ustxtxb_obs_1972_10_20_50_00013-00000_000.pdf

ROLL CALL NO. DATE , 1971 SENATE, SIXTY-SECOND LEGISLATURE BEN BARNES, Lieutenant Governor, DeLeon TOMMY TOWNSEND, Swiposett At Arms, Austin CHARLES SCHNABEL, %misty, Anti’ First Called Session S No J Il No Con Toot /Dm /meal Aa** Aikin, A. M., Jr. 010. 1. Park x OW. 71 Ikaalon, X Bockworth, Lindley 010. 2., 11.441…16. X X Bernal, Joel J. D10. 11, S. Awleole 041,S 1….d X Bridges, Ronald W. DM. * Gm. C1.1.11 *X A Brooks, Chet Dist. 7 ..,d… Christie, Joe Mt. 21. 11 Paw g Connally, Wayne Die. 21, Reno*. Creighton, Tom DM. n. 1,11…,1 WO. X Grover, Henry Dist It, 14…. X X Hall, Ralph 0 1,1., 11.a…0 Harr .in p. rzz, D. Roy X DM. I, Win X Herring, Charles F. Old. 14, Audio X Hightower, Jack Ohl. /01. Ye.. X Jordan, Barbara 1110. 11, 146.0.. X X Kennard, Don ow. II, Feel Weft Kothmann, Glenn Did. If sr A./We X m x x t oscar X McKool, Mike DIN. I4 DOW X Dm. 4 . .-,.. X Putman, William DM. It, Gordo X Ratliff, David Did. Di, Skallord Schwartz, A. R. DM. I/ GhesNa A Sherman, Max DM. 31 /011. Din. 74 1.11dlawl X Wallace, Jim DM. 4 N….a… X .-G ‘X Watson, Murray, Jr. 01.1. It Mom Wilson, Charles Did. 1/..1161.1 – Word, J.P. DI.. 11, Ider114. _ TOTAL C R No was a good thing that the statute of limitations had run out on them?” Some people thought the remark was funny. It was certainly Bullockian. TAKEN AS A whole, the senators’ stated assessments of Bullock would lead one to believe that he should have confirmed almost unanimously. “Smart,” “competent,” “tough,” “loyal.” There seems to be a consensus that he has done an excellent job as secretary of state. There are approximately half a dozen senators who add that they wouldn’t give a plugged nickel for Bullock’s honesty. The others who voted against him end their praise by saying, “.. . but I don’t thinkhe’s qualified to be on the Insurance Board.” Bullock is typically blunt about his qualifications: “As far as my knowing anything about insurance, I know exactly as much as the two guys who are already on that board knew when they were confirmed zero.” reappoint him or some such, if Bullock got busted. There is a certain senator who has an interest in a savings and loan application on which he has been waiting for some time. A higher-up at the state agency which handles such applications is alleged to have called the senator and to have told him the application would be reported out “next week” if the senator’s vote went for Bullock. Such tactics can and do backfire. Oscar Mauzy, for one, says he voted against Bullock, “Because I don’t like to see that kind of pressure put on. It didn’t happen to me. But it might be me the next time. The governor and I talked about my insurance bills. He asked me to vote for Bob, but he didn’t threaten and he didn’t promise. He wasn’t trying to push me around. I just heard about what happened to other people.” One senator who is extremely opposed to Bullock said he had heard rumors that another senator was carrying money \(an expression meaning just what you think it Trying to get them straight after the fact is not easy either. After such a battle, the facts grow into legends, as has ever been the way with men \(see the “Prince Valiant” strip from a couple of Sundays campaign stop in San Antonio to vote for Bullock becomes an epic dash in the re-telling, an I I th hour act of loyalty. Some senators who voted for Bullock dramatize their intrepid stand against pressure from the lobby. Some who voted against him play down the lobby pressure and point out how brave they were to stand up against the governor, whose threats and promises, real and imagined, are becoming embroidered as time goes on. In point of fact, some senators did not get hassled by the lobby and some did not get hassled by Bullock/Smith. Ike Harris of Dallas, for one, heard from almost nobody. Harris voted against Bullock’s confirmation as secretary of State. “I talked to Spellings,” said Harris, “called him myself to tell him they didn’t have to worry about me, but they knew that. When they first started making up that list, they put me down against him. I got two calls from people in the insurance business in my district, both in opposition, both life insurance people who’ve already got competitive rates. I got two or three calls from friends of Bullock’s, they just said he’d asked them to call and they sounded kind of embarassed and asked me to let him know they had done it.” Harris, a Republican, maintains that he just does not like Bullock’s approach to government. “He’s a helluva capable fella in a lot of ways, but I’m not satisfied with the way he handles his business,” said Harris. “Do you know that in a Sunday column Ernie Stromberger [of the Dallas Times -Herald] wrote that Bullock said that a lot of things he did as a lobbyist were on a fine line between legal and illegal and it Babe Schwartz Schwartz gave one glimpse of a certain motive. Schwartz is still saying that he voted for Bullock. He also wants it made very clear that his vote couldn’t have made any difference one way or the other. Bullock lost by one vote. Schwartz says Barnes had other votes lined up to switch if it got close. The Observer’s information is that Schwartz voted present-but-not-voting during the closed session, and it is so reflected on our tally sheet. According to George Kuempel of the Houston Chronicle, Schwartz apparently agreed to be Barnes’ safety going against Bullock only if Barnes was short a vote. Schwartz said, “I think the appointment was a direct flaunt to everybody. Bullock would have been better off being appointed later, after this session, when it wasn’t an issue between Smith and Barnes. It was an intentional thing, like, ‘We beat your butt last time [on Bullock’s confirmation as secretary of state] and we’ll do it again.’ Barnes never really had to say anything to me about how he felt. If you haven’t ever run for office, you can’t know the depth of the feeling, the frustration of having someone intimate what’s not true about you. Having them come out with stuff they can’t prove, that’s not right or fair. When Bullock was chopping at Barnes during the primary, it wasn’t to get another vote for Preston Smith. That was hopeless and he knew it. It was to just to get a vote away from Barnes. Nobody ever has to come to another politician to explain the sense of hurt that goes with that, how deeply it hurts after a loss.” Spellings touched on the same subject, “I had the votes to bust Bullock the first time, on the secretary of state, but Barnes turned ’em loose. He said the secretary of state was almost like a staff position. It was only for six months, the governor should have who he wanted. I was kind of sensitive about then it was right after the primary, see? But it was different with Board of Insurance. We’d been over the ground before so I knew who felt what way about Bullock and there were a lot of people I didn’t have to talk to. My own private, personal opinion of Bullock is totally negative. It has nothing to do with my opinion of him, his ability, his wit, his loyalty. He’s a gut fighter.” So is Spellings. And he’s still a lot more than “kind of sensitive” about what Bullock did to Barnes during the primary. SPELLINGS SAID his count never varied, with one exception. “We had one surprise and they had one surprise,” he said. He counts Moore’s vote as the surprise to him and Kothmann’s vote as the surprise to Bullock. Which brings us to the Kothmann mystery. Kothmann has refused to explain his vote against Bullock, nor would he talk to the Observer about the October 20, 1972 13