Who would have thought that Texas Republicans, fresh off a stunning landslide in November, would focus not on conservative legislation but on booting a conservative Speaker? It is truly an amazing thing to watch because there really isn't a "race" - Speaker Straus will return to guide the House through several minefields, the most important of which, for me, is the budget process. The vitriolic rhetoric coming from paid attackers is beyond over the top and serves no purpose other than to raise money for more attacks and to make sure their donors get their money's worth.

But to be honest, I was in their camp at one time. I too blamed Speaker Straus for the failure of Voter ID in the 2009 session because that was the path of least resistance. He was speaker, bill failed, his fault because, after all, he was elected by Democrats! You know the story. Except the story isn't true, as I found out when I was forced to look at the record after a bunch of friends from various tea parties signed a letter that was nothing more than an attempt to put Rep. Warren Chisum in as Speaker. And while I hadn't looked too much at Straus' record over the years, Chisum's I knew well and knew that as a small government, freedom loving, liberty type conservative, there was no possibility I could support him.

The first thing I had to understand was that Democrats did not select the Speaker. Joe Straus was elected Speaker 150-0. There was a group of Republicans that remembered former Speaker Craddick's actions in 2005 and 2007 and they were never going to vote for him. Most of the Democrats were never going to vote for him because of his actions at the end of the 2007 session. You remember - his parliamentarian even resigned over it. When it became clear that Craddick would lose, more Republicans jumped ship. So simply saying that 11 R's and 65 D's elected Speaker Straus is not a true and accurate picture of what happened. And if, as I've said before, if the current charges against Speaker Straus were even half-truths, how did these principled conservatives, including Ken Paxton and Warren Chisum, vote for him? I'll let you answer that.

Next was the Voter ID bill. Turns out that wasn't so simple either and in fact had more to do with R's not wanting to overturn tort reform than it did Voter ID. See the emails from Kyleen Wright from Texans for Life. Another thing to consider is that the House was evenly split at the time because Rep. Edmund Kuempel, now deceased, suffered a heart attack on May 12 and didn't return until June 1. Combine that with the tradition that the Speaker doesn't vote and you have a 74-74 split. Would I trade tort reform for Voter ID? No, I wouldn't. Perhaps you would; we'll simply agree to disagree.

Once those two issues were removed, it became clear that Speaker Straus earned a second term, both with the way he ran the House and his support for R candidates. Not deserved, earned. Like it or not, under Craddick we lost 12 Republican seats. Under Straus, we gained 22 (now 24). Do I ascribe all or even most to Speaker Straus? No - this was a mandate against Washington, D.C. But make no mistake, some of these gains were his - while his detractors were sitting around planning their coup, he was putting money into Republican campaigns, which not only helped elect R representatives, but helped down ballot Republicans like new Harris County Commissioner Jack Morman. And he should get much credit for the way he ran the House last session. We can't simply dismiss Speaker Straus' impact on the November elections.

I like the fact that he focuses on fiscal issues because that is also my focus. The smaller the government, the better, in my view. As I've pointed out previously, the budget grew tremendously under Craddick - Straus actually lowered general revenue spending, albeit with stimulus funding in some areas. Lower is still lower. And you won't find pork in Speaker Straus' portfolio - unlike his opponents. If we do not cut spending in Texas, we'll be forced to raise taxes - I like the fact that Speaker Straus gets that. He has flat out stated that we will not raise taxes this session. I believe him.

I also like the fact that he is pro-life like I am. Abortion for convenience is abominable. But I think that there are times that abortion should be allowed, and yes, I'm talking about the big three: rape, incest, and the health of the mother. Most Americans and most Texans agree with that position. Once again, I turn to a champion for pro-life issues, Kyleen Wright:

My loyalty is to the Life issue, and will not be clouded by personal loyalties. People will draw their own conclusions, but reasonable people will not find it unbelievable that members and others who lost power and influence in the sea change of leadership had an ax to grind against Straus. The continued demonization of Speaker Straus and distortion of his record is just more of the same.

And I like the way he handles himself and his leadership style. He doesn't jump up and down, yell and scream, call his opponents names - he sets a course and tries to achieve a destination in a grown-up kind of way. I realize that some of my fellow Teapers might not appreciate that but I do like civility in debate. Washington, D.C. style politics do not belong in Texas - unless we too want to be failures deep in debt, surrounded by corruption, setting a course without a rudder. Like it or not, even after the November elections, a third of Texans are represented by Democrats. It doesn't make sense to me to shun them and not listen to their input. Listening doesn't mean abandoning principle.

So there you go. That is why I support Speaker Straus. It is easy, all too easy, to follow the paid attackers because time is precious. I hope you will take the time to look at the facts and decide for yourself.

Facts about Speaker Straus: