CAPITOL LETTERS

Ok. Thanks for the link. The article says that Craddick is focused and devoted to his agenda, and very stubborn about yielding ground. It also suggests that having Pitts as speaker would have been an absolute zoo. It tells me that one's view of the speaker depended on whether one agreed or disagreed with his agenda.

How is that different from other speakers? It seems to me that it's a matter of personality more than substance. Am I wrong?

I can't speak for each of the unhappy lawmakers, but in our reporting, they have complained about matters of both style and substance. Note two other things in that story: that members felt they couldn't get bills passed if they weren't on the Craddick team, and the arm-twisting to force them to vote for things like vouchers.

Ok. So how is that different from other speakers? That doesn't sound like anything new to me. Isn't that how politics works?

It is absolutely new. Craddick takes a position and will not listen to his own chairs. Pete Laney had meetings before each bill was brought to debate and worked out all the kinks. Laney seldom ever had disruption because everyone had decided the way the bill would work. Craddick lets everyone work the bill and then says "nope" and that's it. He rules the House with an iron fist, if you don't like it, tough. He also is not of the know on his own house rules. The parlimentarian has had to guide him since day one. He is looked upon as a pawn of the hard right and he will be gone next session. By the way, I am a Republican and a former county chair. But the members are there to do the will of the people of their district, not Tom Craddick or a political party.

Paul, you have it right.

Tom Craddick will also threaten your business, your spouse's business or whatever else he can think of to get his way.
I live in Midland, and even though he takes care of his district, many people disapprove of his stong arm style in his private business as well as politics.