The Hill: Texas Democrats, minorities, near “huge win”" with redistricting settlement
From the story, dated 1/27, by Cameron Joseph:
The Texas state attorneys defending the state’s GOP-drawn redistricting plans from court challenges have reached out to settle litigation, according to sources in the state. The settlement would give minority groups and Democrats what they’ve been demanding from the start: more heavily minority, Democratic-leaning House seats.
The result would likely mean at least four more Texas Democrats in Congress as of next year, a good start on the 25 or so seats Democrats need to win to retake control of the House. “They’re backed up against the wall and have to come to some agreement and it’ll be awfully favorable on our end,” said one of the plaintiffs in the case.
Another plaintiff agreed. “It’s clear they know they’re in a vulnerable position and that’s why they want to settle,” he said.
Any settlement would need to get the multiple minority group plaintiffs on board, and would create more majority-Hispanic and majority-African American congressional districts. Two of the plaintiffs predicted that an agreement will be reached early next week.
Any agreement would lead to a minimum of 13 Democratic-leaning seats, and possibly a fourteenth seat depending on how the districts in Fort Worth are drawn.
With conservative former Rep. Nick Lampson (D-Texas) running for a Galveston-area seat, Democrats could win as many as 14 or 15 seats in the state, up from the nine seats they currently hold. Republicans would hold 21 or 22 seats, down from the 23 they currently have. Those 23 seats include two Democratic-leaning seats won by Republican Reps. Quico Canseco and Blake Farenthold in the 2010 Republican wave election. Farenthold would have a chance to run in the same Galveston district Lampson is likely to run in, while Canseco would have an uphill fight for reelection.
Texas Republicans in the legislature likely overreached by drawing a very Republican-friendly maps for the statehouse and Congress. Because of Texas’s history of racial discrimination it needs to get its redistricting maps cleared at the federal level under the Voting Rights Act, and it has been increasingly clear that those maps would not be cleared.
In exchange for a map that would give minorities and Democrats what they want, the agreement would allow Republicans to keep the state’s primary on April 3, saving the state money and making it more likely its presidential primary will be early enough to matter. Texas has already had to move its primary back once because of the ongoing court cases. They would also avoid having two federal courts label their plans intentionally discriminatory.
* * * *
Even though the state won its case in the Supreme Court–Attorney General Abbott persuaded the High Court to toss out the maps drawn by the federal district court for the Western District of Texas–the Supreme Court was between a rock and a hard place. It was either going to have to draw the maps itself, which would happen on a cold day in hell, or delegate the task back to the District Court, which it had previously chided by ruling:
“To the extent the [federal] District Court exceeded its mission to draw interim maps that do not violate the Constitution or the Voting Rights Act, and substituted its own concept of ‘the collective public good’ for the Texas Legislature’s determination of which policies serve ‘the interests of the citizens of Texas,’ the [district] court erred.”
Abbott may find himself on the hot seat again, as critics are sure to question (again) his decision to go forum shopping by making an end run around the Department of Justice: going straight to the Republican-dominated district court of the District of Columbia and moving for summary judgment to preclear the state’s congressional and legislative maps. But the D.C. Court found potential evidence of discriminatory intent, and suddenly Abbott’s litigation strategy didn’t look so clever. To be fair to Abbott, he didn’t have much choice; the House supermajority was dead set on maximizing seats for both the House and the Congressional maps. The impulse to overreach is common to large majorities, regardless of party. But the result is that the state’s legal team ran out of time, which would not have occurred had Abbott taken the traditional route of seeking preclearance from the Department of Justice.
And so, in a single stroke, the Republican Legislature has managed to resurrect the Democratic party from the ashes of the 2010 election and the 2003 Tom DeLay midcensus redistricting.
Blue says:
Seeking preclearance was pointless from Obama’s DOJ. I fail to see why you keep acting as if it was any kind of option. Look at the Voter ID situation–it is CLEARLY constitutional and yet the Obama DOJ won’t preclear.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
January 28th, 2012 at 12:39 pm
Going to DOJ would not have changed the result, but it would have changed the time frame. The state lost because the maps provided evidence of discriminatory intent. The timing issue was of concern to incumbents and to the political parties.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
January 28th, 2012 at 12:54 pm
Voter I.D. is constitutional, though it has not received a ringing endorsement from the Supreme Court. The Indiana law is very user-friendly. That of other states, notably Texas and Georgia, are not.
Reply »
anita Reply:
January 28th, 2012 at 5:46 pm
I believe the question of whether it is constitutional is different then whether it satisfies the Voting Rights Act. If Texas wants DOJ to act without delay, it should provide DOJ with the information requested that the Secretary of State implied she had while the issue was being debated in the Legislature. It’s becoming clear that she never had — nor now has — this information.
Reply »
trowaman Reply:
January 28th, 2012 at 1:00 pm
Actually it would have. If you have been paying attention the DOJ rejected the House and Congressional maps, but approved the Senate map. With the DC testimony on Thursday, the state’s witness called the Senate map retrogression in district 10, meaning it is now a prime candidate for the courts not to approve.
So, no, it would have been better going through DOJ.
Reply »
Clearthinker Reply:
January 29th, 2012 at 9:52 pm
DOJ has no authority to approve maps because the state chose to go to the D.C. court instead. And DOJ did not object nor endorse the Senate map because they lacked enough information.
Reply »
Tellinlikeitis Reply:
January 28th, 2012 at 10:06 pm
The Voter ID bill is CLEARLY unconstitutional and that’s why it won’t be precleared. The 2008 SCOTUS ruling for the Indiana Voter ID law is not a perfect reference since Indiana is not a Sect. 5 state.
Because of Texas’ historic discrimination against minorities, the state falls under Sect 5. The state must prove that the Voter ID law does not have a disparate effect on minorities.
The burden falls on the state. And the state cannot meet its burden of proof. The GOP super-majority over-reached. Yeah, low income folks and minorities without DPS drivers licenses can go to a DPS office for a Voter ID card…but there are dozens and dozens of counties in Texas without a DPS drivers license office. Voting is a right; not a privilege. You can’t make people earn or buy their way to the poll. And when you make it extraordinarily hard for folks to vote, you won’t get pre-cleared, if you are a Sect. 5 state.
The Texas law allows a concealed hand gun license or a U.S. Passport in lieu of a DPS driver’s license. But NOT a student ID card issued by a state institution….or, if you are an out-of-state student attending UT, for example, with a driver’s license from a neighboring state….you can’t vote.
This law is designed specifically to suppress vote – and that’s why it violates the Voting Rights Act.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
January 29th, 2012 at 10:46 am
TCU, SMU, Rice, St. Edwards, St. Mary’s, etc. are not state institutions.
Reply »
Johnbernardbooks says:
Atty Gen Abbott is doing the right thing by reaching to the “I’m gonna sue you crowd” to resolve this and hopefully save the taxpayers a huge amount. Dems again don’t seem to care how much this costs the taxpayer as long as they get their way.
Justice Orlando Garcia bro-n-law to dem Sen Van Putte admonished the plaintiffs that they couldn’t have everything they want.
Looks like once again republicans are doing everything they can to resolve the issue and dems are refusing to cooperate, just like the lege session.
Spin dems spin.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
January 28th, 2012 at 3:16 pm
JBB, you’re like the wifebeater who thinks he’s the victim.
Reply »
Johnbernardbooks Reply:
January 28th, 2012 at 3:40 pm
“Judge Orlando Garcia underscored that there will be an interim map and the plaintiffs will have to give ground on some issues.”
from The Quorum Report: http://www.quorumreport.com/
I’m not a victim but I am informed.
Reply »
Old Charlie says:
I am not sure there will be an agreement. If so, Abbott must really believe he will lose in D.C.
Reply »
Brown Bess says:
Yeah, just like 2003.
Reply »
Kenneth D. Franks Reply:
January 29th, 2012 at 9:30 am
The 2003 maps were clearly gerrymandered but did not disenfranchise a growth in minority populations which is the major reason we have four more congressional districts now. Last year’s gerrymander was one bridge too far.
Reply »
Jim Riley Reply:
January 30th, 2012 at 12:02 am
The reason there are 4 more congressional districts is because of the growth in Republican areas. 79% of all growth occurred in Republican house districts (+33,000 for Republican districts vs. +18,000 for Democratic districts). If Republicans held as much political power as the number of districts they currently represent, they would have 104.3 representatives and not just 101.
66% of Hispanic growth, 88% of Black growth, and 87% of Asian growth occurred in Republican districts.
Reply »
Texian Politico Reply:
January 30th, 2012 at 8:40 am
A bridge too far? Operation Market Garden of redistricting?
Reply »
GOP Realist says:
This is a FAIL for the GOP.
Reply »
Jeff Crosby says:
Abbott is looking more and more like Cornwallis.
Reply »
Admonkey Reply:
January 28th, 2012 at 3:55 pm
The comparison is unfair to Cornwallis.
Reply »
Robert Morrow Reply:
January 28th, 2012 at 6:27 pm
What is Cornwallis? A Redcoat loser?
Reply »
texxas cynic says:
“…resurrect the democratic party…”? Sorry, that’s like performing cpr on someone already on life support. They may be breathing and have a pulse, but they are still dead.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
January 29th, 2012 at 12:30 am
The Democratic party, as an organization, is not a factor in Texas politics. But if redistricting creates a dozen or more Democratic seats in the House, Democrats do become a factor. If their current number of seats (50) increases to 60+, they will be able to form coalitions with moderate Republicans on some issues, particularly those involving education, as Democrats did with the ABCs during the Craddick speakership. If the number of seats gained is in the mid-teens, as The Hill’s article suggests could be the case, the R’s margin could be shaved to 85-65.
I’m not comfortable with the idea that a panel of judges should be able to reverse the course of Texas politics. It’s far from the ideal way to achieve fair representation. But the House Republicans brought this on themselves by deciding to go to war in support of a map that did not address Latino populations gains. This left Abbott in a difficult position that he could not defend. The numbers speak for themselves.
Reply »
Jim Riley Reply:
January 30th, 2012 at 12:44 am
What you fail to recognize is where the increase in Hispanic population occurred.
The least populous House district is 103 in Dallas County, represented by Rafael Anchia. It lost Hispanic, Anglo, Black, and Asian population. A non-race-based solution would have merged it with 104 in Dallas.
The most populous House district is 70 in Collin County, represented by Ken Paxton. It has 300,000 persons, and gained over 20,000 of each of Asians, Blacks, Hispanics, and Anglos. Divide it in two and it will elect someone as conservative as Paxton.
In Travis County, Hispanics represent 1/3 of the population. But where are you going to draw their second house district? HD-46 is majority Hispanic, but are you willing to carve up the remaining Black population to dislodge Dawna Dukes?
In Bexar County, aren’t you a little bit embarrassed about HD-118 and HD-119? Spooning is nice, but is it something that legislative districts should be engaged in?
If you were drawing a district that combined portions of Cameron and Hidalgo counties, would you put together Harlingen and La Joya, so that you either have to drive through 4 other districts, or drive clear around the northern end of Hidalgo County searching for roads?
Do you think there are too many Anglos in Nueces County, such that a simple constitutional provision that a county with the population for two representatives should be overridden.
Reply »
Willie James Reply:
January 30th, 2012 at 9:03 am
While it is not the ideal way to go about it, all of this was caused by the GOP continuing its long time practice of trying to gain political power unethically. Hopefully the minorities will get the representation they deserve and they can vote in some decent folks.
Reply »
Pat says:
The national Republican Party must be scared out of its collective mind that SCOTUS is going to set a precedent saying that new minority demographic growth must be allocated to new minority congressional districts. Republicans could lose as many as 30 US House seats by virtue of a such a law. Its a telling sign that Abbott is attempting to settle the case. He’s trying to live to fight another day.
Reply »
Texhisself Reply:
January 30th, 2012 at 4:40 pm
SCOTUS is another legislative arm of the GOP and won;t do a thing without permission.
Reply »
vietvet3 says:
“Dems again don’t seem to care how much this costs the taxpayer…” Dern right! If this case goes as predicted, we will all be a little close to “One Man, One Vote. That’s a good thing for ALL Texans!! It’s way past time for a neutral panel to set these boundaries.
Reply »
José Reply:
January 28th, 2012 at 8:04 pm
Agreed. It is amazing how some folks will sacrifice the lives of thousands of our young people in the name of freedom, and then complain about having to spend a few dollars or suffer minor inconvenience to protect our Constitutional principles.
Reply »
Johnbernardbooks says:
We won our freedom with blood and we’re not going to let dems take it away from us by legislating from the bench.
Reply »
ghostofann Reply:
January 29th, 2012 at 12:22 am
Oh, blah, blah, blah, JBB.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
January 29th, 2012 at 12:38 am
The judges who are “legislating from the bench” by and large are Republicans. That was true of the Court in the Western District of Texas, and it is true of the district court in Washington, D.C. If the Democrats and the courts are taking anything away from Republicans, it is the right to ignore the effects of Latino population growth.
Reply »
Johnbernardbooks Reply:
January 29th, 2012 at 5:02 am
Justice Orlando Garcia ia republican? He had me fooled?
Reply »
Tellinlikeitis Reply:
January 29th, 2012 at 12:06 pm
JBB…if you were not so dirt-dumb, you would know that two of the three federal judges sitting on the San Antonio judicial panel are GOP appointees; and that two of the three judges on the Washington D.C. panel are GOP appointees.
What gets tiring here is that we can explain this stuff and over….but, we will never be able to help you understand it.
Johnbernardbooks Reply:
January 29th, 2012 at 12:53 pm
There were a lot of black republicans who voted for Obama because he was black.
There some hispanic “republicans” who forget they are republicans when they can give mexicans a handout.. ie Justice Rodriguez.
The only republican to disagree with the illegal order was Justice Smith.
Facts do whatever you wish with them.
paulburka Reply:
January 29th, 2012 at 8:28 pm
Orlando Garcia is not a Republican. Xavier Rodriguez was a Republican. Jerry Smith was a Republican. All three judges on the D.C. Court are Republicans.
W. B. Travis Reply:
January 30th, 2012 at 9:05 am
SCOTUS is the most activist and legislating court in decades. The wand waved by the GOP.
Johnbernardbooks Reply:
January 30th, 2012 at 9:12 am
All 9 SCOTUS Justices voted to stay the SA Court redistricting order, what a bunch of activists.
Russ Pate Reply:
January 29th, 2012 at 8:46 pm
If the DC Circuit Court rules that the State House, Senate, and congressional maps do not meet section 5 standards, it will put the final knife in the heart of Gregg Abbott’s litigation strategy. And time being the essence, it will be up to the litigant parties and the San Antonio Court to decide what the maps will be. A lot of time and money would have been saved if these maps met Section 5 standards in the first place.
Reply »
Jim Riley Reply:
January 30th, 2012 at 12:51 am
Alternatively, it will provide so much evidence that Section 5 will get overturned as not being appropriate for enforcement of the 14th and 15th amendments.
Johnbernardbooks Reply:
January 30th, 2012 at 5:57 am
“The judges who are “legislating from the bench” by and large are Republicans”
by and large the most absurd comment ever posted here.
Reply »
Col. Mike Kirby Reply:
January 29th, 2012 at 11:56 pm
and all from the safety of mommy’s basement. hooray for little jbb.
Reply »
Johnbernardbooks Reply:
January 30th, 2012 at 5:27 am
I must live in your head not mommy’s basement. Oh wait you live in mommy’s basement and I live in your head, now its all clear.
Reply »
Col. Mike Kirby Reply:
January 30th, 2012 at 8:53 am
only clear to someone as dense as you.
Phillip says:
PAUL BURKA,
You are wrong in asserting that the attorney general went forum shopping by making an end run around the Department of Justice.
There is nothing in federal law that gives the Justice Department the first shot at deciding whether a redistricting plan complies with the Voting Rights act.
The Justice Department’s own website says a redistricting plan can be approved in one of two ways, with neither way given priority. Here’s the information as taken directly from the Justice Department’s website:
“This [redistricting plan approval] can be done in one of two ways. The jurisdiction can file an action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. As an alternative, the change can be submitted to the [U.S.] Attorney General.”
Even had the state’s redistricting plan been submitted to the Justice Department instead and then been disapproved, it would have been appealed in federal court. So going directly to the court, rather than to the Justice Department, eliminates making this a two-step process.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
January 30th, 2012 at 11:12 am
Shame on you Phillip! How dare you shine light into Burka’s little dark world where Republicans have little to no rights and should not exist!
Reply »
Robert Morrow says:
I do not think judges should be legislating from the bench.
If states want to gerrymander it is THE STATES’ perogative to do so.
You can only gerrymander so much. Eventually a wave election will come and wipe out your party’s edge.
For example when a party gerrymanders to create MORE seats for their party, what they end up doing is making more of them competitive because there are only so many “Republican” or “Democratic” votes to go around.
It is the job of the LEGISLATURE to draw the lines – not anyone else – not judges and not district drawing panels that usurp the right of the legislature.
If you want your LEGISLATURE to quit gerrymandering then contact your representatives and demand that they act more fairly.
Judges are not “fair.” They are usurping dictators.
District drawing panels are not “fair.” They are intensely political in a back door, behind smoke filled room way.
You keep wanting some one to wipe your ass for you.
Wipe it yourself – Texas voters and Texas legislature.
Sincerely,
Robert Morrow
Reply »
Robert Morrow says:
Intrade: Romney 94% chance of winning Florida primary. Gingrich 5%. Intrade is not always right but is usually right. Intrade reacts much quicker than the polls do.
Gingrich is going to get blown away in Florida:
http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/contract/?contractId=751748
It is not going to be close.
Reply »
Texian Politico Reply:
January 30th, 2012 at 8:43 am
Nate Silver is now saying that Romney has a 97% chance of winning FL.
Reply »
Robert Morrow says:
Ron Paul finished second in the New Hampshire Democratic primary this year. Yes, I said “Democratic.”
Now, someone like Texian Politico, who does not really dig very deep on the issues, facts or history would say “I’ve never heard of that. You are wrong. You are crazy. This is “absurd.” Ron Paul was in the Republican primary. Blah blah blah.
Did it ever occur to some of you folks, esp you Texian Politico – that there are a LOT on interesting things you don’t know? Esp if you get most of your information from the crawl feed on CNN?
I really have NO respect for Texian Politico … and ilk like him.
People are so arrogant. They think “If I have never heard of it, then it can’t be true.” Arrogance meets stupidity. There are a lot of things you never heard of, don’t know, that are absolutely true. The problem is not the facts … it’s your *ignorance.*
2012 New Hampshire DEMOCRATIC presidential primary results:
Barack Obama 49,080
Ron Paul 2,289
Mitt Romney 1,814
Jon Huntsman 1,238
http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-washington-dc/the-other-new-hampshire-primary-results-barely-whispered-about
Reply »
Texian Politico Reply:
January 30th, 2012 at 8:45 am
Ha! I did know that Mr. Morrow. Perhaps we should play a game of political Jeopardy? I’m pretty confident in my political and historical knowledge. I just simply don’t agree with you on your conspiracy theories. You and I agree on libertarianism when it comes to ending the drug war, laws against prostitution, the free market. You lose me on the conspiracy stuff.
Reply »
Robert Morrow Reply:
January 30th, 2012 at 1:26 pm
Anyone who has not figured out that that JFK assassination was a full blown coup d’etat has a very *thin* understanding of modern American politics. At it’s essence it was Texas oil men Clint Murchison, H.L. Hunt, & Lyndon Johnson using their CIA/military connections to murder JFK for a whole variety of reasons. With LBJ, Hoover & Dulles in charge of the cover up. Then the baton was handed to CIA Operation Mockingbird assets in the controlled media (NYT, WashPost, CBS, TIME, etc).
Anyone who has not figured out that, or something close to it, really has a wafer thin *knowledge* of not just American, but Texas politics.
The JFK assassination is the mother of all coverups, but there are a lot of smaller dirty little secrets that MSM is forbidden to acknowledge: CIA/govt drug smuggling and elite pedophilia come to mind.
Notice this has *nothing* to do with 9/11, aliens at Roswell or whether we actually put a man on the moon.
So it’s really a matter of learning and understanding actual facts *rather* than anyone’s libertarian advocacy. I have a fascination with the truth, especially the hidden, suppressed truth. 99% of the time it is an ugly truth that is being suppressed for good reason.
A hilarious, but true, concept is that Alex Jones is every bit as reliable as the NYT and the whole of MSM, despite the fact that Jones blows it completely on his 9/11 fantasies. Not meaning to insult Alex Jones by comparing him to the NYT or MSM. The NYT and the rest of the MSM have blown it even worse than Alex Jones on the 1963 Coup d’Etat – something even today they are forbidden to address with credibility.
I remember when the National Enquirer was outing John Edwards. I figured out immediately (perhaps lucky) that the Enquirer was 100% right and had the goods on him. What followed was complete silence by the MSM for 6 months as the supermarket tabloid National Enquirer was running laps around the “establishment” media on a pretty big story.
I go where the facts take me, wherever that is, and from whatever source they come from. A politician, a government employee or a national media publication has no more credility in my eyes than a drug addicted street hooker. In fact, you can trust a drug addicted street hooker 75% of over the word/account/version/story of US president… or the MSM.
Reply »
Johnbernardbooks says:
At least Murrow is taking the thread off topic, again.
Reply »
Robert Morrow Reply:
January 29th, 2012 at 3:24 pm
I usually wait until it has worn itself out … “redistricting” is only so fascinating.
And it looks like the Republicans – your team – are going to lose big time on this one.
Reply »
Mr. Smith says:
Paul,
What sixteen seats are you talking about in the state house(49+16)? Lets take the straight up ones: Margo, Pena, Garza, Legler, Corpus Christi seat. Thats five. Then add a Fort Hood seat, a Tarrant County seat, and maybe a Dallas seat (depending on how 107 is drawn). I’ll even throw in Aliseda’s seat, even though thats BS, but just because the Dems are so sure they’ll take it back, I won’t argue the point for a moment. Thats 9. If everything, and I mean everything, breaks the Dems way. No one will run against Branch in 108, or Bohac, or Workman on the Dem side, and the Dems will have to hold Gallego and Eiland’s seats, which are very purple. I think you lose Gallego’s seat without him in it, but hold Eiland’s depending on how it is drawn. So that is eight. Yeah 57 seats! Still seriously not relevant, but the Dems can injure their rotator cuffs patting themselves on the back.
Reply »
Johnbernardbooks Reply:
January 29th, 2012 at 6:25 pm
Exactly the case hasn’t even been decided and dems are already claiming a win.
Dems are like the drunk who’s getting the crap beat out of him and he thinks he’ll make you hurt your fist by hitting his face against it.
No wonder it was 101 to 49 last session.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
January 29th, 2012 at 8:42 pm
I’m not talking about specific seats. This is going to have to be hammered out between the plaintiffs and the state defendants, if there is going to be a settlement.
Reply »
Johnbernardbooks Reply:
January 30th, 2012 at 5:30 am
or SA Court can do as SCOTUS remanded and use the lege maps.
I know dems want to overlook the fact they lost the stay.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
January 30th, 2012 at 11:16 am
Oh JBB…how can you forget you’re not allowed to acknowledge unanimous SCOTUS opinions putting the smack down on sis-in-law.
Jim Riley Reply:
January 30th, 2012 at 1:06 am
Nick Lampson has moved back to Beaumont, and filed in District 14, which is about the same under the legislature and court plan. It is absurd to think that a compromise plan will draw a map from Beaumont to Corpus Christi.
Reply »
Texian Politico Reply:
January 30th, 2012 at 8:47 am
Good breakdown by Mr. Smith on the districts.
Reply »
Russ Pate says:
I agree with Burka.
Reply »
Mr. Smith says:
Paul,
I thought so. I don’t think 16 is realistic absent the Dems drawing the maps. Even with the court drawn maps, which are now gone, the dems could only at best realistically hope to pick up nine, maybe. And I think this new court drawn map will fall short. You’ll have the five I spoke of first, and then the Tarrant County 93, but after that, its really iffy. Even though the dems hold the cards at the moment, they have to give a little to the repubs to get an agreement. If they ask for the moon they will shove the Repubs into a corner, and you’ll have a later primary. With a 25 seat margin in the US congress, Texas Repubs can’t give the Ds six seats, or 1/4th of what they need. They want to have a say in the presidential primary, but not that bad, sort of career ending bad. What I’m saying is that no map, absent a Dem drawn map, gives Dems more than 8 pick ups in the state house.
Reply »
Texian Politico Reply:
January 30th, 2012 at 8:48 am
Mr. Smith’s analysis here is spot on.
Reply »
Blue Dogs Reply:
January 30th, 2012 at 9:44 am
Texian, Republicans are poised to keep the House in GOP hands and win back control of the United States Senate in November by picking up the following US Senate seats:
1. North Dakota (Open)
2. Virginia (Open)
3. Montana
4. Nebraska (OPEN)
5. Missouri
6. Florida
Reply »
Art Reply:
January 30th, 2012 at 10:01 am
Not sure about this….the current GOP frontrunners are turning off core evangelicals and independents in droves. The neocons wont vote and the independents will go to the Democrats.
Texian Politico Reply:
January 30th, 2012 at 10:08 am
The Republicans have a strong candidate in OH, too against Sherrod Brown.
Anonymous says:
Mr. Smith,
You still have a second round of filing to go if candidates with name id run. There could be some suprises. I haven’t surveyed the whole state and it’s pure speculation but HD113 and HD105 in Dallas County are margnially GOP. The GOP did a good job of moving the new housing developments geared towards minorities in Mesquite to HD110, but they are only buying time in the suburbs along LBJ freeway. The GOP should welcome something like 107. It’s a vote sink that keeps 102, 114, and 112 safe for a decade.
If something like the previous interim map holds I could see a 9-11 seat gain if everything breaks their way. That gets the Dems in the door where they at least be relevant again. If something like Judge Smith’s house map prevails the Dems will have more of a 5-7 seat gain. Not enough to be relevant. Branch is gone in 2014. He’ll run for AG or another statewide post and Allen Vaught could win that lean GOP seat in a good year.
Reply »
jpt51 says:
Republicans may tout respect for the U.S. Constitution but since Dick Nixon their behavior says differently. More importantly to them is the idea, the end justifies the means. They will do anything to get their way. Watergate was one example. A more recent one was Tom DeLay orchestrating a group of thugs to rush the recount room in Florida during the 2000 election. Even in the current election cycle Republicans have used PACs to distort or flat lie about their opponents. Nothing is sacred except winning at all costs. Republicans have made a mockery of our democracy.
Reply »
Texhisself Reply:
January 30th, 2012 at 4:44 pm
Somewhat true, I’m ashamed to admit. Ever since Reagan reinvented economics and invited the wingnut evangleists to the party we’ve gone downhill.
Reply »
Johnbernardbooks Reply:
January 30th, 2012 at 5:20 pm
don’t be afraid to admit you’re stupid, it isn’t hard to figure out.
Reply »
Col. Mike Kirby Reply:
January 30th, 2012 at 5:36 pm
Luke 6:41
paulburka Reply:
January 30th, 2012 at 7:21 pm
I don’t see much difference between Republicans and Democrats when it comes to overreaching. Running what amounted to a criminal enterprise out of the White House under the aegis of the attorney general of the United States was a crime against the Constitution, and Nixon surely would have been impeached had he not resigned. I thought Democrats were wrong to refuse to recognize Bush’s legitimacy after the Supreme Court ruling in his favor. Most politicians will not let little things like rules stand in their way if they can get what they want. Bullock was as bad about this as anyone.
Reply »
José Reply:
January 30th, 2012 at 8:05 pm
“Democrats were wrong to refuse to recognize Bush’s legitimacy after the Supreme Court ruling in his favor”
Huh? I don’t remember a rash of frivolous lawsuits like the birther business. GWB was sworn in on time and the Dems settled down and did business with him. Congressional Dems even let pass his whopping tax cut measure. (He takes credit for the tax cut and the Dems get blamed for the ensuing debt…go figure.)
Obama had a much bigger endorsement by the American citizens and then got nothing but knee jerk obstruction from Congressional Republicans. There’s no comparison.
Reply »
Col. Mike Kirby Reply:
January 31st, 2012 at 11:41 am
exactly. this is why newspapers are going out of business. they always fall back on the lazy he said, she said, both sides do it narrative. I think the Perry presidential run exposed exactly how poor the texas media is.
Mr. Smith says:
Anonymous at 9:58 am. What candidates with name ID are you talking about? And Allen Vaught sitting out 2012 runs into the problem of having Angela Hunt run for that state house seat (108) in 2014. Jerry Smith’s 107 is only a 51% Obama seat, and without Carol Kent in it, and five days to recruit a candidate, who is out there?
Reply »
Blue Dogs Reply:
January 30th, 2012 at 1:34 pm
Mr. Smith, the website Election Projection is predicting Obama wins BARELY over Romney in the following projections:
Electoral Votes: Obama-272, Romney-266
*Romney holds onto the McCain states from 2008 and picks-up Ohio, Indiana, Florida, North Carolina and Virginia.
I’m watching Nevada and Colorado to see if Romney can force Obama to spend resources in those states.
Reply »
Mr. Smith Reply:
January 30th, 2012 at 3:30 pm
Thanks for sharing, Blue Dog. Does that change what I’m saying somehow?
Reply »
Robert Morrow Reply:
January 30th, 2012 at 7:11 pm
This right here is an EXCELLENT web site that NAILED the 2008 election electoral map:
http://www.electoral-vote.com/
Probably the best on the internet.
Reply »
Robert Morrow Reply:
January 30th, 2012 at 7:18 pm
Obama winning FLA, OH, NC ,VA, NM, CO, IA …. that is a LOT of swing states, far more than he needs.
Of course, we are in January. Obama will probably win both FLA and OH and all he needs is one of them.
Anonymous Reply:
January 31st, 2012 at 11:26 am
I don’t know if Angela Hunt has sights on the state house. I think she is more interested in running for Mayor of Dallas. Robert Miklos is out there, and depending on how 107 or 113 look could run and could raise money quickly. Having said that he’s been contributing to other candidates which tells me he’s not going to run for anything.
Reply »
Johnbernardbooks says:
“MALC (and particularly chair Rep. Trez Martinez Fischer, D-San Antonio) and MALDEF are clearly most interested in creating the largest number possible of Hispanic opportunity districts. However, that could clash severely with both the interests of the other plaintiffs (many of whom are looking for more Democratic opportunity seats) and the historic coalition between African-American and Hispanic groups. Throughout this process, LULAC and the NAACP have been very much on the same page, and have not always been in complete agreement with MALC and MALDEF.”
Who couldn’t see this one coming? The infighting is between democrats, as usual.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
January 30th, 2012 at 7:26 pm
JBB is way off base here. There has been no serious Democratic infighting (other than personalities) since Ann Richards was elected governor. The Democratic party has caucuses, but no true factions. There is no ideological split in the state Democratic party, although some D’s are more conservative than others. Republicans, on the other hand, are always waging jihad against their own. Take Ted Cruz. He has come right out and said that there is an ideological war going on among Republicans in the Senate. The last big split in the Democratic party was between Richards and Mattox.
Reply »
Johnbernardbooks Reply:
January 31st, 2012 at 6:37 am
From the RPT:
“This confusion was heightened by a wholly inaccurate story in “The Hill” (a DC publication), which was then reinterpreted and disseminated through email chains this weekend”
The group holding up the settlement is LULAC.
The infighting is between the groups suing and that “MALC (and particularly chair Rep. Trez Martinez Fischer, D-San Antonio) and MALDEF are clearly most interested in creating the largest number possible of Hispanic opportunity districts. However, that could clash severely with both the interests of the other plaintiffs (many of whom are looking for more Democratic opportunity seats) and the historic coalition between African-American and Hispanic groups.”
From the Austin Chronicle http://www.austinchronicle.com/blogs/news/2012-01-30/behind-closed-doors/
Dems are infighting holding up the talks.
Reply »
Johnbernardbooks says:
this one for Morrow
“Ron Paul Wins Snoop Dogg Endorsement
“Because I said so,” writes Snoop on his Facebook page. Paul’s drug legalization stances reaching ever more young voters.”
Reply »
Robert Morrow Reply:
January 30th, 2012 at 7:09 pm
Question: when are we going to QUIT throwing Willie Nelson (and millions of others) in jail for smoking a joint? We ended the “liquor war” in 1933.
It is always funny to see all these Republicans pay homage to “freedom” … and then say they want to execute drug smugglers (Newt Gingrich) or throw millions in jail for using drugs, marijuana in particular.
I am age 47, not exactly young, I don’t smoke dope… and I think it is INSANE to throw people in jail for marijuana use. It is just one big reason why I have come to hate the Republican party so much.
By the way, Snoop Dogg has 14,000,000 Facebook “friends” and Mitt Romney will be begging to have just a few of them as voters in fall 2012.
It is not going to happen. Ridicule liberty activists and pot smokers now, we will be laughing at you in the general election.
Reply »
longleaf says:
There are certain powerful interests (including one of the alphabet agencies you always connect to the JFK “hit”) who will never allow ANY decriminalization. It’s one of the main ways they raise funds.
The only legal mind-altering substances, in our system, are supposed to come to you through the pharmaceutical industry. If “they” could, “they” would outlaw Mother Nature entirely and charge you for the air you breathe. We’re already well on the way to privatized water.
Reply »
Blue Dogs says:
Morrow, I can’t see Obama holding onto both Ohio and Florida due to anti-Obama sentiment in those states and you know Romney is going to force the President to spend resources in these states.
Assuming Romney wins Indiana, North Carolina, Ohio, Florida, Virginia and holding onto the McCain states from 2008, all he needs is win either Nevada or New Hampshire and he’s the 45th POTUS.
Reply »
Robert Morrow Reply:
February 1st, 2012 at 10:50 am
Assuming Romney will win Ohio is a MIGHTY big assumption. It is possible; it will be “close” but it ain’t likely.
Romney = McCain = Dole = cold oatmeal = loser = white Obama. Romney winning Virginia is also questionable, as is Florida.
Reply »
Johnbernardbooks says:
Laying back basking in the glow of the 9-0 SCOTUS decision on redistricting.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Which they sent it back to the SA courts JBB. And it looks like the state overplayed its hand with the DC court as well.
Reply »
Robert Morrow says:
This for Texian Politico, who does not believe in “conspiracies” no matter how well documented they are. For many, a comfortable lie is more desirable than an ugly truth.
In the 1980′s Congress would not fund the Nicaraguan contras. So, the Reagan Administration said “screw it,” WE will fund them ourselves, in an off the books foreign policy funded by cocaine and heroin drug trafficking. Cocaine from Latin America. Heroin from the Golden Triangle.
The Bushes, GHW Bush, Jeb Bush (probably GWB, too), Bill Clinton (CIA since he was recruited at Oxford 1968 by Cord Meyer the London CIA station chief) were in up to their ears in a gargantuan criminal enterprise of drug smuggling.
Hundreds of millions of product moved per year. VP GHW Bush hilariously was put in charge of the South Florida Drug Task Force. That way, all the CIA drug smugglers worked for him on one side and all the government’s law enforcement arm worked for him on the other side.
They would arrest the competition, but let the Bush CIA drug smugglers run rampant.
Oliver North was running the whole thing along with CIA William Barr who later became Attorney General.
In 1994 Terry Reed, who was involved in this operation and who knew CIA pilot and drug smuggler Barry Seal wrote a book: “Bush, Clinton and the CIA.” Richard Behar of TIME wrote a hit piece on Terry Reed in 1992.
That is your Operation Mockingbird in action.
“Compromised” sold over 200,000 copies – all by word of mouth, no major publisher, no favorable reviews in CIA controlled MSM.
http://www.amazon.com/Compromised-Clinton-Bush-Terry-Reed/dp/1883955025
Here are some other fine boutique books that confirm this “conspiracy” which is not reported in the MSM because it is so discredited to the entire class of political elites of both major parties, the Bushes & the Clintons.
1) Powerburns: Cocaine, Contras & the Drug War by former DEA agent Celerino Castillo, III
2) Dark Alliance by Gary Webb
3) Barry and the Boys: the CIA, the Mob and America’s Secret History by Daniel Hopsicker
4) Whiteout by Alexander Cockburn
5) Cocaine Politics: Drugs, Armies and the CIA in Central America by Peter Dale Scott and
Jonathon Marshall
6) Lost History by Robert Parry
7) The Conspirators: Secrets of an Iran-Contra Insider by Al Martin
8) The Big White Lie: The Deep Cover Operation That Exposed the CIA Sabotage of the Drug War: An Undercover Odyssey by Michael Levine and Laura Kavanau-Levine
9) The Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia by Alfred W. McCoy (from the 1970’s era)
10) Out of Control: The Story of the Reagan Administration’s Secret War in Nicaragua, the Illegal Arms Pipeline, and the Contra Drug Connection by Leslie Cockburn
11) Blue Thunder: How the Mafia Owned and Finally Murdered Cigarette Boat King Donald Aronov by Thomas Burdick and Charlene Mitchell
12) The Mafia, CIA, & George Bush by Pete Brewton
13) Called to Serve by James “Bo” Gritz
Reply »
Robert Morrow says:
Read the book reviews at Amazon on “Compromised: Bush, Clinton and the CIA” – you will learn a lot. Or start googling the key players …
Reply »