Land of the free, or banana republic?
One of the striking things about the House mutiny is how people can witness the very same pandemonium and see wholly different things.
Rep. Mark Strama, D-Austin, a Craddick foe, was asked his reaction to the speaker's ruling that he wouldn't recognize members for a motion to remove him. Said Mr. Strama, shaking his head:
"I never thought I'd see something like that in this country."
Rep. Charles "Doc" Anderson, R-Waco, a Craddick backer, said he saw two things: "Jim Dunnam is loud and obnoxious. And Tom Craddick is tough as nails."
Mr. Anderson, like some other Craddick backers, denounced Rep. Rick Noriega, D-Houston, for attempting to get on the dais after the speaker abruptly recessed the chamber amid boos and catcalls. A young sergeant at arms blocked Mr. Noriega, said Mr. Anderson, with obvious admiration.
"It was like Nicaraugua or Chile or something," said Mr. Anderson, also shaking his head.
Comments
noriega. now this is the guy we send to foreign countries to restore and uphold law and order?
Posted by: txasslm | May 26, 2007 12:31 PM
Doc Anderson's comments are dead-on!
Posted by: P. | May 26, 2007 12:38 PM
Dunnam is out of line. He and the anti-Craddick crowd should pay the Taxpayers of Texas for all the time they have wasted. Can we appeal to these clowns to shut up and stop wasting time for political gain?
Posted by: Allen | May 26, 2007 12:53 PM
allen, as constituents of those clowns, we should not have to appeal anything. we should be able to direct them to do the state's work on our behalf. (and if they don't/won't, they're doing the same thing they are criticizing the speaker for.)
every rep's email and capitol phone numbers are on the capitol web site (capitol.state.tx.us). call your's. i have mine.
Posted by: txasslm | May 26, 2007 1:09 PM
I am amazed at these responses. In the last 24 hours the chair just ruled that he has absolute power and cannot be removed unless he chooses to be. Whether you like Craddick or Dunnam or whoever, we just set up the only active dictatorship in any legislative body in America.
The Speaker presides at the will of the house . . . except in Texas.
Posted by: Lance | May 26, 2007 1:27 PM
That's about the most racist thing I've heard "Doc" Anderson say.
Posted by: Boddhisattva | May 26, 2007 2:08 PM
There Speaker has not ruled that he has Absolute Power. He is following a rule adopted by Members that give him the authority of Recognition. That very rule says "there shall be no appeal from the Speaker's recognition."
Maybe this is a sign of why Libs don't get the Constitution either. They seem to not understand the value of playing be a pre-set body of rules. Without such it would be tyranny because decisions would be capricious.
Posted by: Robert Pratt | May 26, 2007 3:47 PM
Mr. Pratt sir. You are the one who does not understand the rules. The Speaker ruled that he has absolute power to recognize or not recognize. The change is in the view that it is now absolute. Essentially, there are now no privilege motions and no speaking without the Speaker's permission. That is a change in the way we have interpreted the rules, or any Legislative body has interpreted the rules, since the chamber began.
Every legislative body has an implied motion to vacate. It is a fundamental element of parliamentary law. The former parliamentarian knew this, and now she has resigned. I find the whole thing terribly sad.
And don't call me one of "the Libs." I am not sir, and I don't appreciate you or anyone else resorting to to name calling to prove a point. It appears that "the Cons" have to hide behind labeling instead of actually articulating an argument.
I am sorry all for my outburst, but I just don't condone that sort of behavior.
Posted by: Lance | May 26, 2007 4:04 PM