R’s steamroll D’s in House redistricting
The last three seats at issue on the House map were Margo (El Paso), Legler (Harris), and Garza (Bexar). In the interim maps, Margo is pretty safe, Legler has a chance to survive, and Garza will have to fight to survive. Pena is a goner.
The Democrats got very little for their efforts on the House map. Some of their gains: The Vo/Hochberg pairing was reversed; Hochberg’s minority district was restored. If anything, the San Antonio court bent over backwards after having been chastised by the Supreme Court and did little to help Democrats. The court changed seven districts in South Texas. Lozano got Jim Wells and Kleberg counties, but he also got San Patricio, which is a Republican-leaning county. That could spell trouble for him.
The bottom line is that the interim House map largely resembles the version passed by the Legislature. This was a foregone conclusion when the Supreme Court told the San Antonio Court it had overreached. The Democrats performed poorly in the negotiations. It was a case of too many cooks spoiling the broth. There were multiple groups of plaintiffs and each of them had their own sets of concerns. Abbott won the day when he cut a deal with national LULAC and MALDEF early in the negotiations. He split the Democrats and they never recovered. An attorney for the Democrats told me that they might end up with 7 to 8 seats over the original House plan. If so, the split in the House next year would look something like 93/94 R to 56/57 D, and many of the Republican seats are solid.
In 2006, on the day after Democrats gained five House seats in the November elections, I was on a panel to talk about the election before the Greater Houston Partnership. One of my fellow panelists, a Republican consultant, made this observation: “The battle for rural Texas is over and the Republicans have won. The battle for urban and suburban Texas has just begun, and the Republicans are no better positioned to win it than the Democrats are.” The 2010 elections changed the game somewhat, but in the long run, the observation will be proven correct. The battles will be over the urban fringes in Harris and Dallas counties, where the old suburban neighborhoods are being replaced by apartments. The Republicans had to stretch their districts pretty thin in order to have winnable majorities. These are destined to be minority neighborhoods, and the deeper into the decade we get, the more Democratic these neighborhoods will be. Legler may win this year, but he is probably not destined for a long career in the House. Nor is Margo. There just aren’t enough Republicans to make these districts safe. This applies equally to north Dallas. But the same dynamic that rendered them powerless to change the House map applies to the Democrats’ efforts to rebuild their party. They’re divided and rent by jealousies. For all their efforts in redistricting, they accomplished virtually nothing on the House map.
Redistricting Insider says:
The maps reflect what the law requires. Since it is an “interim” map as opposed to a “remedial” map, the D.C. Court’s ruling may result in additional changes later, but the partisan makeup will be the same. Do not be surprised if the D.C. panel finds that District 41 – the “Running Man” district in Hidalgo County – complies with Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
Redistricting is a legislative function and as the Supremes noted in Perez v. Perry, courts are not policymakers.
No more spin. The numbers speak for themselves.
Reply »
Rudy says:
In HD 144, is incumbent Rep. Legler’s opponent going to use pictures of Rep. Legler dressed as KFC mascot Col. Sanders?
I remember Legler as the rep who was dressing up as Col. Sanders.
That always made me feel proud and safe, knowing that the state’s future was in the wise hands of a Pasadena guy dressed as a fried chicken mascot.
Reply »
Crazy Uncle Reply:
March 1st, 2012 at 5:22 am
It’s better than be dressed as Mrs. Col. Sanders
Reply »
Bodhisattva Reply:
March 1st, 2012 at 8:05 am
… and we’ve had those in Texas politics before. http://www.chron.com/news/politics/article/Candidate-revealed-as-cross-dresser-loses-runoff-1656513.php
Reply »
Mr. Smith says:
Thank you for that write up, Paul. I agree with what you wrote. I predict the Democrats will pick up five seats this year. At 54 seats, the Democrats will be powerless to stop whatever the Rs want, which will be a lot. Last session had many of the Tea Party hard rights trying to find where the bathrooms were. This next session, they will feel their oats, and will push a hard right agenda that will make Cathie Adams blush. What will also push the hard rs is a strange sense that twilight is upon them, that they better get things in place now, or they never will. Vouchers. E-verify. Sanctuary cities. Depending on who wins the WH, the Dems will pick up either two or six seats.
Reply »
DemSIgn Reply:
March 1st, 2012 at 9:04 am
The GOP is going to lose lot more seats in November than they ought to under this map because the top of their ticket is so lackluster that they simply won’t be turning out to push the button for Romtorum.
Reply »
Blue Dogs Reply:
March 1st, 2012 at 10:19 am
Mr. Smith, which means Perry will ram stuff through in what likely will be his LAST legislative session next spring because he’s already a lame duck and is not running again.
Reply »
Mr. Smith Reply:
March 1st, 2012 at 4:39 pm
Agreed. I think Perry either takes a cabinet post, or continues to have delusions that he can run again for President (other than like Paul Paulsen). That means he supports a hard hard right push this next session to fix his immigration problem nationally.
Reply »
WUSRPH Reply:
March 1st, 2012 at 8:08 pm
Harold Stassen Perry!
Anonymous says:
This prediction brought to you by the man who said they should call off the Republican primaries because Perry would steam roll to the general election. Also the man who incorrectly prognosticated dozens of Texas House races in 2006 and 2008.
Paul, you know a lot about politics, but I think you know less and less about campaigns.
Reply »
Just another Joe Reply:
February 29th, 2012 at 11:29 pm
and less about politics…and public policy…and the concept of research….and which chairs in the Senate chamber are good for falling asleep in.
Reply »
trowaman Reply:
March 1st, 2012 at 12:14 am
Second!
Reply »
Distinguished Gentleman says:
But the question remains as to whether R’s will have the 100-member(or more) super-majority in the 83rd Legislature which is needed for such things as State constitutional amendments.
Reply »
Bodhisattva Reply:
March 1st, 2012 at 8:07 am
I don’t think that question “remains” at all. No one except yourself, my distinguished Distinguished Gentleman colleague, thinks the GOP will hold on to its House supermajority.
Reply »
Distinguished Gentleman Reply:
March 1st, 2012 at 12:18 pm
Bodhisattva, I never said that I think “…the GOP will hold on to its House supermajority.” That is the whole reason that I posed the question–to get the opinions of others–because I ddidn’t know the answer to that question.
Reply »
Fiftycal Reply:
March 1st, 2012 at 5:02 pm
I think the rules committee needs to pass a requirement that all minority party members be required to wear tracking bracelets so we can find a few before they all flee the state. That is IF the dims get more than 50 seats.
Reply »
DemSIgn Reply:
March 1st, 2012 at 9:06 am
No chance of the GOP holding on to that supermajority. Romtorum on top of the ticket will encourage GOoPers to stay home in depressing (for them) numbers.
Reply »
Blue Reply:
March 1st, 2012 at 12:13 pm
Kinda weird that when Romney is at least even odds to beat Obama in the general election.
Reply »
Whupped Reply:
March 1st, 2012 at 3:18 pm
Better look at a real poll. Obama is 7-8 pointsw ahead.
Fiftycal Reply:
March 1st, 2012 at 5:12 pm
El wrongo dim worshippers. The R’s could run a ham sandwich or a cardboard cutout of Ronnie Raygun and take 47 states. Obama is going to be the first incumbent President to FORGET that he has a “record”. The Occupy/FAIL movement will get thrown under the bus, there is something like a 40% unemployment rate for “young” people, so forget the ute vote. NON-Energy Chu’s statement of “I’m not trying to lower gas prices” statement may sound good in the DC beltway, but expect to hear it about every 30 seconds from 9/1/12 until election day. Along with the vid of Obama saying “your energy prices will necessarily skyrocket”, which is the ONLY one of his promises he kept. Right now, RON PAUL could beat Obama.
Reply »
jpt51 says:
What did Republicans give MALDEF to cave to Abbott? More likely, what dirt did Abbott have on MALDEF? Why aren’t Hispanic organizations waking the sleeping giant?
Reply »
Crazy Uncle Reply:
March 1st, 2012 at 5:48 am
Hispanic organization kill giants as soon as they awaken. From the Straits of Magellan to the Rio Grande their has not been a political giant in the last 100 years. Unless you consider Fidel Castro a political giant.
Reply »
North Texas Reply:
March 1st, 2012 at 2:16 pm
And it took the Russians to make him a success.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
March 1st, 2012 at 11:33 am
A Democratic operative claimed to me that MALDEF got some contributions from R’s, for what it’s worth. Anything is possible in politics.
Reply »
Pat says:
Im still shocked that an effort wasn’t made to put together a minority-majority senate district for Wendy Davis. The legal precedent was there.
Reply »
Cereal Hippocrates says:
Yes, yes. Democrats lose again. I remember this post from the last 14 times you wrote it. MALDEF is not a Democratic organization, neither is NAACP, nor is MALC. The democrats were dismissed out long ago. If you do the map, the minorities in Texas do pretty well.
45 minority opportunity seats in the HB 150. There are 51 in the interim map. HD 144 is not a safe seat for Legler. Yanez, Noriega, any candidate with a Spanish surname gets 51 plus, outside of 2010. He may win, but In Harris County a dem. candidate has not lost a 50 percent HCVAP district.
I imagine you post tripe like this to get the pot boiling. Your choice, as it’s your blog. The problem with this type of post in relation to voting rights cases, is that this case was about racism and you talk like its aboutu partisanship. It just proves you have no flipping idea of what you are talking about. Just a nickel’s worth of free advice.
Reply »
Blue Dogs Reply:
March 1st, 2012 at 10:19 am
The TX Dems have NOT been the same since Richards went down in defeat in 1994.
Reply »
Distinguished Gentleman Reply:
March 1st, 2012 at 12:21 pm
And the absolute end was 1998 when all statewide offices went Republican. That, of course, will not last forever. The rapidly-changing demographics of Texas do not, in the long-term, favor the GOP.
Reply »
Whupped Reply:
March 1st, 2012 at 3:19 pm
True, this. The R’s will be nastier than ever. Our state will pay.
Fiftycal Reply:
March 1st, 2012 at 5:18 pm
Yah, as long as the dims can keep Hispanics “down on the plantation”, er, barrio. But you have one tremendous problem. Now that the amnesty kids of the 80′s have grown up, many of them are creating their own business, getting higher paying jobs and VOTING REPUBLICAN! OOPSIE!
paulburka Reply:
March 2nd, 2012 at 6:30 am
Re Cereal Hippocrates, above:
Yes, the case was about racism, but the Supreme Court’s objections to the San Antonio Court’s first House map and its constraints on the Court, requiring it to justify deviations from the Legislature’s map, buried the racial issues in redistricting procedural minutiae, with the effect that it ended up being a dispute between political parties.
Reply »
Bodhisattva says:
MALDEF did not do a deal with national LULAC. They did it with a rump offshoot, the so-called “Texas LULAC,” whose front man had been fired by the national LULAC organization.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
March 1st, 2012 at 11:44 am
And your point is … what? They did a deal. It divided the Democrats. In fact, it killed them. What difference does it make who they did the deal with? What did it get them?
Reply »
Kenneth D. Franks says:
So will Republicans try gerrymander maps more after one election (in the next session) to try to hold on to power even longer? If they did so well this time maybe they should find other issues to work on
like the structural deficit. The Economic Stabilization Fund (Rainy Day Fund)will have to be used again.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
March 1st, 2012 at 11:46 am
I wouldn’t worry too much about a Republican redistricting in 2013. If they insist on overreaching, as they surely will, they will have to deal with the courts again, perhaps with the added burden that the D.C. Court ruled that this year’s redistricting involved intentional discrimination.
Reply »
Carolyn says:
South Texas screwed as usual.
Reply »
retrocon says:
The fact that Nueces county was not split up three ways in the House map was a victory for the Texas Constitution. I’m glad the judges finally realized there were a few laws that had to be followed.
Reply »
krazen1211 says:
Lot of misinformation here. Why don’t you talk about how the Democrats are heavily overrepresented in Bexar County?
South Texas screwed? South Texas between Hidalgo, Cameron, Webb Counties has the population for 2 seats. Include Nueces County and the ones in between and you have the population for 3 seats. You got 3 seats. Screwed, my butt.
Kenneth D Franks is of course a moron. The GOP wins all statewide elections. They don’t gerrymander to hold onto power; they already have it!
Reply »
Blue Dogs Reply:
March 1st, 2012 at 10:20 am
Krazen, when do you see TX Dems winning all statewide offices again anytime soon ?
A. 2018
B. 2022
C. 2030
D. 2042
Reply »
Kenneth D. Franks Reply:
March 1st, 2012 at 9:53 pm
Moron is something that should not be used in polite conversation but I didn’t start the name calling.
Reply »
Kenneth D. Franks Reply:
March 1st, 2012 at 9:47 pm
This is the first time I remember being called a moron. I have two college degrees one of which is from U.T. at Austin and the other from Stephen F. Austin. How much more Texas can you get. My family has been here since before Texas was part of the United States. I showed my first show calf in the Houston Fat Stock Show when it was still called that in 1965 in the Houston Colosseum before it moved to the Astrodome. There are still rural Democrats and that is the point. How many cattle do you take care of or what do you do besides call people a moron on a blog?
Reply »
Cereal Hippocrates says:
@retrocon
State Constitutional provisions must give way to federal law when they violate civil rights. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romer_v._Evans
Other states “whole county” provisions in their constitutions have been found to yield to federal law in redistricting matter.(“The court therefore “harmonized” the state constitutional provision with federal law, ordering that the new plan must preserve county lines to the maximum extent possible, except to the extent counties must be divided to comply with Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act [of 1965, 79 Stat. 439, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 1973c (1994 ed.)], and to comply with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, and to comply with the U. S. Constitution, including the federal one-person one-vote requirements.” Bartlett v. Stephensen, 535 U.S. 1301
You could try Googling some shit, before you post you putz.
Reply »
Jim Riley Reply:
March 1st, 2012 at 1:02 pm
Nueces County has the population to be apportioned two representatives. 90% of the county is in the city of Corpus Christi. Two compact districts with a clear community of interest can be created.
But the simple fact is that there are too many Anglos in Nueces County, and besides they elected two too many Republicans.
So you have to carve out a part of the county and add it to a Victoria district (incidentally this area was 36% Hispanic), and then add in Kleberg County to make up the population.
And then you have to draw a map from Raymondville to Refugio that bypasses Kingsville and Corpus Christi and requires an off-road vehicle as it winds its way north.
The representative who lives in Kingsville, decides that the district drawn to ensure that the candidate of choice of the minority community might not choose him, and scurries off to Alice.
The VRA only requires the county line rule to be broken if the VRA requires everything else to be subrogated to race.
I’m not sure how you intend to apply Bartlett v Stephenson here. The US Supreme Court ruled that the North Carolina county line rule should be respected (and the “majority” included two justices who said that the VRA shouldn’t apply to such cases at all).
So your argument amounts to one that Justice Kennedy might find the unwarranted split of Nueces County somehow required.
Reply »
Cereal Hippocrates Reply:
March 1st, 2012 at 1:56 pm
Stephenson was a stay denial case. The stay was denied in part because the North Carolina Supreme Court decided to read their own whole county provision as yielding to federal law – just not in the facts of that case. While you are correct that this issue has never been directly before the Supreme Court, the fact that plaintiffs seeking a stay in Bartlett were denied because the NCSCOTUS decided to harmonize their whole county provisions with federal law pretty much dooms your argument.
If the Court had wanted to grant cert and decide the reverse it could have, but it did not. If it had wanted cite probable jurisdiction and take up the plaintiffs cause, who wanted to throw out the whole county rule entirely, they could have. They choose to deny the stay and ratify the decision of the NCSCOTUS, whose quotation I cite above from the stay denial.
Why is it ok to cut a county to partially comply with one person one vote concerns and not for other forms of vote dilution (this is done in Henderson County in h309)?
Moreover, the state has truly inconsistently applied its standard. There is an inconsistent practice in each map adopted from the 1970-1990 that you can obtain on the TLC website. These maps use double spillover and other violations of the whole county line rule. The state’s new found idolatry of the Whole County line rule is only a facile attempt to deny the voting strength of the minority community.
Reply »
Jim Riley Reply:
March 1st, 2012 at 10:39 pm
Fundamentally, the Texas Constitution is about apportionment of representatives among whole counties. It is best understood as providing an apportionment of a whole number of representative to the following:
(1) 1 or more representatives to a single county;
(2) 1 representative to a group of small counties;
(3) 1 or more representatives to each of one or more large counties; plus one representative apportioned to the surplus of the large county(-ies) and 0 or more small counties (floterial districts).
While floterial districts in general violate OMOV, they are a reasonable approach to an equitable apportionment.
The Texas Supreme Court has said that single member districts within a county do not violate the Texas Constitution (they are in effect a manner regulation), and they are practically required by equal protection.
So we can judge how well a map complies with the Texas Constitution, by the following, in order of worst to best.
1) Apportionment area with deviation greater than 5% per representative, so that single member districts within 5% can also be created. Absolutely required.
2a) Split small county, only if necessary for 1. There is nothing in the constitution that suggests this is OK.
2b) Split surplus between multiple floterial districts (double spillover). Nothing in the constitution that suggests this is OK.
3) Failure to form maximum whole districts in county. But at least divides county among fewest possible districts, so may be marginally better than 2a/2b. Alternatively, this is 2c.
4) Floterial district. OK for apportionment, not for correctly forming single member districts (see Clements v Valles). So number should be minimized.
5a) Multiple whole representatives in single county. Always allowed.
5b) Single representative single multiple counties. Always allowed.
Since Clements v Valles, it has been assumed that anything other than 5a and 5b were bad. But that was because the Supreme Court found that there was no consistent policy for creating quasi-floterial districts. But the above is a consistent and logical policy.
So I would have placed Ellis with Dallas, rather than splitting Henderson. The argument for not using Dallas is that it has a small surplus, and can achieve a 5% deviation without going over county boundaries. But it is a consistent policy for handling surpluses when necessary to avoid the worse solution of splitting Henderson County.
Similarly in the 2000s, I would have paired Harris and Galveston, which would have mean that Jefferson and Chambers could have been paired, rather than splitting Orange. While it creates an additional type 4 county, it eliminates a 2a.
From the 1970s forward, the number of county line violations has been decreasing. There might have been some extras in 1970s and 1980s, possible because you had more dictatorial speakers and maybe a desire to maintain rural districts. But the general decline of population share outside the major cities has made it easier to form multi-county districts, particularly in East Texas.
1970s:
Smith double spillover
Brazoria double spillover
Red River split
Harris surplus
1980s:
Collin double spillover
Jefferson double spillover
Brazoria double spillover
This was after Clements v Valles, which was much worse.
1990s:
Rusk split (with small part added to Gregg)
2000s:
Orange split (added to Jefferson)
2010s:
Henderson split (added to Ellis)
So I don’t think one can make a serious claim that Texas has not attempted to make a good faith effort to follow the county line rule to the extent compatible with OMOV for at least the last 3 decades.
I’ll assume that your use of “idolatry” was not a serious argument.
Let’s stipulate the following:
(1) Nueces has a population almost ideal for apportioning two representatives;
(2) Corpus Christi has 90% of the county’s population and two compact districts of near ideal population may be formed;
(3) Nueces County has too many Anglos to permit both districts to be controlled by Hispanic voters;
And you are going to argue the case that the 15th Amendment compels race-based division of the county to prevent an abridgement of the the right to vote on the basis of race.
You may not rely on the VRA, because Congress was only given the authority to make appropriate legislation.
retrocon Reply:
March 1st, 2012 at 1:59 pm
The courts also have stated the VRA does not require a jurisdiction to maximize minority representation. I don’t think “ensuring a potential candidate doesn’t have to face Rep. Hunter” is a sufficiently compelling reason to supersede the Constitution.
Reply »
Cereal Hippocrates Reply:
March 1st, 2012 at 2:31 pm
The old maximazation canard. Full of air, having no substance.
Maximation means beyond proportionality. It doesn’t mean restoring a district, you unbelievable yutz. You guys all attended the same panel at ALEC, and now you all think you’re on the 5th Circuit. Proportionality has jack squat to do with the whole county line rule and is assessed on statewide basis.
For the record, no one gives a shit who faces Hunter. It’s always been about minority representation, you unrelenting schmoe.
I am pretty sure no one cares what you think is a compelling reason to “supersede” a Texas Constitutional provision that has been superseded by nearly every map passed or created in the last forty years, including the most recently enacted and court-ordered map.
houtopia says:
Perhaps I’m missing something, but Margo’s reconfigured HD 78 is a district that Obama won by 12 points in 2008. How does that make him safe? I’d say he’s a goner.
Most interesting is the plethora of competitive districts in the DFW area (at least 7, by my count.) I expect Ds will pick up a few in 2012, and Rs will hold onto some, but over the decade they will all flip.
I suspect Dems gain 8-10 seats in 2012, and maybe another 8-10 over the rest of the decade, which still leaves them in the decided minority in the House.
Reply »
Mr. Smith Reply:
March 1st, 2012 at 5:26 pm
Please name the seven seats in north Texas that are competitive, and which districts you expect Democrats to pick up in 2012.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
March 2nd, 2012 at 6:39 am
The seats that are competitive are those that the Democrats won in 2006 and lost in 2010. All are located in areas of demographic change. They will be battlegrounds for the rest of the decade.
Reply »
Mr. Smith Reply:
March 2nd, 2012 at 7:18 am
Paul,
Watch what happens by next Friday, as filing closes for these state house seats. These seats may be battlegrounds by the end of the decade, but none of these seats will be contested at all by the Dems, or have serious candidates who raise any money this cycle.
Anonymous Reply:
March 2nd, 2012 at 8:47 am
In DFW the Dems will win HD101, and have a shot at HD105 and HD107 if the right candidates step up. These two are the most competitive followed by 113, 114, and 102. HD114 could be interesting if the Republican candidate ends up being former Rep. Bill Keffer, and former Rep. Carol Kent is the Democratic nominee, both are from the Lake Highlands part of the district. I think Branch holds 108 until he leaves for a statewide bid (AG or Lt. Gov), then it’s a tossup.
Reply »
Mr. Smith Reply:
March 2nd, 2012 at 10:26 am
Sorry Anonymous @ 8:47 am. Yes, the Dems will pick up the new 101. But no Dem is filed to run, or planning to run in 113, 107, or 108. 114 is not winnable this cycle, and 105 won’t be won unless a million is spent and someone walks it like no ones business. Paul will file a blog Come Monday the 12th with the title “Where are all the Dems?” Because you can’t win a seat if no one files to run for it. And Mean Rachel gets her way. No more moderate Dems. Unfortunately, that also means no Dems running at all. Good luck.
Anonymous says:
Normally the GOP cuts deals with the black caucus but Abbott’s divide and conquer strategy with hispanic groups worked. Burka is right that the GOP has spread themselves pretty thin and think that Obama won’t do as well as he did in 2008 in urban texas. Dems will pick up 6-8 seats in 2012. Not enough to make a dent but its a start. GOP may be down to 2 or 3 house seats in Dallas County by the end of the decade.
Reply »
Blue Dogs Reply:
March 1st, 2012 at 12:19 pm
Abbott will boost his approval ratings to the 80s for his 2014 gubernatorial campaign.
Reply »
Distinguished Gentleman Reply:
March 1st, 2012 at 12:27 pm
That, of course, assumes that Rick Perry will not seek another gubernatorial term in 2014. I see no reason to make that particular assumption. Knowing what I do know about Perry, I fear that he WILL run again in 2014 and–darn it–that he WILL end up winning. And then we in Texas will be stuck with him for yet a long time to come.
Reply »
Blue Dogs Reply:
March 2nd, 2012 at 8:12 am
Distinguished, Perry will NOT run and after the 2013 legislative session, I expect the governor during a press conference to announce he will RETIRE and finish out his 3rd full term.
It’s been a good and fun ride with Perry over the past 14 years.
Chris B says:
Abbott at 80%? Are you kidding me? The Anglo population, the only group he hasn’t completely alienated, is less than half of the population.
Reply »
Crazy Uncle Reply:
March 1st, 2012 at 2:54 pm
But about 70% of voters.
Reply »
Blue Dogs Reply:
March 2nd, 2012 at 9:51 am
Perry already made the decision NOT to run in 2014 months ago before he jumped in the WH race last August before flaming out.
Reply »
Robert Morrow says:
Jeb Bush looks poised to make a play either in 2012 at a brokered convention or in 2016 after Romney loses:
http://whowhatwhy.com/2012/02/29/the-jeb-scenario-can-you-say-president-bush-again/
I would vote for Hillary Clinton or Rick Perry over Jeb Bush. Jeb Bush is at the absolute bottom of the barrel as far as I am concerned, especially when one considers his invovlement in Iran-Contra in the 1980′s.
Russ Baker:
More and more GOP politicians are realizing their party has a big problem. What once seemed a great idea—a drawn-out Republican Primary slugfest intended to take the limelight from President Obama—may have only served to get their entire field on the wounded list. And what option does that leave?
Well, one solution is to forget about the entire bunch.
Maine’s Republican Governor Paul LePage, elected in 2010 with heavy Tea Party support, thinks the circular firing squad scenario might open things up for someone else. The Associated Press quoted LePage [2] the other day on this:
“I would love to see a good old-fashioned convention and a dark horse come out and do it in the fall,” LePage said, adding that he didn’t have a particular alternative candidate in mind.
Whoever this is, it doesn’t need to be a “dark horse,” a term signifying a generally unknown prospect who surges to prominence. Instead, as in racing, this competitor out of nowhere could be the progeny of a previous winner. Maybe even a sibling of another.
In other words, he—and it will be a he—could be what Donald Rumsfeld might call a “known unknown”—a major brand name that has not been sullied by the current non-stop mud wrestling. For one has been hanging out at the steps to the arena [3] all this time. His name is Jeb Bush.
***
Before anyone races to declare that Americans will not stand for another Bush presidential campaign—and certainly not for another Bush presidency—let me just say that they’d be sorely underestimating the Bush family.
The Bushes are nothing if not resilient. George W. Bush, he of so few qualifications but with his own distinctive Bush personality and formidable charisma, came out of the dust of his father’s re-election defeat in 1992, stronger than his father ever was politically. And though W. is now persona non grata to many, his brother would come back as a significantly different brand. He’s widely regarded as more capable, much more focused, much better at delivering points. He’s able to pull off a kind of sober, reasonable persona, more stable than a Santorum or a Gingrich or most of the other contenders. Rich but not entitled. A kind of Romney—without the Romney.
And yet….And yet he is still a Bush. That means a great deal, because, putting aside all the stylistic differences, this is a clan with a mission. It’s a mission they’ll never talk about, beyond vague statements about a sense within the family of Duty to Nation. No, the Bush clan is the ultimate representative of the game plan of the one percent of the one percent. What they stand for in private is much, much more troubling than most Americans know. What I learned in the five years I spent investigating them—as they were going out of power the last time—shook me to my core.
***
There isn’t space to get into the hundreds of disturbing things about the long-term agenda and covert worldview of this family and their friends, going back not just years but generations. Suffice it to point out a few things that might seem innocuous, but aren’t.
One is the propensity the Bushes have for long-term alliances with those on the other side of the aisle. This is emphatically not about bipartisanship. It is about the same kinds of things that bring Republican and Democratic elites together, that explain the 2004 nominees of both parties being members of the same Yale secret society. It is about why the same people stay on top forever.
The Bush family made friends with Bill Clinton at the very start of his administration—right after he defeated George H.W. Bush—a relationship that is sustained to the present moment. Although a Democrat, Clinton never did take on the big issues that would have upset the people behind the Bush dynamic. Indeed, he deregulated the financial markets and outsourced government, and carried out a foreign policy comfortable to those used to extracting resources from wherever needed, no questions asked; he failed to challenge the national security establishment or generate a post-Soviet-collapse “peace dividend.”
The Bush family has now attempted the same thing with another Democratic “opponent,” Barack Obama. Shortly after Obama took office, George H.W. Bush and Jeb (but not W.) paid the new president a private visit in the White House. That’s not a common thing, but the media essentially ignored it and we never did learn the real nature of that trip, beyond the notion that the Bush family just wanted one more peek at the West Wing.
Recently, Obama got another visit [4] from the duo. Jeb and his father, known familiarly as Poppy, were ostensibly in town to attend the Alfalfa Club [5]’s annual banquet, also attended by Obama—one of those seemingly harmless events where the press is kept out and government officials and rich people frolic and reaffirm each other’s credentials in this country’s elite.
The publications reporting on the Bush White House visit intimated that it seemed a little weird to them, but nobody came right out and said it. To be sure, this is one family with a lot of weird little coincidences, and famous excuses for happening to have to be somewhere. Examples: George H.W. Bush said he couldn’t remember where he was the day JFK was shot, but documents show that he was right there in… Dallas. Working covertly for the CIA. Before publicly not remembering, he went to the trouble of creating a hodgepodge of competing scenarios for where he was—and why.
Another oddity: George H.W. Bush ran against Ronald Reagan in 1980, lost, and, barely suppressing his disgust and disappointment, became Reagan’s veep. Like Lyndon Johnson a decade earlier, he faced an eight-year wait for another chance at the top. Two months after the inauguration, Reagan was shot by John Hinckley—son of a family that had been close with the Bushes [6] for decades. Of course, this was so very bizarre and statistically improbable (and chilling), that virtually no media organization even mentioned the connection. (For more on odd security incidents surrounding the presidency, see this [7].)
***
With a third Bush on the horizon, we need to consider the gap between the way the Bush clan is presented in the media and the reality. The media tell us that they are a family like every other family in pursuit of the American dream, perhaps blessed with just a little more drive and luck than most. As if.
In fact, Jeb owes his current political stature to family influence that soared when Poppy headed out from Connecticut along with many other old-money people to get in on the oil boom (with more than a little intelligence work mixed in [8]—much of it involving anti-Castro Cubans.) Then Jeb grew up and moved to Florida, where Poppy’s CIA ties with the anti-Castro Cuban community got the son quickly fixed up, professionally, financially, and, soon enough, politically.
There’s a whole bunch of stuff concerning Jeb that any budding investigative reporter should find good teething material. In 1980, after his father’s election as vice president, Jeb set up the Bush family franchise in the Sunshine State, with its increasing national political importance. He promptly got involved with the wealthy Cuban exile community that had long and deep covert connections to his father, and that wanted continued access for favors. One of those Cubans, Armando Codina, a self-made millionaire, took the veep’s son under his wing, and Jeb was soon on his way to his own fortune in real estate deals that often did not pass the smell test. This was, helpfully, under the shingle of “Bush Realty” in case anyone did not already know his father was in the White House and that Jeb was “open for business [9].”
These guys don’t “beat around the Bush.” They don’t have to. As Jeb told the Miami News in 1983, “I want to be very wealthy–and I’ll be glad to tell you when I’ve accomplished that goal.”
Jeb waded into Florida politics in 1984 as Dade County GOP Chair. One of Jeb’s closest associates was Camilo Padreda, a former intelligence officer with the Batista dictatorship overthrown by Fidel Castro. Padreda and a friend had previously been indicted for embezzlement, but the charges were dropped, it has been said, after the CIA assured prosecutors that Padreda’s friend had worked for the agency. (At the time, the elder Bush, a former CIA director, was vice president). Padreda later pled guilty [10] to defrauding the Bush administration’s Department of Housing and Urban Development, though his worst punishment was two months of house arrest. Jeb also was on the payroll of another Cuban businessman, Miguel Recarey, who had been involved with CIA attempts to assassinate Castro. He lobbied his father’s administration on behalf of Recarey. Later on, Recarey was charged in what is believed to be the largest Medicare fraud in history, but managed to flee the country with a handy “expedited” $2.2 million tax refund he received from the IRS that same day.
In 1990, when George H.W. was president, Jeb got him to release the convicted terrorist Orlando Bosch, who had participated in more than 30 terrorist acts (among other things, Bosch was implicated in the bombing of a Cubana plane that resulted in the deaths of 73 civilians). In 1998, with heavy help from the Cuban community, Jeb was elected governor, and thus emerged in a prime position to help his elder brother, George W., prevail in the 2000 Florida election fiasco, and thereby become president. As governor, Jeb nominated Raoul Cantero, the grandson of the Cuban dictator Batista, to the Florida supreme court, though he was lacking in experience—Cantero had been the terrorist Bosch’s spokesman and attorney.
In the aftermath of September 11, while the George W. Bush administration was pushing the colored panic light like crazy, and targeting terrorist suspects of all kinds and levels of probable guilt and innocence, it consented to the release of Cuban exiles convicted of terrorist offenses. Jeb advocated for these releases as well.
Jeb has been carefully laying a scenario in which he could indeed run—and could be very well received. He’s traveled the country extensively as a kind of elder statesman. And recently he criticized the GOP presidential candidates’ behavior [11]:
“I watch these debates and.. it’s a little troubling sometimes when people are appealing to people’s fears and emotion rather than trying to get them to look over the horizon for a broader perspective and that’s kind of where we are…I think it changes when we get to the general election. I hope.”
In an interview with CBS News after the event, Bush added, “I think it’s important for the candidates to recognize they have to appeal to primary voters, and not turn off independent voters that will be part of a winning coalition.”
This “bring us together” appeal would allow him to jump in, should he be needed, in 2012, and, run or not, win or lose, would position him seriously for 2016.
That we are not already paying enough attention to this prospect is telling about the state of the American media – and electorate—today.
Our lack of collective memory, our failure to examine deeper forces and patterns in this country, our perpetual rush to “move on” and our staunch resistance to possible insights and lessons from the past, will come back to haunt us.
My hunch is that the Bushes and the real establishment (that’s not the Tea Party, not the Santoriacs or the Gingrichites, folks) just love how bad the GOP field is. Obama is almost certain to be reelected. Which is just fine. Like Clinton, he’s played ball on all the big issues that really matter to the One Percent of One Percent—foreign intervention, oil, Wall Street bailouts. They figure he won’t do anything more radical in his second term, while, like another young president (Bill Clinton), looking forward to cashing out to an extremely comfortable life after the White House. And they figure as long as Obama does not make Hillary his veep, that the electorate will tire of the Democrats in 2016 and be ready for….another Bush.
Small wonder these Democratic and Republican administrations are all kissing cousins now. Competitive democracy? Bah—that’s language for columnists. These guys all have it made—and as ever, they’re busy divvying up the pie.
For more on the Bush family’s unknown past and the full gamut of its network with the wealthiest interests in the US and around the world, see Russ Baker’s book, Family of Secrets [12]: The Bush Dynasty, America’s Invisible Government, and the Hidden History of the Last Fifty Years. For details on Jeb Bush’s relationship with the Cuban exile community, see Ann Louise Bardach’s Cuba Confidential [13]: Love and Vengeance in Miami and Havana.
Reply »
Blue Dogs Reply:
March 2nd, 2012 at 9:52 am
Morrow, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie (R) is the likely favorite to be the GOP standard bearer in 2016 for President IF Obama wins re-election this fall.
Reply »
Jim Riley says:
If Republicans had one representative for every 1/150 of the population they represent, they would have 104.3 representatives instead of just 101. Texans of all races demonstrably prefer to live in districts represented by Republicans.
79% of all growth occurred in Republican districts, including 66% of Hispanic growth, 88% of Black growth, and 87% of Asian growth.
Republicans won about every district they could win in 2010. They smartly pulled back from trying to draw 104 Republican districts, transferring Democratic voters to repopulate underpopulated districts, making the Republican districts much more solid.
After 2008, Republicans had a 76:74 majority. Under the new map, they probably have a lock on 87 seats under a similar election, and perhaps another 7 or so where they could win in a repeat of 2008. So their floor has gone from a bare majority to around 90 seats.
Reply »
krazen1211 says:
“Nueces County has the population to be apportioned two representatives. 90% of the county is in the city of Corpus Christi. Two compact districts with a clear community of interest can be created.”
This is the reason that VRA 5 will eventually be tossed. Because of hack arguments that expect Texas to draw many more minority and many more hispanic majority seats than California, and of course due to the fact that some states can implement policy like voter ID and some have to fight for it.
Reply »
krazen1211 says:
“I wouldn’t worry too much about a Republican redistricting in 2013. If they insist on overreaching, as they surely will, they will have to deal with the courts again, perhaps with the added burden that the D.C. Court ruled that this year’s redistricting involved intentional discrimination.”
As if. That decision will obviously be appealed to the Supreme Court, which can take a look at the bunk standards involved, like the application of VRA 5 to CD-25 and SD-10.
The Democrats basic argument is to use the VRA to gerrymander the state 20 years after they were tossed out of power. If CD-25 and SD-10 are protected districts you are basically applying VRA 5 to every single Democratic district in the state.
You got steamrolled, yes, but by the electorate. Try winning the governor’s mansion next time…oh wait, you can’t, because Texas voters don’t like your party.
Reply »
Blue Dogs Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 10:37 am
Krazen, I believe the final straw was TX Dems putting a liberal in the Governor’s Mansion in 1990, which ticked off the voters (conservative ones).
Jim Mattox would have been better.
Reply »
No Se says:
Sen Tati Santiesteban use to say Hispanic politics was like the difference between a Maine Lobster and a Mexican Lobster. A Mexican lobster had no top to the cage because if one of them started to crawl out all the others would pull him bac.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
March 2nd, 2012 at 6:47 am
The story goes way back before Tati, and the crustacean involved was crabs, not lobsters.
Reply »
Honey Badger says:
Can’t any unhappy party/intervenor in the SA suit still ask the US Sct for a stay of these new interim maps?
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Mr. Smith,
114 is an open seat. It’s 52-46 McCain. If a hard right candidate like Bill Keffer comes out of the primary vs someone like Carol Kent that could be a close race, and she would have a shot. She will get enough chunks of Lake Highlands moderate Republican women to vote for her. If ex Dallas GOP chair Jonathan Neerman decides to run and beats Keffer or Villalba then he would be favored.
105 is winnable for a Dem now that Valley Ranch is in 115. I admit the only DFW district that is a lock for the Ds is 101. The rest I listed are competitive but the GOP has the advantage. You can crow all you want if no Dem files for these seats by 3/9.
Reply »
Mr. Smith says:
I won’t crow, anonymous @ 10:43, I’ll be sad. But its this pollyana thinking that kills the dems every time. 105 is winnable if it is worked and a lot of money is spent there. Is the current candidate for the dems there going to go door to door for 130 days this summer? And if 114 was 52/46 in 2008, arguably the best year the dems had in the last 15, how on earth is any candidate going to convince another 3.5 % to cross over this cycle? And that is if everyone, and I mean everyone, who voted D in 2008 shows up and votes D again. Is that going to happen?
Reply »
Anonymous says:
I’m not saying the Dems will win these seats. They will require pretty good candidates that can raise money fast. I’d be recruiting former Reps like Miklos, England, and someone to run in 113. Don’t forget Romano lost 105 by a handful of votes and he didn’t run much of a campaign. You never know what can happen. The numbers are based on the 2008/10 elections but there’s a lot of demographic shifts going on in those districts. By mid decade most of these seats will be 50-50 if not slight D.
Reply »
Mr. Smith Reply:
March 2nd, 2012 at 4:53 pm
105 is slightly more R that 107. If you’re not going to win 107, why do you win 105?
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 10:44 am
Mr. Smith,
What should the Dems do? Not run candidates in an county where they are competitive outside the minority districts? Gotta start somewhere. When the Dems won HDs102, 106, 107, their nominees ran ahead of Obama in 08. Only Romano in 105 ran behind Obama that year.
Reply »
Mr. Smith Reply:
March 5th, 2012 at 4:20 pm
I’m not saying the Dems should or shouldn’t run someone in these districts. I’m predicting that they either won’t, or will run very weak candidates who won’t raise much money, won’t walk, and won’t do much campaigning, Its a prediction, not a desire. And many Dem activists in the area won’t understand why. And come November, many voters will look for the dem state house and senate candidates, find none, or someone who they haven’t heard, and skip them. And so all this talk about maybe taking back 20 seats is just silly BS.
truth in numbers says:
Paul, your first paragraph has a drastic error: “Margo is pretty safe” is woefully inaccurate. You should have checked the numbers. In the last Presidentail year, Obama and Noriega carried the new Dist. 78 by 12 – 55-43 Obama. The Dem RR Comm candidate carried it by 14%. Bill White carried it 50-48. The safer bet is Margo loses.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
March 2nd, 2012 at 2:18 pm
It’s not an error until Margo loses. All I can say is that the Republican I talked to, who keeps up with redistricting, thinks that the map was drawn to assure that Margo will win.
Reply »
retrocon says:
Although White did edge out Perry in the new district 78 (by the numbers from the TLC reports), of ten statewide contested elections in 2010 the Republican won the district 8 times vs. 2 wins for the Democrat.
It can be argued that 2010 was a high point for Republican support, but you can also argue 2008 was abnormally high for the Democrats. So it actually looks somewhat favorable to Margo for the time being.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
I haven’t said anything about winning 20 seats Mr. Smith. The Dems have been wiped out in rural Texas. They need to become a surburban but populist party still focused on the needs of their base but can understand the needs of middle class office park texans. I’ve just said that Republicans like Sheets, Carter, Burkett, and Harper-Brown are sitting in seats that are ticking time bombs. They shouldn’t get too comfortable in them. They may all survive in 2012, but by 2016 at least two or three of them may not be around.
Reply »
Travel Agency Philippines says:
I actually wanted to make a brief comment to thank you for some of the great strategies you are posting on this website. My considerable internet investigation has finally been rewarded with beneficial knowledge to write about with my close friends. I would claim that many of us website visitors actually are very endowed to dwell in a remarkable site with very many outstanding professionals with insightful suggestions. I feel extremely privileged to have come across the website and look forward to some more cool times reading here. Thank you once more for a lot of things.
Reply »