Their is no doubt that once more Congressman Chet Edwards will face opposition in the 2010 election cycle---by one of six Republicans vying for the chance to take him on no less---but the question that CD-17 constituents should ask themselves is, can we afford to lose such a tremendous advocate and leader in representing our interests? Clearly the answer is no.
The 17th Congressional District encompasses a huge strip of Central Texas and takes in former President George W. Bush's ranch.
It is the most Republican district in the country represented by a Democrat, says the non-partisan Cook Political Report.
"A great survivor," the report said, "no Democrat in the House represents a more Republican district than Edwards."
Republicans are confident that when they either defeat Edwards, or he steps down, the seat will be safely in GOP hands - at least until the next redistricting.
Despite representing such an overwhelmingly Republican district, Edwards has been able to defy conventional wisdom and political pundits alike who wish to write his political obituary. Why? Partly because he is a 1974 graduate of Texas A&M, which is a university smack in the middle of staunchly Republican territory. He has effectively severed electorally what should be a Republican advantage with his aggie ties. But also because Edwards has been a leader on issues pertinent to not only his district, such as veterans affairs and military complex matters, but issues pertinent to all of Texas. This is a district with a +20 Republican voting advantage, but "leans Democrat" based on the latest Cook Report. You don't get that type of ranking unless you deliver to your constituents. Edwards does.
|
Edwards worked with Rep. John Carter, R-Round Rock, to bring a $927 million hospital to Fort Hood. Edwards and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, were instrumental in landing a $36 million poly-trauma center in San Antonio to treat veterans with multiple injuries returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.
In Waco, Edwards helped reverse a Bush proposal to close the veterans' hospital - which is now a Center of Excellence for research on the Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.
"This is not an exaggeration," said Rep. Charlie Gonzalez, "San Antonio does not have a greater friend or greater advocate than Chet Edwards.
"To lose Chet Edwards would be a serious blow to not just San Antonio, but to the state of Texas," said Gonzalez, D-San Antonio.
Put very simply: Texas cannot afford to lose Chet Edwards in 2010 like Texas couldn't afford to lose Martin Frost in 2004. I don't make that statement as simply wearing my Democrat hat, I make it from the perspective of influence, interest, and policy benefitting Texas now and in the future. Had Frost been able to survive Delay's greedy powergrab their is no doubt that Frost would have been the most powerful Texas congressman in the Democratic House resulting from the 2006 takeover. That would not only have been great for North Texas, but great for Texas in whole---Party affiliation aside.
However, the problem is that Texas Republicans don't have the interests of their state, or its citizens in mind. Ever. They didn't in 2002 when they rammed a gerrymandered redistricting map down our throats that would have made even the namesake of this salamander-inspired move blush. Republicans simply want and crave power and will snatch it wherever and however they can. Consequences to Texas and its citzens be damned.
Their may be logic, percentage-wise, for the NRCC to target Edwards. But is that good for Texas, good for Texas veterans and their families, good for Texas seniors, and/or good for Texas children? Absolutely not. CD-17 would be very wise to consider all factors when they vote in 2010. |
