Speaker's Race: Who is Jim Pitts, Anyways?

Yesterday, I posted the YouTube video from the Craddick Austin Club party on Sunday night. I thought it was interesting for journalistic / intelligence purposes - here is footage with immediacy that chronicles attendees to a party thrown by one side against the other in a legislative leadership race. Other progressives took offense to the attendance of Democrats, even those already known and acknowledged to be in Craddick's camp - so much so that the term "primary opponents" began floating around.

In light of the supreme preference for Jim Pitts by the Anyone But Craddick camp, I got curious - how much of a difference is there between Pitts and Craddick? What are progressives dealing up (or down) to in their preference for what could possibly be the exchange from one establishment Republican to another? While I am in no way advocating for Craddick, I think it is worth pointing out that Jim Pitts is not a firey reformer fresh off the truck from a populist haven, a Republican only by circumstance. Jim Pitts, at least until today, was Chair of the Appropriations committee. This is not a post the Speaker would give to someone diametrically opposed to everything he stood for.

As chair of Appropriations, Pitts authors and sponsors the usual litany of Appropriations bills - that is, after all, his job. He also deals with the occasional roads and transport bill, or designates this day Hill County Day, or recognizes a football team from his district for winning the 4A state football championship. He's been in on plans to bring casino gambling to Texas. The usual stuff.

But what else? Well, Pitts was co-author to a bill requiring voters to provide several forms of identification to election officials, and we all know the purpose of that sort of bill, not to mention the fact that an extraneous ID requirement serves the conservative agenda. As does this measure, which requires parental consent for abortions. Hunting via the internet. The display of "In God We Trust" in the House Chamber. Refusal to recognize civil unions or same sex marriages. I point these out to illustrate that Jim Pitts came to this race with his conservative credentials well intact. He is also not free from the moneyed interests that are such a concern with Craddick - as an example, in this report we see that Pitts took $5,000 from Bob Perry. That took me about 30 seconds to find, so I can only imagine who else has given what else to Jim Pitts.

So, to the argument: people want Craddick gone because of his leadership style, because he doesn't listen to Democrats, because Democrats have no place at the table in his House, and because he is a wholly owned subsidiary of Conservative, Leininger, Rick Perry, and NeoCon, LLP. I understand that. What I'm not sure about is that Pitts would be any better. Consider that McCall had to drop out of the race because of the consensus that he would be the Democrat's candidate, that he would be somehow beholden to the Democrats if he won. I think it is likely that a win by Pitts would bring an immediate and hardline shoring up of his conservative ties, which could only mean some sort of punishing exclusion levied on Democrats. Certainly, they might get to talk during committee meetings now, but the idea that a Pitts Speakership would make everything wonderful for Democrats is illogical: we are still under single party rule in the State House.

Which is why, I guess, the suggestion of primary opponents as mandatory punishment for Democrats who vote for Craddick feels extreme. I would wager that Pitts Democrats are not plotting in earnest against Craddick Democrats, or are even seriously upset that someone from their party would vote for Craddick, because it is assumed that those Craddick D's have their reasons.

To sum up: I think Pitts as Speaker is definitely not Craddick as Speaker, which is enough for some people. I think expecting a totally different environment that is more friendly to Democrats (or in which Democrats would actually have demonstrable legislative energy) just because Pitts is Speaker is nonsensical. There's no way to know and there are indications to the contrary. I also think that the suggestion that Democrats who vote for Craddick are traitors ignores big picture political realities.