Burnt Orange Report
News, Politics, and Fun From Deep in the Heart of Texas
|
|
Burnt Orange ReportNews, Politics, and Fun From Deep in the Heart of Texas |
|
 |
 |
October 16, 2003KGSR Pokes at DeLay, RedistrictingBy Jim DallasLocal radio station KGSR 107.1 FM has started airing ads for its "Give Austin to a Friend" promotion making fun of redistricting. In the ad, which jokingly pits morning DJs Kevin & Keven against a villainous caricature of DeLay, the promotion is threatened by Republican schemes to make Austin "cease to exist." The DeLay character says he's "carvin' up [Austin] like so much cheap brisket", magically turning West Austin into "East Midland", North Austin into "South Waco", and South Austin into "Laredo del Norte". Kevin and Kevin: "You're Crazy!" DeLay: "Well boys, crazy's in the majority!" (Pardon to KGSR if I misquoted any part of their ad). Anyhow, it sure reflects a level of political consciousness not normally seen on FM radio morning shows these days... But then again, Austin is weird. Posted by Jim Dallas at October 16, 2003 12:16 AM | TrackBackComments
West Austin into "East Midland", North Austin into "South Waco", and South Austin into "Laredo del Norte". Whining Austinites. San Antonio has been carved into four different districts forever. Only one lies completely with the county - the others stretch past Del Rio, to south Austin, and almost to Corpus Christi. Oh, and this "evil" was not addressed with the new map, either. Turn down the volume or the pitch or something...you're hurting my dog's ears. Posted by: Mark Harden at October 16, 2003 07:22 AMMark, here's some info to help you: 1. San Antonio has a district all its own, the 20th, and has had that forever. 2. Bexar County is huge and has the population to dominate at least three of those four districts. In fact, ALL FOUR Congressman (Bonilla, Rodriguez, Gonzales, Smith) who represent Bexar County list their hometowns as San Antonio in the 2000 Almanac of American Politics. Not too bad for a city with enough population to only sustain two districts within its limits. 3. Webb County tried to take the 23rd last time and failed. Despite those links to South Austin and the Rio Grande Valley, no one's seriously contested Smith or Gonzales in ages. This is reason for San Antonio to celebrate, not complain--you've got more influence than you merit for your population. 4. By contrast, this map ensures that two of the three reps from Travis County will be based far, far away in other metro areas, while the third has only an even chance of being from Austin. If you're dog's so sensitive perhaps you should invest in some neuticles to make him feel better. 1. San Antonio has a district all its own, the 20th, and has had that forever. As I said, " Only one lies completely with[in] the county." In fact, ALL FOUR Congressman (Bonilla, Rodriguez, Gonzales, Smith) who represent Bexar County list their hometowns as San Antonio in the 2000 Almanac of American Politics...you've got more influence than you merit for your population. Good point, you're right. Still, this presumes that incumbents pander only to their hometowns. They may favor them, but only a political fool would disregard ANY part of his constituency. 4. By contrast, this map ensures that two of the three reps from Travis County will be based far, far away in other metro areas, while the third has only an even chance of being from Austin. Waco will outvote North Austin? Or Midland? Or Laredo? Where is the analysis behind that assertion? The reports posted at the Texas Redistricting Services web site show what share of each district will be made up of Travis County residents vs. others. It isn't Waco, Midland, or Laredo, anyway. It's north Bexar County (Lamar Smith, entrenched incumbent in a strong GOP district), west Harris County (heavily GOP, drawn to outvote current Rep. Doggett's base in Austin by dividing that city in three), and possibly Harlingen/McAllen (in the one district that a Rep. from Austin *could* win). Don't take my word for it. I've made no original analysis on this whatsoever. It's been analyzed this way by every single article written on redistricting that talks about Austin, including many linked on this blog. It's been analyzed this way by Joe Barton's aide who wrote that the map was explicitly drawn to get rid of Doggett, Travis's current rep. The numbers are all out there. "Still, this presumes that incumbents pander only to their hometowns." Tom Craddick, Sen. Duncan, and everyone else involved in the Republican redistricting seems to think that's the case or else they wouldn't have wasted so much time ensuring Midland and Lubbock got their "own" Congressmen. "They may favor them, but only a political fool would disregard ANY part of his constituency." Sorry, total B.S. Gerrymandering is all about drawing districts where the incumbent can get away with ignoring as much as 40% of his district's voters by taking good care of his own supporters and keeping the apathetic middle happy enough to keep cruising by on partisan loyalties and good feelings.
The Austin area has one solid rep, John Carter of Round Rock. Dist. 10 should be a toss-up between Austin/Houston, due to a last minute change from plan 1371 (1371 favored Travis more). The Travis side has the edge in voters, but the Harris part probably has a slight edge in Republicans. Any complaining Democrat should just vote in the Republican primary. :) Dist 25 could be winnable by Barrientos, or maybe even Doggett (doubt he would move). But McAllen has the advantage. Look for a power shift in 2010 and beyond though - with the Austin area still growing faster than the rest of the state, we'll soon have 4 reps all to ourselves.
Ho Ho Dean is an example of why people think the democratic party is no different than republicans. He's a bs artist who is not even Bush-lite, he is Bush, with alot more brain cells. Any politician can act in whichever way that suits his agenda. Howard Dean is playing the anger card because he knows there's a captive audience, he knew it would sell. The fact is that his record does not back up his false front. Smart democratic, leftist, progressives should NOT buy what Dean is selling. Dean backs rationing medical care in Vermont Of course, 2 days after he made the above announcement Ho Ho, made this announcement: Dental care for low-income residents abysmal, Sanders says February 4, 2001 By MIKE ECKEL AP And here's a real kicker.. this was just announced yesterday.. further confirmation about the hole Dean has left Vermont in.. Here's something else I found, further confirmation on Dean's corruption, The Time's Argus report of the energy companies who have been funding Dean's PAC. No ties to special interests, eh? Dean raises money from energy sources Crisis in Agriculture in Vermont Dean helps farmers in wetlands dispute May 6, 2001 JANUARY 31, 2003 - Ron Brownstein writes that "if Bush presents what he considered to be persuasive evidence that Iraq still had weapons of mass destruction, [Dean] would support military action, even without U.N. authorization." FEBRUARY 10, 2003 - NY TIMES "Action with the U.N. is where we should be aiming at right now. We should be going back and set a timeline with the U.N. for absolute disarmament. I've chosen 60 days. And then there would be military action. Look, Saddam has to be disarmed. Everybody has to understand that." FEBRUARY 20, 2003 - SALON.COM Jake Tapper writes, "[Dean's position] is -- 'as I've said about eight times today,' [Dean] says, annoyed -- that Saddam must be disarmed, but with a multilateral force under the auspices of the United Nations. If the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice. FEBRUARY 25, 2003 - PBS NEWS HOUR "If he were [an immediate threat], I would advocate unilateral action." Dean's Rhetorical Twister By Jim Geraghty "Dean has won cheers from Democratic audiences by saying he would not have voted for the war resolution his congressional rivals helped pass, saying it is "the wrong war at the wrong time." But he has said he would support military action if it was proved Iraq had WMD and refused to disarm within 60 days. So, like a calculating politician who plays both sides of the street, the Doctor's excuse is thin while his logic is out. In 1997 Dean stated in a Vermont Press Bureau interview that he desired to appoint judges that would not be concerned about "legal technicalities". Within months of this statement, Dean appointed two judges. These two jurists are now awaiting final hearing (United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, NY, NY, Oct. 20, 2003) concerning federal civil rights charges. Begrudgingly, with looming threat of federal oversight, the Vermont Supreme Court has already found one of these jurists violated Double Jeopardy. A federal injunction has been levied upon these two Dean appointees for the past two years concerning their civil rights violations. It’s not important if you define "legal technicalities" as being constitutional provisions or statutory law. Dean announced that he would appoint judges willing to defy the law or his so-called "legal technicalities". In the context Dean was speaking of, overturning a serious felony criminal conviction, the "technicality" was most definitely part of the Bill of Rights. Inquire with any defense attorney as to how easy is it to attack and overturn a criminal conviction in state or federal court. Almost impossible aside from blatant constitutional transgressions or DNA evidence. Overturning a criminal conviction on a "technicality" always involves a breech of "fundamental fairness". Fundamental fairness lies at the heart of the Due Process clause. Others are silently watching Howard Dean with knowledge of what hides in his sealed records. That was last week. more info
Whoa, did anyone actually read that long-ass mess? Posted by: Karl-T at October 16, 2003 02:21 PMNot only was it way off topic... Posted by: Jim D at October 16, 2003 03:02 PMAnyone remember that scene in "Crumb" about the brother who has a notebook on which every page is jammed with sentences? The post above creeped me out in a similar way. :) :) Posted by: Tx Bubba at October 16, 2003 03:51 PMThe post above creeped me out in a similar way. All work and no play makes Jeff a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jeff a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jeff a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jeff a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jeff a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jeff a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jeff a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jeff a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jeff a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jeff a dull boy... Posted by: Mark Harden at October 16, 2003 04:29 PMOnce again, can anyone explain? Posted by: Karl-T at October 17, 2003 01:42 AMHi I saw you were talking about your dog ;-) Please come see! We're having soooo much fun and we'd love it if your pets would join too! Regards Sam ~ Woof Woof! Posted by: Sempo at September 25, 2004 02:47 PMHi I saw you were talking about your dog ;-) Please come see! We're having soooo much fun and we'd love it if your pets would join too! Regards Sam ~ Woof Woof! Posted by: Sempo at September 25, 2004 03:35 PMPost a comment
|
|
|
