Joe Straus

[XinTX]

It's too late to do anything now. But I think we (the TX 2A community) should start brewing a plan to start the "Oust Strauss" ball rolling. It might take a while. But I don't think sitting back and waiting him out is the best course of action. Would be nice if we could start having some small local confabs to start coming up with ideas.

[nightmare]

It's too late to do anything now. But I think we (the TX 2A community) should start brewing a plan to start the "Oust Strauss" ball rolling. It might take a while. But I don't think sitting back and waiting him out is the best course of action. Would be nice if we could start having some small local confabs to start coming up with ideas.

Maybe we should run a pro gunner on the Democrat ticket in his district. Turnabout is fair play.

[fickman]

I want Strauss removed more than anybody.

But I'm not sure it would fix anything.

Can we reach quorum without the democrats? I fear they'd likely leave the state as they did in '03 if Strauss wasn't appeasing them with committee chairs and a moderated calendar. This would effectively shut the entire legislative session down and nothing would get passed.

(My guess is that we'd get a larger portion of our platform through, but still wouldn't have carte blanche.)

Also, is there a chance that we get a few revolutionary bills through and wake a sleeping, non-voting giant, effectively bringing the other side to action and possibly turning the state purple? (I hope not, but what if?)

Due to the size and population of the blue spots in this state, I don't think we'll ever get to pass things like they do in Oklahoma, Wyoming, or Alaska.

So instead, we're stuck.
- The dems support him because he gives them power
- The GOPers support him because it's too costly to be left out by yourself
- His district supports him because he's prominent and powerful

Outside of Patrick / Abbott finding something that the state base is desperately clamoring for and loudly pinning its failure to Strauss, we seem to be stuck with the status quo until he gets it in his mind to go off and try something else for a change.

[KD5NRH]

Due to the size and population of the blue spots in this state, I don't think we'll ever get to pass things like they do in Oklahoma, Wyoming, or Alaska.

How about we just cede Austin to California as-is with all contents and start over with a whole new set?

[anygunanywhere]

I want Strauss removed more than anybody.

But I'm not sure it would fix anything.

Can we reach quorum without the democrats? I fear they'd likely leave the state as they did in '03 if Strauss wasn't appeasing them with committee chairs and a moderated calendar. This would effectively shut the entire legislative session down and nothing would get passed.

(My guess is that we'd get a larger portion of our platform through, but still wouldn't have carte blanche.)

Also, is there a chance that we get a few revolutionary bills through and wake a sleeping, non-voting giant, effectively bringing the other side to action and possibly turning the state purple? (I hope not, but what if?)

Due to the size and population of the blue spots in this state, I don't think we'll ever get to pass things like they do in Oklahoma, Wyoming, or Alaska.

So instead, we're stuck.
- The dems support him because he gives them power
- The GOPers support him because it's too costly to be left out by yourself
- His district supports him because he's prominent and powerful

Outside of Patrick / Abbott finding something that the state base is desperately clamoring for and loudly pinning its failure to Strauss, we seem to be stuck with the status quo until he gets it in his mind to go off and try something else for a change.

You are really harshing my mellow.

Why all the negative waves, Moriarty?

It ain't working all that great right now. Doing so without Straus could not be worse. If the GOP acted like they had the majority, which they do, we might get somewhere.Instead, a lot of them get elected as conservative GOP then turn left. See my sig line.

[RoyGBiv]

Why all the negative waves, Moriarty?

[LDB415]

We need a new rule that anyone absent at the time of a vote is automatically voted AWOL and only those present and voting decide the issue. Then if they want to go out of state or sit home or whatever like spoiled children more power to them but they won't hijack the legislature by doing so.

[jsenner]

I'd join/support any effort to get rid of straus, but it seems to me a more effective approach might be to plan for the worst - let's assume straus will kill anything and everything we want however he can.

that leaves the governor bringing bills to a special session as the only real recourse. how about a concerted effort communicate that desire to mr. abbott and see if we can get him to commit to bringing good bills up in special session?

personally, I'd bet money that straus will pitch HB195 out there because he knows it'll fail, and then claim to have been the 2A's best supporter, it was all those other guys that killed it, not him.

[Bladed]

We need a new rule that anyone absent at the time of a vote is automatically voted AWOL and only those present and voting decide the issue. Then if they want to go out of state or sit home or whatever like spoiled children more power to them but they won't hijack the legislature by doing so.

That basically is the rule--if a legislator isn't present, he or she is not counted toward the number of votes needed to reach either a simple majority or the two-thirds required to overturn most rules. However, the Texas Constitution requires that a quorum of two-thirds of the members elected to the House or Senate be present before any business can be conducted in that chamber. This is to keep the House and Senate from convening with only a small number of like-minded legislators present and passing legislation that does not have majority support. If you think about the trouble that could be cause if a handful of legislators were able to pass legislation on their own, the quorum rule starts to make a lot of sense.

[fickman]

You are really harshing my mellow.

Why all the negative waves, Moriarty?

It ain't working all that great right now. Doing so without Straus could not be worse. If the GOP acted like they had the majority, which they do, we might get somewhere.Instead, a lot of them get elected as conservative GOP then turn left. See my sig line.

hahaha, i'm a fatalist in this matter.

I held other negative thoughts back, for example: maybe Abbott is free to pander to us knowing that he'll never have to sign a bill and back it up on the record?

I hope I'm wrong.

I'm up for anything. And I agree - it ain't working now, I'd like to give the alternative a try.

[LDB415]

Yes, I wouldn't want 15% to be able to convene and act but maybe it's time to adjust the percentage required by a few percentage points.

[Bladed]

Yes, I wouldn't want 15% to be able to convene and act but maybe it's time to adjust the percentage required by a few percentage points.

It's an awfully slippery slope to start tweaking the rules (particularly constitutional rules) in order to increase one side's advantage over the other. Remember, there may come a time when Republicans need those rules to hold off a Democratic majority.

If Republicans play their cards right, this should be a good session for gun-rights advocates. No, Republicans won't have carte blanche to pass any gun-rights initiative that pops into their heads, but they have enough support to effect a handful of substantial victories. In my assessment, that is the way the system is supposed to work. Rigging the game to give one side absolute power is a dangerous precedent.

[KD5NRH]

Yes, I wouldn't want 15% to be able to convene and act but maybe it's time to adjust the percentage required by a few percentage points.

Or change the rule to not count those voluntarily absent from the state during a regularly scheduled and properly publicized meeting toward the initial total. i.e. if 100 leave the state in protest, then they only need two thirds of the remainder.

[LDB415]

Or change the rule to not count those voluntarily absent from the state during a regularly scheduled and properly publicized meeting toward the initial total. i.e. if 100 leave the state in protest, then they only need two thirds of the remainder.

Yes, something along those lines so the worthless bunch can't do what they did recently. And yes, it could come around to the other side eventually and they would be just as worthless if they run away rather than do the job they were given to the best of their ability.

[fickman]

Yes, I wouldn't want 15% to be able to convene and act but maybe it's time to adjust the percentage required by a few percentage points.

Or change the rule to not count those voluntarily absent from the state during a regularly scheduled and properly publicized meeting toward the initial total. i.e. if 100 leave the state in protest, then they only need two thirds of the remainder.

"If we see you on TV, hear you on the radio, read your quotes in an article during the time of your absence, or notice any communications e.g. Twitter, Facebook, or email, you will be counted as present towards quorum."

. . . that would at least stop the grandstanding during the pity parties.