Current Speaker McDade "Dade" Phelan bailed out of seeking re-election yesterday. As part of that, I noted that Dustin Burrows of Dennis Bonnen/Mucus tape fame had filed for the spot, as well as David Cook, the unified Republican challenger to Phelan.
I also noted my thoughts that, because of that and his "Death Star" bill in 2023, Burrows probably couldn't get more than two-thirds of House Dems to support him.
I also said new House Dem caucus leader Gene Wu should have canvassed his members and dropped Burrows some numbers before the GOP caucus meeting earlier today. He probably didn't.
It probably wouldn't have mattered.
After previous rounds of voting today, most of Burrows supporters bailed, leaving Cook with a 48-14 advantage in the GOP caucus.
Now, the Trib piece gets something half-wrong if not full wrong. The "binding" nature of the GOP caucus vote is only if one candidate breaks 60 percent, and 48 is not 60 percent of 88. Or, will Cook's supporters claim that 48 is well more than 60 percent of 62? That said, shock me that Jasper Scherer is one of the three-headed beast reporting this for the Trib. Both he and Barragán have gotten shit wrong before. See here and here for examples of Scherer's previous craptacularness.
Now, it gets weirder. After the "bolting," this:
“The speaker's race is over,” he said in a news conference that lasted less than two minutes. “I have secured enough to be speaker of the House for the next session.”
Yeah, right. Sure.
No, he has now said "sure," and has counted to 76 with a public list of names.
(Update: Per this and this by Scott Braddock, that may be 67 not 76; as many as, but not guaranteed at that number, as many as 8 Rethugs, and one Democrap for sure, have asked Burrows to pull their names. Burrows didn't help himself by including names already on Cook's list.)
Interesting, we know for sure two House Dems have already repudiated you. In addition, per Braddock, he has promised no vouchers and no end to taxpayer funded "lobbying" (TML etc), but has said no Dem chairs for committees. Given the no lobbying would be a big flip-flop per the Mucus tape, why would they trust you? Apparently you found enough to do so for now, at least. And, Gene Wu failed to promote a third option. Maybe he couldn't have. But, did he even try?
That said, a new follower on Shitter did my count for me. There's just 38 Dems on that list, or 37 with the Braddock update. That's less than 2/3, as I predicted yesterday.
Second — was it necessary for these Democrats to publicly commit, rather than per Tricky Dick Nixon with Clarence Kelley, letting Burrows "twist slowly" for a while?
Third — it seems like Gene Wu doesn't have much control over House Dems yet, if he couldn't persuade more of them not to publicly commit to Burrows for strategery reasons and to be more skeptical in general. (That said, we'll see if more ask to have their names removed.)
Fourth — where does this leave Ana-María Ramos? Well, per an updated version of the Trib story (the "leaving Cook" link up top), and this also ties to point three, some House Dems tried to line up an official endorsement but failed, and Wu released everybody to say whatever. Ramos fired away at the 30-something suckers:
"Supporting a speaker who is not backed by his own party's majority and and who seeks to appeal to Democrats by defending indefensible policies- policies that have allowed children to be slaughtered in schools, women to die without access to healthcare and public schools to close - repeats 25 years of submission to a leadership that has completely failed Texas families," Ramos told The Texas Tribune.
Frankly, yeah, Texas Dems are better living in the wilderness for two years, probably. That said? How many are comfortable if that two years becomes six? Or 12?
Fifth — where does this leave Burrows, per the Braddock updates? I joked on Twitter that he either had numerical dyslexia in confusing 67 and 76, or else told another whopper. And, as a political leader? Nobody wants a Speaker who either can't count or lies about a count.
Sixth — as for claims Burrows and other dissenters can be censured, or even kept off a ballot? If I'm reading correctly, today's vote approving censures happened after the last ballot and the dissenters left. While the state constitution doesn't apply, it it nonetheless in the general sense an ex post facto resolution. As for keeping anybody off a primary ballot? The Republican Party of Texas can do that; the House GOP caucus can't. And, the house GOP caucus' post-vote resolution? "Censurable" is used once; "censure" not at all. The former is used only for House Republicans pushing for a secret ballot for the Speaker's election, contra a MAGAts-type liar on Reddit. (Without going to check, I'm sure other bullshit is coming from the Luke Maciases of the world.)
Seventh — Wes Virdell is claiming that all 88 GOP caucus members agreed at the start to support whoever got a majority. But, given he's a rep-elect, not a rep, his comment should probably be discounted right there.
And, that's not the only possible lying that may be coming from the non-Burrows side. Per an updated version of the Trib piece at top:
Burrows’ camp then requested a break to discuss their strategy before the third round. They said they were denied and abruptly left the meeting, throwing the proceedings into a scramble. However, Cook’s side said Burrows’ group left before the caucus had finished deciding whether to pause the action.
This is going to get nasty. If Cook gets the speakership, will he become a junior Dannie Goeb?
Eighth — back to Tex-ass Dems. Did the 37 (is that correct? who knows?) who said yes to Burrows do so without checking his list of names on the GOP side?
No comments:
Post a Comment