Teslag said:

---

The System said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

txwxman said:

---

Need to clean house of the RINOs. Abbott, Patrick, Paxton would be a good start.

---

Ummm...sure.

We get it. Your folks got their man in Burrows.

---

Here we go. The age old F16 argument of which conservative is a real conservative. Never gets old. You better toe the tea party line, or you get labeled RINO, leftist, Kamala voter.

I'll save you a few keystrokes….yes the username checks out.

---

The poster he was responding to is literally a liberal.

---

Well it's pretty hard to know who's who around here as much as you throw out that word. It's like the race card.

Finally got a hold of someone in Cecil Bell Jr.'s Austin office to answer my call.

The answer he gave me was that there were 2 factors that influenced his decision to side with the Dems and vote Burrows. It was tough to actually follow along with what the poor office clerk was trying to explain.

1) dark money influence & out of state meddling. Something about in West TX 2 big money (billionaires) were trying to influence the election and spread misinformation.

2) Burrows won't allow Dems to be head of committees/chairmans but Cooks would have.

Neither of the reasons given made any sense. The office worker also tried to spin that Cooks was also making overtures to Dems to win the Speaker role. When I pointed out that Cooks would have to because Republicans like Cecil not following party rules would require him to.

The office worker also tried to make the claim that Burrows is more conservative and that Cooks sided with the impeach Paxton crowd.

Whenever I mess up and don't have a good explanation I always throw out the "dark money" excuse.

rgag12 said:

---

Whenever I mess up and don't have a good explanation I always throw out the "dark money" excuse.

---

Stan Gerdes can EAD

TJaggie14 said:

---

Finally got a hold of someone in Cecil Bell Jr.'s Austin office to answer my call.

The answer he gave me was that there were 2 factors that influenced his decision to side with the Dems and vote Burrows. It was tough to actually follow along with what the poor office clerk was trying to explain.

1) dark money influence & out of state meddling. Something about in West TX 2 big money (billionaires) were trying to influence the election and spread misinformation.

2) Burrows won't allow Dems to be head of committees/chairmans but Cooks would have.

Neither of the reasons given made any sense. The office worker also tried to spin that Cooks was also making overtures to Dems to win the Speaker role. When I pointed out that Cooks would have to because Republicans like Cecil not following party rules would require him to.

The office worker also tried to make the claim that Burrows is more conservative and that Cooks sided with the impeach Paxton crowd.

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

TJaggie14 said:

---

Finally got a hold of someone in Cecil Bell Jr.'s Austin office to answer my call.

The answer he gave me was that there were 2 factors that influenced his decision to side with the Dems and vote Burrows. It was tough to actually follow along with what the poor office clerk was trying to explain.

1) dark money influence & out of state meddling. Something about in West TX 2 big money (billionaires) were trying to influence the election and spread misinformation.

2) Burrows won't allow Dems to be head of committees/chairmans but Cooks would have.

Neither of the reasons given made any sense. The office worker also tried to spin that Cooks was also making overtures to Dems to win the Speaker role. When I pointed out that Cooks would have to because Republicans like Cecil not following party rules would require him to.

The office worker also tried to make the claim that Burrows is more conservative and that Cooks sided with the impeach Paxton crowd.

---

They think you're stupid.

---

Well I was barely a business student, so maybe they have a point.

Yeah it all sounded like garbage and a bunch of political buzz words to try and justify his actions without really saying anything. I felt bad for the office worker having to face the music instead of his boss.

HTownAg98 said:

---

You can expel them, censure, do whatever you want to them, but there's no way to stop them from filing in a Republican primary and running again.

---

Yes, they can run, but the County Committee can also endorse their primary opponent and direct all funding to their opponent.

Time for County Committees to step up and take a stand.

HTownAg98 said:

---

And that's also illegal. If they meet the requirements as outlined in the state election code, the party chair shall include them on a primary ballot. Period. It's up to the voters to decide if that candidate best represents the ideals of the party. If someone challenges this, it will be overturned.

---

Yup. I don't think that there's anything in the code that keeps any yahoo that can garner a couple of hundred signatures from getting on the ballot.

Which also poses a problem with you have someone with a common name - like for instance, Robert Morrow - who gets on a ballot and actually wins with zero effort going towards their candidacy.

So for the reason stated above, as well as what we've seen with the Burrows bunch refusing to follow Caucus rules THEY helped write, I will be speaking with my rep about the need for amending of the law to provide some safeguards for the Parties to protect their own primaries.

Without said legislation, I fear we will soon see the day where a Soros-style strategy will be implemented to fund common name candidates of their own party being placed on opposing party ballots just to garner the uniformed vote.

Parties need some control of who goes on the ballot of the Party. Anyone should be able to run, but to get on a primary ballot should require at least a minimum of party-related requirements.

HTownAg98 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

And that's also illegal. If they meet the requirements as outlined in the state election code, the party chair shall include them on a primary ballot. Period. It's up to the voters to decide if that candidate best represents the ideals of the party. If someone challenges this, it will be overturned.

---

It is not illegal and it won't be overturned. You should crack open the US constitution sometime, specifically the 1st amendment.

---

You should look at SCoTx precedent that says otherwise.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11003288982219520028&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

Quote:

---

A request made under the provisions of Article 13.12 for a place as a candidate on a party primary ballot imports a present good faith intention of affiliating with the party. Past or present words or conduct may open that intention to doubt and question. But party officers and Executive Committees may not decide the issue against the candidate and so deciding refuse to place his name on the party primary ballot. This Court so held in Love v. Wilcox, 119 Tex. 256, 28 S.W.2d 515, 525, 70 A.L.R. 1484. We there said that "The power to pass on the sincerity of the candidate's pledge and to indorse or condemn his past party record is to be exercised by the party voters." Further, we quoted with approval from an opinion of the Attorney General as follows: "If proper application is made the committee should place the name of the candidate on the ballot and the members of the party the voters themselves would be the best judges of his fidelity to the party and make that decision at the polls."

---

---

Sadly, this opinion was adequate imo until just recently. Now, with the manipulation that we've seen to get Soros DAs elected, and the other games that have now been put into play utilizing lawfare, misinformation, and exchange of money to achieve political goals, it is an unfortunate truth that "the voters themselves" ARE NOT necessarily the best judges of fidelity to party.

Again, case in point, the Curious Case of Robert Morrow.

They think you're stupid.

The Texas lege wont ban China from owning land in Texas because wait for it…. Its racist. You can't make this crap up

— Kambree (@KamVTV) January 19, 2025

Office of Angela Orr response to my email. What a load of horse *****

Thank you for reaching out and for taking the time to share your thoughts with our office regarding Rep. Orr's decision in the Speaker selection. We appreciate your engagement and value the perspectives of our constituents.
Dustin Burrows was raised in rural Texas and continues to represent a rural district, which closely aligns with the needs and priorities of House District 13. Rural issues and challenges are significantly different from those faced in larger metropolitan areas, such as Mansfield, which Rep. David Cook represents. Given this, it is essential to have leadership that truly understands and advocates for rural communities.
Speaker Burrows has strong conservative credentials, extensive knowledge of House operations, and a proven commitment to passing critical legislative priorities. Now serving his fifth term, he brings a wealth of experience and a record of conservative victories, surpassing that of Rep. Cook, who is in his third term. Additionally, Speaker Burrows has worked alongside Rep. Orr to pass legislation that directly benefits families in House District 13, ensuring that our rural communities have a strong voice in the Texas House.
Furthermore, rural representatives are far fewer in number than in the past, making it even more critical to ensure that rural voices remain strong in the legislature. With fewer rural leaders, the unique challenges our communities face risk being overshadowed by urban interests. This is why Rep. Orr believes it is essential to support leadership that understands the distinct needs of rural Texas and will champion policies that protect and strengthen our way of life.
A representative is elected to serve their district and advocate for the best interests of their constituents, and that remains Rep. Orr's top priority. She is committed to making informed decisions that will have the most positive impact on those she represents.
Rep. Orr also greatly enjoyed her visit with Riesel ISD. She was impressed by the engagement of the students, who asked thoughtful questions that she answered with honesty and transparency. It was a meaningful opportunity to connect with young members of our community.
I'm sorry that you feel disappointed by this decision, but please know that Rep. Orr is dedicated to serving her constituents to the best of her ability and within the framework of her responsibilities.
Thank you and please reach out anytime if we can do anything for you.



Lindsay Kimbrell
District Director
Representative Angelia Orr
House District 13
214 E Elm St.
Hillsboro, Tx 76645
Capitol Office: 512-463-0600
District Office: 254-580-9008

It would appear that lacy hull is feeling the pressure.

I wonder what Burrows had to promise those dems who lost their committee chair positions to earn their votes. We could have gotten the same result voting for Cook without having to promise dems anything.

If Burrows holds serve on this..... it is half a redemption arc.

If Burrows allows legitimate bill for school vouchers on to the floor and does not obstruct it.... its the other half.

Twice an Aggie is correct.

Anyone who thinks this move by the "republican" speaker diminishes the power of the Democrats is sorely mistaken, for it does just the opposite.

And not only that... the way he maneuvered to get is done was extremely underhanded... making it extremely confusing to understand, only notifying representatives at 4am this morning and demanding a vote by this afternoon, and not allowing any Republican representatives the opportunity to raise objections or propose changes.

The fact that 95% of the Democrats voted for it and then did a press conference praising it tells you all you need to know about the betrayal done to Republican voters.

At 4:20am this morning, a 232-page rules package (HR4) dropped into my email. This last minute “Pelosi-style”rules package had one goal: create a new path of power for Democrats while placating the grassroots with “no Democrats chairs”. Pages 67-69 clearly redefine the power…

— Janis Holt (@JanisHolt59) January 23, 2025

Proud to vote against the Democrat Empowerment Act of 2025 today, otherwise known as the House Rules. Facts about this package:

❌ Everything you really needed to know: every democrat but one voted for this.
❌ Required that every single Vice Chair position be filled by… pic.twitter.com/IFs8NoUF81

— Andy Hopper (@AndyHopperTX) January 23, 2025

I was cautiously optimistic about Dustin Burrows sticking to the promises he made to every Republican in our Republican Caucus Meetings ever since he became speaker. He promised to respect members, to listen and have an open dialogue.

Today, he made it clear that he is a…

— Rep. J.M. Lozano (@texasreplozano) January 24, 2025

This rules package was a comprehensive power sharing agreement with Democrats, which is why every Democrat voted for it. Absolutely shameful. https://t.co/zYSw2nwy0P

— Matt Rinaldi (@MattRinaldiTX) January 23, 2025

This short video will tell you everything you need to know. The Democrats gained ground today and increased their role in the Texas House.

And you wanna know the worst part? It was an inside job. pic.twitter.com/8GvRlD13kv

— Rep. Mitch Little (@realmitchlittle) January 24, 2025

You are being told that the Texas House banned Democrat Chairs.

Make no mistake, House Democrats won big today.

They will have more power under Dustin Burrows than they did under Dade Phelan.

And they know it. pic.twitter.com/aSl1R20pi2

— Brent Money (@brentmoney) January 24, 2025

So... if the Texas House Rules really defanged the Democrats, why did the Democrats vote for the @Burrows4TX Rules?

EASY: These Rules give the Democrats more power and money than ever before to undermine the @TexasGOP agenda.

— Michael Quinn Sullivan 🇺🇸 (@MQSullivan) January 23, 2025

How though? And only 23 Republicans voted against it

Advancing Integrity had a a good summary of the screw-over of Texas conservatives.

What's Worse than Democrat Chairs? The New House Rules

Quote:

---

Republicans will hold all committee chair positions, but that rule does not apply to the expanded sub-committees. Also, all Vice-Chairs must be Democrats and those Vice-Chairs will not only have more power, but they will be given $4000 per month for their offices.

...

It was already going to be difficult with a Speaker beholden to the Democrats appointing a Chairman beholden to the Speaker. Now, the Republican Chair will have to work even more closely with his Democrat Vice-Chair who will have the power to designate invited witnesses, prioritize bills to be heard by the committee, and request impact statements.

---

More from the Texas Scorecard article that it points to:

Proposed Rules Would Expand Democrat Power-sharing in Texas House

Quote:

---

Moreover, Democrat vice-chairs would gain additional authority, including the ability to:

• Designate invited witnesses to testify in committee hearings.
• Prioritize measures for consideration by the committee.
• Request impact statements for legislation under review.

Vice-chairs could also receive an additional $4,000 a month for their offices if approved in a separate housekeeping proposal.

The draft rules also establish 12 new "permanent standing subcommittees," creating another avenue for Democrats to wield power. Unlike the standing committees, there are no restrictions on which party may chair these subcommittees. This loophole raises concerns that Democrats could control critical subcommittees, even under the guise of Republican-led standing committees.

---

Burrows, Hunter, and Patterson should get primary opponents soon.

Charpie said:

---

How though? And only 23 Republicans voted against it

---

Here's the short version.

1) Required that every single Vice Chair position be filled by Democrats, and allocated thousands of dollars to be awarded to these Vice Chairs. Functionally, the new rules makes Vice Chairs co-chairmen of committees.

2) Created 12 new "permanent standing sub-committees" which could also be chaired by Democrats, which the speaker will be allowed to refer legislation to.

In effect, instead of having the Dems control 8 committees where they could set the agenda and the Republicans the rest, we traded that away for joint control of every committee where they Chair and Vice Chairs have co-equal power to run the committees.

DD88 said:

---

Advancing Integrity had a a good summary of the screw-over of Texas conservatives.

What's Worse than Democrat Chairs? The New House Rules

Quote:

---

Republicans will hold all committee chair positions, but that rule does not apply to the expanded sub-committees. Also, all Vice-Chairs must be Democrats and those Vice-Chairs will not only have more power, but they will be given $4000 per month for their offices.

...

It was already going to be difficult with a Speaker beholden to the Democrats appointing a Chairman beholden to the Speaker. Now, the Republican Chair will have to work even more closely with his Democrat Vice-Chair who will have the power to designate invited witnesses, prioritize bills to be heard by the committee, and request impact statements.

---

More from the Texas Scorecard article that it points to:

Proposed Rules Would Expand Democrat Power-sharing in Texas House

Quote:

---

Moreover, Democrat vice-chairs would gain additional authority, including the ability to:

• Designate invited witnesses to testify in committee hearings.
• Prioritize measures for consideration by the committee.
• Request impact statements for legislation under review.

Vice-chairs could also receive an additional $4,000 a month for their offices if approved in a separate housekeeping proposal.

The draft rules also establish 12 new "permanent standing subcommittees," creating another avenue for Democrats to wield power. Unlike the standing committees, there are no restrictions on which party may chair these subcommittees. This loophole raises concerns that Democrats could control critical subcommittees, even under the guise of Republican-led standing committees.

---

Burrows, Hunter, and Patterson should get primary opponents soon.

---

I've heard lacy hull has a much better, competitive primary opponent coming

Official statement from Republican Party of Texas.

Official Statement from Chairman Abraham George @abrahamgeorge pic.twitter.com/34MjR88gye

— Texas GOP (@TexasGOP) January 23, 2025

Charpie said:

---

How though? And only 23 Republicans voted against it

---

Because Burrows has made it clear that anybody who opposes him will be shut out of power for anything with prejudice.

Pieces of ***** They think you're stupid.

The hardest part of following politics is realizing the majority of people really are...

Is there ever a more clear sign that Burrows is actively working against the conservative agenda and solely cares about his own grasp on power?

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Pieces of ***** They think you're stupid.

---

They'll tout the fact that they "eliminated" Democrat committee chairs all the while knowing the new rules actually gave the Democrats more power and control. It's not an easy thing to quickly and concisely explain to a casual follower of politics and your average primary voter.

IMO, the Burrows faction just declared war. So be it.