The Texas Mess:
Media research reported the following today:
> 1) Democrats in Texas employed extra-legal, obstructionist
means to thwart the will of the majority when nearly all of the
Democratic state representatives fled to Oklahoma in order to both
deny the legislature a quorum for a scheduled redistricting vote
for U.S. House seat boundaries until after a deadline expired
Thursday night and to be beyond the reach of Texas law enforcement
efforts to enforce state law mandating House session attendance by
elected representatives.
But on Thursday night, CBS portrayed U.S. House Majority
Leader Tom DeLay as the ogre in the tale as Dan Rather intoned:
"Some Democrats say that a powerful Republican in Congress got
Homeland Security personnel involved in a politicized search that
had nothing to do with homeland security. It appears they were
used to track down some Texas Democratic legislators who left the
state to prevent a vote that could help elect more Republicans to
Congress."
Two nights earlier, on the May 13 CBS Evening News, reporter
Bob McNamara also made DeLay the heavy as he reported with about
as much accuracy as Jayson Blair: "Democrats say House Majority
Leader DeLay's redistricting Texas power play is designed to add
as many as seven more GOP seats to a state congressional
delegation Republicans already control."
In fact, though Republicans hold both Senate seats, they
occupy a minority of Texas House seats with 15. Democrats control
17 of the 32 seats. Even counting the two Senate seats as part of
a 34-seat delegation, it's a 17-17 split. So far, no correction on
the CBS Evening News.
As Washington Post reporter Lee Hockstader asserted in a May
13 story, the redistricting plan is "designed to add five to seven
seats to the 15 the GOP controls in the state's 32-member
congressional delegation." For pictures of delegation members with
their party affiliations: http://hutchison.senate.gov/txdeleg.htm
Fred Barnes explained the background which television stories
left out, how Republicans are trying to correct past Democratic
gerrymandering which has resulted in the minority holding the
majority of seats. During the panel segment on Thursday's Special
Report with Brit Hume on FNC, Barnes outlined:
"There are 17 Democratic House seats and 15 Republican ones.
The Republicans won 57 percent of the House vote across the state
of Texas. And why is it tilted that way? It's tilted that way
because of the Democratic gerrymander in 1991, which Mike Barone,
our friend who writes the definitive Almanac of American Politics,
described as 'the shrewdest gerrymander of the 1990s.'...In 1992,
with that gerrymander in the place, the Republicans got about 50
percent of the statewide House vote -- it wound up 21 Democratic
House seats and nine Republican House seats."
Nonetheless, CNN's Bruce Morton a few hours earlier had
decided to showcase, without any balancing comment, an anti-
Republican swipe from former New York Times reporter Molly Ivins,
now a far-left columnist, but Morton didn't identify her ideology.
In a story on Inside Politics, he relayed: "The Republicans
control both houses of the Texas legislature now. And columnist
Molly Ivins, admittedly no fan, writes, 'They think it's them
against evil, and everybody who ain't them is evil. These are
Shiite Republicans,' unquote."
Tuesday night on CNN's NewsNight, Aaron Brown, MRC analyst Ken
Shepherd noticed, suggested "principle" behind the Democratic
maneuver but dismissed the Republican redistricting as
"political," as if there's something wrong with that, and
recommended a court re-draw the districts.
On May 13 Brown proposed to a Democratic state representative:
"This does look a little childish. So there must be a major
principle at play, other than they have the votes, they can do
what they want. What's the principle?" Then he told a Republican
state representative: "There's hardly any process that's more
political than redistricting. Why not just let a court do it? A
court might do it a little more fairly with a little more
objective eye than a politician might, don't you think?"
The Washington Post set the tone for national coverage with
this Tuesday morning front page headline which put the burden on
the Republican side: "GOP Plan Prompts a Texas Exodus." Subhead:
"Democrats Stall State Legislature's Redistricting Vote."
Now, back to where we began, with the May 15 CBS Evening News.
Dan Rather intoned: "Some Democrats say that a powerful Republican
in Congress got Homeland Security personnel involved in a
politicized search that had nothing to do with homeland security.
It appears they were used to track down some Texas Democratic
legislators who left the state to prevent a vote that could help
elect more Republicans to Congress. CBS's Bob Orr is looking into
this. Bob, what have you found out?"
Orr began, as taken down by MRC analyst Brad Wilmouth: "Well,
Dan, the case of those fugitive Texas House Democrats you were
talking about certainly has taken a bizarre twist with new
political accusations today that House Majority Leader Tom DeLay
misused federal power in a failed attempt to track down the
lawmakers. The charges are coming from Democrats on Capitol Hill
who say Homeland Security resources were used to search for an
airplane belonging to the leader of the Texas Democrats, former
Speaker Peter Laney.
"Homeland officials in a statement released today say they
were asked on Monday afternoon to look for the plane, a request
they say came from a Texas Department of Public Safety officer who
said, quote, 'We got a problem. We had a plane. It had state
representatives in it and we cannot find this plane.' Under the
impression they were looking for a missing or crashed airplane,
this Customs control center in California mounted a search.
Federal officials never did locate the airplane.
Texas Congressmen today strongly suggested the call to the Feds
was prompted by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, a proponent of
the Texas redistricting."
Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX), on House floor: "Not content as
U.S. House commander, redistricting czar, and map maker for the
Texas legislature, J. Edgar DeLay apparently seeks the job
directing law enforcement."
Orr: "DeLay's office denied the charge. A spokesman for DeLay
said he was asked by the Texas Speaker to ask the U.S. Justice
Department if federal resources could be used to return the
missing lawmakers. But DeLay's spokesman said the Congressman had
no further involvement and is not even sure if Justice answered
the inquiry. Homeland Security officials say they do not know who
was behind the request from the Texas Public Safety officer.
Federal officials say the police in Texas, quote, 'have a lot of
explaining to do.'"
Earlier in the day, on CNN's Inside Politics, Ed Lavandera in
Austin picked up on an angle not touched by CBS or in the Tuesday
night and Wednesday morning stories on ABC and NBC: "Not all of
the Democrats in the State House here in Texas left the state.
There are about seven that are still left behind. Most of those
Democrats are African-American representatives here in the state,
and they were in favor of this redistricting bill, Judy, because
it would have created an extra seat in Congress in an
African-American district. One of the representatives we speak
with today, Ron Wilson a Democrat of Houston, says that the
Democrats in Oklahoma better hope that their chairs are still on
the House floor when they return."
Next, Bruce Morton bemoaned the growing partisanship in
Washington, DC and the states, but then featured a partisan shot
at just one party. Morton began, as transcribed by MRC intern
Nicole Casey: "As a candidate, here with the Texas legislature in
1999, George W. Bush used to talk about making Washington more
like Austin."
George W. Bush: "Republicans and Democrats have worked
together to do what is right for the people we represent."
Morton: "Well, he did it. Sort of. Austin and Washington are
more alike, both meaner and more partisan than ever. In Texas,
Democrats, infuriated by a congressional redistricting plan pushed
by U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, a Texan, walked out and
set up camp at a Holiday Inn in Oklahoma, just across the border."
Jim Dunnam, Democratic Caucus Chairman: "We have a message for
tom Delay: Don't mess with Texas."
Morton passed along a swipe: "The Republicans control both
houses of the Texas legislature now. And columnist Molly Ivins,
admittedly no fan, writes, 'They think it's them against evil, and
everybody who ain't them is evil. These are Shiite Republicans,'
unquote.
"In Washington almost everybody agrees the national Congress
is more partisan than ever too, more emphasis on loyalty, less on
independent thought. Mr. Bush visited Ohio and Maine, whose
Republican senators disagreed with his tax cut, to urge support
for it. Senate Republicans want to change the filibuster rules so
that the President's judicial nominees get voted on. Retired
Democratic Congressman Lee Hamilton tells about how he messed up a
bill when he was a freshman, and was saved when a Republican who
opposed the bill told him his mistake and how to fix it. Happen
today? No way...."
"One reason is Congress does its important business during a
three-day week, Tuesday through Thursday. Then the members go
home, raise money, politick, whatever. They don't get to know
their colleagues. Years ago two members might argue bitterly over
an issue then go out, have a drink or supper together, and find
themselves on the same side of some other issue a few days later.
Those days are over.
Morton concluded by holding only DeLay, not the Democrats
which shut down a legislative body, accountable for partisanship:
"In Washington, in Austin, the partisans rule. Tom DeLay's
nickname is 'the Hammer.' He's earned it. Bruce Morton, CNN,
Washington."
Things like this make me wish they still taught real civics in the schools.
1. The mainstream media will ALWAYS see things through an establishment Democratic lense. Well yes. No shock there. This has been true since the late 60's when the newsrooms managed to convince the ownership of most newspapers / broadcast stations that professional jounalism meant that the owner couldn't influence what was printed or read on the air. So informed opinion became what the professionals in the field of journalism said it was. A field that votes for Nader about as often as Bush in 2000 when the US was split 50-50. A field that socially just doesn't feel at home with the Main Street businessmen and Religious Believers who are the bedrocks of the Republican Party in most localities. However, this is as predictable as snow in Alaska in the winter. So why the moralistic shock when the inevitable happens. The establishment press will tell the Democrats story. Talk radio, the Fox affiliates, the WSJ editorial page will tell that of the Republicans. Human Events will call the Republicans sellouts. In These Times, Mother Jones and the Nation will say the same aout the Democrats. The high moralistic fever on both sides is great for fund raising and stirring up the core voter base. It is dangerous for the nation. We make compromisable political issues into issue of high principal. High principal is stuff you are NOT supposed to compromise.
2. Politics isn't beanbag. Gerrymandering is so old it predates our current party system which started realsitically with Andy Jackson. The worst gerrymanders for the last third of a century have been from the Democrats. Is this a sign of their unique evil? Hardly. It is a confluence of history and a USSC decision. The history is that at the grassroots level the Republican Party never recovered from Herbert Hoover. FDR's four terms destroyed a great deal of the regional and local base of the Republican party. The old Republican urban machines vanished never to return. The northern protestants increasingly stopped voting Republican just from USCW loyalties while the southern protestants still voted for Jeff Davis - they voted in the straight democratic ticket at the bottom even if they would vote Republican for President, Senator or sometimes Governor. Adding to that the drift of what had been the progressive [Rockefeller] wing of the GOP that started with FDR became a tidal wave when the movement conservatives captured the party with Goldwater. Yet again a bit of history - the original GOP was an alliance of New England moralists with Middle Atlantic industrialists and MidWestern Free Soil homesteaders. The progressive moralists found a new home with the Democrats. So by Nixon's time we had a one and a half party system in the US. The Republicans were the half. They could contest the Presidency and the big offices, Senator / Governor where the vote was by states. In much of the south and the big cities they effectively couldn't contest elections from Congressman to dogcatcher. Their saving grace was that most states reapportioned legislatively bodies slowly to never. So the rural areas where the GOP was still strong had disproportionate power. Then came Baker v Carr [1962 and following as the enforcement cases rolled on]. All legislatures had to reapportion based solely [some exceptions for civil rights] on population but no restrictions on purely political gerrymanders. The Democratic control of the state legislatures became a means of locking up the state legislatures and House for all time. If the Democrats hadn't made their longmarch to the left 1968-74 they would have been the permanent majority party in the US. The problem for them was that NOT making that march meant another left schism like 1948 and emotionally they were unwilling to do this. Even so it took Newt's decade long work with GOPAC to rebuild a GOP farm system. GOPAC did so by picking off vulnerable parts of the Democratic coalition - social conservatives and Dixiecrats - plus using Pat Robertson to mobilize the mostly not voting fundementalist protestants. This in turn triggered a hysterical panic reaction in the Democrats and establishment press. These folks can live with the Bob Dole and Bush 41 Big Business and Country club Republicans. For all their policy differences the Dole - Pappa Bush types do not question the basic assumptions of 1970's American politics - that the limit to what the GOP can do is slow down ineviatble Democratic initiatives. Thus Nixon created EPA and OSHA. Both were less than what the progressives wanted. However both conceded the core issues of the nanny state - ever bigger, ever more instrusive government. The Reagan combination of muscular christianity, libertarian economics and theocratic social policy mixed with a willingness to treat World War Three as a war simply scared them spitless. They have been scared ever since. Reagan was supposed to destroy the economy and trigger a nuclear catastrophe. The reverse happened on both counts. After 12 Republican years they were willing to nominate what by Democratic standards was a southern moderate so that the natural party of government could get back to 'doing good'. First he [actually his wife but two for the price of one and all that] put a technocratic nightmare of a health bill before the nation and refused to take half a loaf. Then he blew away the Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress. Then there were the endless scandals. Forget the vast rightwing conspiracy. It was the Clinton stonewalling and lying that kept a media that wanted to believe him chasing Matt Drudge's stories. Bill Clinton [with Dixie redistricting help from Pappa Bush and Newt] produced what neither Ike nor Reagan could, a GOP House majority that survived more than 2 years. However the current 50-50 is something unique in American history. We have always had highly partisan politics. That is nothing new. We have often had vitriolic partisan press. Go back to the Founding Fathers or the 19th century and you will see sex attacks that make all Monica all the time look tame. What is different is that for the first time since the Federalist v anti-Federalist debates these parties have an ideological core. Our old parties had ideologues but were essetially historic coalitions of regional and economic interests. Western silver was for the Democrats. Steel was for the Republicans. The Democrats were low tarrif. The GOP was protectionist from its formation. The core of the two current parties is three things that are VERY hard to compromise on:
Race - the GOP is a white party. The Democrats are a black and brown party that struggles to get enough white votes to form a majority
Ideology - the Republican left is centrist at best and quite weak outside New England. The old Rockefeller Republicans are mostly gone. In their place are the exurban Pataki types. The Democrats have the occassional true Dixie conservative but they are a dieing breed. Their moderates are shrinking quickly. Former governor Casey of Pennsylvania, an old fashion Truman labor Democrat, couldn't get speaking time at a Democratic natioal convention because he was pro-life. The two competing ideologies do not admit of compromise because everything is a matter of deep principal.
Religion - the GOP is the Christian believers party. The Democrats are the secular humanist party. We are refighting an Enlightenment version of the wars of religion which are normally take no prisoners kind of conflict.
So expect there to be more Texas type firework. We are not dealing with compromiseable issues or people interested in compromise. Both sides will use every technicality in the book and constantly stretch the limits of the system. What is missing is someone or something representing the apathetic suburbban middle. Call it the Jesse Ventura proto-party in waiting. Reform proved to be the crank hobby horse of a Texas billionaire. However, before he autodestructed in 1992 he was on the verge of 2nd place in the polls. A man with the charisma of a rock and big ears.
Also learn to read the 'news' for subtext. Gerrymandering is more than a means of shifting seats from one party to another. It is a means of disenfranchising the middle. The middle doesn't wake up to elections until the last few weeks. That is enough for statewide competitive offices - President [thanks to the electoral college], Governor, Senator. For the House and other district run legislatures allowing the creation of one party rotten boroughs mean that by the time the middle comes back from labor day vacation and begins to notice political ads they have to zap through on TV it is all over. The winning party has had its low turnout primary to pick an ideologue who will win in November. Most years between gerrymandering and incumbency under 80 of the 435 House districts are competitive using the broadest definition of the term. Actions have consequences.
Scott
posted by scott 9:16 AM