What constitutes retaliation?

Karen Brooks, DMN:

Two years ago, Mr. Craddick gave Mr. Pitts a plum assignment heading the appropriations committee, where he can wield great influence over the state budget. Capitol observers expect Mr. Pitts to be relegated to the backbench now.

About the challenge, Mr. Craddick says he "didn't take any of that personally," and he promised not to retaliate against members who opposed him.

"We're just looking at what people have asked for, and where we think they fit," Mr. Craddick said. "You can't have 149 people on appropriations."

Mr. Pitts said Thursday night that he has asked to be returned as appropriations chairman "because of my experience."

"I'm really worried about lack of experience on appropriations because of the big issues this session," Mr. Pitts said.

The headline reads "Craddick: No retaliation." I'd say that leaving Pitts on Appropriations at all would be a lack of retaliation, or even giving him reasonable committee assignments. Bringing him back as Appropriations chair is pretty much unthinkable. The Speaker has to rely on his Chairman of Approps...it's hard to imagine that they'd have the level of trust necessary to work together.

Posted by Evan @ 01/19/07 01:05 PM

 
 

Previous Entry | Home | Next Entry



Comments

No comments yet

Add Comments

No flames or impolite behavior. HTML will be stripped. URLs will be transformed into hyperlinks.