A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics
|
|
|
A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics | |
|
October 30, 2004Nail the Hammer: Stenholm, Frost, and Morrison for CongressElections are about a lot of things, but it isn't very often that we get an opportunity to amend a great wrong. Voters of the 19th, 22nd, and 32nd Congressional districts of the state of Texas, have an opportunity to do just that this election. Congressman Charlie Stenholm, and Congressman Martin Frost are blue dog, centrist Democrats who where left without a constituency after a highly partisan redistricting process in Texas, created to increase the power of House Majority Leader Tom Delay. Both Stenholm and Frost are running in re-drawn Republican districts designed for their defeat, which are currently represented by two party-line, conservative Members of Congress. It is admirable that both of them have chosen to run in the face of some pretty big odds. Attorney Richard Morrison is running against the criminal himself, Delay, who is responsible for the redistricting. “The Hammer”, a nickname Delay earned after the Clinton impeachment trial, along with the redistricting fiasco has been known to rule the Republican House with an iron fist, excluding GOP centrists and Democrats from even having a voice in the decision making process. He has also possibly broken some election laws along the way, and several of his closest contributors are in pretty hot water with the FEC. Republicans should be embarrassed by Delay, this one is… He has not earned re-election by any measure and he has no business sitting in the same legislative body where great men like John Quincy Adams, Abraham Lincoln, Daniel Webster, and Sam Houston once sat. Voters in his district should do the right thing and elect Morrison, who is running on a centrist platform of fiscal responsibility, increasing funding to Homeland Security, and expanding health care to all Americans. Ron Gunzburger predicts that "the Hammer" is going to get his way, Stenholm and Frost are going to lose, and the Republicans will gain five seats in Texas, but many polls show that these races are close. Morrison has pulled within in seven against Delay, proving that even his own conservative district is sick of his tactics. My Republican friends look at me in shock when I tell them how I feel about Texas. It's about the majority they say. Maybe that is what conventional wisdom tells us, but I don't really care. If we have to do it this way then Republicans don't deserve the majority, and I would rather have the Democrats in charge than ever have to hear the words, Speaker of the House Tom Delay. If he loses, then Republicans will probably maintain the majority anyway, but the party and the American people will be better off. Comments
Mathew, you and I stand together on this one. For all of my GOP leanings, this is one issue that I believe the GOP comitted a grevious Constitutional violation on. And the precident it sets is stunning. Any party, based on what happened can now go in and change the districts at anytime if they gain complete control over the government. Does anyone know if this ever went to the Supreme Court?? Posted by: Donald at October 30, 2004 01:38 PMDonald, you really have it completely backwards. It would unconstitutional for the legislature NOT to have approved a new redistricting map. The Texas constitution *requires* the state legislature to do so after each census. It was not able to do in time for the 2002 election, so the court stepped in to fill the void with a stopgap map until the legislature could do its job. The court itself said the map they created was only good for the 2002 election. To be clear, this the state legislature approving a map after a census for the first time, as required by the their constitution. Posted by: Susan at October 30, 2004 02:38 PMI haven't followed the Texas situation that closely, but having dealt with gerrymandering in California, it's the single biggest reason why California has so many troubles. By creating more "safe seats" to the map, it inevitably polarizes both parties. It's bad for democracy and only acts to centralize power in the hands of a few; in California's case, that corrupt bastard, John Burton. No matter who wins these elections or the Presidency...I predict a major war ahead for the Republican Party. It's going to be a long and ugly slog, too. Posted by: carla at October 30, 2004 07:54 PMAs it happens, the redistricting moved me out of Pete Sessions' district (one of the party-line members you spoke of), so I don't have the privilege of voting for Marin Frost, although I gave him a fair amount of money. The real issue here -- one that I respect Mathew for recognizing -- is the politics of 'win -- by any means necessary -- but win'. The real tragedy will be if the Dems adopt the same operating philosophy. Right now with the Dems there is a desire to win without getting one's hands too dirty. But if that fails, I'm quite sure they will begin to imitate the 'ends justify the means' approach because it seems to have worked. Susan, I know you and I will never agree on whether the sun rises in the east, but I hope you can see that the DeLay/Norquist/Rove approach to politics is not one conducive to centrist, moderate politics. Posted by: Erasmus at October 30, 2004 08:26 PMCarla, They have been predicting that for years... They meaning those who aren't Republican and would benefit politically from such a war. Posted by: Mathew at October 30, 2004 08:32 PMA dying man cast an absentee ballot in Texas. His last conscious act was to vote for Charlie Stenholm. It counts. Posted by: rickheller at October 30, 2004 09:44 PMMathew and Donald, thank you for those thoughts. They make me feel alot better. Susan: you're right that the court set the districts. But the courts usually choose at least a part of it around here, though I have to admit the dynamics are usually a little different. We SO need a redistricting commission. I have my doubts about the court itself saying the judgement would expire for 2004, but am too lazy to double-check that. Certainly, the local GOP did something pretty nasty and deeply unwise when they called lege session after lege session to break the precedent of needing a 2/3 majority in the Senate. That precedent long protected the Republicans from being too badly screwed when we Democrats had power and did wrong things like Ron Paul's district. I do think that local Republicans are going to have more trouble than DeLay expects taking advantage; they lost the moderate trust for Republicans that Bush built up while he was in office. I voted for a Republican for TX lower house seat, and one or two other spots, because I felt that I could trust the Republicans to not do stupid partisan shit. As it happens, I'm glad the lege candidate lost, because doubtless he would've just made it easier for DeLay. No way am I voting for a Texas Republican this time, especially for lege. To be fair, many moderate Texas Republicans had a low opinion of the redistricting process. One even retired over it. And Bush did send Rove to try to moderate the process, though he wasn't terribly effective (how hard did he work at it?). Certainly, DeLay has almost certainly failed in one of his aims: ousting Austin Congressman Lloyd Doggett (now aiming to represent some narrow strip of road leading way far south that's united only in annoyance with DeLay). Posted by: Jon Kay at October 30, 2004 10:02 PMWhy was it OK for the Dems to redistrict Texas according to their whims when they had the majority in Texas and now not OK for the Repubs to do it? It may have been over the top this time but it seems to me to be too typical of virtually all states. As for the Dems want to win without getting their hands too dirty give me a break. While we can argue whose hands are the dirtiest in this election, both sides are reeling in filth. Posted by: tallan at October 31, 2004 12:04 AMMathew: It's going to happen. Bush has pushed it to a head. Posted by: carla at October 31, 2004 01:38 AMSusan, thanks for clarifying the court's part in this issue. Posted by: Donald at October 31, 2004 01:52 AMGerrymandering in one from or another has been going on since before the Civil War, and has been addressed many times by the courts. Every time the rules change, both parties find new ways to (legally) evade them and do it anyway. (Kinda like campaign finance reforms.) And so it goes. I suspect it's a fight that will never end. A Democrat I'm rooting for this year--Brad Carson for Senator from Oklahoma. Posted by: Tully at October 31, 2004 11:24 AM |
Archives
March 2006
February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003
Recent Entries
Dubai Out
Why So Long Between Democracies? Round One, Centrism Rock Lobster? Blackwell Releases "Worst-Treated" List "IRV" used in Burl., VT for mayor election. Great idea! Random Thread Election 2006: Round One A Proper Multiculturalism Bush proposes line item veto act - what's changed?
|
