I stopped lobbying in 2003 when Tom Craddick took over as Speaker. Why? Because he started telling the members that they had to vote with what was best for the Republican Party and not their districts. I know I had one GOP member tell me he could not vote yes on my issue,(even when it would be good for his district) because the Speaker team told him if he did he would get a primary opponent. And things have not gotten any better in the last four years. Now the chicken has come home to roost so to speak.

He is bad for the House of Representatives, bad for his District and bad for Texas. As the Fort Worth Star-Telegram said in their editorial he is "obstinate, dogmatic and authoritarian" and on top of that he now believes that he has absolute power to make decisions.

Tom is wrong and those members that support him are wrong and that includes the Craddick Democrats who are supporting him to win favors from his team. It also includes the lobby that supports the Speaker and dictates the addenda. (Why do you think the TXU bill went down to defeat?) As one GOP opponent said Craddick and his team support big corporate America and not small business and are controlled by the lobby. Of course that is part of the problem, but the main problem is that members cannot vote their districts and frankly that is what they are sent there to do.

So, it is time for Tom to go and to hang it up. It would be good for him and for Texas.

Here is the Star-Telegram's editorial:

"Star-Telegram Forget about Tom Craddick.

That's not meant to be a statement about the man, although this Editorial Board has often criticized him for his actions as speaker of the Texas House and for some of the measures that he has championed in that role. In face-to-face conversation, he is as personable and intelligent as anyone. In matters of state policy, he is obstinate, dogmatic and authoritarian to a fault. He leans, and leads, to the politically far right, and his ties to powerful lobbyists yield too much to the moneyed interests of this state.

Focus not on Craddick the man but on what he did on Friday and throughout the weekend. It is no overstatement to say that he threatened the structure of state government, and every Texan should be very worried about that.

Craddick laid claim to "absolute" power over the proceedings of the House, to the point of asserting that the members of that body who named him as their leader have no power to remove him short of impeachment.

Those assertions are so absurd as to be alarming. Does this man seriously believe that he is beyond reproach? Craddick's opponents have made it clear that it has never been their intent to remove him from office as the elected representative of the people in Midland's District 82, as the impeachment process would do. They simply believe that he is not the best man to be speaker, and they believe that a majority of House members now agree on that point.

Craddick would not allow them to bring that question to a vote, even refusing to recognize the right of any member to bring it up for discussion on the House floor. He said that the Texas Constitution provides for the election of a speaker by members of the House but not for the speaker's removal by those same members.

He is dead wrong. Article III, Section 1, says, "Each House may determine the rules of its own proceedings..." He claims to be a constitutional officer of the state. That would put him on par with the governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general, land commissioner, comptroller and judges of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, all of whom are elected by statewide ballot. Craddick is a House member elected by the people of Midland, and he was named to his leadership role by the members of the House, no more and no less. He might be right that there is no specific provision in House rules for the removal of a speaker. In the absence of a specific rule on any matter, the House rules defer to the rules of the U.S. House of Representatives, where the ability of members to replace a speaker is clear. Craddick's claim of authority to ignore a member who wishes to place a motion before the House is equally disturbing. During open debate on any matter of House business, it is the role of the speaker to direct the action on the floor, and a motion simply meant to distract from that debate is clearly out of order. But there are some motions that are referred to in the House rules as "questions of privilege," and the rules say that they "shall have precedence over all other questions except motions to adjourn."

Specifically designated as questions of privilege are motions "affecting the rights of the house collectively, its safety and dignity, and the integrity of its proceedings." Among congressional precedents cited in the rules as questions of House privilege are "questions relating to its organization." These are points that Craddick cannot win in the long term. But he could, and has, won them in the short term. Although his opponents continued to object throughout the weekend, for the most part he refused to answer their questions and would not allow them to appeal his rulings to the House as a whole. In the final days of the session, that was enough for him to prevail. The session ended Monday.

And that, most likely, was his goal. Although the issues raised were matters of legal interpretation -- and some of the House members who raised them are attorneys who made lawyerly arguments -- it is not likely that any of this will be settled in court. Judges are reluctant to interfere in the internal operations of a legislative body.

Pushing all of this off beyond the end of the session means it probably won't be settled until 2009, after a new Legislature is elected and a new House meets, writes its rules and elects a speaker. The stage is set for election contests between pro-Craddick and anti-Craddick candidates. That's where the forget Craddick part comes in. This shouldn't be about him. It should be about what kind of House the people of Texas want. What they should want is a legislative body that is as close to them as possible, one that represents their interests. That's what the 150-member House is supposed to be.

They should want a House where the member who represents them is free to bring up issues that are important to them. That member should have a fair chance to persuade others in the House that laws addressing those issues should be adopted and those that are against their interests are rejected. The speaker plays a crucial role in that process. Members should be free to elect the speaker whom they feel most fairly directs the business of the House. A speaker who runs afoul of the expectations of a majority of House members should be replaced, or that body is no longer the people's House. It is a House run by a minority of members, and that in itself is an abuse of power.

A speaker who deliberately leads the House in the direction of being run by a minority of its members is nothing less than a threat to this state and to the concept of representative democracy.

Tom Craddick has shown himself to be that speaker. This is not about him; it is about the rest of us. Standing up for ourselves means rejecting the positions taken on Friday and through the weekend by Tom Craddick. We cheat ourselves if we don't."