TexasCHLforum.com

baseballguy2001 wrote:"The great changing of the guard is taking place in Texas, and the trains of transformation are rolling," "The question is: Are you on board?" -- San Antonio Republican Joe Straus

It's uncertain whether this alienated Turner from his supporters. Most of them are from North Texas — a small but vocal minority inside the Republican Party who were unsuccessful in pushing a conservative state further to the right.

That's from a news report from my local TV station.

Whoever wrote that was high on drugs.....especially the last part that I highlighted. Republicans (read that as "conservatives"*) gained seats in the Texas house, did they not? In this session, House republicans outnumber democrats 97-51, with 2 seats still vacant. In 2013, the ratio was 95 republicans to 55 democrats. In other words, with 2 seats still unfilled, democrats went down by 4 seats, and republicans went up by 2 seats. The worst case scenario is that, EVEN IF democrats end up filling the two vacant seats, republicans will still have a 97-53 lead. Alternatively, it could be 98-52, or 99-51.

No matter how you cut it, the legislature is already further to the right than it was 2 years ago, with or without Scott Turner's help. Furthermore, even if he had succeeded, the "Turner 19" could not have pushed the state any further to the right than it already is. Each representative still must vote the conscience of his/her constituency.....and THAT die was cast in November when the ballots were counted. As Speaker, Turner might well have succeeded in getting some conservative bills to the floor for an up or down vote—bills that Strauss might well have tried to kill. But whether or not Strauss kills a bill (or more accurately, gets it killed in committee), that bill still represents the will of some constituency or other, and the legislators are conservative (or liberal) enough to file conservative (or liberal) bills regardless of who holds the Speakership. So the idea that a Speaker can push a body politic in any direction he wants it to go is fallacious. ALL the Speaker can do is derail conservative (or liberal) legislative efforts, which in turn will prevent conservative (or liberal) outcomes. But the Speaker cannot force voters to elect more conservative (or liberal) legislators, and he cannot force those conservative (or liberal) legislators to write more conservative (or liberal) legislation.

So whomever that reporter was, he or she is an idiot who doesn't actually understand the process.

(* I realize that not all republicans are VERY conservative and not all democrats are hard-leftists, but on average, republicans are more conservative than democrats.)

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Confession time......

Thank you for the reminder. I am disappointed that Turner didn't win, but I also understood going into this that a Turner win was a pretty long shot. I am not as pessimistic as some are about Strauss retaliating against either Turner or his supporters. The reason is that the publicity surrounding this record vote elevates the issue into the public consciousness. I posted before that I was afraid that some people have short memories and would forget the importance of this vote. But, I ALSO posted that as long as someone was around to remind The People of it come 2016, then any perfidy in the interim from Strauss against any of the "Turner 19" or Turner himself, would be beaten like a big bass drum during the campaign, and Strauss would pay heavily as a result. Unlike some, I don't think Strauss is stupid. You don't get to be Speaker for two terms, let alone three terms, by being a mental defective. No..... what Strauss is is a politician, and his great sin is that of putting his political game-playing ahead of the conservative ideals he claims to uphold, and in so doing, he has angered a lot of voters. If he punishes anybody for this record vote, the anger won't go away; it will double and triple, and he'll be finished, at least in the legislature.

If he continues to have political aspirations for 2016 and beyond, then Strauss has to play straight with people this session. And that is a direct result of this record vote. Furthermore, if is future aspirations extend to Congress, then he might not be able to get elected without help from the state republican party. If he has made too many enemies this session, he won't get that help.

Like Charles has said, this record vote was very valuable, even if Turner lost.

baldeagle wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

baseballguy2001 wrote:Hey Mojo --

I agree on both points. It IS up to us to educate, advocate, but I'm telling you -- It's not a lost cause, but it's a very steep climb. Of my circle of friends, me and one other have our CHLs. Nobody else does. We're talking about an 18-2 ratio here. I don't know the numbers of CHLs v regular voters, but I'm willing to bet it's hundreds of thousands v millions

I certainly didn't take your points as a personal attack, I hope you didn't think I attacked you either.

It's roughly 850,000 CHLs out of 26.45 million million souls.....or roughly 3.2% of the population. 2 out of 18 is higher than average at 11.11%.

Roughly 4.5 million voted in the last gubernatorial election. They represented approximately 25% of the voting age public. 850,000 CHLs represents 18.9% of the voting public IF all CHL holders voted. So "we" have a powerful voice if "we" chose to use it.

Your numbers are better than mine for determining political influence, and I'd bet that CHL holders vote in higher percentages than the general population too. But my answer wasn't so much about political influence as to answer the question from baseballguy2001 about the significance of a ratio of 2 CHLs out of 18 people.

baseballguy2001 wrote:Hey Mojo --

I agree on both points. It IS up to us to educate, advocate, but I'm telling you -- It's not a lost cause, but it's a very steep climb. Of my circle of friends, me and one other have our CHLs. Nobody else does. We're talking about an 18-2 ratio here. I don't know the numbers of CHLs v regular voters, but I'm willing to bet it's hundreds of thousands v millions

I certainly didn't take your points as a personal attack, I hope you didn't think I attacked you either.

It's roughly 850,000 CHLs out of 26.45 million million souls.....or roughly 3.2% of the population. 2 out of 18 is higher than average at 11.11%.

Keith B wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Keith B wrote:As Charles stated earlier we don't know for sure how Turner would be on gun legislation.

Respectfully, yes we do know: https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-vot ... LVqwaOCOrV

While that voting record looks favorable, that is not total proof that he can't be swayed by an anti-gun constituancy. I stand by my statement.

Isn't that kind of like saying, "since you have not disproven the negative, I stand by my decision to ignore the positive proof?"

Keith B wrote:As Charles stated earlier we don't know for sure how Turner would be on gun legislation.

Respectfully, yes we do know: https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-vot ... LVqwaOCOrV

baldeagle wrote:Straus says, "A small number sought to divide us, but you cannot lead this House by dividing it."

That does not portend well for the future.

Let me see......

Principled opposition = dividing us

Political strong-arming = uniting us.

Right.

I am angered that my own representative, Capriglione, who ran (an won) on a ticket of bringing change to Austin with Tea Party support, voted for Strauss. I'd sure as hades like to know why.

mojo84 wrote:Joe will remember it. I feel sorry for the 19 walking dead members now. I respect them no less though.

I hope that, it being a record vote, they'll actually be less dead than otherwise. It will be painfully obvious even to non-members if Strauss punishes them, and he'll likely be called to account and get exactly the same reaction as Boehner got when he tried to punish House republicans who voted against his speakership. He had to walk back some of his initial responses, in no small part because there was so much publicity surrounding his opposition.

Scott Turner did not mount his campaign from a position of obscurity, and so Strauss cannot retaliate against him or his supporters from the safe haven of obscurity. He'll have to do it out in the open, and if he tries, he'll get called out on it. Not only will he get called out on it by other members, but he might well not be reelected Speaker in 2016 if he runs.

thechl wrote:At the risk of being spanked by TAM, I'd still rather a democrat would have defeated Straus in November. We'd be having a different conversation today.

If you want to be spanked, you have to pay me.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:We now have a record vote. Those who put Straus back in power will either prevail upon him to act like a Republican or suffer the consequences in 2016. This may be the best chance of forcing pro-gun bills to a vote in committee and on the House floor.

Chas.

There is that small consolation, but it is small. I say "small" because people have short attention spans, and unless there is someone there to remind them, voters may not remember this record vote 2 years from now......and the representatives may not remember it next week.

ELB wrote:19 for turner, 127 for strauss, 0 present but not voting.

I was hoping he'd (Turner) do better.

Yeah, me too. I figured he'd probably lose, but not by that much. I am bitterly disappointed. There is something wrong with a legislature that reelects someone as Speaker for a 4th term. It's not just about fairplay and it being someone else's turn or any of that. It is about a politician getting too comfortable with his position, and in the process, growing deaf to the people of Texas. Strauss as a duty to represent the interests of HIS constituents when he votes on issues, whether or not I agree with his vote. But as Speaker, he represents ALL Texans, and in that capacity, he seriously chaps my hide.

Strauss just elected 127 to 19