ENJOY OKLAHOMA, BOYS, AND DON'T COME BACK
A few interesting facts:
In February I commented that while the House Majority Leader whose initials are TD (I am not supposed to mention his name in a negative context. Long story, bear with me) had a point about the Democratic tilt of Congress's congressional delegation, the GOP had its chance at redistricting to change that and they blew it. As such, the Texas GOP should not be pursuing redistricting after the 2002 election.
I take it back. Goodspeed House Majority Leader Tommy D!
When I first read the title "Democrats AWOL" peering over at someone else's edition of the Houston Chronicle on my way to jury duty today, I assumed it was a hyperbolic title about the relative impotence of the Democratic Party in our fair state. But no, a fair number of those little buggers, henceforth referred to as the Texas Democratic Coalition For a Permanent Minority (TDCPM) have actually fled Texas proper into our northern-most county, Oklahoma, which is by some freak occurance of history outside Texas's jurisdiction.
For those of you unaware, Texas legislature rules require 2/3 (100 of 150) to meet quorum. In order to duck the redistricting fight, Democrats have taken over 50 legislators across state lines. Why across state lines? Because Texas Rangers (the real ones, not the ball club) and the DPS were looking for them. Their jurisdiction ends at the Oklahoma border and as such, the Texas Democratic Coalition for a Permanent Minority have become the opposition in exile. Meanwhile, MSNBC, CBS News, and Fox News are eating it up. Why not? It's a funny story.
Except the joke is on us.
And I'm not laughing.
In fact, I am completely reversing my position on the issue of redistricting. Why? Because before I felt that the Texas GOP, lead by Tommy D, were using dirty (but constitutional and in accordance with with the letter of the law) tricks to make up for their shortcomings in redistricting. While I didn't disagree with their aim of having a state delegation that represents the views of the state, I did disagree with the notion that they get a "do over" just because they didn't like the results last time around. So what do the Democrats do? They use dirty (but constitutional and in accordance with the letter of the law) tricks to make up for their shortcoming of being in a state whose electorate repudiates their politics nearly every chance it gets. While I am sympathetic to their arguments that the GOP shouldn't get a do-over, they took our dirty laundry and waved it in front of the rest of the country.
Kuff and Lofty suggest that this is only a rational response to GOP strongarming. Quintessentially, the argument is that "They started it!"
That's true, but this little publicity stunt has taken it up about sixteen notches. The last time this parliamentary trick was used was in 1991, when liberals used it to get Governor Ann Richards to promise to return funding for Kindergarten programs. While I'd need to know the specifics to know whether or not I agree with the liberals on that issue, at least they pulled out the biggest gun in their arsenal for an actual issue! What are they doing it for right now? So that a staunchly Republican state continues to send a Democratic congressional delegation, all the while moaning and groaning on how it's the Republicans that are trying to subvert democracy and disenfranchise voters. Democrats are losing on almost every issue in the state (even some that this writer wishes that they were winning) and their response for being continually beaten up in the boxing ring of politics is to blame their opponent.
Well, Dems, you've drawn the line in the sand. It's not progressivism vs. conservatism or active government versus limited government, it's Republican vs. Democrat in a state that leans at least 55% Republican. Good luck with that.
A few interesting facts:
California:
2000 Election: 58% Gore/Nader, 42% Bush
Statewide elected officials: 10-0 (100%) Dem.
Congressional Delegation: 34-19 (64%) Dem.
Texas:
2000 Election: 59% Bush, 40% Gore/Nader
Statewide elected officials: 29-0 (100%) GOP
Congressional Delegation: 17-15 (53%) Dem.
If the 2000 elections had gone to the U.S. House, the same state that elected and re-elected Bush (by an astounding margin) would have cast its congressional vote for Al Gore.
In February I commented that while the House Majority Leader whose initials are TD (I am not supposed to mention his name in a negative context. Long story, bear with me) had a point about the Democratic tilt of Congress's congressional delegation, the GOP had its chance at redistricting to change that and they blew it. As such, the Texas GOP should not be pursuing redistricting after the 2002 election.
I take it back. Goodspeed House Majority Leader Tommy D!
When I first read the title "Democrats AWOL" peering over at someone else's edition of the Houston Chronicle on my way to jury duty today, I assumed it was a hyperbolic title about the relative impotence of the Democratic Party in our fair state. But no, a fair number of those little buggers, henceforth referred to as the Texas Democratic Coalition For a Permanent Minority (TDCPM) have actually fled Texas proper into our northern-most county, Oklahoma, which is by some freak occurance of history outside Texas's jurisdiction.
For those of you unaware, Texas legislature rules require 2/3 (100 of 150) to meet quorum. In order to duck the redistricting fight, Democrats have taken over 50 legislators across state lines. Why across state lines? Because Texas Rangers (the real ones, not the ball club) and the DPS were looking for them. Their jurisdiction ends at the Oklahoma border and as such, the Texas Democratic Coalition for a Permanent Minority have become the opposition in exile. Meanwhile, MSNBC, CBS News, and Fox News are eating it up. Why not? It's a funny story.
Except the joke is on us.
And I'm not laughing.
In fact, I am completely reversing my position on the issue of redistricting. Why? Because before I felt that the Texas GOP, lead by Tommy D, were using dirty (but constitutional and in accordance with with the letter of the law) tricks to make up for their shortcomings in redistricting. While I didn't disagree with their aim of having a state delegation that represents the views of the state, I did disagree with the notion that they get a "do over" just because they didn't like the results last time around. So what do the Democrats do? They use dirty (but constitutional and in accordance with the letter of the law) tricks to make up for their shortcoming of being in a state whose electorate repudiates their politics nearly every chance it gets. While I am sympathetic to their arguments that the GOP shouldn't get a do-over, they took our dirty laundry and waved it in front of the rest of the country.
Kuff and Lofty suggest that this is only a rational response to GOP strongarming. Quintessentially, the argument is that "They started it!"
That's true, but this little publicity stunt has taken it up about sixteen notches. The last time this parliamentary trick was used was in 1991, when liberals used it to get Governor Ann Richards to promise to return funding for Kindergarten programs. While I'd need to know the specifics to know whether or not I agree with the liberals on that issue, at least they pulled out the biggest gun in their arsenal for an actual issue! What are they doing it for right now? So that a staunchly Republican state continues to send a Democratic congressional delegation, all the while moaning and groaning on how it's the Republicans that are trying to subvert democracy and disenfranchise voters. Democrats are losing on almost every issue in the state (even some that this writer wishes that they were winning) and their response for being continually beaten up in the boxing ring of politics is to blame their opponent.
Well, Dems, you've drawn the line in the sand. It's not progressivism vs. conservatism or active government versus limited government, it's Republican vs. Democrat in a state that leans at least 55% Republican. Good luck with that.
posted by R. Alex at
10:27 PM
