Them darn Texas Democrats strike again!

[Chewbacca]

I love how the Republicans decided to change the usual 2/3 vote rule to try and force the redistricting issue through. Boy have they been trump...again.

What is more shameful? Running away from a fight or changing the rules of the fight because you have been unsuccessful in the past attempts?

I admire these dem's conviction, seeing as how they will be away from family and business for atleast a month and maybe longer if the repubs decide to keep changing the rules.


Story

The second Democratic evacuation of the Texas capital, accomplished earlier this week by emergency airlift, was set in motion by what Leticia R. Van de Putte calls a "momma's hunch." The night before the narrow escape, Van de Putte said she became "really nervous" about what Texas Republicans were planning. In response, she implemented a contingency plan that brought two private jet aircraft to Austin and alerted the drivers of vans that were to carry lawmakers to the airport to be ready to move at a moment's notice. By the time the Republicans made their move, Van de Putte, head of the Democratic caucus in the Texas Senate, and her colleagues were high above the West Texas plains, en route to Albuquerque in neighboring New Mexico. So began Round 2 in the Great Texas Redistricting Standoff. The flight to New Mexico was the second time this year that Democratic lawmakers have bolted from the capital to block a GOP plan to redraw the boundaries of the state's 32 congressional districts, replacing district lines that were set by a federal court in 2001. In May, more than 50 House Democrats rode buses across the border to Oklahoma, where they spent four days at a motel at the end of the legislature's regular biennial session. With the House deprived of a quorum, the redistricting plan died at the end of the session. The House members' Oklahoma motel caper attracted national attention and was seen as the latest example of the state's often colorful politics. But now the redistricting standoff has moved into an ominous new phase for the Democrats. Van de Putte and the other senators left Austin at the start of the second, 30-day special legislative session that has been called to deal with redistricting, leaving behind families, friends and their regular jobs. There is no limit to the number of special sessions that can be called by Republican Gov. Rick Perry, who has already threatened to order a third if necessary. The redistricting dispute has turned into a war of attrition in which the GOP, which controls all the levers of power in state government, clearly has the upper hand. The stakes in the standoff have national implications. Democrats hold a 17-to-15 advantage in the state's U.S. House delegation but risk losing five or more of those seats if Republicans redraw the district lines. Such a shift in power in Washington would cement the GOP's House majority for at least the rest of this decade and enhance the prospects that Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), who is seen as the driving force behind the redistricting plan, will succeed J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) as speaker. Underscoring the importance of the battle, Karl Rove, President Bush's chief political strategist, has discussed tactics with Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst (R), the presiding officer of the state Senate. The Republicans are counting on being able to wear down their opponents. Both now and in May, the Democratic lawmakers fled to neighboring states because, if they stayed in Texas, they could be forced to return to their legislative chamber. The Senate sergeant-at-arms has been instructed by the Republican majority to return to Austin any Democratic senator who strays back across the border from New Mexico. "Thirty days is a long time to be away from your family," observed Sen. Todd Staples (R), sponsor of the Senate version of the redistricting plan. "We're citizen-legislators, and most still have to work for a living. It creates a huge burden." Indeed, Texas House Democrats concluded that the burden was too great to try to stage another walkout during the first special session, which began June 30. "Thirty days and 51 people, that's asking a lot," said Rep. Elliott Naishtat (D). But the Democrats knew they were still safe because of the rules and traditions of the Texas Senate. Under normal Senate procedures, each session begins with the introduction of a "blocker bill," a measure of no significance that is placed at the top of the agenda. The device has the effect of creating a permanent, institutionalized filibuster, requiring a two-thirds vote to suspend the rules to consider any other legislation. With 12 of the Senate's 31 seats, the Democrats were able block consideration of the GOP redistricting plan during the first special session. But Dewhurst made clear that there would be no "blocker bill" if Perry called a second special session, which meant that only the lack of a two-thirds quorum could prevent the Senate from acting. It was at this point that Van de Putte crafted her contingency plan, and the "momma's hunch" that led her to implement it proved prescient. On Monday, the Republicans abruptly adjourned the first special session one day early, and less than an hour later Perry issued his call for an immediate second session. But by then there were not enough senators in Austin to establish a quorum. "We would have been trapped inside the Capitol," Van de Putte said. Since then, the two sides have settled into a long-distance war of words and battle for public opinion. The missing Democrats are at an Albuquerque hotel, where they say they are paying their own way. They meet daily to plot strategy, but at this point the only strategy appears to be to wait for the 30-day clock to run out and perhaps persuade Democratic governors and legislatures to threaten retaliation in their states. The GOP argument for redrawing the state's congressional districts is that the current lines do not fairly reflect the state's increasingly Republican tilt. David Beckwith, a spokesman for Dewhurst, said that last year Republican House candidates won 57 percent of the vote in Texas but ended up with fewer than half of the state's House seats. "It's the legislature's responsibility to do this, and they didn't do it in 2001; a court did it," Beckwith said. "The people have a right to have their redistricting done by their elected representatives." Van de Putte and other Democrats scoff at that argument. Democrats still controlled the Texas House in 2001, and the deadlock over redistricting threw the issue into federal court. Van de Putte said Republicans used the "blocker bill" device in 2001 to prevent Senate consideration of redistricting legislation. "Republicans felt they'd get a better shake out of the courts," a GOP official conceded. The Democrats, who say the Republican plan would "disenfranchise" more than 1 million mostly African American and Hispanic voters by "packing" them into a handful of congressional districts, vow not to waver in their self-imposed exile from Texas. One Democrat, Sen. Rodney G. Ellis, has temporarily left his job as an investment banker in Houston and his wife and four children, the youngest of whom was born July 20. "It's hell," he said of the standoff, "but the cause we're fighting for is worth

[ 08-02-2003, 03:57 AM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

[John D Harris]

"But the Democrats knew they were still safe because of the rules and traditions of the Texas Senate. Under normal Senate procedures, each session begins with the introduction of a "blocker bill," a measure of no significance that is placed at the top of the agenda. The device has the effect of creating a permanent, institutionalized filibuster, requiring a two-thirds vote to suspend the rules to consider any other legislation."

If I'm not mistaken the party in charge has the right to change the rules by a majority vote/how ever the rules are setup, or else it is not a democratic repesentive republic legislature. Unless the Texas Consitution says there must be a "blocker bill" introduced, then the Texas senate rules apply. Now if these rules say that the majority can change the rules by a certain procedure, and the Republican majority has followed that set procedure then there is NO foul, just whinning cry babies that can't stand to be out of power. If the "Blocker bill" is introduced because of tradition then TO BAD traditions are not rules, traditions are not laws, traditions are not part of the Texas consitution. Traditions ARE "we have always done it this way". If that is the case then the whinning cry baby lable is to be applied. The fact is for years the Dems were in power and the Reps had to deal with it, now the Reps are in power and the Dems can't deal with it except by runing like "scared little school girls" (that is an insult to scared school girls everywhere) crying about how though life is.

That is why I can never be a democrat, if you lose an election, you lose be MAN enough to deal with it and try to win the next time, instead of whinning and crying about the fact that you lost the election. Get over it and grow up.
vote your conscience win or lose and go your way knowing you did your best, but NO They have to run. Well Texas you got what you deserve.

[skywalker]

Originally posted by John D Harris: "But the Democrats knew they were still safe because of the rules and traditions of the Texas Senate. Under normal Senate procedures, each session begins with the introduction of a "blocker bill," a measure of no significance that is placed at the top of the agenda. The device has the effect of creating a permanent, institutionalized filibuster, requiring a two-thirds vote to suspend the rules to consider any other legislation." If I'm not mistaken the party in charge has the right to change the rules by a majority vote/how ever the rules are setup, or else it is not a democratic repesentive republic legislature. Unless the Texas Consitution says there must be a "blocker bill" introduced, then the Texas senate rules apply. Now if these rules say that the majority can change the rules by a certain procedure, and the Republican majority has followed that set procedure then there is NO foul, just whinning cry babies that can't stand to be out of power. If the "Blocker bill" is introduced because of tradition then TO BAD traditions are not rules, traditions are not laws, traditions are not part of the Texas consitution. Traditions ARE "we have always done it this way". If that is the case then the whinning cry baby lable is to be applied. The fact is for years the Dems were in power and the Reps had to deal with it, now the Reps are in power and the Dems can't deal with it except by runing like "scared little school girls" (that is an insult to scared school girls everywhere) crying about how though life is. That is why I can never be a democrat, if you lose an election, you lose be MAN enough to deal with it and try to win the next time, instead of whinning and crying about the fact that you lost the election. Get over it and grow up. vote your conscience win or lose and go your way knowing you did your best, but NO They have to run. Well Texas you got what you deserve.

Being an Independent voter, it was always hard for me see the real difference between the career politicians of the 2 parties in the USA. Now I have rule of thumb to measure them by.

Republicans are stand up guys, real men (with apologies to the female Reps), and they fight the good fight.

Democrats are sniviling, whining, losers with little self respect.

It's all clear to me now.


I wanna be a Repub!!!

Mark

[EDIT] To add a sarcastic wink at the end.

Seriously, people are different everywhere. Dems and Reps can be good or bad and painting them each with a wide brush serves no purpose but to cause friction where everyone loses.

[ 08-02-2003, 08:54 AM: Message edited by: skywalker ]

[skywalker]

(OT sort of)
Tell me John.

For 8 years the Repubs that controlled the Senate Judiciary blocked Clinton's appointments and what was percieved as OK.

For the first 2 years of the Bush Admin, the Repubs whined and cried that it was not fair for the Dems to block and wanted the rules changed, etc. They accused Leahy (he was in charge) of not playing fair even though more nominees were passed in 2 years than in the full 8 the Repubs were in charge. (I can't believe the WhiteHouse has accused Leahy as being Anti-Catholic for blocking Pryor's nomination...Leahy IS Catholic as well.)

As I said above, there are whiners and crybabies everywhere and Orrin hatch is a big one.

Mark

[Azred]

Althought it might be less-than-reputable to "change the rules" after the special session has begun, it is neither unexpected nor unheard-of; this is the sort of political bickering that occurs constantly. However, it is cowardly to flee to another state in an attempt to stop your opponents from doing something with which you disagree. The job of a politician is to fight for your constituency--even if you know you will lose--and not run away.

It is a shame that other Democrats are not frothing at the mouth to convince the runners to go back to Austin. All they are really accomplishing from their refuge in Alberquerque is to make the upcoming elections much more difficult for all other Democrats.

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by skywalker: (OT sort of) Tell me John. For 8 years the Repubs that controlled the Senate Judiciary blocked Clinton's appointments and what was percieved as OK. For the first 2 years of the Bush Admin, the Repubs whined and cried that it was not fair for the Dems to block and wanted the rules changed, etc. They accused Leahy (he was in charge) of not playing fair even though more nominees were passed in 2 years than in the full 8 the Repubs were in charge. (I can't believe the WhiteHouse has accused Leahy as being Anti-Catholic for blocking Pryor's nomination...Leahy IS Catholic as well.) As I said above, there are whiners and crybabies everywhere and Orrin hatch is a big one. Mark

Blocking the judicial nominees in commitee is part of the game, filabustering after the nominees have left the commitee is NOT, the US consititution clearly States the ONLY a majority is needed for conformation. Leahy IS NOT blocking the nomination in commitee nor is any other Dem. that is a pshycial and numerical impossibility, the Dems are the minority in commitee. The Dems are filabustering the vote on the floor thus nulifying the US Consitution. A Filabuster requires 60 votes to break not a simple majority as the US Consitution requires for conformation of judcial appointments. There is a differance in blocking following the rules and blocking making up new rules or using Senate rules to trump the US Consitution. The VERY Consitution that gives the Senate the power to exist.

As for the whinning about the Aniti-Catholic thing, of course the Reps are whinning. They like most elected officials lack the testontorone producing glands to do much else. All of Bush's nominees have allready received a majority vote of conformation to their judgeships by the Senate (All have recieved a majority vote of 50+, but not a filabustering 60 vote majority) If President Bush posessed the necessary glands to govern he would send the Nominees to take their seat on the bench and tell the Dems "To bad so sad you lost" and these judges are taking their seats. Swear the judges in and let the US Supreme Court "Female Dog" slap the Senate like they deserve. As I have said before Bush doesn't have the glands.

Sen. Leahy being Catholic has no meaning, because Judge Clarence Thomas is Black and he is accussed of being anti-black all the time. So Sen. Leahy can not hide using the opposite logic that the Dems apply to Judge Thomas. The first thing Sen. Leahy should do is denounce the liberal Democratic stance against Judge Thomas and prove that he (Sen Leahy) applies the same logic, but Sen. Leahy doesn't posess the glands either.

[ 08-02-2003, 03:03 PM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]

[Bardan the Slayer]

The Democrats, who say the Republican plan would "disenfranchise" more than 1 million mostly African American and Hispanic voters by "packing" them into a handful of congressional districts, vow not to waver in their self-imposed exile from Texas.

To my totally non-American mind, and with my limited understanding of American governmental procedures, I would say that this is the main point. If this turns out to be true, then the Republicans are effectively guilty of Jerrymandering, and are doing the very thing that Conservative politicians in this country were (rightly) prosecuted for. If it isn't, then the Democrats are perverting the governmental process.

Of course, I have no way to tell if the quote is accurate or not (or even how to find out), so I will have to leave that to someone else to find out [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 08-02-2003, 03:10 PM: Message edited by: Bardan the Slayer ]

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by skywalker: Being an Independent voter, it was always hard for me see the real difference between the career politicians of the 2 parties in the USA. Now I have rule of thumb to measure them by. Republicans are stand up guys, real men (with apologies to the female Reps), and they fight the good fight. Democrats are sniviling, whining, losers with little self respect. It's all clear to me now. I wanna be a Repub!!! Mark [EDIT] To add a sarcastic wink at the end. Seriously, people are different everywhere. Dems and Reps can be good or bad and painting them each with a wide brush serves no purpose but to cause friction where everyone loses.

Did you happen to notice the use of the word "if" in my original statement? I used it for each of the differant possibilities.
1)Texas State Consitution requires "Blocking Bills"
2)Texas State Senate Rules require "Blocking Bills"
3)"Blocking Bills" are a tradtition of the Texas State Senate

I was not painting all with a wide brush I was speaking specificly about the Texas State Senate and by their actions both parties prove my assesments of them right.

That assessment only applies to the parties/persons mentioned, and not to any other parties/persons not mentioned.

[ 08-02-2003, 03:27 PM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Bardan the Slayer: quote: The Democrats, who say the Republican plan would "disenfranchise" more than 1 million mostly African American and Hispanic voters by "packing" them into a handful of congressional districts, vow not to waver in their self-imposed exile from Texas.

To my totally non-American mind, and with my limited understanding of American governmental procedures, I would say that this is the main point. If this turns out to be true, then the Republicans are effectively guilty of Jerrymandering, and are doing the very thing that Conservative politicians in this country were (rightly) prosecuted for. If it isn't, then the Democrats are perverting the governmental process.

Of course, I have no way to tell if the quote is accurate or not (or even how to find out), so I will have to leave that to someone else to find out [img]smile.gif[/img] [/QUOTE]When ever there is a drawing of new Congressional disticts in the States, the party not in power allways crys Gerrymandering. That happens in all States With the exception of Vermont and any other states that have ONLY one Congressman. Those States can not have Gerrymandering because the one Congressman represents the entire State.

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Azred: Althought it might be less-than-reputable to "change the rules" after the special session has begun, it is neither unexpected nor unheard-of; this is the sort of political bickering that occurs constantly. However, it is cowardly to flee to another state in an attempt to stop your opponents from doing something with which you disagree. The job of a politician is to fight for your constituency--even if you know you will lose--and not run away. It is a shame that other Democrats are not frothing at the mouth to convince the runners to go back to Austin. All they are really accomplishing from their refuge in Alberquerque is to make the upcoming elections much more difficult for all other Democrats.

Have you considered preventing a quorum is the way these represenatives have chosen to fight for their constituency? What exactly makes an act of self-sacrifice for what you percieve the good of your people cowardly?

I think it brave to buck the trend and use unorthodox methods to fight an unorthodox and untimely redistricting process. Fighting fire with fire maybe. I also think its brave for the very reason that people are going to paint them as cowardly, particularly their political opponents. Sorry, I see nothing cowardly about these actions, not at all.

[ 08-02-2003, 03:24 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]