Long Read but gives you real idea of behind the scenes that I deal with every day at the capitol.
Sput
Peggy Fikac and Lisa Sandberg
Express-News Austin Bureau
AUSTIN — In the high-stakes race for the House speakership, where losers and their supporters often pay the price in lost power and perks, two challengers and incumbent Tom Craddick counted votes and plotted strategy well into the holiday weekend.
Republican Craddick and one challenger, Rep. Brian McCall of Plano, also a Republican, both said they have enough support to win a post that carries statewide influence although it's not on a statewide ballot. The other challenger, Republican Rep. Jim Pitts, R-Waxahachie, said he's "getting there." But the two challengers declined to identify any colleagues on their pledge lists for fear of retribution if their challenge falls short.
As McCall voiced confidence Saturday that he has enough pledges to topple Craddick, the incumbent marshaled supporters behind closed doors at the Capitol.
Several Craddick backers emerged from a meeting with the Midland Republican with a challenge for would-be speakers to release their supporters' names. The challengers so far have refused to do so in part because they don't want to put their backers in jeopardy with Craddick by releasing names prematurely.
The Craddick contingent sounded the common theme that there is a question of honor at stake in secretly pledging to support more than one candidate, which both challengers say is happening.
"Your word is important in this body," said Rep. Frank Corte, R-San Antonio. "I think it's important for the people of Texas to realize that we do have honor in the Texas House."
Rep. Norma Chavez, D-El Paso, said, "Veteran members know how important giving our word is in this process."
Pitts dismissed the idea that it's a matter of honor: "This is just politics and part of running for speaker."
Supporters of Pitts and Craddick expressed doubt that McCall has a solid list. Pitts said he believes there are lawmakers pledging support to all three contenders. McCall said his supporters include some on a list earlier released by Craddick.
Craddick most recently showed 84 supporters, more than enough to assure his re-election in the 150-member House, where there is currently one vacancy. But his list included Pitts, demonstrating the fluidity of pledges.
Pitts said Saturday that he is "getting there" on obtaining enough votes to win.
Lawmakers who met with Craddick in a room off the House chamber — voices, laughter and occasional applause could be heard by tourists and others wandering by — are calling those on his list to ensure they're sticking with the incumbent, said Rep. Warren Chisum, R-Pampa, who estimated there were 30 or more people at the meeting.
Chisum, Corte, Chavez and Rep. Phil King, R-Weatherford, called on the challengers to show their list of backers.
McCall voiced concern about the prospect of "bullying and strong-arm tactics" and said he is trying to attract more supporters, not release an exclusive list.
Corte said, "There's no fear and intimidation here." He and King said lawmakers who have changed their minds about supporting Craddick should level with him.
But history shows the importance of avoiding landing in the losers' camp when it comes to the speaker's race.
If you've ever wondered about the fate of politicians who run for speaker and lose, you might give Jim Rudd a call.
In 1992, Rudd ran for the top job against then-Rep. Pete Laney — and failed to lock in enough of his colleagues' votes. That pretty much ended Rudd's career as a public servant.
Rudd was stripped by the victor of his chairmanship over the powerful Appropriations Committee and was packed off to a committee whose name he can barely recall. His lieutenants were demoted. Rudd served out the remainder of his term — and called it quits.
"It was up or out. There was no reason to stay. I was finished," Rudd, now a lobbyist in Austin, said last week.
Support the losing candidate, or worse, be the losing candidate, he added, and "you're punished. You're put in the doghouse."
Such high stakes make the race for speaker a nasty, victor-takes-all battle of behind-the-scenes maneuvering and loyalties as solid as the numbers on a stadium scoreboard.
Republican strategist Royal Masset likened the battle for speaker to a divorce filing. "You may stay married," he said, "but it ain't the same afterward."
Craddick, according to one of his strategists, Bill Miller, was "deeply disappointed" by the entry into the race by Pitts, a one-time loyalist he named two years ago to his leadership team.
Craddick, known for his autocratic style, has only himself to blame for his predicament, opponents said.
Pitts said he experienced firsthand Craddick's penchant for retribution.
He found himself on the outs with Craddick last year when he defied him and voted for the failed Hochberg Amendment, a Democratic proposal that would have cut the school property tax rate less than what Craddick wanted but sought to use some new state tax money to give teachers a bigger pay raise and shift more tax relief to lower- and middle-class homeowners.
"We had a very heated discussion about it," Pitts said.
After that, Pitts saw his personal travel allowance slashed by $6,000 — a move he sees as retaliation for his vote.
When he has state business in Austin, Pitts continues to charge to the Appropriations Committee his round-trip airfare between Dallas and Austin.
In recent months, he said, his relationship with Craddick has deteriorated to such a degree that had he not thrown his hat into the ring, it is quite possible that Craddick, if he prevails, would strip him of his Appropriations chairmanship.
"People have no clue the things that I had to go through in the last six months," Pitts said. Although clearly bitter, he refused to discuss specifics.
Craddick, through a spokeswoman, said he didn't think the two had a deteriorating relationship.
Regarding Pitts' travel allowance, the spokeswoman, Alexis DeLee, said Pitts submitted spending requests higher than any other chairman.
Craddick's punitive, authoritarian style — or the perception of it — is clearly something that has his camp worried.
"He wants happy members," Miller said. "He's listening."
If Craddick had to put out a softer image, his opponents had troubles of their own.
Pitts, who entered the race Thursday, six days after McCall, had to convince critics there was still time to lock in votes. McCall had to convince Republicans he wouldn't be beholden to Democrats, even though the vast majority of his backers were members of that party.
With each side claiming a majority of votes, predicting a winner becomes virtually impossible in a race where the parts don't equal a whole.
"The big problem is everyone lies about their support," strategist Masset said. "Legislators lie about who they pledge to, and the speaker candidates lie about the legislators who support them."
For all the friendships forged in politics, the race for speaker is marked by flimsy alliances.
If you don't believe that, talk to Chisum. He swore this week that he was firmly in Craddick's camp. He had even signed his pledge card.
"I'm pretty much a man of my word," Chisum said.
Pretty much.
"I'm not in the market of looking elsewhere," he continued, "unless I believed Craddick didn't have the numbers."
Pausing for a moment, he added, "I don't want to be on the losing side.
Unless somebody proves to me his list isn't any good, I'm sticking with Craddick."
