Former House Speaker Tom Craddick is back to being a regular representative, and he has a lot of time to talk. In all, he sat down for nine freewheeling one-on-one interviews with members of the media today. Craddick took his time with us, too. No time limits, no rules, and even a short chat about the new taqueria, El Chilto, on Congress Ave.
Me: You know where Quizno's is?
Him: Yep.
Me; Yeah, El Chilito is right there, next to that.
Him: I didn't know there was a new place. I'll have to try that.
He also asked us - after the interview - about the rules fight that's still going on on the Senate floor. He joked that all the action's on the Senate side now -- and said that he was doing the Senate a favor by keeping the House exciting when he was in charge.
Other interviews:
Associated Press
Statesman
Former Speaker Tom Craddick sits down to chat.
WATCH THE INTERVIEW HERE.
I'll put some of the key parts of the transcript below, and the rest is after the jump:
What cost you the speakership?
I dont know. I think that a lot of it had to do with the election process, where [Republicans] lost seats over the last six years, a lot of things we couldn't control. The economy was a factor, the war was a big factor. People were dissatisfied, so we went down in the number of seats and that was a trying moment for us. Obviously we're at 76-74... so all of that accumulated and... [the opposition] got to one candidate, and pressured very heavily the Democrats that were supporting me to come over with them and unite.
What do you say to folks who blame you for taking the R majority down from 88 to 76 seats in the House?
That is a fallacy out there, that just isn't right, we couldn't control the national economy, we couldnt control the war, we couldnt control the attitude out there of people who had a lot of voter apathy and that. Two years ago, they threw out the Republicans at the national level in Congress, so actually I think we did pretty well to sustain our majority over the last two election cycles, with the situation the country was in.
What's the biggest misunderstanding out there about you?
I think a lot of people put out this [idea] that I ran every committee and told every commitee chairman what to do, what bills to hear and what they could pass out. I know a lot of media people have interviewed different chairmen and they have said that's just not right. I'm still waiting for the one that says that is right.
What mistakes have you made in your leadership you would go back and redo?
I don't know that there are, we think we've had a pretty good six years, we came in when we had a turnover from a Democrat controlled legislative process for 138 years, so youve gotta change, whether it was R to D or D to R, no one likes that when it happens. We came in here when the economy was down, we had a $10 billion deficit, so we had to make cuts. We also did redistricting that year and that's the one partisan bill every ten years. We changed the tort laws, and that was really my program. We were the worst in the country and now we're the best in the country. We fixed homeowners insurance... we changed it, we put more money in schools, got us out of court on the school issue, put more money in higher education than we've ever had before. To me that's all positive.
Any regrets?
None. It's been a privilege to do this, and it's been a blessing, too, to be here. It's something that I wanted to do all my years in the legislature, be speaker. It was great, Nadine and I both enjoyed it. I think she changed the speaker's apt for the best forever. She went back and did the history of it, no one knows that. The facility was really in shambles when we moved in, today it is one of the premiere pieces in the Capitol.
What do you say to those who say you led like a dictator?
I think that's a myth. I think it takes a strong person and firm person to be speaker. In the US Congress, Nancy Pelosi, she's a strong person. Sam Rayburn was too. Youve got to make tough choices. It's part of it. You can't make everybody happy all the time, so you've got to make those decisions. But I didn't make the decisions a lot of people said on the individual committees. First of all, you don't even have the time to do that. It's just a myth out there. But you've got to be a strong person and be willing to make some decisions. if you dont, you're going to have chaos.
Any wrong decisions?
I don't know, I haven't really analyzed it. I think we had a very positive six years, we accomplished a huge amount, we're very happy where we are, I'm very at ease with it.
What kind of scenario would bring you back as speaker?
I dont know that that's going to happen. It's never going to happen. I'm not running for speaker. I'm just going to represent my district and go forward.
Would you rule it out completely? I know you have support among members.
I'm just, I'm not running for speaker. I'm going to represent my individual district.
What kind of role do you hope for yourself this session?
Well, I probably know as much about appropriations, revenue and taxes as anybody on the floor. I've been chairman of ways and means, public health, natural resources, so I intend to take a very active role on the House floor, and participate in the debate. And the budget's obviously going to be THE issue this session, with the downturn in the economy and the downturn in our numbers. Even though we have a surplus it's dwindling. Texas has kind of been an island out there by itself and now we're getting put into the water with the rest. I think we'll see our numbers continue to go down in the next several months and I want to participate in the process.
How do you feel?
I'm elated to be here, I love the House, this is my 41st year in the House, I've spent most of my adult life in it, and every session I still have this feeling of this wonderous thing I get to do. So we're elated to be participating in it, and glad to be here, cause I was elected to be here.
Take us back to the last few days of 2007. What was going through your mind?
We had had a great session up to that point. We had not passed the budget, we had some individuals that were more interested in their individual political careers and what they wanted to do. My concern was one, let's take care of the business of the House. The business of the state, let's pass an appopriations bill, because that's the one bill we have to pass.
I thought about what is the best for the state of Texas and this institution and getting us out of here by passing what needed to be done for Texas. I did what I thought was right, and obviously the Attorney General agreed I was right. But I've had other speakers, other lieutenant governors come up to me - in fact I had some take me to lunch at a national conference and they said thanks - I said why? They said, because what you did made the difference in our bodies. Because if you could not have the right of recognition or throw someone out everytime someone got upset, it would have ruined the process that we operated under in all our states, and all our legislative processes.
What do you think about how the parliamentarian quit, assistant parliamentarian quit on that night?
That was their choice and they did that not knowing how I was going to rule or what I was going to do, they made that decision. They had that typed up and handed that to us as we were walking out there that night. And so, you know, obviously if you're running a body youve gotta have a parliamentarian. We made the changes we needed by finding someone else. That's waht we did, and that was also for the good of the body. I dont really believe that someone sitting at home really cares whether we have a new parliamentarian or whether or not we do something on the house floor. I think they're more concerned with that they get down here, pass what they're supposed to do and whether they can pay their bills that week and whether their kids can go to school.
As someone who clerked a major committee when Craddick was speaker, I can say with confidence that he never dictated what our agenda was to be or what bills we were or were not to vote out, either through staff or to our chairman directly. Craddick certainly did things I disagreed with, and was rightfully criticized for things, but the allegation that he dictated the committee process was completely inconsistent with my experiences and with other clerks with whom I spoke.
Wow. Still not getting it? The Parliamentarian that night in 2007, same as the one now, was already tight with Democrats. See the blog at http://www.mytexasmag.com/blog/news/politics/trouble-house to see the connection between Denise Davis and trial lawyer Steve Mostyn (and a Dem state rep). Craddick is just being nice to not connect the dots. But later this session, the importance will be clear, when the Lege is trying to figure out how to keep giving insurance to people on the coast (TWIA) when the trial lawyers keep trying to take all of that money. Maybe the Parliamentarian will recuse herself at that time.
Great interview, Elise. Can't believe he contends that he has no regrets.