Defeating Democrats by Attacking Democrats
By SIConservative Posted in Archived — Comments (118) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
For those of you who haven't read it, I would highly recommend The Thumpin'. It's an easy read about Rahm Emanuel and the DCCC's dismantling of us last year. We can glean a number of lessons from the book, and depending on how well this diary is received, I will write additional posts about some of those lessons. For now, though, I will focus on one lesson that I think is especially important in light of the GOP's focus in the last few months.
In the 2006 cycle, Rahm Emanual and Chuck Schumer earned the ire of their Republican colleagues by attacking them non-stop. MoveOn.org and other liberal organizations followed suit. Rahm Emanuel attacked J.D. Hayworth, and we attcked Emanuel. Chuck Schumer attacked George Allen, and we attacked Schumer. MoveOn.org attacked President Bush, and we attacked MoveOn.org. These tactics proved terribly ineffective. Very few voters have ever heard the name Rahm Emanuel, and fewer could identify him as the former head of the DCCC.
The book focuses primarily on Tom Reynolds doing this, but it seems to me on this blog that it is no less true of us. If we are to defeat Democrats, we need to attack them by name. Erick has done this in a few instances, most notably with his recent attack on Rep. Nancy Boyda. That's a great example of what we need to do on the internet, on talk radio, in letters to the editor, etc. Attacking the Democrats as a Party does not cut it, and attacking leaders whom most people have never heard of will certainly get us nowhere.
The typical American loves his Congressman and hates his Congress. He distinguishes between the two. If he didn't, Stephanie Herseth would not be in Congress. We will do ourselves no favors if we continue to pretend that attacking the Democrat Party actually wins us seats in Congress, and attacking MoveOn.org, while fun, does us no more good in elections. This is not to say that we should not battle them in the realm of ideas and public opinion. That makes a big difference when it comes to votes in Congress. It does not, however, make much, if any, difference when it comes to seats in Congress.
I would propose two related but not identical ways that we can get around that. They both require work that may seem tedious but is nonetheless necessary. The first is that we need to do a better job of tieing individual members to their national Party. For Democrats representing conservative districts, let's put Heath Shuler's picture next to Hillary Clinton's and point out all of the similarities between the two. Let's go point by point on just how much Baron Hill and Ted Kennedy agree. In doing so, we can capitalize on what we are saying about the national Democrat Party. We must erode in the minds of average voters the disconnect between individual Democrat members of Congress and their national Party.
The second is perhaps even more important. We need to attack individual vulnerable members for their individual actions. Too often we focus on the talking heads who read the the Democrats' talking points on CNN. Dick Durbin's name only appears on the ballot in Illinois, so focusing attacks on him makes no difference to most voters. We might like to think that "they'll get it", i.e. that voters will know that their individual Congressmen are voting in accordance with Durbin's position. They don't. We have to spell it out. When John Sununu voted against expanded funding for embryonic stem-cell research, Democrats did not attack President Bush, Jerry Falwell, or the Pope. They attacked Sununu. That is one of the reasons that his numbers are currently a disaster. If we are to beat the Democrats, we have to hold individual Democrats accountable for their votes and actions. Saying that Congressional Democrats refuse to make the Bush tax cuts gets us nowhere. Saying that Zack Space is going to raise taxes by refusing to make tax cuts permanent does get us somewhere.
The changes in strategy that I am proposing will not, if employed, lead to a massive change in national poll numbers, Party affiliation, or public opinion. What they could do, though, is start to make small but significant differences in poll numbers in a handfull individual Congressional districts. Unless someone has a way to bring about political reconciliation and an end to the violence in Iraq before the elections next year, the only way that we can limit our losses in the Senate and possibly pick up some seats in the House is with a district-by-district, three yards in a cloud of dust strategy. Shifting our focus from the national battle to a seat-by-seat approach, we will be able to help our candidates in competitive races without having to bring about a massive shift in national numbers.
And I think that RS members should step forward to identify Congress people in their local area that are vulnerable. For instance, Melissa Bean in Suburban Chicago won a narrow race last time.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
The Democrats don't care if the country gets harmed as long as they get their prize. Iraq is the proof.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Of the diary is that we cannot merely say Democrats. Use specific names and then make them targets.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
I must have missed the several places where SIconservative explicitly said that
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
We are not going to win by making blanket statements about the Democrats. Notice in his diary that the Dems went after Hayworth by name and it worked. If the Reps identify specific Dems that are making especially anti American statements and call them out specifically that becomes more effective.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
It was condemnation of the presidents attempt to find reconciliation and consensus with people that desire neither.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
However this diary is about strategy to defeat them not ad hominem attacks on them.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
I am really curious. I called for putting aside any conciliatory policy towards them, and why such a policy was not beneficial.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
The devil and must be destroyed. That may play well on RS however it does NOT in a general election and such bitter partisanship only turns off everyone but the base.
Yes and calling the Dems the devil and the enemy and treating them as such is NOT an effective way of re gaining the majority.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
Once again I said we shouldn't try to be friends with people who perceive themselves as our enemies and consider Republicans their single biggest threat.
As to treating democrats like the devil, why not ? Everytime one of them embraces surrender to pander to moveon.org or Soros we should shout it from the rooftops.
Why hasn't more been done about William (IN HIS FREEZER) Jefferson,Barbara (I Earmark only for Family) Boxer, Harry (Beads for Land) Reid, Nancy (Only Tuna that Tastes good) Pelosi, or the ever popular Teddy (Black Helicopters planned the invasion and stand in for Jabba the Hutt) Kennedy.
The Strategy that was successful for the dems was attacking republicans and not allowing any legislative success. We need the same and we need to highlight their perfidiousness .
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Good word and I don't even know what it means yet. Naming specific Dems is more like it. Trying to put blanket statements on the party as a whole is the sort of thing we condemn when done to our side.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
Party of Death
Party of defeat
These can, have and continue to work. It took 5 years of the democrats working to lay the ground for the culture of corruption meme. We need our own broad based attacks and the party discipline to make them stick.
Do you really think they could have run "Conservative Democrats" if instead of being collegial we actively challenged their patriotism ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Again, you cannot on the one hand get upset about Dem tactics and then use those same tactics. I think singling out individual legislators and attacking their record a la Hayworth works much better than blanket culture of corruption statements.
I believe that most non partisans are tired of the partisanship on both sides and claiming that politicians should no longer call those on the other side of the aisle is silly. Rank partisanship is no way to re gain the majority.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
Which tactics are you talking about ?
Relentlessly attacking their opposition ?
Or, being willing to sell out the country ?
I have no problem with the former and everything with the later. I would hope you do too.
As to rank partisanship being no way to regain the majority, history contradicts you. The same same holds for non partisans being tired of partisanship. It may be what they say but its not how they vote.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
History says but one of the reasons that Congress is held in such low regard today, not history but today, is the rank partisanship from both sides.
I think that many Dems are putting politics ahead of Security however brushing the whole party with that stroke is going too far and the anger you show toward them is not much different than the anger that we all abhor from the far left.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
We condemn members of our party that engage in unacceptable behavior be it sexual, financial, or political.
Democrats do not within their party. To the extent that an individual democrat does not speak out against the unacceptable stands of members of their party they are complicit in them.
Once again I make the point that as a party they have chosen to sell out the country to advance their political fortunes. It doesn't matter if its Iraq, or William Jefferson. Its the same, principle is surrendered for gain.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
That sort of partisanship is not effective in my opinion. Blanket statements like that are almost always written off as typical partisanship.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
No bid contracts ??
No blood for oil ??
To the extent that we didn't counter these messages they wounded our cause. There were things we could have done but didn't. Thats the advantage we have over the Dems, they can't and won't
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
There for a long time and only in 2006 did we lose. The Reps have the war and their own poor performance to blame for losing in 2006. The war became a drag on everyone in the party and corruption and over spending became too much for the electorate to take. It had little to do with the far left's multiple scurrilous attacks and I believe I am right because impeachment is not and never has been very popular.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
So if it didn't happen immediately it didn't happen ? There is no power to repetition ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Happen at all. Do you really think that if the Iraq war was prosecuted well that the Dems would have won? 2006 had nothing to do with left wing attacks.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
Your in La La Land.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Living in the 2006 election had everything to do with an unpopular war and a Congress that spent too much money and finally a party that had so much corruption that several members went to jail.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
JUST WHAT DID MACCACA HAVE TO DO WITH CORRUPTION SPENDING OR THE WAR ? No what you had was a senator brought down by relentless partisan attacks and a challenger masquerading as something he was not.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Brought himself down. First, he said that foolish phrase. Second by not initially and immediately apologizing the word took on a life of its own. You have to be quite a partisan to blame that campaign on anyone but Allen himself.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
per·fid·i·ous /pərˈfɪdiəs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[per-fid-ee-uhs] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation–adjective deliberately faithless; treacherous; deceitful:
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
statements and say that the enemy is emboldened by such statements and that they shouldn't make such statements. That emboldened enemies make more American casualties more likely and deter allies from joining us. That making such statements cost American lives. Don't you know that what you say for free, al Qaeda would pay you to say?
I've shut many a lib that way
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Do you have any proof that your assertion is correct? Please pick one or a group of statements by any Democrat or Democratic organization and show a correlation between those statements and an increase in casualties to Coalition forces.
Now, you don't have to answer to me because, hey, who am I. But be ready to prove your assertions in the coming months, because reality and facts are starting to get big play and if you don't have the numbers you have nothing.
...are going to use that as a defense then the burden is shifted toward you to show/prove that statements made by liberals while pushing their "failure agenda" doesn't embolden the enemy!
Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Senior writer for The Hinzsight Report
As he has repeatedly stated he will break our will, and used democrat statements to bolster the argument.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
record. The North Vietnamese are on record as saying they couldn't defeat us on the battlefield but they knew all they had to do was hang on and you and your friends would eventually surrender. OBL has made the same point any number of times.
Who are you? You are an anti-American activist who deserves a ride over the "bridge too far" with Teddy Kennedy.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
first search for: North Vietnamese Gen Giap and US peace movement: Look for this quote:
Celebrating the 29th anniversary of the fall of Saigon, the North Vietnamese general who led his forces to victory said Friday he was grateful to leaders of the anti-war movement.
"I would like to thank them", said General Vo Nguyen Giap, now 93, without mentioning Kerry by name. "Any forcesthat wish to impose their will on other nations will surely fail", he added.
OR google Osama bin Laden and Somalia; Youo might find this quote:
Our boys no longer viewed America as a superpower. So, when they left Afghanistan, they went to Somalia and prepared themselves carefully for a long war. They had thought that the Americans were like the Russians, so they trained and prepared. They were stunned when they discovered how low was the morale of the American soldier. America had entered with 30,000 soldiers in addition to thousands of soldiers from different countries in the world. ... As I said, our boys were shocked by the low morale of the American soldier and they realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger.
But then, you knew all that...didn't you!
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
lied, bushmisled
6 - Hillary - I will get us out of Iraq when I get elected.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
You have not offered any proof. Anyone can SAY anything they want and until I see a methodology and results, it is just their OPINION.
I am an independent. I have the same requirements of any Democrat who makes blanket claims or statements with no proof to back up their assertions. I will not accept on their face any assertions without proof. To me, this seems like a basic requirement of an informed citizenry involved in a democracy.
Make a ridiculous statement and then either ignore ignore ignore, or deny deny deny.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I knew, I KNEW, Saddam had WMDs. Without a doubt, I was certain based on everything I read, the attacks on the Kurds, all of it. I was wrong. I don't ever want to be that wrong again. How can we as a nation be that wrong again?
Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Senior writer for The Hinzsight Report
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
The one connecting your hand to your forehead, that is. It looks like it hurts.
Or, put another way: you think you got problems? Imagine how Saddam felt, when he saw the noose and thought to himself, Well, you certainly did convince them that you had had a WMD program all along, huh?
Put yet another way: you've learned precisely the wrong lesson from Hussein's successful deception. The lesson you've learned is "We must be more careful when assessing the truthfulness of genocidal fascist dictators!" The actual lesson should have been "Post 9/11, being a lying genocidal fascist dictator was one adjective too many."
Glad we could help!
Moe
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Terrorists and Iraqis hear dems call their leader a liar and promise to get out of Iraq if they get power.
Terrorist that may have given up against a untied America fights on with hope that more body bags will bring dems to power.
Iraqis figure they better not join the US since if the dems pull them out, they will be at the mercy of the terrorists.
We call this
COMMON SENSE
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
also shows that the earth is flat and the sun revolves around the earth. Both PROVED wrong.
You have no proof that a terrorist will give up or an Iraqi will not join us. They are so not our society, trying to judge what they will do based on what you experience sounds like a recipe for failure to me.
Say your conjecture is correct about the Iraqi not joining with us because of a pull out. Common sense offers him three choices: leave Iraq; join the terrorists; fight the terrorists. Choice 1 seems to be the choice of the affluent. Choice 2 seems to be the choice of the disaffected. The majority will choose choice 3. And they will win.
Now, I have no proof of any of this. But it sounds just as likely as anything you have put forward.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Going to believe me but a former soldier who had just returned from Iraq said in their diary pretty much what everyone has here has been saying and they said it based on their experiences in the country.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
Earth Round: Erastothenes 3rd century BC circumference accurate to 1%
Heliocentric Model: 8th century BC in the Indian Yajnavalkya. Or Aristotle in the 4th Century BC.
And we have another troll measure, stupid irrelevant statements and nonsensical comparisons. AKA the Johnny Cochrane defense.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Heck, if he gets acquitted this time, maybe he'll improve to only smoking Pot.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Common Sense also shows that the earth is flat and the sun revolves around the earth ONLY if your world only extends as far as the horizon, or if you are totally devoid of any science training whatsoever!
much like the rest of your post...
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
...as you have shown here you might want to rethink the indpendant label and slide the marker on over to Liberal... Just sayin'
Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Senior writer for The Hinzsight Report
Common sense would indicate that all the carbon we are putting into the atmosphere would have a detrimental affect and may cause Global Warming.
Isn't that the argument for GW? It's just common sense?
I don't believe there is enough proof that global warming in the large scale is occurring and that large-scale climate changes are man-made. I am waiting for proof.
less homeless will die of frostbite in the winter and Greenlanders may one day surf in the summer.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
"Really, I'm not a troll. Here, I'll give you Global Warming,I'm really on your side on this one.., so see...I'm really not a troll!"
than just the rich.
You see where Brits were made sceptical about MMGW when taxes became part of the solution.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
But be ready to prove your assertions in the coming months
No problem, troll. And when we do, we'll make sure to give you a clear path, through which you can run back to your mommy's basement.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
factual analysis and deconstruction of democrat policies, proposed legislation and subsequent roll-call votes are considered to be prime examples of "attacking democrats."
***
“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
The legacy of GWB will be his propensity to refer to Dems as good patriotic Americans who see things differently than we do. Damn him for that.
I want someone on the top of the ticket who will recognoze that the current crop of electen Ds are enemies of the state and treat them that way. Our Reps should not be referring to "my friend" on the other side of the aisle. They should be doing everything in their power to utterly and completely destroy Democrats. Washington DC should be a toxic waste site.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
-nation. His legacy will be the devastation of al Qaeda; the liberation of 50 million muslims, the overwhelming majority of whom are empowered and are fighting and defeating the extremists; the prevention of the ME from being taken over by said extremists; the beginning of a long term policy to stay in the region and empower moderates; the good stewardship of the economy that was in recession and which suffered 911; Roberts and Alito and the reversal of cases that limited free religious speechrights and local control of schools; and more to come.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
That Google! By the way, did Al Gore invent it too?
A couple of sites that list congressional strengths/weaknesses
http://www.electoral-vote.com/
Couldn't find a GOP site seeking to organize against weak Democrats, but did find this one:
http://www.actblue.com/page/house2008
Gee whiz info:
Dems defending 12 seats in the senate
GOP defending 22
JaAG
I might also suggest picking good Republican Candidate who have a vision and can sell it to the nation.
But I think SI's point here is that you don't even need that - sometimes you really *can* beat "somebody" with "nobody", if that "somebody" is an incumbent politician who has been made very, very unpopular. That happened to the GOP several times last year.
IOW, regardless of who the GOP Pres. nominee is, and sometimes even regardless of who the individual challenger in the state or district is, you *can* beat an incumbent if they're made vulnerable enough and beaten up enough.
And I agree with SI - this is something the Dems are very, very good at, and the GOP is very, very bad at.
That said, it's a little more complicated than SI says - you still need national figures like Clinton and Kennedy to tie these local candidates to.
And, frankly, it would help if the GOP would adopt Clinton's strategy of running advertising 24/7, 365 days a year, *in between* every 2- and 4-year cycle, attacking the specific programs, proposals and "accomplishments"(ha!) of the Democrat Congress.
But part and parcel with that is also running ads in *individual* states & districts attacking specific incumbent politicians.
If the RNC is too squeamish to attach their name to this themselves, then at least give the greenlight to outside orgs to do it, and also direct donors to funnel money to these orgs so that they have the resources to do it.
But, yeah - if the GOP wants to survive, they're going to have to change the way they do business. And it'll mean getting nasty. Being continuous (24/7, 365 days a year). And being *specific* (going after specific incumbents, rather than general entities like "the democrats" or "moveon.org").
I don't know what it is about Republicans and Republican politicians that make them unwilling to do this (maybe Republicans just aren't as committed to "winning at all costs" as the Democrats are), but they are unwilling.
And that needs to change. Now.
Fighting Schumer is titling at a windmill. More diaries and front pagers need to be about individual Ds who are voting against their constituents. That's a great role for blogs to fill. And R blogs have not done it well.
______________________________________
Bobby Jindal Saves Louisiana
You're kinda wasting your time with mike_volpe here. From my last entanglement with him, it's obvious he's a "bipartisan", or a "Both-Sider" if you will. The idea that partisanship is anything other than pure-bred evil is completely alien to "bipartisans."
These types of folks (and quite a lot of them are Republicans) don't particularly care if taxes are raised or cut, Presidential nominees are confirmed or left to wither on the vine or any sort of policy is enacted ... or not. Whether or not a given policy is good or bad for the nation is not really a concern for "bipartisans."
Their primary concern is that everything is nice and "bipartisan" and that everyone gets along in Congress.
Which is why they typically continue to support McCain-Feingold ... not because it's a good effective piece of legislation, but because it has the Holy status of being "bipartisan" - that it actively attacks the First Amendment is beside the point. What is important is that the 'B' in BCRA stands for "Bipartisan."
The Gang of 14 is another thing "bipartisans" celebrate. That many good Republican judicial nominees were thrown under the bus, not because they were unqualified, lacking in ethics or compromised in any way, but simply because Democrats didn't like them, does not matter to mike_volpe. He just wants "bipartisanship."
The point is, it's easy for Republicans to make people like mike_volpe happy and content. They just have to concede every battle, meekly accept abuse and knuckle under to every Democratic protest or threat. And smile while doing it.
To do otherwise would be "partisan" which would increase the rancor on Capitol Hill, which would thereby increase cynicism and general public disgust.
And we can't have that.
Better a Republican President resign two days after being sworn in just because the Democrats want him to than for him to stubbornly remain in office and make them upset. That would be "partisan" ... and there's absolutely nothing on God's Earth worse than being "partisan."
George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.
Most of my liberal friends think I am entirely too partisan. Also, if anyone read the actual diary that all of this is based on the strategy the Democrats took was the one I suggested. Don't make blanket statements about Dems but rather single out specific legislators and be specific about their own situation.
As for bipartisanship, it is totally disingenuous to accuse the other side of putting partisanship above the good of the country and then say that Dems are scum and we shouldn't even refer to them as my friend.
No one is saying the Reps cave on things we care about however if you accuse the other side of endless scurrilous attacks a la BDS, and then turn around and throw the exact sort of scurrilous attack back at them then you are no better than them.
As for whatever other debate we have had well I do not remember so I hate to bruise your ego so clearly I made more of an impression.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
... I attach no significance to our last encounter.
And as for your friends, well, Glenn Greenwald thinks he's a conservative. I rest my case.
PS: I have no doubt that given a choice, you'd pick the GOP before the Democratic Party. But you're obviously the type of guy who thinks the descriptor "works together with both sides to get things done" is a good thing.
George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.
Than me since I don't even remember it. For something that has no significance you sure do remember it with great deal.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
... people think they're more important for being remembered than they actually are.
PS: It was about the Texas redistricting and your belief that the GOP should have folded and given up in the interest of "bipartisanship."
In other words, standard "bipartisan" solution like G14.
George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.
Just not anything you said. That debate ran its course and needs not be re hashed. Anytime someone brings up old debates it is almost always because someone has taken it too personally. Since you jumped in with a personal attack that is further evidence.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
Again, I generally remember stuff. That you generally don't has no bearing on its relative importance to me versus you.
Since you jumped in with a personal attack ...
Trust me. It's not personal. This is fun.
Besides, what's a personal attack about being called a "bipartisan"? I know good decent honorable folks who are "bipartisans" too.
They tend to get sad that they cannot vote for both parties' candidates for the same office at the same time because they hate to be "partisan" and wish to be fair to "both sides."
Sound familiar?
George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.
Does not sound familiar. In fact, now I am losing you. What I do know is that you jumped into a discussion you were not a part of to say that I am not worth someone else's time because I am bi partisan, whatever that means. Yeah, that is a personal attack. Apparently, I am not worth someone else's time because of something I said to you a few weeks ago. Apparently to you, agreeing with McCain et al on the gang of 14, means that person is no longer worth yours or any reasonable person's time.
Yeah that is taking things personally really personally.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
Apparently to you, agreeing with McCain et al on the gang of 14, means that person is no longer worth yours or any reasonable person's time.
Err no ... Don't put words into my mouth, young volpe. I've seen a lot of comments and posts from you that are worth a reasonable person's attention.
But when it comes to hardball politics, where Republicans should to stand their ground as a matter of principle, you get the "bipartisan" vapors and you start bloviating about how important it is for us to be all sweetness and light, and concede the fight lest we risk a general increase in "cynicism" and "disgust" at our "partisanship."
Like I said before, politics ain't a Care Bears cartoon. Following your philosophy is what got us our linguini spined do-nothing 2005/6 Republican Senate.
George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.
Between me and you is when I disagree with someone I do not immediately dismiss their opinion as not worthy. You do and you did it with me.
Again, I will not re hash the debate on the Gang of 14 but I do not carry over debates. You clearly do which means you take them too personally.
Do not pretend you know me because you do not. Just because we differ in our opinion on the Gang of 14 does not mean I am not worthy of debate on any subject. That is frankly the typical fascist tactic of the Kos kids and beneath the discourse here.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
Again, you're obsessed with the thought of me taking things personally. If it helps you sleep better at night, okay ... whatever.
Just because we differ in our opinion on the Gang of 14 does not mean I am not worthy of debate on any subject.
You obviously can read, but maybe not fully comprehend the written word. Did I or did I not write this: "I've seen a lot of comments and posts from you that are worth a reasonable person's attention."? Do you really need me to explain each word?
Let me try this again. You are a worthwhile contributor until you get on your "bipartisan" high horse, then you become this self-righteous poseur. At which point its not worth continuing a debate with you because it seems never to occur to you that there is such a thing as principled partisanship and that playing hardball and standing our ground is not always putting party over country.
More often it's the exact opposite.
I remembered you getting on the high horse last time with me when I saw you getting on it with Joliphant here and I knew there was no point in Joli carrying on, so I told him.
It ain't personal, just economical.
George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.
You perfectly. Just because you sprinkle an insult with a well placed compliment it does not make it any less of an insult.
Notice I said we have a difference of opinion on the gang of 14 and you refer to me as getting on my high horse. Obviously you have no respect for my position. That is where we are different.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
Your reasoning was just based on it being "bipartisan" and I think that's just pathetic.
That does not mean I think (as you're trying really hard to make yourself believe) you're a general waste of time.
You're just far more into politicians getting along than I am.
George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.
Whenéver you have an ad hominem attack like that you LOST the debate.
I think that political gamesmanship is a loss for all and at some point grown ups find common ground and you think all issues should be fought to the political death in scorchef earth policy if necessary.
We have a difference of opinion. My opinion does not lead me to disrespect your opinion and yours does as you just admitted ergo you took our debate personally and I did not.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
You really ought to figure out the meaning of ad hominem before you deploy it in a discussion.
But that said, you are incredibly naive. Political gamesmanship, as you call it, the use of political skill to get things you want achieved done has been in existence for as long as there has been politics.
William Wilberforce availed himself of political gamesmanship to get a leg up on his opponents on the slave trade. Everett Dirksen used a lot of skill with the Senate rules to get past the Democratic filibuster of the Civil Rights Acts.
Wherever did you get the idea that standing tough for what you believe in is wrong? I vote for Republicans so they can implement Republican policies and so long as they do it ethically and intelligently, I don't care if they hurt Democrats' feelings. I believe compromise should be on the table only when absolutely necessary.
My opinion does not lead me to disrespect your opinion and yours does as you just admitted ergo you took our debate personally and I did not.
Whoop-de-doo.
PS: I disrespect your reasoning for your opinion. Contrary to popular belief, not everyone's opinion is deserving of respect, and I'm not attacking or disrespecting you if I say I find your devotion to compromise as the highest principle ridiculous.
George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.
great, however, I didn't know that you believed in Gerrymandering or changing long standing Senate rules. Again, there is a lot of the use of the word "disrespect" by you, whereas I just counter your points. I know you disrespect my position since if you didn't you would have taken it, so saying it outwardly especially over and over is not necessary.
You believe that after the Reps instituted the nuclear option that would have been it, however it wouldn't have. The Dems would have shut down the entire government. This whole thing was NOT going to end with the nuclear option. The senate has a plethora of rules that allows each side to maneuver and this never ending gamesmanship would have eventually wound up the same way that the Texas redistricting wound up. No one won in that case because when you have each side trying to one up the other side it only leads to disaster. That is my position. You don't need to respect it. I frankly don't care, however it really has nothing to do with this particular debate which you have taken and spun into something totally unrecognizable.
My point from the beginning was not to brush the entire party with one stroke but rather to make things personal. To identify individual Senators and Congress people and go after them individually the way the Dems went after Hayworth. You interjected this debate which is totally irrelevant and one that we said plenty about long ago and you did it for no reason whasoever besides the fact that clearly you took it too personally initially.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
Gerrymandering ...? Keeping the Texas the way it was paid more of a tribute to gerrymandering than the map the TXGOP implemented. But that's beside the point. Interestingly, I think the Democrats are ultimately winning in that case because they took control of the narrative of that story and are successfully spinning it as an example of Republican overreach. Republicans are naturally stupid at that sort of thing.
The nuclear option would have taken away the right of a minority of Senators to torpedo a President's nominees (whether Republican or Democrat) without allowing the full Senate (as required by the Constitution) to give or withhold its advice and consent. What the Democrats were doing was unprecedented. Even Bork got an up and down vote! If you continue to fail to see how this could easily be escalated into a Constitutional Crisis where a subset of the Article I branch is interfering with the nomination prerogatives of the Article II branch, then there's no hope for you.
But that's neither here nor there.
No one was disagreeing with you on individual targetting. Joliphant was pointing out that we must also go after the Democratic brand and not limit ourselves to just individual Democrats. The Democrats and their friends in the Press Corps successfully attached a bad smell to the GOP brand last year and it is perfectly valid for us to return the favor. It was not an either-or argument and it sailed over your head because you got on your "bipartisan" high horse. I've seen you do it before and I pointed it out to him so he'll give up the little exercise in futility in arguing with you at that point.
that clearly you took it too personally initially.
Wow ... Has this become a mantra for you? OK. Sure. Whatever.
George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.
there are times when I think that bi partisanship is appropriate. I didn't know that this was such a bad thing. Like I said, you seem to think that everything comes down to a political war and anyone that ever compromises is weak. I disagree. I think you stand up for what is important and gerrymandering is not important. You can dress up what Delay did all you want but it ultimately comes down to gerrymandering. I don't think that changing Senate rules is important. Again, you are naive if you think the Democrats would have simply stood by after the rules had changed and not done anything. They would have shut down the government entirely. Nothing would have gotten done. They would have filibustered everything. Like I said political gamesmanship is to me a no win game for anyone.
I disagree that attacking the Democratic brand is effective because most of those attacks are seen as partisan a la the Kos Kids. Again, it is hypocritical to go after the Kos Kids for their methods and then employ the exact same methods. The Kos Kids are constantly saying the other side says we are unpatriotic because we dissent. We can't then turn around and say the other side is all a bunch of traitors. If you want to stoop to the level of the Kos Kids, that is your business, but I find that totally ineffective.
I think it is much more effective to go after individuals and also to go after the party platforms: socialized medicine, protectionist trade policies, timetables for withdrawal, etc. you fill in the blank, but brushing the entire party with the traitor stroke is totally counter productive.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
The word refers to fixing political boundaries to give your party disproportionate representation.
It does *not* refer to undoing someone else's gerrymandering in such a way as to give your party representation proportionate to its support in elections.
If undoing a gerrymander was itself a gerrymander then all subsequent changes to political boundaries would automatically be caught in the definition.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
what gerrymandering is and I also know what the Dems did in 1990. I saw a play about this whole sordid affair. I know more than I ever wanted to though the play is highly recommended, and just because he was on our side, doesn't make what he did any less gerrymandering. If you want to take the position that he was simply turning back what the Dems did you can, but he wasn't he was gerrymandering. Delay only knows how to play politics one way, hardball, and that is what he did here.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
... there are times when I think that bi partisanship is appropriate. I didn't know that this was such a bad thing. Like I said, you seem to think that everything comes down to a political war and anyone that ever compromises is weak.
The question to you is; when is it inappropriate? It seems never, which is where I disagree with you. There are times when it is necessary to compromise. I wrote it up above (yet another when I write something and it sails past you) that there is a time to compromise ... but it is only when it is absolutely necessary.
I think you stand up for what is important and gerrymandering is not important. You can dress up what Delay did all you want but it ultimately comes down to gerrymandering.
As Quentin points out, it's obvious you have absolutely no idea what gerrymandering is.
I don't think that changing Senate rules is important. Again, you are naive if you think the Democrats would have simply stood by after the rules had changed and not done anything. They would have shut down the government entirely. Nothing would have gotten done. They would have filibustered everything.
Again, I point out, sometimes the right thing to do (and this would have applied to both Republican and Democratic successors of President Bush) is the right thing to do. Make no mistake, your "blink first" philosophy is a recipe for disaster for any party who picks it - the GOP operated based on a fear of what the Democrats would do instead of standing their ground and it gave us 40 miserable long years in the minority.
If the Democrats decided to throw a tantrum and shut down the government (with troops in theater) whatever makes you think they would not suffer for it at the hands of the voters?
I think it is much more effective to go after individuals and also to go after the party platforms: socialized medicine, protectionist trade policies, timetables for withdrawal, etc. you fill in the blank, but brushing the entire party with the traitor stroke is totally counter productive.
Huh?
I see you don't understand what we mean by attacking the brand because you just described it above and you seem to think it's something else. I've never used the word "traitor" with regard to Democrats and I tend to avoid name-calling because it is counter-productive. So I agree with you, it seems. Attack the platform, attack the philosophy, attack their behavior, attack individuals on their records ... make the brand toxic.
And while we're at it, hand them defeat after defeat on the floor.
PS: The Democrats attacked the GOP brand with their "Culture of Corruption" meme which they used to tar all Republicans for the independent actions of a few. and it worked wonders.
George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.
Probably about the bipartisan as well.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
The first is that we need to do a better job of tieing individual members to their national Party.
As the OP points out, Stephanie Herseth would not be in Congress if her electors did not distinguish between her and her party. To cite another example from the same state, Tom Dachsle was defeated - despite being the stronger of the two senators from South Dakota - by this very strategy. In part, becoming the Democrats' leader in the Senate hurt him. Becoming Majority Leader hurt him further, as he became his party's most visible leader.
It is a disgrace that the Dakotas have, between them, five Democrats in Congress (three in the Senate and two in the House) and just one Republican. I think it was Larry Sabato who identified the North Dakota Republicans as the worst of 100 state parties - with no representation in Congress, despite having more voters and more support than the Democrats. Republicans have held the governorship and the legislature since 1992 and only four Democrats (Johnson being the most recent) have ever taken the state in a presidential election. Meanwhile the Democrats have won every congressional election in the state since 1982 and the congressional delegation has been 100% Democrat since 1986. I have no doubt that John Hoeven would be a formidable candidate for House or Senate.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
do not fit under the broad label of Democrats would help. We used to be able to say for example, except Sen Lieberman, now that he has been kicked out of the party for his support of America instead of the Iraqi terrorists, it is no longer necessary to make that exception.
Could there possibly be some Democrat politician who thinks it's wrong to kill inconvenient children?
Could there possibly be some Democrat politician who thinks it
is wrong to help the terrorists achieve their goals, of destroying a free Iraq?
Could there possibly be a Democrat politician who thinks Americans have a right to know that only eligible Americans are voting in American elections?
Could there possibly be a Democrat politician who thinks it is
wrong to force Americans to accept a check off card system as a legitimate way to force citizens into union slavery?
Could there possibly be a Democrat politician who believes it is wrong to grant American citizenship to foreigners just because they broke American laws to gain entry into America.
One could go one and on, but the results will be the same, I suspect. I'll gladly volunteer to add a exception to my comments on Democrats, if such a person can be identified.
but yes, there are some Democrats who take some of the positions that you claim no Democrat does.
You missed my point, though. You can have the Democrats grouped together in your head all you want. Most voters don't view them as a group. They see them as individual candidates. What you seem to forget is that it is impossible to defeat "the Democrats". We can only defeat Democrats. There is a world of difference between those two.
I never knew it was impossible to defeat Democrats so how could I forget? In the world, I was raised in, nothing was impossible, the harder things just took longer.
In America, people vote for candidates, not parties. It is not a system of proportional representation. "The Democrats" are not on the ballot. Individual candidates are. You can pretend that "the Democrats" are on the ballot, but it will only make you feel better and not actually help us to defeat the particular Democrat on the ballot. A Democrat is on the ballot, and it is that Democrat that we must attack.
you agree that going after the Democratic "brand" which lead to the incredibly long, and off topic, debate, is not the proper strategy.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
Attacking "the Democrats" may generate some contributions, which is important, and may influence policy debate. It has little or no effect, though, in the minds of voters. There are quite a few House seats in districts that Bush carried but that are represented by Democrats. More are close, and some are Democrat because people identify with the Party and the candidate follows. To many voters, that makes absolutely no difference because that's Washington-speak. We're talking about the Party leaders. Maybe the Democrat from their district is a Democrat, but he couldn't be that kind of Democrat. We need to say, "Yes he is, and here's how." We need to explain to voters that their Congressman does in fact vote with Ted Kennedy and the junior Senator from New York and/or that he votes for particular pieces of legislation that makes bad policy. We can not continue to rely on a trickle-down effect from attacking "the Democrats" and expecting voteres to make the connection. We need to make it for them.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
The dems swept through the 2006 elections, not because of any attacks or strategy....it was ONE ISSUE - they electorate was upset with the war, and even the dems themselves took it as a mandate to end the war (which their cowardice has been evident, obviously they will not wage a funding war in the senate). The dems won and probably didnt need to spend much money doing it, due to that one issue alone. I'm sorry, I don't see the electorate lining up for free health care and open borders for all. The main problem as I see it, is that the GOP spends too much time on the issues that divide and nowhere near as much on the issues where a very solid majority of the electorate agree with them - illegal immigration and taxes. If Czar Clinton wins the Presidency, I figure there will be a solid GOP uptick in the senate races, since there is NO WAY the country would give her a solid majority and a mandate to impliment it. We'll be standing in line for toilet paper like the old Soviet Union for sure........
Your definition is flawed. Its implications are clear:
Politician A draws up boundaries which give his party unfair advantage. This is gerrymandering.
Politician B draws another set of boundaries to replace the previous ones. Under your definition this is automatically gerrymandering too, even if the boundaries do not give B's party any unfair advantage.
Thus, when politician C draws a further set of boundaries to replace those of B (which you defined as gerrymandered) they must automatically be gerrymandered too.
You are now in an infinite loop. By your definition, once gerrymandering has taken place, it can never be undone, only redone.
It is better to have a sensibly restricted definition of gerrymandering. This would be if a party uses control of district boundaries to give itself disproportionate representation it is gerrymandering.
Boundaries which allow voters to get what they vote for is not gerrymandering. Thus, the new Texas boundaries, which gave the GOP 60% of the seats for 60% of the vote are not gerrymandered, unlike the old ones, which gave the GOP 47% of the seats for 60% of the vote.
If you want to focus on gerrymandering, look at states like Ohio, Florida and, worst of all, Massachusetts. But not Texas, it doesn't fit any reasonable definition of the word.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
thanks for dropping your discussion to a fresh thread, that was getting pretty insanely narrow. more people should do that here.
absentee
however if any of you are going to sit here with a straight face and claim that Delay re drew the lines based on the proportionate population rather than to the advantage of Republicans then well you show your true partisanship. Again, I know the whole story and I know how it was spun, however Delay's redraw of said boundaries was no less fair then the way they were drawn initially, and just because he did it for the benefit of our side doesn't make it any less fair. If you want to pretend that Delay was simply righting a wrong and doing what was fair that is frankly your business, however that won't make it any more real. Delay was practicing gerrymandering just the same as the Democrats were practicing gerrymandering in 1990.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
Delay was just righting a wrong. The 2004 elections gave the GOP representation proportional to the votes cast in favour of it. That is real, and I am beginning to wonder if your problem here is with maths or integrity.
So I will ask you outright: have you actually looked at the figures for the two party vote in Texas, and compared them with the representation in Congress, as I have, or not? If you have not, you are arguing from pure ignorance. If you have, you are a liar.
You can throw around insults of 'partisanship' if you like, but you are exposing the inadequacy of your own argument. Gerrymandering is gerrymandering whether it is used by Democrats in Massachusetts and Texas or by Republicans in Ohio and Florida. But claiming something is gerrymandering just because some other party claims it is, is just ridiculous.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
we did this to the tune of nearly 200 posts in another thread and all of these issues were covered ad nauseum in the last one. It was written by gideon, and I frankly don't want to re hash it anymore. This is getting boring. Whenever there are threats, things get boring. If you want to read up on it find Gideon's post which has nearly 200 responses this was debated ad nauseum. At least one person from Texas agreed with me and backed up their statements. I am not going through this again. I debate things once not over and over.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
You seem to have both linguistic and arithmetic problems. You have contributed no reasonable definition of the word 'gerrymandering' which you throw around willy nilly. Furthermore you make absurd statements implying that my definition is based on Delay's party affiliation. It seems to me that yours is.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
One, gerrymandering per dictionary.com
To divide (a geographic area) into voting districts so as to give unfair advantage to one party in elections
Two, I am tired of this discussion. We went ad nauseum in another diary and there was plenty discussed. It will be on the web forever so if anyone wants to check it out the thread was actually started by Gideon.
We hashed all of this out in that thread.
I wanted to discuss strategies for defeating the Dems not redistricting.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
_One, gerrymandering per dictionary.com
To divide (a geographic area) into voting districts so as to give unfair advantage to one party in elections_
That is exactly the definition that I was working to, and you seemed not to be.
It is clearly, *and factually,* incorrect to describe the current Texas boundaries as giving the Republicans an unfair advantage. The advantage in 2004 could not be closer to the votes cast. *Any* difference in the results would have further from proportionality than the one that actually came about.
Perhaps you are offering tiredness as an excuse for throwing the term around inaccurately. It is certainly a better excuse than lack of numeracy or lack of integrity which are the only other explanations if that is the definition you are working from/
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
it sure is funny how many times the term "gerrymandering" is used. It even identifies the Congressmen that the redistricting was going after.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Texas_redistricting
All right, if you think the motives are pure, that is your business, however this clearly disagrees.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
"In addition, the redistricting sought to protect Hispanic Republican Henry Bonilla, who had faced a stiff challenge from conservative Democrat Henry Cuellar in 2002, and neutralize liberal Democrat Ciro Rodriguez. This was done by putting Cuellar's base county of Laredo in the district held by Rodriguez. Thus instead of Bonilla being challenged again by Cuellar, Cuellar instead ran against Rodriguez in 2004, defeating him in the Democratic primary.
This was a similar strategy to the one employed against Chris Bell, who was placed in a majority-black district in which an African-American Democrat would be more likely to win than the caucasian Bell."
Now, tell me again how all the districts were split up "fairly"
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
So your contention is that if the seats were split up "fairly" then every single Democrat would be in as safe a seat as he would have been before? Is this really it? Your proof that gerrymandering was what happened back then is that some Democrats lost their seats?
Do you even know anything about the 1990 map? How it split conservative communities in pieces so that the state can vote 61% Republican and still send 17 Democrats to 15 Republicans to Congress?
I do hope you know you cannot look at the 2003 map in isolation, right? Your quotes say nothing about the contiguousness of the new districts, voting patterns, etc. things that are far more pertinent in redistricting than whether or not this or that Democrats keeps his seat in Congress.
I think Quentin is right, you have absolutely no idea what the heck it is you're talking about. Worst of all, you don't know what you don't know. You don't even know what gerrymandering is. You went to see a "play" about it, you know DeLay was involved, and that's enough for you to get up on your high horse.
George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.
I can see the fire coming out of the top of your head as you type. Second, the 1990 districting is not the issue. Just because it was gerrymandered in 1990 doesn't mean it was right to gerrymander in 2003, two years after it had already been done at the appropriate time. You can argue what you want. I went to wikipedia. Maybe, this isn't the best source, however in this source, the word "gerrymander" was used a number of times. Thus, while you may not think this was gerrymandering, you are also not a very unbiased judge. Maybe, whoever wrote this at wikipedia is not either, however theirs is a much more complete account of it than anything you have relayed, and their account makes a pretty strong case that this was gerrymandering and that certain congress people were targeted. Congress people are not targeted in a fair split of districts. The idea that Tom Delay would ever split up districts in any manner besides one that benefitted the Republican party is just plain ludicrous. If you want to believe that they were split up fairly, that is your right, I have the evidence you all wanted, you can choose not to believe it or you can choose to believe it. That is ultimately up to you.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
There is no way you can have a fair split of districts in Texas without it benefiting the GOP - a state which votes 60% Republican. Which is why the Courts gave their imprimatur of approval to the redistricting plan.
Second, no one is saying anything about Tom DeLay not being a partisan. He's proudly so. In fact, his last speech in Congress was one in which he spoke glowingly of partisanship.
But what you can't deny is that the 2003 map is a great deal fairer and more representative of the voting patterns of the people of Texas than the 1990 map it was replacing.
George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.
you can absolutely have a fair split of the map, and that would wind up representing the population FAIRLY. That doesn't mean evenly. Second, of course the 2003 redistricting was more representative than the 1991 one. The 1991 one was based on the 1990 census whereas the next was based on the 2000 census. Again, just because the 1991 districts were unfair to Republicans doesn't make it right to have the 2003 redistricting suddenly unfair to the Democrats. Again, wikipedia, if you choose to believe it, makes a strong case that this was rank gerrymandering. You saying a paragraph's worth of evidence is inconsequential compared to what wikipedia produced.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
I've seen the maps ... it's obvious you haven't.
Either way, Texas gives 60% of its Congressional and Presidential vote to Republicans. That's a fact and has been since the mid-1990s (that % fell a little in 2006). Yet it was sending 17 Democrats and 15 Republicans to Congress i.e. 46%.
After the 2003 redistricting, Texas sent 21 Republicans versus 11 Democrats to Congress i.e. 65% - a much better reflection of Texas' voting patterns. Now the number is 19 R to 13 D i.e. 59%, largely thanks to DeLay having his own seat made less Republican.
The new map is advantageous to Republicans [1] because they are the majority party in Texas and it is one of the perks. When Democrats were the Majority, Republicans never ran crying to Oklahoma. [2] Because they are the majority party in Texas and naturally the map will reflect their 20% voting advantage.
So if the map is somewhat "unfair" or "partisan" to Democrats, it's not nearly close to being as unfair as the map it replaced. And second, this is Texas, and that the GOP gets a higher number of seats is not a sign of "unfairness", because, again, this is Texas - GOP territory.
George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.
I went to see a play about it which makes the issue more interesting to me than other issues however I saw the legislators on television being interviewed and knew about the story long before I saw the play.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
the redistricting sought to protect Hispanic Republican Henry Bonilla
It does not say that gerrymandering unfairly benefits particular candidates, but unfairly benefits parties.
Now, tell me again how all the districts were split up "fairly"
The 2004 election gave the GOP representation in Congress very close to its share of the vote. It is literally impossible for the representation to have been closer. If any one district had gone the other way it would have been further from proportionality.
So what is it that you think is "fair"? Life tenure for any Democrat who wants it?
I think "fair" means that 60% of the vote should get you about 60% of the representation. What's your definition of "fair" in this context?
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
Arguing with Mike Volpe is a waste of time. I believe this is the fourth possibly fifth time he has been in this position and the response is predictable.
He digs in and refuses to accept any factual evidence that contradicts his position.
This happened in the Great Oil Conspiracy/Monopoly thread.
Its happened in the free trade thread. Its happened here twice.
Depending on how you count thats 3-10+ instances of this. I believe that constitutes a pattern.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
for three years. The second part is that we can't monce words in our criticisms. We have to speak in plain language (like they do) and in moral terms like Horwowitz suggests in his chapter on "How to Beat Democrats" in his book "Left Illusions."
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson