July 29, 2003
Something I've never done before
By Byron LaMasters
I called a radio talk show. I called the Charley Jones Show. I guess it was because I was listening to the Gary McNamara Show (on WBAP 820) who was going on about Democrats changing the rules, and then Charley Jones was doing the same Republican talking points. I decided to call in and say that it was the Republicans that were changing the rules. They changed the rules about redistricting. We redistrict every ten years. Charley Jones said that Democrats redistricted every two or three years throughout the 1990s, but that was because the courts mandated it. Never before has the legislature taken up Congressional redistricting in mid-decade without a court mandate. That's the republicans changing the rules. I wanted to make a point on the Republicans changing the rules by withdrawing the blocker bill, but I didn't have a chance. Oh well. I'm glad I did it. I'm actually happy. A lot of the callers are defending the Democrats, and a lot of the callers are independents. One guy that I just listened to, voted for Perry and most of the Republicans, but voted for Kirk, Sharp and Martin Frost and was happy that the Democrats left because he leaned Republican, but liked his congressman, Martin Frost. There's so many people like that across the state. I tried to make that point. I said that 20 of the 32 seats leaned Republican, and that Max Sandlin, Jim Turner, Chet Edwards, Charlie Stenholm and Ralph Hall won in Republican districts, and that if Republicans wanted to win those seats, they ought to run better candidates. Anyway, it will be interesting to see what polling shows about this.
Posted by Byron LaMasters at July 29, 2003 02:53 AM
| TrackBack
I wanted to make a point on the Republicans changing the rules by withdrawing the blocker bill, but I didn't have a chance.
Just as well, since another caller may have refuted you by pointing out Bullock's withdrawal of the blocking bill during the 1992 special session for redistricting.
And yes, yawn, I know the 1992 session was court mandated - but Bullock's withdrawal of the blocking bill to ensure the session was under his firm control? That was definitely not court mandated.
No one opposed the withdrawl of the blocker bill at the time Bullock did it. The Republicans were ok with it.
No one opposed the withdrawl of the blocker bill at the time Bullock did it. The Republicans were ok with it.
If that were true, why on earth would Bullock feel the necessity to set aside the blocking bill?
The larger point, still, is that there is ample precedence for setting aside the blocking bill in the current impasse.
I tried calling into The Art Bell Show a couple of times, but since I haven't been abducted by aliens or tortured by the men in black, I was never actually put on the air.
Seriously, I'm not kidding.