So Speaker Tom Craddick is treating Attorney General Greg Abbott‘s opinion on his use of power last session as a complete victory. And it could be seen that way. House Rules are House Business, said Abbott. That’s where the logic gets circular: getting Craddick out would require using House rules, but since he interprets all House rules, he’s the only one that could allow anyone to do anything to try to get him out.
So that’s a win, right? Well, maybe not. The name “Craddick” has become a buzzword for the next election, and this only adds to that. The man himself may be pretty secure in his seat, but some incumbents are finding themselves accused of guilt by association. “Craddick D” is a slur, not a badge of honor, and the battle lines within the speaker’s own party are pretty clearly defined. On the campaign trail, this could quickly become another nail in a few coffins for candidates that are linked to a man accused by Rep. Byron Cook, R-Corsicana, of “tyranny, bullying, [and] threats.”
But campaigning takes what the pros call a narrative: a simple story that a candidate can explain to the voter in the microseconds that most news allows. “SCHIP good. John Cornyn voted against SCHIP. Cornyn bad” is the kind of simple narrative that makes for good campaigning. If the Craddick imbroglio starts to look like a question of constitutional interpretation, it could end up being the kind of snorefest that leaves the electorate cold. But Craddick opponents like Rep. Jim Dunnam, D-Waco, are trying to build that simple narrative, and raising a favored old specter from Texas election politics. “Craddick,” the story goes, “is a new Tom DeLay, handing out campaign contributions from the big money men and committee appointments to friendly reps of either party.”
So the campaign question is, will Tom’s enemies fit this into their narrative of what Dunnam called “the legacy of Tom DeLay politics,” or will Craddick and co. turn it into a chapter end?
This article appears in December 14 • 2007.
