Putting on my best faux-reporter voice, I called Rep. Solomons to find out why he would be so crazy as to run for Speaker. I wanted to give him the opportunity that we gave to the other 140 candidates to send along an Official Declaration of Intent. Solomons noted that the statements we compiled pretty much sound the same, and he basically agrees with all of them.

Well he’s right about that. Each candidate thinks he or she would make the best Speaker. Not one of them said, you know, “I have no idea why I’m running, don’t look at me, I’m hideous,” which would have made for a much more interesting race.

Here’s what Solomons did have to say, according to my notes, which are scribbled on my hand. He says it’s all about management and governing style, and that he and Craddick have very different perspectives on that. He said that the House needs to change the process and the way they get results. He said he’s not trying to pull the rug out from anybody, but he thinks that it’s time for another Republican to govern.

Looks like some other members are thinking the very same thing.

I don’t think he’s going to be the last one to do it, either.

Solomons is the most serious threat to Craddick of the candidates filing thus far. Here’s why:

1. He’s a mainstream Republican. No one can accuse him of being an ABC or a RINO. A challenger who comes out of the mainstream of the GOP caucus will have much more credibility with the average Republican member than a candidate who is viewed as an ABC.

2. He’s a tough guy. His nickname isn’t “King” Solomons for no reason. He can be imperious when he needs to be. Members will remember the relentlessness with which he battled Phil King over PUC Sunset. You have to be tough to take on Craddick. You have to be willing to take a punch and to do the wet work. Solomons will stick the knife in if he gets the chance.

3. He knows the rules. If there is a battle over the rules on January 13, he can hold his own with Terry Keel.

4. He’s from Dallas. The Dallas business establishment is hungry for a speaker from Big D. The Dallas Morning News will promote his candidacy. Solomons is not the hale-fellow-well-met type, but then neither is Craddick.

The real question here is whether Solomons has any following. I don’t know the answer. I do know that the way to attract a following is to start with a following. You need to announce your candidacy by standing up with two or three other members who support you and can articulate why. What we have right now is a bunch of wannabes flying solo. That will not beat Tom Craddick.

This article appeared in the November 7 issue of The Lone Star Report. It was written by Will Lutz, who has covered state government for ten years. It is addressed, though not explicitly, to Republicans who are in denial about why they are losing ground in Texas and why they will continue to do so under the current leadership. It is reprinted with Mr. Lutz’s permission.

Since most Republican lawmakers go to church, they’ve probably sung the refrain, “On Christ the solid rock I stand. All other ground is sinking sand. All other ground is sinking sand.” It’s a hymn that kept going though my head as I watched the election results come in. The GOP has built its foundation on quicksand, and Tuesday, the voters told the GOP — nationally and in Texas — that they’ve had enough. The voters sent the same message in 2006 and it didn’t register with the GOP leadership. Perhaps the second time is the charm. The quicksand here is the Austin lobby, a handful of purely self-interested major campaign contributors, and large corporate bureaucracies.

They’re fair weather friends, many of whom backed the Democrats throughout the 1990s. Look at how much money business gave to the 20/20PAC—which is basically a conduit that allows elements within the business community to give money to moderate Democrats while having the outward appearance of being pro-GOP. And this cycle Texans for Lawsuit Reform also gave crucial support for Rep. Chuck Hopson (D-Jacksonville) in his 102-vote victory. In short, big money isn’t principled; it’s self-interested. And it will turn on Republicans whenever the political winds change. Pandering to big money is building a foundation on quicksand.

By contrast, conservative principles have stood the test of time. Low taxes, individual freedom, property rights, pro-life, pro-family, and personal responsibility combined with effective grassroots mobilizing is a solid foundation that will win every time.

Here are a few examples of quicksand:
* Talking about cutting spending, and then passing earmark-laden federal appropriations bills that benefit vendors with lobbyists, not average citizens.
* Making fighting illegal immigration a campaign issue,then having leadership scuttle any meaningful action on the topic because it means a few major donors might actually have to hire U.S. citizens and do things like pay them benefits so they aren’t a burden to taxpayer funded county hospital districts.
* Not doing anything meaningful to put the lid on local government property tax increases and pandering to the trade associations that represent cities and counties.
* Talking about personal responsibility for the poor on welfare all while passing bills that basically exempt big donors like homebuilder Bob Perry from paying fair compensation to homeowners who a jury finds were treated unreasonably by their builder.
* Pursuing higher education policies that prioritize the spending desires of liberal university bureaucrats and the donors that back them, all the while making a college education unaffordable and letting university administrators go on a massive, unjustified spending spree while asking for little or no meaningful accountability in return.
* Letting the same Wall Street crowd that have driven the economy into the ground run our transportation system. Texas transportation policy needs to benefit Texans, not merely a pretext for paying off Wall Street campaign contributors with big-government boondoggles like the Trans-Texas Corridor.

Yes, most Republicans would argue they’ve been treated unfairly by the Capitol press, and that their accomplishments have not been given the treatment they deserve. Yes, the GOP deserves some credit for balancing the 2003 budget without raising taxes and sweeping welfare reform as well as a solid-record on prolife, pro-family issues. But just because one has done some things right, doesn’t mean the press corps will or should let the GOP off the hook when Republicans misbehave.

Plus, a lot of the big accomplishments of the GOP came from 2003. Passing an eminent domain bill and real taxpayer protections would give GOP voters something to crow about again and generate more excitement for the party.

It’s also true that national trends affected the outcome of many of these urban races, and there may be some issues with the mechanics of how and where the GOP spent its money this cycle. That said, voters still respond to winning issues, convincingly stated, and that has been largely absent from both the state and federal GOP the last two cycles. Yes, the mischief at the national level played a role, but some of the problems the Texas GOP brought on itself.

Notice that there are no names of sitting legislators in this essay. That is deliberate. This isn’t personal.This is about enacting policies and running the House in a manner that is good for Texas. In my 10 years covering the Capitol, I have seen many lawmakers whom I used to write off grow and change into effective voices for their constituents.

In a decade of covering campaigns, I’ve heard a lot of GOP primary candidates talk about bringing Christian values to politics. Sure, all have sinned. But one shouldn’t champion bringing Christian values in politics and then condone legislation and actions that would make even the Money Changers in theTemple blush. Integrity and fair-play are as much Christian values as pro-life and pro-family.[bold face added]

In the next few days,Texas lawmakers will choose a leadership team for the 2009 session. The Republicans need to learn the lesson of the last two election cycles and ensure that, whatever leaders are chosen, the House will be run in a manner that makes Texas Republicans proud of the party once again.

Traditional values, individual freedom, politics run from the grassroots up. That’s a rock-solid foundation that really is truly of the party of Ronald Reagan.

So find yourself a Speaker to love.

FAIR WARNING. This is a video. It is not required viewing. It may take eight minutes to watch. I only push play to increase traffic, and to improve my broadcast media skills. It’s not working. (And you try looking good at the end of the week.)

Honorably Mentioned: Brian McCall, Charlie Geren, Ed Kuempel.

Very good work here ["Speaker's race: Not Craddick -- 74, Craddick Ceiling -- 63"], a member-by-member analysis of where the House stands on the speaker’s race. The methodology is to look at members’ public statements and votes. They did a great job. But they’re wrong.

The problem with analyzing where members stand as of today is that we are still two months away from the vote for speaker. A lot of things can happen in those two months. Here are several factors that could change the situation:

(1) Money. The court decision that allows outside expenditures in a speaker’s race opens the door to mischief — for example, a retainer to a legislator who is an attorney. Or a consulting contract. It is impossible to know whether the money was paid to secure a vote.

(2) Ambition. A number of Republican legislators want to seek higher office. As much as they may want Craddick out of the chair, they have to worry that they will be accused of deserting their party to make a deal with the 64 Democrats who oppose Craddick. Republican primary voters will not care that Craddick is a bad leader for the House. They aren’t going to support a candidate who cuts a deal with D’s.

(3) A leadership vaccuum. A venerable rule in politics is, “You can’t beat somebody with nobody.” If the Legislature were the British Parliament, Craddick would be gone. He could not win a vote of confidence in the House. But this is not Parliament. To defeat Craddick, someone will have to get more votes than Craddick does. This is the big fallacy of the BOR analysis: It is based upon anti-Craddick votes. But the only way to beat Craddick is for somebody else to get more votes. Sooner or later, the insurgency must settle on a candidate to oppose Craddick. Who is that person going to be? This question has hung in the air, unanswered, for two years. Until it is answered, there is no speaker’s race. And the moment it is answered, the moment the insurgency does settle on a champion, then everything changes.

One hundred and forty-eight members will have to assess their relationships with the Chosen One. Do I like him? Has he screwed me? Can I trust him? Is he strong enough to lead a divided House? Can I get reelected if I support him? Will he let me stay on Appropriations? What have I done or said to him that I might regret? Can he raise money from the lobby for my next campaign?

There are a thousand such questions. All of the insecurities, all of the petty jealousies, all of the opportunism and fear that make politicians politicians, will come into play. And, human nature being what it is, the survival instinct will take over, and members will decide, better the devil you know than the devil you don’t know, and Craddick will be reelected speaker.

Burnt Orange says, “Tom Craddick is John McCain at this point. Barring a miracle, the math is absolutely there for change. Right now, we’re just waiting to see who will bring change.”

That’s the problem.

11/14 Update: Peer Pressure works again! Now we have eight of the nine. (Delwin Jones, please report to me.) So who’s your favorite? Naturally, in the interest of bipartisanship and journalistic ethics, I will not be revealing my choice.

11/14 Update #2: Delwin Jones’s statement was lost in Evan Smith’s office clutter. The list now reflects this.

We asked each of the candidates (as nicely as possible) for Speaker to submit statements on why they think they should hold the highly coveted gavel next session. Six have gotten back to us; three are MIA (you know who you are).

Click to read them at Speaker Up.

So says South Texas Scandal, a blog that describes its mission as follows:

With a notorious past of political corruption, South Texas has made a lot of progress in recent years to clean up its act. But there remain some Patrones who continue to cling to the old discredited ways. This site is about them in hopes they will change their ways — or go away.

In Kino’s case, “go away” seems more likely than “change their ways.” The McAllen Monitor reported earlier this week that Flores is the focus of several federal and state probes. Austin attorney Roy Minton, who is quite the busy man these days with Flores and lieutenant governor David Dewhurst attracting scrutiny, acknowledged to the Monitor that he was aware that the Public Integrity Unit of the Travis County District Attorney’s office had subpoenaed Flores’ travel records and that “at least one FBI agent had been looking into Flores’ background.” (The quoted language is from the Monitor’s story, not from Minton.)

The travel records could help prosecutors determine whether Flores paid fair market value for air travel on a major supporter’s private jet. Failure to report free or discounted travel is a violation of state ethics laws. In addition, Travis County prosecutors have sought and received documents connected to a murder that took place on his ranch in September. All reports of this incident have indicated that Flores is not a suspect.

District Attorney Ronnie Earle’s approach to some cases involving ethics violations — most prominently, that of former speaker Gib Lewis — has been to offer the public official who is under fire the choice of resign your seat or face prosecution. Normally, the troubles of an individual legislator would not have much impact on the course of Texas politics. But Flores’s situation has arisen in the context of a speaker’s race. Today, November 13, is exactly two months prior to the formal vote on Tom Craddick’s future. Flores is one of a dwindling number of Craddick D’s. It is by no means certain that he will be around to take the oath of office on January 13.

If he isn’t, his son might be. The blog noted “the sudden return from Tampa to South Texas of [Flores's] son, Buddy, who had been working for Florida Power & Light, courtesy of a cushy job arranged for him by Texas lawmaker Phil King, chairman of the powerful Regulated Industries Committee and a lawyer for the Florida power company.”

Not a pretty picture.

Note to readers

1. Representative King e-mailed me to say that he has never represented Florida Power & Light.
2. In a comment, a reader posted that “South Texas Scandal” is the work of Kelly Fero and Rene Ramirez, of Senator Hinojosa’s staff. Mr. Ramirez called me to say that he did not own or write for “South Texas Scandal” or any other blog.

Eileen and Paul talk about if the Speaker even matters, Craddicks and Anti-Craddicks, and whether Tom was popular in high school.

Honorably Mentioned: Dan Branch, Lois Kolkhorst, Pete Gallego, Jim Dunnam, and, of course, Speaker Craddick

I note with sadness the passing of Douglas Sloan Harlan, 65, of San Antonio, a longtime friend dating back to our college days at Rice University. Doug was a staunch Republican in the days when the GOP was struggling to establish itself as a force in this state. In 1972 he ran for Congress on a shoestring budget against O. C. Fisher, a fourteen-term Democratic committee chairman. This race was one of the first indications that the dominance of the rural conservative Democrats in Texas politics could not be sustained. The narrowness of Fisher’s victory led him to retire rather than seek reelection in 1974. Doug sought the open seat against Democrat Bob Krueger, a Shakespearian scholar from Duke University, who had returned to his native New Braunfels to run for Fisher’s former seat. Krueger would set a record for spending in a congressional race, while Doug again struggled to raise money; in lieu of billboards, he stationed volunteers on overpasses who would wave placards at passing motorists. Krueger prevailed in another very close race. That was the end of Doug’s career in electoral politics, but he continued to be a presence in San Antonio as an active participant in community affairs, including a stint as chancellor of the local community college. Longtime Republicans recall that he established Camp Wannameetagop (as only Doug would have called it), an informal networking group that met at Camp Allen near Brenham for several years starting in 1979. Doug was a founder, along with Cyndi Taylor Krier, Andrew Sansom, Lee Jackson, and Chase Untermeyer. The idea of the camp was to bring together younger Republicans from around Texas for endless political talk and grudge matches of volleyball. In addition to Kay Hutchison and Jeff Wentworth, Wanameetagop alumni who went on to distinction include the future county judges of Bexar (Krier), Dallas (Jackson), and Harris (Ed Emmett).

Doug was a lawyer, a teacher, and a prolific writer. He wrote several pieces for Texas Monthly in the seventies that shed light on the divisions in the Republican party in that era — between Bill Clements and Ray Hutchison, and between George H. W. Bush and conservatives who favored Ronald Reagan. He wrote a Sunday column for the San Antonio Light for almost a quarter of a century.

Doug loved politics. He spent the summer before his junior year working for U.S. senator John Tower, the first Republican elected to statewide office in Texas. I remember that he returned to school with Senate and White House stationery. I also remember — who could forget? — that whenever I dropped by to see him in San Antonio, he would wash the freezer burn off the ice cubes before serving me a soft drink.

Two years ago I learned from my former Rice classmate and Texas Monthly colleague Griffin Smith that Doug had been diagnosed with multiple system atrophy, an incurable and untreatable affliction. One of his first actions was to make a $1.1 million donation to Rice establishing the Douglas S. Harlan Program in State Elections, Campaigns, and Politics. Last night, Griffin and I shared stories about Doug, as old friends will. Too soon, our conversation came to an end.

Latest video: Burka on the Speaker’s race, naming names, the “Craddick Effect” (copyright pending), and broken pledges. For the first time, Paul wonders if Craddick can keep his post.

Honorably Mentioned: the candidates, the Conservative Coalition, Plan B, and Warren Chisum.

(Note: If you are having trouble viewing this, try updating your flash player plugin when prompted. Or, contact our IT administrator Paul Burka.)

As everyone knows by now, Republicans have lost 12 seats since Craddick became speaker. Eight of these losses occurred in the last two elections. The main reason for these losses was not Craddick; it was George W. Bush. But I do think that a close scrutiny of seats won and lost would allocate little credit to Craddick for the three victories Republicans posted, and a considerable amount of the blame to Craddick for the six defeats suffered.

Craddick deserves credit for one of the three seats the R’s picked up. He recruited Todd Hunter to run against Juan Garcia. Hunter ran a lousy campaign, but he was a credible name on the ballot. Once Hunter was in the race, the outcome was foreordained. This was an overwhelmingly Republican district. The same predestination existed in Fort Worth. Democrat Dan Barrett had won a special election against Mark Shelton, but he didn’t have a prayer in a general election. Ditto in the LaGrange-Bastrop district, where Republican Tim Kleinschmidt had been running to succeed Robbie Cook for more than two years. He easily defeated Democrat Donnie Dippel. The Democrats’ unwarranted optimism in these races provided an illusion that they were close. As we saw on election night, they weren’t.

What about the six seats in which Republicans lost to Democrats? Here I think Craddick should shoulder some of the blame. His statement that he had nothing to do with the refurbishing of the House lounge was mendacious. Zedler’s opponent made it a campaign issue because Zedler is on House Administration. Goolsby’s opponent likewise turned it into campaign ammo. Craddick should be accountable for these losses. Bryan Daniel’s loss to Diana Maldonado also deserves some scrutiny. I think Craddick backed the wrong guy in the primary. Dee Hobbs had deeper roots in the community than Daniel. He led a four-candidate field in the primary. He had the endorsement of the third-place finisher. Daniel was slicker, but he wasn’t a good fit for the district. Hobbs had the better chance to hold the seat. A similar situation occurred in Dallas County, where Mike Anderson took on incumbent Thomas Latham. Craddick backed Anderson, who had a lot of baggage. I think Latham could have held that seat. Anderson couldn’t do it. Jim Murphy’s loss to Kristi Thibaut in Harris County was mainly due to demographic change. Murphy ran hard, but the numbers were against him, and the D’s had a big early vote. The sixth seat lost by Republicans is 100% due to Craddick. This was the El Paso seat held by Pat Haggerty. As everyone remembers, Craddick recruited Dee Margo to take out Haggerty, a longtime Craddick nemesis, in the Republican primary. But Democrat Joe Moody beat Margo. If Linda Harper-Brown loses her recount when the provisional ballots are counted, Haggerty’s lost seat will be the difference between a 76-74 Republican majority and a 75-75 tie. That bit of revenge Craddick took against Haggerty could turn out to be very costly. Moody defeated Margo, but Haggerty, an 18-year incumbent, would have been favored to hold the seat. I was told that a prominent El Paso leader tried to dissaude Rick Perry and Craddick from going after Haggerty in the primary, but to no avail. This loss was all due to Craddick’s thirst for vengeance. In five of the six seats Republicans lost—all except Murphy’s—Craddick deserves a considerable amount of the blame.

Eileen talks with Burka about the cantankerous Speaker’s race, a House divided, Craddick D’s, ABC’s, and 2010 with KBH.

Honorable video mentions include: Reps. Tommy Merritt; Jim Keffer; Pete Gallego; Craig Eiland; Dan Gattis; Alan Ritter; and Sylvester Turner.

Gary Scharrer of the Express-News posted a story on the paper’s web site in which several in which, for the first time, a Republican supporter of Craddick says for the record that the speaker is hurting the Republican party.

The story quotes two Republican members. One, a chairman, chose to remain anonymous:

But Craddick can’t survive, one of his committee chairmen said Thursday. “I’m trying to find out if Tom Craddick is not the speaker, who’s the choice,” said the Craddick ally, who did not want to be identified. A growing consensus for bipartisan leadership makes Craddick and his hardball partisan style an unlikely choice for re-election. “That seems to be an impression that is out there,” the Craddick ally said.

But Straus, a member of one of Texas’s oldest and most prominent Republican families, went public with his concerns:

Rep. Joe Straus, R-San Antonio, who supported Craddick two years ago, said he’s hearing plenty of grumbling from other Republicans. “I’m deeply concerned about the Republican Party, and I’m concerned about the Texas House,” Straus said. “There are a lot of Republicans who feel the way I do — this goes deeper than the speakership of Tom Craddick. There is a feeling that the status quo is not acceptable.”

What Straus is saying is straight from The Godfather: “This isn’t personal. It’s strictly business.” If the House were The Mob, Craddick would be lying at the bottom of the Permian Basin by now. He’s become an embarrassment, a liability, a problem that needs to be resolved. The Democrats are indifferent to his fate. If Craddick goes, life in the House returns to normal. If he stays–and Dunnam said this last session–the Democrats continue to pick up seats.

Where is the Republican hierarchy in all this? Rick Perry can’t be happy at the prospect of trying to get his legislative program through a bipartisan House. How do the sugar daddies feel about the meager return they got for the millions of dollars they put in Craddick’s hands? The wonder is not that Straus spoke out. It is that the Republican establishment–with the sole and prescient exception of Mark McCaig–remains silent.

Tom Craddick has told lieutenants that he has no intention of relinquishing the speakership. If the Republicans have a majority of one, he still will insist that all R’s support him and him alone. An interesting tactical question is whether time is on Craddick’s side or against him. The argument that time is on his side: He still has more than two months to try to woo Democrats into becoming Craddick D’s. The argument that time is against him: With each passing day, it becomes clearer that Craddick doesn’t have the votes to become speaker. For now.

I know I really shouldn’t pass along gossip, really I shouldn’t, and I wouldn’t do it if I were still a serious journalist instead of just a blogger, really I wouldn’t do it, honest, but a lobbyist just called to say that at a hearing Duncan is having at the Senate there was talk among lobbyists that Dan Gattis had, or would, file for speaker.

UPDATE: Two filings for speaker today, but no Gattis. Tommy Merritt and Pete Gallego.