February 11, 2009 4:48 PM

Chaos In Texas House Over Speaker Fight

(CBS/AP)  Tensions in the Texas House boiled over in a parliamentary showdown between Republican House Speaker Tom Craddick and some GOP and Democratic insurgents.

It was a moment that has been building for weeks, with House members defiantly challenging the leader they put in power. Dissatisfaction has been building and on Friday night frustration turned into anger.

Craddick survived a five-hour rebellion on the House floor that included a bold attempt to boot him from office, the physical restraint of insurgent lawmakers trying to overtake the speaker's podium, and the House parliamentarian nearly pushed to tears before resigning.

With his political career in jeopardy, Craddick charged through a House rebellion that lasted into early Saturday, refusing to give up his leadership post and putting on display the bare-knuckle tenacity that boosted him to power.

CBS Station KEYE correspondent Keith Elkins reports that anti-Craddick forces (known as "the insurgents") have whispered that there would be a move for a member vote to have the Speaker removed. That move came this week — or would have if the Speaker had allowed them to be heard.

Republican Rep. Fred Hill, who has filed his candidacy to replace Craddick, made a parliamentary request that would allow the 150-member chamber to vote to oust Craddick.

Craddick refused to recognize Hill to make the motion.

Hill next asked to allow the House to vote to appeal the speaker, which would have required a two-thirds vote of the body.

"The speaker's discretion to recognize a member on a motion on any matter is unappealable," Craddick said.

By the time the House adjourned shortly before 1:30 a.m., Craddick had beaten back his opponents — but not before a series of raucous scenes unfolded in the chamber.

Earlier in the evening, the House melted down when Craddick announced a two-hour break to escape pointed questions about his leadership.

The 150-member chamber broke out in a cacophony of boos as lawmakers swept to the front of the chamber and Craddick, often called the most powerful man in state government, hustled back to his office suite.

Democrats trying to overtake the speaker's podium were physically restrained by House sergeants-at-arms as they tried to grab the microphone.

"It is clearly an abuse of power and of office," Republican Rep. Todd Smith of Bedford said later.

Denise Davis, the House parliamentarian, resigned over the incident, according to a statement from Craddick. His spokeswoman later confirmed that assistant parliamentarian Christopher Griesel had resigned as well.

Craddick's two-year term does not expire until the next legislative session convenes in January 2009, but discontent in the chamber is fueling a plot to force him out before the current 140-day session ends Monday. The oilfield mud salesman from Midland is the longest-serving member of the House.

With three days left in the legislative session, lawmakers have spent the week hurdling through remaining legislation and much was left to be completed before Monday, including the $153 billion state budget.

Democrats and Republicans complain that Craddick has ruled the House with an iron fist. They say his win-at-all-costs style often forces legislators to vote against the best interests of their own districts.

Craddick was re-elected to his third term as House speaker in January, fending off another challenge. But strife has continued to hover over the House during the session.

In the last week, four Republicans, including Hill, have filed their candidacies to be speaker if Craddick is ousted.

Former state Rep. Terry Keel, a Craddick ally who stepped down to run an unsuccessful campaign for the Court of Criminal Appeals, was serving as parliamentarian when the House returned from the two-hour recess. Former Rep. Ron Wilson, a Houston music executive who was known for his expert understanding of the rules, was serving as assistant parliamentarian.

Insurgents quickly questioned Wilson's independence and some of his work as an attorney. Craddick parroted Keel's responses to every question.

"Will you recognize any member of this chamber for a motion to elect an impartial parliamentarian?" Dunnam asked.

When Craddick said that would be against the rules, Dunnam said, "We're gonna follow House rules? When?" to a burst of applause from a packed House gallery and lawmakers who oppose Craddick.



© 2009 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Add a Comment See all 46 Comments
by toldyouso21 May 29, 2007 12:23 PM EDT
This is really scary. We are falling apart, but like a rotted out raft in the middle of an ocean, we are loathe to believe it until the entire thing just collapses around us.

Texas--the home of Bush and the start of his political career--notoriously known for their gerrymandering for votes. Now this. And what will we do if such craziness erupts in Washington?

Picture this: The Democrats trying to initiate a vote on something, and Bush and the GOP ignoring the rules and having the GOP laden DOJ, hold them all back.....mayhem. The only reason that rules ever work---is that reasonable people adhere to them.

We have entered the age of little to no reason.
Reply to this comment
by homespunlady May 29, 2007 2:28 AM EDT
Does this prove Bushit rolls downhill or does it mean since Bush claims Texas rather than his Northeastern Nazi banker Prescott Bush roots that corruption rises to the top.
Either way this type of ignoring Parliamentary procedure is despicable.
Obviously if tis man DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO BE CONDEMNED FOR he wouldn't have BROKEN THE RULES.
You don't have BOTH the Parliamentarian and the backup Parliamentarian QUIT unless they have been rendered USELESS DUE TO THE RULES BEING TOTALLY TOSSED OUT by the Speaker!!!
Reply to this comment
by gerbziler May 29, 2007 2:18 AM EDT
To: forthepeopl1

"ITMILLIONS"

"TAKE BACK THERE COUNTRY"

"WHAT OUR FORFATHERS WANTED"

"AM READY TO TAKE CHARGE OF THIS AMERICAN BOYCOT/COOP"

"WE WILL BE GIVENING UP ON OUR CONSTITUTION AND WHAT ALL OUR VET HAVE DIED FOR.."

"ok so wants to join in on this great american REVOLUTION "

"if the american NOW dont stand up"

"we will finnish it now.."

"everyone in washington can sit there and thinks"

1. From the ridiculous English mistakes you made, you can not possibly be an american. In fact, you sound very much like you are from the middle-east. You are fooling no one but yourself.

2. If anyone, whether an american or a two-bit nut-case foreign terrorist like yourself, tries to start a "COOP", I, along with about 50 million other americans, will personally blow their worthless heads off.
Reply to this comment
by toldyouso21 May 29, 2007 2:00 AM EDT
Soon, Bush may face the same type of insurgency within his own ranks--when the Sharks in the GOP smell their own blood in the water and realize they have been feeding on themselves.
Reply to this comment
by agnim May 28, 2007 4:14 PM EDT
"I all this time I thought the "insurgents" were in Iraq. No wonder we can't get anything done, we don't know who the heck we are fighting.
Posted by mikealford3 at 04:48 PM : May 26, 2007"

LOL

Can you imagine, adopting the name given to the enemies. Confusion reigns. LOL
Reply to this comment
by forthepeopl1 May 28, 2007 3:19 PM EDT
JULY 21 2007 IS WHEN AMERICANS WILL BE FREE AGAIN

EVERYONE THAT WANTS TO HELP WITH THIS SHOULD BE TALKING TO ALL MEDIA OUTLETS AND TELLING THEM THAT AMERICANS ARE READY TO TAKE WASHINGTON ON AND ITS NOT A FEW AMERICANS ITMILLIONS OF AMERICANS THAT WILL TAKE BACK THERE COUNTRY..

I AM WILLING TO GIVE MY BLOOD FOR ALL AMERICANS TO GET OUR COUNTRY BACK TO WHAT OUR FORFATHERS WANTED.

AM A VET AND AM READY TO TAKE CHARGE OF THIS AMERICAN BOYCOT/COOP IF WE THE PEOPLE DONT DO THIS NOW WE WILL BE GIVENING UP ON OUR CONSTITUTION AND WHAT ALL OUR VET HAVE DIED FOR..

DAVID A BELANGER,VET US ARMY,for-america@hotmail.com

ok so wants to join in on this great american REVOLUTION


they cant kill millions of americans at once so if we charge them all at once we will win and take them out and hang them all..

just like in the old days of the west...hang them from the trees in front of the whitehouse and see how many start telling the truth about what they have done to all us americans..


if the american NOW dont stand up and start a NATIONAL REVOUTION ON THIS WASHINGTON BULL S/H/I/T/ THEN we as TRUE AMERICANS can say nothing!!!

its time to take all this *** and take our government back now..

they are the ones that started this and we will finnish it now..we the people will take our country back and everyone in washington can sit there and thinks we the people are ok with what they are doing..go ahead and let them think that we are comming to take them out

Reply to this comment
by howardbeale2 May 28, 2007 2:09 PM EDT
This is a poorly written, misleading article overall. Please hire some editors to review articles for clarity and bias before they are submitted to the public. Is that too difficult for mainstream news to do anymore?
Reply to this comment
by howardbeale2 May 28, 2007 2:05 PM EDT
This is a poorly written, misleading article overall. Please hire some editors to review articles for clarity and bias before they are submitted to the public. Is that too difficult for mainstream news to do anymore?
Reply to this comment
by mcvet May 28, 2007 10:29 AM EDT
I find it very funny that so many in todays world find this to be something different. Any child of the 60's knows what Southern Fascism is all about and Texas is a very good example. Majority Rule is something Southern Fascist have never understood so they set out to create their Own "Majority" and anyone who doesn't want to be part of it is intimidated and battered into compliance. Hitler and the Third Reich have NOTHING and I do mean NOTHING on Southern Fascist. They are the best ever at being "Superior". Sieg Heil Y'all.
Reply to this comment
by brianbwb-2009 May 28, 2007 6:44 AM EDT
Journalists are supposed to be unbiased sources of information, except when editorializing a subject. They are supposed to understand the English language and the definitions of the words they use to provide the information. When a non-military political disagreement becomes an "insurgency", or a rocket fired into a US military base becomes "terrorism", the credibility of the journalist is immediately nullified, as the report then becomes an "untruth" i.e., a lie.

Mr. Bush calls the resistance to US occupation in Afghanistan and Iraq terrorism when, by definition this is an intentional lie. When the journalists trumpet his pronouncements without question, they become complicit in the lie.
Palestinian resistance to Israeli occupation is also not "terrorism" if and when the attacks are against military targets.

Please, to all pro journalists, stop allowing the misuse of language by those with agendas to pass unquestioned into your stories as if they were truth, they are not. One can see by the blogs all over the news organizations that many believe the lies of those in power, because the truth is not brought out by the press. Is there not something in the code of responsible journalism against this?
Reply to this comment
See all 46 Comments
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook