Strong support for the Texas Democrats

MoveOn.org's drive to raise $1,000,000 to help the exiled Texas Democrats has been underway for less than a week and as of 9:30 pm Central time, Saturday 8/23/03, they're 86% of the way there! Even if you can only give $10 or $15, please help support these state Senators as they fight not just for the Texans they were elected to represent, but for all of us.

Remember: If this redistricting plan goes through, Republicans will have a very good chance of holding on to the National House of Representatives for the rest of the decade, and Tom DeLay has his sights set on becoming Speaker of the House.

Bill Richardson for President?

Ok, so being willing to shelter and protect the protesting Democrat state Senators from Texas maybe shouldn't be the sole qualification used to determine who gets to be president, but I gotta tell you, right now I really like Bill Richardson a lot.

Not only has he welcomed the Democrats from Texas to his state, but he's providing him with security while they're there - led by the head of his own security detail. And that's not all.

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson vowed that state police here would arrest and charge with attempted kidnapping anyone who tried to remove the Senate refugees.

And he also indicated that authorities here might consider filing conspiracy to kidnap charges against those who might send the bounty hunters here, according to several of the legislators who spoke with Richardson, a Democrat.

He has made it clear that security details are regularly given to visiting VIPs and that no overtime money is being spent to cover the cost involved.

Still, it's not any governor who would put himself in the middle of this kind of a feud, or that would stand up to Tom DeLay and his desire to get more Republican seats in Texas. For that, Richardson deserves some recognition.

One other thing I've read about him, but have unfortuantely lost the reference to (I'll update this post if/when I find it), is that he - perhaps jokingly, but these days, who knows - suggested that maybe New Mexico should consider it's own redistricting plan if the Texas one goes through, to help balance out the gains by Republicans in Texas and Colorado.

Of course, as sweet as the idea of revenge seat-taking sounds, it would be just as wrong for a Democrat-controlled state government to redistrict their state in mid-decade as it is for Republican regimes to do so, so I do hope he's meant the comment facitiously, but it's still a nice bit of fantasy wish-fulfillment to dream about.

...and they're off.... again

Tom DeLay doesn't like the way Texas congressional districts are set up right now. He says they're drawn to give Democrats an advantage in gaining house seats, even though the state has been voting more and more Republican. This advantage is so bad and so unfair that right now, the Republicans hold the Governorship of Texas, and a majority in both houses. Gods forbid that the Democrats be allowed to keep that kind of power.

So, earlier this year, the Democrats in the Texas House of Representatives decided to try and stop the redistricting plan by taking off for a few days. By doing so, they deprived the House of enough members to form a quorum, which is required in order to vote on any measures. The Republicans worked themselves into a tizzy over that stunt, inappropriately made use of the Texas Division of Public Safety officers to try and track the Democrats down, got the FAA and even a division of Homeland Security involved and then had evidence of what they'd done shredded to make it harder to investigate.

The Democrats returned after the deadline had passed and the redistricting plan had been defeated. Or so we thought. Then the governor decided to call a "special session" of the state congress, specifically to work on the redistricting plan. It passed the House, but ran into a bit of trouble in the Senate, where a 2/3 majority have to agree to call a vote on a bill before it can actually be voted on. If more than 10 state Senators voted against calling it to the floor, it couldn't be voted on. Of the 11 Democrats in the State Senate, 10 of them made it clear they would not call for a floor vote on the measure, and when Bill Ratliff, an increadibly courageous Republican said he wouldn't vote for it either, the measure was defeated a second time, simply because there weren't enough votes to call it to the floor.

Well, this didn't go over good with the Republicans, so they've decided to call yet another "special session", and the leader of the Senate has declared that this time, he's just going to change the rules. Rather than the 2/3 majority needed to call an item to the floor for a vote, he's decided that a simple 50% +1 is all that's needed - which the Republicans can cover without any help at all from the Democrats.

But there's still the little matter of a quorum being required for the Senate to do anything. If they can't get 2/3 of the Senate to be physically present, they can't vote on anything, and this isn't a rule that the Senate president can just decide to change on a whim of things aren't going his way.

So, once again, Democrats are fleeing Texas - though its the Senate this time. Apparently, they've headed to New Mexico, which, the last time the Dems took off, indicated that they were welcome to take refuge there.

I really admire the Democrats for their willingness to stand up to the Republicans and their hardball tactics. Redistricting is typically done once a decade, following a census. Trying to do a second redistricting when we're only 4 years into the current decade is nothing short of a naked power grab. If a state redrew their districts everytime power changed hands, I doubt much else would get done (especially since it's not uncommon for redistricting plans to wind up in court to determine if they're legitimate and fair or not.)

To try and thwart this power grab, the Democrats have used extreme measures - fleeing the state - but they're measures that are legitimate and within the established rules for running the House and Senate. The Republicans, on the other hand, are now showing that not only are they willing to abuse the power they have (by misusing the state's Department of Public Safety as just one example), but now also by rewriting the rules in mid-stream when they legitimately lost the issue using the rules currently in place.

If this goes anything like last time, conservatives will likely throw a fit and try to portray the Democrats as cowards who aren't willing to face defeat like a man (or whatever the equivilent would be in today's modern cowboy parlance). Yet I think the Democrats are showing a significant amount of courage by being willing to face the ridicule of the nation's vocal and abrasive conservatives in order to prevent what they consider to be an unfair plan to redistrict the state.

I'm just not sure I want to see what happens next....

Hey, kids! Let's make the budget crisis worse!

Rather disturbing news out of California today, if this article is right. Apparently, several Democrats were caught on an open mike talking about prolonging the California budget crisis as a way of showing people just how bad the situation could be, thus making it easier to raise taxes later.

Members of a liberal Democratic group met behind closed doors Monday unaware that a microphone was broadcasting their words throughout the Capitol on about 500 "squawk boxes" that serve legislative offices, lobbyists and reporters.
Several members were heard speculating that a prolonged budget crisis might improve the chances for a ballot initiative that would make it easier for the Democrats to raise taxes by lowering the threshold for passage from two-thirds to 55 percent.

Of course, both sides are spinning this just as fast as they can. The Democratic Assembly Speaker played it off as a "bull session", saying:

"For anyone, Democrat or Republican, to think there is some political advantage in this crisis, I think they are wrong," he said.

and Democrat Jackie Goldberg is reported to have said that her comments

were part of a larger discussion about whether it would be better to make deeper cuts this year -- as Republicans have proposed. The idea, she said, is give taxpayers a taste of how bad things would be without a tax increase.

Now, I will say, I think it is possible that the comments made by the Democrats could, potentially, have been taken out of context.

For example, I know there have been times when, feeling very frustrated, I will think or comment about manipulating a situation so that it will make a point to my hubby and hopefully make it easier for me to get my way. Right now, I'm on a campaign for us to get cellphones, primarily so that it's easier for me to get a hold of him when he's out shopping and such. One of the potential benefits I've mentioned to him is that with a cell phone, if I forget to mention I need him to pick up something while he's at the store, I could call him and just tell him, rather than having to wait for him to come home and then ask him to go back out again if it's something I need right away.

I have to admit, the thought has occured to me to perhaps "accidentially-on-purpose" forget to mention a few items here and there so that he'll see the value that much more easily. Yet, while I'll think of such things and even give voice to them on occasion, I don't actually go through with them. It's a good way to release tension, amusing to think about in a "serves him right" kind of way, but I know better than to actually try it.

It's possible that the Democrats discussion was along the same lines - a suggestion that makes for a good way to blow off some steam, but which wouldn't actually be acted on.

Of course, they may also have been entirely serious. I wasn't there, I haven't heard the tapes. And if, in fact, they were serious, then I'd actually have to [gasp] agree with the Republican Assembly Leader, Dave Cox:

"Their behavior is dangerous, hurtful and frankly mean-spirited," said Cox.

Think, believe, want

Back in May, Ron Fournier wrote an article in the Chicago Sun-Times about Bush having filed for re-election. As part of his reporting, Fournier included the following statement:

Democrats, who are fielding nine candidates in search of the presidential nomination, think continued economic woes, problems in postwar Iraq, or even another terrorist strike on U.S. soil could change Bush's political fortunes.

Bill Hobbs of Hobbs Online and the Nashville City Paper responded by posting a mildly tweeked version of the quote (changing "thinks" to "believes that"), and used that as a launch pad to claim that:

Democrats don't want the economy to improve and will do anything to try to make sure it doesn't, including working to block or slim down the president's vital tax cut proposal. Democrats don't want postwar Iraq to become peaceful and democratic any time soon. Democrats wouldn't mind a terrorist strike before the election because they think it will hurt the president's poll numbers.

Disgusting. No, worse than that.

South Knox Bubba was understandably outraged by Hobbs comments, and posted his own reply:

An illegal war waged to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction that were a clear and present danger to the U.S. but now cannot be found. Thousands dead and a country in chaos. Three million people out of work in the last two years. Forty million people without health insurance. A Jackpot Congress deconstructing our environment and lining the pockets of their wealthy benefactors while borrowing against the hard work of future generations to pay for it.

And although Republicans are in control of the Administration, Congress, and the Supreme Court, Bill Hobbs contends it's the Democrats who are the problem

Recently, the subject came up again, and Bubba reposted his entry, which has brought up further discussion of the subject. I posted my thoughts to that comment thread, and decided to crosspost them here as well.

---

The article is clear in saying that Democrats "think" that if things stay bad or get worse it could reverse Bush's political fortunes. Well, duh! I'm sure Republicans think the same thing. Even using Hobbs' paraphrase that Democrats "believe that" if things keep going bad, it may be better for them politically, I think we can safely say that many Republicans also believe the same thing. From a purely logical standpoint, it only makes sense. If things go badly for those currently in power - in any situation - it stands to reason that things will go better for those who oppose them.

It's getting from there to the idea that Democrats WANT bad things to happen - that we want to see unemployment numbers stay high, or for the economy to stay weak, or for the Iraqi situation to worsen or for there to be another terrorist attack - that is more difficult. It is an illogical leap that is not supported by the initial statement at all.

I may "think" that if my parents die, I'll get a nice inheiritance. I may believe that. Hell, I may even know that beyond a shadow of a doubt. Does this, however, mean that I want my folks to die? Hell no!

Or I may think, believe or even know, that if one of the companies that competes in the same industry that my husband works in were to go out of buisness, the company he works for would be able to pick up some of their customers, and he might not get laid off in a few months. Now, even though I would LOVE for my husband to not get laid off, does that mean I want a different company to go out of business, with all those other people losing their jobs, just so he can keep his? No! I'd rather he get to keep his job because the company he works for is able to attract new business or something of that nature that doesn't involve the displacement of who knows how many others.

In other words, it is perfectly possible - and even permissible - to acknowledge that bad things happening to other people might have positive benefits for yourself or your cause, without also wanting for those bad things to happen.

I must say, however, that it should be remembered who it was that made a joke out of our bad economy, the 9/11 attacks and our entry into war. In speech after speech, over a period of several months, Bush frequently commented on how he'd said that he would not engage in deficit spending unless we were at war, in an economic downturn, or in the face of a national disaster or tragedy - and how could have have known that he'd "hit the trifecta" (laughter). Personally, I don't find people out of work, retirement savings disappearing and businesses failing, 3000 people dying in the worst terrorist attack in recent memory or our soldiers off risking their lives in an ill-planned war with no exit strategy (something that applies equally to both Afghanistan and Iraq) should be a joking matter, but our President and many of his supporters obviously think otherwise. (In a great bit of irony, despite claiming that the "trifecta" was part of a campaign promise to not engage in deficit spending unless at least one of those specific conditions were met, no one has found any evidence that Bush, himself, ever made such a promise. There is, however, evidence that Al Gore, did.)

Kos talks to McAuliffe about Dems and blogs

Kos, of Daily Kos is largely responsible for the ePatriots program that the Democrats have put together to help with fund-raising. As a result, he recently had a chance to speak with Terry McAuliffe, the head of the DNC, about the upcoming campaign and how the blogisphere can be involved in helping with the 2004 election.

Kos, himself, offers a couple suggestions, and then opened the comment thread for others to leave their own suggestions, as he's promised McAuliffe that he'll be putting together a memo about it. If you have a minute, pop over to Daily Kos and read through the notes he made on his conversation, read the suggestions from other bloggers, and leave any comments you may have as well.

For a long time, many of us who blog have felt like there's not a whole lot any of us can do to make a real difference - and I know I'm not the only person who started blogging with the hope that maybe this would be a way we could start to have some sort of an impact. Blogs are becoming more powerful tools, now, when it comes to politics in general, and it's great that the DNC has recognized that and is willing to find ways to make use of blogs to promote their goals.

Dean's Iowa ad and his 'approval'

Howard Dean, one of the Democratic candidates for President, has been running an ad in Iowa that includes him saying "...and that's why I approved this message." Apparently, some people have decided that the line sounds just a bit weird. Dean's blog takes a moment to explain why the line was included. Turns out there's a pretty good reason.

One provision of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law is that television ads must include "a statement that identifies the candidate and states that the candidate has approved the communication... Such statement-- '(i) shall be conveyed by-- '(I) an unobscured, full-screen view of the candidate making the statement, or '(II) the candidate in voice-over, accompanied by a clearly identifiable photographic or similar image of the candidate ..."

Personally, I kind of like the idea that the candidate must affirm that they have approved the ad as part of the ad. It's been too easy in the past for anyone to purchase air time and run an ad that may or may not have the approval of the candidate it is supposed to be on behalf of. Since it wasn't always clear if a candidate actually approved the ad, if the ad was a negative attack ad, or one that stretched the truth too far, or otherwise ended up causing problems for the candidate, the candidate could simply foreswear any knowledge of the ad and say it had been run without their approval. They can't do that anymore.

It may sound like a silly line at first, but it really goes a long ways to helping make candidates be accountable for the ways in which they are promoted by their supporters, and that's something we've needed for a while, now.

Comments from Dean on WMD

So far, I haven't made a decision as to which of the Democrat candidates I'm going to support for the Presidency, but at the moment, Howard Dean is a strong contender. Yesterday, he issued a call for formal investigations into the questions surrounding the entire WMD issue - and why it is we haven't found any yet - using Bush's hilariously ironic comment about "revisionist historians" as a launching point.

"Yesterday, President Bush asserted that those who question the evidence he used to justify the pre-emptive war in Iraq are "revisionist historians." Yet it is President Bush who is rewriting history.

"To justify the preemptive invasion of Iraq, the President claimed that the United States faced an imminent threat from Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and that the Iraqi regime had direct ties to Al Qaeda. Meanwhile, no reliable evidence has materialized to prove Iraqi support of Al Qaeda, and weapons of mass destruction have not been found.

"The American people shouldn't have to wait for the history books to be written to discover the truth. Did the President receive bad intelligence, or did his administration deliberately mislead Congress, the United Nations and the American people?

"An independent investigation must be held to determine what the President knew, and when he knew it. The American people deserve the truth."

ePatriots

If you look over under the calendar, you'll see a big blue button that says "Boot Bush!" on it and asks you to make a donation to the DNC. Now, I'll be the first to admit that the DNC isn't always my favourite political organization, but their weaknesses aside, they are in the best position to work on raising money for a Democratic presidential campaign, and I believe that it is far more important to get Bush out of the White House now and then work on fixing the DNC, rather than the other way around (though I do understand the merits of that argument as well)

So, if you've ever thought about donating anything to help support this site, don't. Give it to the DNC instead. Newsweek notes that Bush's team is starting now to raise money for his re-election campaign, and they look to be trying to raise $200 million or more. Keep in mind, that amount of money will be effectively even more, compared to whatever the Democratic candidate can raise, since Bush won't have to spend any money on primary campaigns and caucuses. As the only Republican candidate (or the only one that actually matters, perhaps), the primaries and caucuses are his for the taking. Every dollar he raises can go straight to defeating whomever the Democrats nominate - and with nine in the running now, they'll have to spend a lot just fighting each other. In addition, the new campaign-finance reform rules work against the Democrats in some ways:

In 2000, the Bush campaign recruited a core team of “Pioneers”—premier fund-raisers who brought in $100,000 apiece by “bundling” $1,000 donations from rich friends and associates. With the new expanded limits, the Pioneers have been supplanted by the Rangers—each of whom has now committed to raking in $200,000. GOP veterans say they have a far bigger network of $2,000 donors. By pushing campaign-finance reform, the Democrats “totally screwed themselves,” gloats one Ranger.

So, please help out as much as you can - whether you do it through different strings, go straight to the DNC or donate directly to the candidate of your choice, every little bit is going to help in this battle. There's a lot at stake, and we can't afford to sit it out.

Making an investigation difficult

The Texas Department of Public Safety has decided to make any investigation into the search for the Democrat house members who disappeared for a while last week harder by destroying all records created by or involved in the search.

A one-sentence order sent by e-mail on the morning of May 14 was apparently carried out, a DPS spokesman said Tuesday. The revelation comes as federal authorities are investigating how a division of the federal Homeland Security Department was dragged into the hunt for the missing Democrats - at the request of the state police agency.

Addressed to "Captains," the order said: "Any notes, correspondence, photos, etc. that were obtained pursuant to the absconded House of Representative members shall be destroyed immediately. No copies are to be kept. Any questions please contact me."

It was signed by the commander of the DPS Special Crimes Service, L.C. "Tony" Marshall.

At the moment, it's unclear if the destruction of these records is a crime or not, but either way, it certainly lends credence to the idea that one or more aspects of the search needed to be investigated.

House Speaker Tom Craddick, a Republican, recently said the investigating committee could look at the issue if it wanted to. It was Craddick who originally ordered the DPS to find the Democrats and return them to the state Capitol so that the House could achieve the quorum necessary to bring up a congressional redistricting bill. The boycott successfully killed that bill and others.

DPS spokesman Tom Vinger could not say Tuesday who, if anyone, gave Marshall the order to destroy records, but he said there was nothing inappropriate about it.

One aspect of the search that has been a target for an investigation is the involvement, at the request of a DPS officer, of the Homeland Security Department's Air and Marine Interdiction Coordination Center. Typically, the Interdiction center investigates drug planes and planes that may be related to terrorist activities. The call they received from the DPS, however, indicated that they were concerned that a representative's plane may have gone down. The Interdiction Center made calls into the situation, but got no information.

Even before the destruction was ordered, it was clear that there would be at least some kind of investigation into the DPS search for the Democrats. There's no way the DPS could not have known that. Their deliberate destruction of the documents in such a hurried fashion indicates that they must have known there would be something for an investigation to find. Given the climate of official secrecy that the Bush administration has created and perpetuates, it's not at all surprising that the DPS would decide it's ok to go ahead and destroy all the documents related to this search.

Build-a-meme

Be sure to stop by Rayne Today's Build-A-Meme Project, which is working to come up with ideas for Democrats and Democratic candidates to use to help ensure a victory for 2004. It's only been going a few days, but there's already been quite a bit of creativity flying and building excitement about the prospects of the project. Good stuff, Maynard! :)

What would I expect from a Democrat

Joel asked a very good question in response to my earlier post, "Playing Political Games":

I would like to see more discussion of actual policy. The conservatives are right: our disgust of George Bush does dominate our political talk these days.

And this progressive asks "So, if the Democrats come into power, what's going to change?" No dumb monkey stares. I've been getting enough of that from the conservatives and you folks claim to be better.

This is a partial response - basically a quick list off the top of my head of the kinds of things I'd expect to see if a Democrat were to be elected. I'm working from a "generic" Democrat and not any particular candidate at this point, and this isn't a complete list by any means. But it's a start.

• I'd expect to continue paying at least as much in taxes as I do now, if not a bit more - but I'd also expect that everyone else in the country would do likewise, including the rich. I'd also expect that we'd start reducing the size of the budget deficit each year, and, hopefully, be able to return to having budget surpluses.
  
  
• I wouldn't be nearly as worried that we were going to go invading other countries as a matter of course unless there was 1) obvious need, 2) a request for help from the people and/or 3) general support for the action from our allies. I would also expect that - even if it means I have to pay more in taxes - we'd start to uphold our commitments to rebuilding Afghanistan and Iraq (hopefully with the assistance of our allies and/or the United Nations) and help them establish strong, stable, democratic governments.
  
  
• I would expect that the sunset provisions of the USA PATRIOT act would be allowed to run their course, and (hoping here) maybe we'd see the PATRIOT act as a whole repealed. More generally, I'd expect to see and end to the assault on our civil rights that we've been experiencing recently.
  
  
• I'd expect an end to the government's attempts to give public funds to religious organizations for charitable work, unless those specific programs do not prostylize to the participants and do conform to federal non-discrmination hiring laws (as has been done in the past). I'd also expect that the government would stop trying to find ways to fund church-building and the publication of religious materials.
  
  
• I'd expect "Big Business" to still have more influence over the governement than I like, but not nearly as much as it has right now.
  
  
• I'd expect there to be more concern for environmental issues and for businesses to be held to a better (though probably not good enough) level of responsiblity for environmental damage that they do.
  
  
• I certainly wouldn't expect the US to become a utopia - it wasn't before Bush and it won't ever be - but I think a Democrat could at least start leading us back to being the country we were before Bush took office. I do expect that there will continue to be more restrictions on my civil liberties than I'd like because of security concerns, and recognize that a Democrat will also have to find a way to help people feel safer. I think that a Democrat, however, would find a better way to distribute the federal money available to help states with providing their own security, rather than having the "red" states get disproportionally more per-capita than the "blue" states - especially since many of the "blue" states have large population centers that are more likely to be targeted (such as, say, New York City or Los Angelas) than, for example, Casper, Wyoming.
  
  
• I'd expect some attempts at better health care being made available to more people, but I don't know how successful they'd be - universal health care, in any form, especially given the current state of our health care system, is going to be very tricky.
  
  
• I'd also expect there to still be scandals, favouritism, influence peddling, lies told, opportunistic photo-ops, decisions that boggle the mind, wasteful spending and the other problems that seem to go with any politician. And I realize that the changes I mentioned above will also take the cooperation of Congress, and that as long as the Republicans have control, some of that may be very difficult to achieve.

No President will ever be perfect. While I certainly liked Clinton a lot better than I do Bush, I wouldn't call him the "perfect" president, or, necessarily, even a "great" one. But he did a decent job, and I was certainly better off at the end of his term than I was at the beginning and far better off than I am right now.

I'd also like to hear what other readers think they might see from a Democrat President. Please take a minute and post your own lists - or, as Rayne has done, a link to a post in your own blog on this topic. I think Joel's question is a good one, and am curious what others think as well.

How Homeland Security got involved in the hunt for Texas Democrats

From Dallas News.com, here is an exceprt from a statemnt by the Federal Bureau of Immigration and Customers Enforcement about how the Homeland Security department became involved in the search for the Texas Democrats.

It's important to note that the statement neither indicates the name of the officer that contacted the department, nor gives any idea of why he chose to do so or if he were instructed to by someone else. Those are questions that are still in need of answer.

While it is certainly possible that an over-zealous officer might have decided to use any tool he could think of to try and locate the Democrats, I have to think that it is more likely that he made the call after being told to do so by someone higher up in the chain, for the simple reason that calling in the Homeland Security department - which is intended to be used only for the prevention and investigation of terrorist attacks - isn't something that would be high on the list of things for an officer to do.

DallasNews.com | Dallas-Fort Worth | Politics: State

Here, from a statement by the Federal Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, is how its Air and Marine Interdiction Coordination Center got involved in the search for a plane carrying the Texas House Democrats:

The bureau says one of its officers at the center in Riverside, Calif., received "an urgent phone call from a concerned Texas Department of Public Safety officer" on Monday who stated: "We got a problem, and I hope you can help me out. We had a plane that was supposed to be going from Ardmore, Oklahoma, to Georgetown, Texas. It had state representatives in it, and we cannot find this plane."

The bureau says the DPS officer "expressed concern that the plane had not arrived at its intended destination." The DPS officer provided the tail number of the aircraft to the center and asked for help. The bureau says "from all indications, this request from the Texas DPS was an urgent plea for assistance from a law enforcement agency."

"Believing the aircraft may have crashed or be lost," the center contacted the FAA and others but was unable to locate the plane.

Democrat legislators prepare to return to Texas

Haivng achieved their goal of stopping the Texas House from passing a controversial redistricting plan, the Democrat House members are now preparing to return from their self-imposed exile in Oklahoma.

Aside from issues raised by the design of the redistricting plan (which was pushed by US Representative Tom Delay, and would have served to add 4 more Republican seats from Texas to the US House of Representatives), the Democrats were also protesting the Republicans plan to focus on the redistricting rather than focusing on issues such as school finance and the state budget. They also noted that there was little reason to persue redistricting at this time, since it has last been done only 2 years ago, by a three-judge panel, following the last census - the time redistricting is traditionally done.

Even though the Democrats are returning, there is a new controversy arising out of their decision to leave the state. Apparently, in order to try and track down where the were located, Texas Governor Perry called in the services of the Homeland Security department - the new department created to deal with terrorism - to locate the plane of one of the missing Representatives.

In Washington, Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas, led 16 other Texas Democrats in an effort to get answers from Attorney General John Ashcroft, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, and FBI Director Robert Mueller. They fired off a letter to the officials Wednesday and Doggett renewed the call in a floor speech Thursday.

"Americans had thought this department was to look for terrorists," he said. "Perhaps those who attacked these courageous citizen-legislators would treat them as terrorists. This is how tyranny begins.

"That's why 16 members of this house request an official administration explanation. America is waiting. Who is hiding now?"

I had thought it was bad enough when Gov. Perry was trying to send Texas Rangers (the legandary law enforcement service, not the baseball players) into Oklahoma and Arkansas to look for and arrest the missing Democrats, but calling in the Homeland Security department? I'm sorry, but I don't think having a group of legislators taking a stand - even if in doing so they take off for another state - is a threat to the security of the US. If we're going to have a department that is dedicated to combating terrorism, then they need to be allowed to focus on terrorism, and not be available to the pet projects of governors or other politicos who decide their services might be convenient.

Send the Feds after them

Tom Delay, whose redistricting plan was the catalyst for the walk-out by the Democratic congressmen in the Texas House of Representatives, has suggested that, if allowable, the FBI should be dispatched to find the congressmen and bring them back to Texas.

Short memory

Thanks to the Liquid List for pointing this one out. In my article earlier today "More on the Texas Democrats" I noted that in 1971, Tom Craddick, the current leader of the House Republicans in Texas, had participated in a quorum-breaking walk-out held by the Republicans. In light of that, his comments today are just a little puzzling -- and less than truthful:

I think it should be noted that Democrats had a majority in the Texas House for 130 years before this year, and Republicans never once resorted to such an irresponsible stunt.

Now, Craddick will probalby argue that when the Republicans pulled their walk-out, they were doing it to protest a corrupt and criminal House leadership. Given that the main point of contention in this current dispute is the redistricting plan which is already facing legal challenges (on procedural grounds), and which not only tries to unfairly give the Republicans more power, but which may also be in violation of laws against racial redistricting, the Democrats may very well be able to claim the same thing.

Either way, for him to claim that Republicans never pulled such a stunt is clearly dissembling at its finest.

On Gerrymandering

In his comments on my "Explaination of the dispute" post, Dave Pollard raised some excellent questions, which I thought I'd go ahead and try to answer here on the main page.

OK, let me get this straight. It's not illegal to gerrymander in the most outrageously partisan manner as long as it isn't overtly racial, but it is illegal for a state representative to walk out in protest over gerrymandering. I'm sorry, but you've got one royally *&$%&^'d up poltical system. No wonder your supreme court had to appoint a president. How and why do you put up with this? Isn't somebody agitating to make the electoral process fair?

If I understand it right, yes, it's not illegal to gerrymander unless it's overtly racial (and if I'm wrong on that, someone PLEASE correct me!) - though there are court cases being brought to try and change that; and yes, in Texas, at any rate, legislators who try to break a quorum can be arrested and returned to the capitol floor. And, yes, it's totally insane.

As for why we put up with it, well, near as I can tell, gerrymandering is considered something of a time-honoured tradition, and I'm not sure who, exactly, would have the legal standing to challenge it. Seriously, I have no clue why we put up with it. Luckily, the district I'm in, while including a fairly diverse population, doesn't seem to have been created for purely political purposes, and we flip back and forth from electing Republican representatives to Democrats on a semi-regular basis.

I do think that there are some who are agitating to make the electoral process fair, but, sadly, to me, at any rate, it seems like people are less interested in assuring a basic fairness to the electoral system than they are in various other issues - which may be one reason we let the politicians get away with it. In the example of Texas, people who support the conservative Republican agenda aren't going to be concerned that this new redistricting plan would give the Republicans a huge and unfair advantage by wiping out most of the Democrat-leaning districts. They're going to be more in favour of the idea that with more Republican represeantatives, they can get more of the Republican agenda passed, and that's pretty much all they care about.

Explaination of the dispute

Unmedia has an excellent explaination of the redistricting dispute among other comments on the Democrats walkout:

The GOP agenda is to ignore the grievous need for a sane state budget (Texas is in the throes of such a severe crisis that the Governor demanded that ALL state agencies - underfunded as they are, cut 7% from their budgets for next year), and push instead of this outrageous redistricting bill that does nothing to establish fair representation of constituents, but rather simply serves to buttress GOP control of the Texas Legislature. The Burnt Orange Report has a detailed summary of the propsed bill and why this was such a brilliant move.

Imagine that Texas had 50 million Democrats and 1 million Republicans. The principle behind gerrymandering is to draw the boundaries of the congressional districts in such a way that all the Democrats (in this case, blacks and hispanics especially) are concentrated in a select few districts. This could mean that even if the GOP was outnumbered 50-1 they could still have a majority control. This inequality arises because control of the state government is determined at the granular level of districts, not counties (larger) or towns (smaller) as the basic unit. That's an essential feature of the way our government works, but it is open to abuse, as the GOP has demonstrated. It's also why GOP cries of outrage at the Democrats supposed subversion of the "true majority" is so laughably hypocritical. The GOP wants the politicians to choose the voters, instead of the other way around.

Gerrymandering has long been used as a way of changing the makeup of Congressional districts to either reduce or increase the effective power of either a part or a certain demographic group. In this case, it appears the Republican goal is to minimize the impact of minorities and increase the power of Republicans.

Gerrymandering based on race has been found to be illegal by the courts, but in some cases it can be hard to prove that race is the primary factor in the design of the redistricting. Even if it can be done, having a redistricting plan tied up in courts is a contentious business, wasting both the court's time and the state's money, neither of which Texas can easily afford right now.

More on the Texas Democrats

Some comments from Texas newspapers about the Democrats flight from the state:

HoustonChronicle.com - Fight, flight in Texas House is Washington-driven

The Texas House, with 62 Democrats and 88 Republicans, cannot convene without at least 100 of the 150 members present. House rules allow for the arrest of members who intentionally thwart a quorum. Reports were that most of the missing members had left the state to avoid such arrest.

"We refuse to participate in an inherently unfair process that slams the door of opportunity in the face of Texas voters," they said in an absentia statement read by state Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston.

"It is a disgrace to run and hide," countered Craddick who added that he was not interested in negotiating with the missing members.

And that's the point.

Leave aside for the moment the costs and expected legal challenges to the redistricting proposal. Leave aside the fact that the strangely gerrymandered redistricting map being pushed was not revealed until virtually the last minute. And that the proposed plan appears to violate the constitutional prohibition on racial gerrymandering. And leave aside for now that the proposal would questionably match up Houston neighborhoods with far-flung precincts (i.e. Houston's Fourth Ward with Chambers County).
At the very least, Republicans pushing the redistricting effort bear a large share of the responsibility for this legislative standstill.

We and many others have been saying since before the session began that Texas has too many important pieces of business to conduct to get bogged down in a needlessly partisan and divisive political and legal catfight over redistricting.

Most agreed in the early stages that collaboration, bipartisanship and open dialogue would be crucial to the success of the session. When you promise collaboration and then you just pay lip service to it, political deadlock is part of the consequence.

The article (along with most others) notes that the redistricting plan was handed down to Texas Republicans by Tom Delay, which is part of what has angered the Democrats about the plan. It's not something generated by Texas, but rather at the national level, and is clearly designed to benefit only the Republican's interests.

Interestingly, Tom Craddick, the leader of the House Republicans, was previously involved in a similar walk-out by Republicans in 1971, when they opposed the actions of the House Speaker Gus Mutscher, who was accused of being involved in a bribery scandly, for which he was eventually convicted.

The Waco Tribune also notes:

At his Jan. 14 swearing-in ceremony as speaker, Craddick went out of his way to promise that the historic bipartisan tradition in the House would continue "all the way through the session."

Craddick not only failed to remember history, his brazen attempt to punish Democrats by forcing through a new congressional redistricting map also failed to keep his promise to uphold the House's bipartisan tradition.

What Craddick has done is put his friendship with U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay over the lessons of history and his own promises to run a bipartisan House.

DeLay asked that the Texas Legislature reopen congressional redistricting, an issue punted to a judicial panel by the 77th Texas Legislature.

Both Gov. Rick Perry and Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst expressed no enthusiasm for another bite of the redistricting apple at the beginning of the session. Dewhurst called the idea "almost as attractive as contagious flu."

Confronted with a $10 billion budget shortfall, school finance and insurance reform, it is irresponsible to consider redistricting again without a court order.

When denied a quorum to continue legislative business in the House, Craddick has no one to blame but himself for his failure to learn from history he helped write.

Radical tactics

I'll be writing more about this in a few hours when I'm awake enough to actually process it, but this has to be one of the most astounding political moves I can recall.

Democrats in the Texas House of Representatives are so upset with the way the new Republican leadership is handling getting their agenda pushed through - including a redistricting plan that has been described as creating bizzare districts and boundaries - that they have fled the state in order to shut down progress on the Republican bills.

Apparently, they snuck away in the middle of the night, some going to Oklahome and New Mexico, and some possibly even going to across the border to Mexico.

Republican Gov. Rick Perry immediately dispatched police to track down the missing legislators, arrest them and bring them back to do the state's business - even asking neighboring New Mexico if the Texas Rangers were empowered to make arrests there. (New Mexico's attorney general [Patricia Madrid] - a Democrat - said no.)

[...] “Nonetheless,” she added in a statement, “I have put out an all-points bulletin for law enforcement to be on the lookout for politicians in favor of health care for the needy and against tax cuts for the wealthy.”

While a few Democratic legislators have stayed (at last count, 4) and reported to work today, by leaving, the rest have prevented the legislature from being able to have a quorum, which has effectively shut the legislature down.

The Republican leadership has said that they will likely call a special session over the summer to try and get the disputed billed through, but Democrats have indicated they might just pull another disappearing act if that happens. Given that the governor now has a manhunt going to try and find the Democrats, I have to wonder if he'll try to use law enforcement to keep tabs on them prior to the start of such a special session to prevent them from being able to leave.

All I can really say right now is that it has to be a pretty bad situation for lawmakers to pull this radical of a stunt to try and get their point across.

Simpering Acquiescence to Republicans Syndrome

The Wellstone Crash

Two years ago in Missouri, the former Democrat Governor, Mel Carnahan, was killed in a plane crash shortly before the 2000 elections.  Since they were unable to get a new official candidate on the ticket in time, Carnahan's widow, Jean, agreed to accept the Governor's appointment to the Senate to serve her husband's term should he win the election.  Which he did - beating John Ashcroft (and I've never ceased wondering why on Earth Bush would want to appoint a man to his cabinet who not only could not win as an incumbent in a state that often leans Repubican, but couldn't even beat a dead man).

Even though I'm a Kansan, I live close to the Kansas/Missouri borderline, and much of the news coverage here is focused on the Missouri side of that line.  I recall it being a difficult time - not just for people close to the Carnahans, but also for the citizens of Missouri in general.  Mel Carnahan was a very well-liked man and his death was a shock to a great many people.

Today, we learn, that Senator Paul Wellstone, Democrat in Minnesota, has been killed in a plane crash, shortly before the 2002 elections. Even more tragic, it sounds as though his wife and possibly children, were killed as well.

Wellstone has been a big target of the Republicans this year, largely because he has a reputation as one of the most liberal Senators currently in office.  While I know that this year's race has been tight and that - given the slim margin of control in the Senate - each race is cruical to each party, I hope that we won't be hearing of any tasteless jokes or expressions of relief that Wellstone is now "out of the way".  While it may sound somewhat outrageous that I would express any concern about that at all, what's worse is that I'd feel the need to express the same concern, even if has been a popular Republican that had died.  I have that little faith in the humanity of all our politicians.

I do want to extend my condolences to any who knew and loved Senator Wellstone and his family.  No loss is ever an easy one.  I also wish to extend them to the citizens of Minnesota.  Having seen how a death like this - right before an election - can cause a great dea of confusion. I hope that you will all be granted the comfort you need, and deserve, by Whatever or Whomever you hold sacred.

Who'll Follow When No One Leads

Politics Over Principle

[...] But there is something deeper -- and less justifiable -- at work. The Democratic leaders in Congress, in both the House and Senate, largely have abandoned principle and long-term strategy for the short-term tactics they think will help them in this November's election.

Tom Daschle's desire to hold the one-vote margin in the Senate and Dick Gephardt's hope to pick up the six additional seats that would switch control of the House are driving decisions -- even on large and consequential matters. [...]

[Washington Post: Editorial]

David Broder of the Washington Post has written an editorial this week about some of the questions that he finds coming out of the webchats that the Post hosts each week.  This weeks hot topic was, of course, the possiblity of war in Iraq, but he said that one of the other major topics had to do with where the Democrats are in regards to their views and policy on something like this.

I have to be honest.  I'm a registered Democrat - not so much because I agree with everything the party stands for, but because I live in Kansas, and a few years back, Fred Phelps (the "God Hates Fags" guy) tried to become the Democratic nominee for the gubantorial election.  By registering as a Democrat, I was eligible to vote in the Democratic Primary, and therefore could vote against Phelps.  I've kept my registration the same since then, just in case he tries to do it again.  (Yes, I feel that strongly about Phelps, but that's a whole different rant...)

So, as a Democrat, I think I have the right to comment on what it is they do, and frankly, I've not been happy with much they've done in years.  This latest refusal to show any kind of leadership is just one more drop in the bucket.

Since the beginning of Bush's term in office, it's often felt like we have only one party - not so much because they Democrats and Republicans are so much alike (though the are a bit similar for my taste), but because the Democrats have seemed to be somewhat afraid to really stand up for, well, much of anything.

While I found the tactics the Republicans used during the Clinton administration to be deplorable, I do think the Democrats could learn a few things from their example.  No matter what else was going on in the world, questions about Clinton's sex life, fund raising practices and involvement in the Whitewater debacle were constantly being brought to the front and center.  Why haven't the Democrats made a genuine effort to keep the many questionable activities of those in the current administration in a similar position?  Between the entire issue of corporate fraud and excess (which, regardless of who's "fault" it is, tends to reflect badly on the Republicans because of their close ties to Big Business), John Ashcroft's attack on civil liberties, Tommy White's malfeasance or ignorance while working at Enron (and what that portends for him in his current position in administering the Armed Services), George Bush's fanatical (almost paranoid) need for secrecy, questions regarding his involvement with possible insider trading or other financial hijinks while at Harken, Dick Cheney's responsiblity for possible fraud at Haliburton during his tenure as CEO, how much involvement companies or individuals who were members of the Energy Task Force contributed to the apparently contrived energy shortage in California, and so on.

It is very possible that with many of these issues there's no "there" there, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be thoroughly investigated and reviewed to make sure of that. In my opinion, many of those issues are of far greater concern than what Clinton did with whom, where and smoking what cigars, yet the Democrats don't seem to be interested in making sure any of these issues are persued.  And its hard to tell why - whether its that they don't want to come off looking as "low" as the Republicans have, they don't have any backbone, they're afraid of "making waves" or something else entirely - but I definately see it as a problem.

I want to elect politicians whose beliefs are similar to my own (which usually rules out most Republican candidates - I have some very conservative views, but they're usually secondary to my more liberal ones), but I also want to elect leaders who will actually LEAD.  Hopefully someday soon the Democrat party will realize that the less they lead, the less we'll follow, and get back into the game