Racin' to speak
The N+O’s Rob Christensen wrote for this morning’s paper about the Speaker’s race. He has some interesting history in his story and is typically exhaustive on the various permutations on the works right now. You’ve probably related stories stories from myself and others. (Prior bloggage here.)
Now, I’ve been holing up at the southern political writers shindig yesterday and this morning (hat tip to the good folks at UNC’s Program on Public Life) and as you might imagine there was a fairly strong North Carolina contingent there.
The fact that Black is still in the conversation for Speaker still seems somewhat remarkable to us scruffy media types. Even if you believe the guy has done nothing wrong (and there are those out there, including Rep. Earl Jones), one might well imagine the past two years of baggage that he has developed would not be something other House Democrats want to lug into their 2007 session.
I’ve heard a lot of theories on the topic, and the right one has probably escaped my notice. I’ve spoken to lots of house members about this, but I’m not sure I (or anyone else for that matter) is getting a totally accurate read at the moment because folks are being pretty cagey about what they say about the Speaker’s race.
So here’s the dime-store analysis I’m going with for the moment: Black is uncommonly good at organizing and holding together the caucus, which can be a fractious lot. Those who want to keep him may be loathe to part with someone who has the ability to both enforce discipline and massage egos to the point where no one person feels too put-on when they don’t get their way.
So, what’s your theory?