The tribulations of David Dewhurst

He's as wounded as a wildebeest with a crocodile on his back.

For Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, a criminal investigation into how $1.3 million went missing from his campaign accounts, undetected over five years, perhaps couldn’t have come at a worse time.

As the presiding officer of the Texas Senate, which convenes Tuesday, Dewhurst faces a challenge to his decade-long leadership from ultraconservative Republicans, a split that also figured in his surprise defeat last summer in an expensive U.S. Senate primary race.

And thanks to the missing funds, the Houston multimillionaire has just over $7,200 left in his campaign account, which officeholders use during legislative sessions to supplement staff salaries and pay other bills. By law, he cannot raise any additional money until the session is over.

Fresh off his thrashing at the hands of Tea Party extremist Ted Cruz, and recently pushing all in on a 2014 re-election bid in which he essentially declared that nobody was going to get to his right, The Dew is as mad as he is capable of getting. But getting re-elected is probably the least of his short-term worries.

In the clubby 31-member Senate, how more than $1.3 million went missing from the campaign fund of an astute businessman known for his meticulous attention to detail, without anyone knowing, is the subject of an ongoing, quiet debate.

“This should be embarrassing for him,” said Craig McDonald, executive director of Texans for Public Justice, an ethics watchdog group. “He is responsible for overseeing how public money is spent, yet he can’t even keep track of campaign money.”

The power play is set to open the 83rd session Tuesday (or shortly thereafter).

In the Senate, the session’s opening days will carry special intrigue: whether conservative Republicans will carry out a quietly talked-about bid to overhaul rules to give themselves more power. Many longtime senators are betting not.

At issue is whether there are enough votes to restrict the power of Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, who presides over the Senate but is not considered to be conservative enough by some on the right, or to change a controversial rule that requires the consent of two-thirds of the members before a bill can be considered by the full Senate. Amending or dropping the two-thirds rule would give Republicans more power over legislation by limiting Democrats’ ability to block bills.

Recall that Democrats are one seat shy of the one-third minority to block, due to the passing of Mario Gallegos. No, they are not. As Charles points out in the comments, eleven is enough to block a 2/3rds majority. Now if you will excuse me, I'll wipe the egg off my face.

The reinforcement won't arrive for perhaps two more months (depending on when the governor schedules the run-off election for SD-6). So this early test of Dewhurst's power will simply reflect whether he can hold his caucus together or not. If a Republican or two defects to join the Dems in hewing to tradition, then Dewhurst's credibility is badly damaged. Not applicable, in light of above.

To me this makes for the most interesting development to open the session, since the Speaker tussle is without much drama. Dewhurst losing on the blocker bill* has a higher degree of probability then David Simpson getting elected Speaker of the House. *But not nearly as high as I thought.

Keep in mind that much of the time, the wildebeest gets away. But that's usually only because some smaller, weaker one becomes lunch.