, Craddick is out.

Aside from that, Quorum Report is reporting that corporate suits have been sending Republican legislators letters asking them to support Speaker Craddick. [letter, .pdf]

In a letter to an uidentified representative, Vance Miller, President of The Henry S. Miller Companies, wrote:

I am very disappointed in the selfish attempt to sow discord with a few of our fellow Republicans and coalesce with partisan Democrats to defeat the Speakers [sic] re-election. That action could impact the Texas House of Representatives’ effectiveness during the forth coming [sic] session.

Aside from having difficulties with punctuation and spelling, the letter could be construed as illegal under the Speaker Statute.

QR also reports that Craddick’s new pledge card require that pledgers support rule changes in the speaker’s race to allow for a roll call vote as proposed by Hartnett.