Burnt Orange Report

Dean the Frontrunner?

By Byron LaMasters

Earlier today, Jim posted that Howard Dean was recognized by the New York Post as the quasi-frontrunner. It looks like the folks at Gephardt Grassroots have latched onto the story, too. And they're not too happy. I must admit, however, that I've been impressed with the Gephardt Grassroots blog. It's modeled after the Dean blog in many ways, and it's the best unofficial non-Dean blog which I've seen. It will be interesting to see if Dick Gephardt will pick up any momentum with the Teamsters Endorsement. Gephardt really needs money. Anyone know if the Teamsters will be able to help him much in that regard? Gephardt doesn't need as much money as Edwards, Lieberman or Kerry, because he has a national base, and labor will give him the volunteers he needs, but Gephardt can't have another quarter where he really embarasses himself like Q2.

Winning the Culture War

By Byron LaMasters

The other day, I blogged on the new gay high school in New York. Contrary to what you might think, I felt uneasy about it, particularly for two reasons. First, I think that a publicly funded gay high school can help create a slippery slope arguement in favor of private school vouchers (which I strongly oppose). Secondly, I think that a gay high school is the wrong priority. Just like vouchers, a gay high school is helpful to a small minority of students, but doesn't do a damn thing for the majority of students, other than divert tax dollars away from them. Gay rights advocates ought ot work instead to help protect all gay and lesbian high school students by enacting anti-harassment laws, and strongly enforcing them in all high schools. Public money should be spent on ensuring the education and safety of all children and students in all high schools, rather than establishing a slippery slope arguement for private school vouchers. As I've read more in the past couple of days, I've developed more concerns over a public gay high school.

Via Courtney, John Cole makes a good point:

This is the worst idea I have heard in a long time. You know, it is very difficult to push for things like gay marriage, and to argue that the gay rights movement doesn't want special rights, just the same protection of their rights that heterosexuals enjoy, and then you see crap like this being peddled. How about all heterosexual schools? Or all caucasian schools? Or schools just for people with lisps?

All this does is vindicate loser assholes like Pat Robertson and their ilk- they have claimed for years that the homosexual lobby wants special rights- and every time they have, leftists and people such as myself have beaten them down and called them homophobic and bigoted.

Please don't tell me they were right.

I do worry about the image of the gay community on this issue. I've argued time and time again that gays and lesbians fight for equal rights not special rights. Issues like these are examples of the occasional excesses of liberalism. Are some gay students helped by gay schools? Sure. But are the vast majority of gay students helped by them? No. I think that it some situations, gay schools are the best option - but the students who need them most usually come from districts where harrassment and abuse go unstopped, and where the school district would spend money on bibles, ten commandment plaques, and teaching "creation science" before they would lift a finger to protect their gay and lesbian students. Just as ordinary private schools ought to be funded by the private sector, so should private gay schools (which I highly support).

Finally, how do gays and lesbians win the culture war? Not by self-segregating ourselves into our own schools, our own communities and our own lives. We win the culture war by integrating in society. The fact that I came out my senior year in high school to several dozen of my classmates did much more to advance gay rights, than sending me to a gay high school would have done. People who know a gay person, have a gay friend, have a gay co-worker or a gay mailman, for that matter are more likely to be supportive of gay rights. The response from Europe has been similar to my comments:

An American decision to publicly fund a high school for homosexual students in New York is a misguided exercise in political correctness which risks isolating the gay community, Europeans said Wednesday.

Activists, students and officials across the continent agreed gay schools would never catch on in Europe.

Even the British -- culturally closer to the Americans than any other Europeans -- were skeptical.

"Special schools may serve as shelter for vulnerable and bullied students but in the long term they won't solve the problem of living in a homophobic society," said Carlie Harter-Penman, spokeswoman for the National Union of Students' lesbian, gay and bisexual campaign.

"We want gay students to be able to attend school without thinking of their sexuality as an issue."

Gay British student Richard Hyde, from the London College of Printing, said the U.S. initiative at least promoted awareness of gay rights but could have other negative consequences.

"It might create a biased attitude among gay students because the environment in which they would be educated isn't diverse enough," he said.

New York authorities said Monday that the Harvey Milk School in the city's Greenwich Village would reopen as the first publicly-run high school in the United States for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender students.

Named after a gay San Francisco politician assassinated in 1978, it has already been open for 20 years but the city is to spend $3.2 million to expand the school to take 100 students.

Few could imagine such a scenario in Europe.

"This is inconceivable in France. It runs contrary to the principles of the Republic ... There can be no discrimination of any sort," said a French Education Ministry spokeswoman. "I can't imagine anything like that in Germany," said Detlef Muecke, a spokesman for gay teachers from the country's GEW teachers union. "Our aim is to work for acceptance and diversity in the school system, so that young people don't suffer discrimination if they come out as gay or lesbian."

In traditionally liberal Amsterdam, sentiment was similar.

"The Harvey Milk school is a solution to a worldwide problem that gay and lesbian kids feel isolated," said Henk Beerten, chairman of the Federation of Dutch Associations for the Integration of Homosexuality. "But a special school won't appeal in the Netherlands because of the way it singles out people and creates a ghetto-like situation."

In Sweden, which according to a study published Tuesday is the second most tolerant nation toward homosexuality after the Netherlands, gay leaders warned that the move might lead to the marginalisation of gay students.

"I don't think we need a school with special students," said Magnus Ask, organizer of the Stockholm Pride gay festival.

"We don't have separate schools for black people. Why should we have them for gays?" agreed Enrico Oliari, chairman of GayLib, a liberal and center-left Italian group.

"This is very much linked to the social context of the United States and I strongly doubt whether we will see similar schools in Europe over the next few years," added Gert Hekma, head of Gay and Lesbian Studies at the University of Amsterdam.

Why can't we be more like Europe?

Lasso: The Statesman Attempts a Blog

By Byron LaMasters

The Austin American Statesman seems to be trying to take after the Dallas Morning News and has started a blog of it's own called Lasso, which started on Monday. Here's what they want to do with it:

WELCOME TO LASSO: OK, this is the way Lasso is gonna work. Lasso will arise each morning with faithful dogs Dinah and Rico and slog his way through the day's Texas newspapers. He will report to you by mid-morning what he's found. During the day, Lasso may (or may not) add notes, comments, more links. He may just pop off. Depends.

That's it. Any submissions, letters or tips are welcome and most likely will find their way onto the site.

Content-wise, it's not bad. I could see it growing into a Texas-version of The Note. Stylistically, it could use some work. They ought to move it over to Movable Type, encourage more reader interaction and I'd love to see multiple authors, as on the DMN blog. Just my thoughts. I'll email Bill Bishop with them and see what he thinks. I like the idea, though. We'll see where it goes.

Laredo Rally in Support of Dems.

By Byron LaMasters

Yesterday, Democrats rallied in Laredo in support of their State Senator Judith Zaffirini (D-Laredo), and the other 10 Democratic Senators in New Mexico. The new map passed by a State Senate committee cut Webb County (Laredo) in half, retrogressing minority voting rights by ensuring that the majority Hispanic population of Laredo would be dominated by the majority Anglo Bexar County suburban vote for the remainder of the decade. The Laredo Morning Times reports:

Local and state elected officials and leaders of the Democratic Party joined League of United Latin American Citizens No. 12 officials Wednesday at the Webb County Justice Center to show support for 11 Texas state senators on the lam in Albuquerque, N.M.

[...]

More than two dozen Democrats and Texas 11 supporters gathered behind the podium to loudly express their support of the move to break the quorum and chastise the governor for calling a second special session on the item, costing the state at least $3.4 million the first time around. At that time, Democratic members of the Texas House of Representatives broke quorum and fled to Oklahoma.

"How many textbooks could have been purchased for Texas children? How many elderly could have had health insurance and what about the GI Forum?" Rocha asked, referring to other things the $3.4 million could have paid.

Other speakers at the rally included Rep. Richard Raymond, who led the House Demos charge to Oklahoma, County Commissioner Judith Gutierrez, Webb County Democratic Party Chairman Roberto Balli, Senator Judith Zaffirini's husband Carlos and Judith Zaffirini via speakerphone.

Several speakers pointed out Zaffirini gave up her perfect attendance record to break quorum, and travel with the 10 other senators to be guests of New Mexico governor Bill Richardson.

The group also agreed with a statement by one speaker that they did not feel she was breaking her perfect attendance record with this action, rather it was part of her attendance to Texas issues.

Judith Zaffirini told the group that the Democrats strategizing in New Mexico to deal with the redistricting attempt " are absolutely appalled at some of the shenanigans going on in Austin."

She reviewed the week's events when for the first time in 24 years, they heard that Gov. Rick Perry was going to lock them in the Senate, and immediately call a second special session.

At that time Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, who presides over the Texas Senate, also indicated that he would ignore the time-honored "two-thirds rule," meaning that the Democrats would not have the numbers to block redistricting from coming to the floor.

Both actions spurred the Senators to flee to New Mexico.

"The support of Laredoans and constituents from throughout District 21 has been absolutely overwhelming," said added.

Raymond said he had just returned from Austin, and officials there felt "the Texas 11 was taking a very principled stand" against redistricting.

"They (Republicans) are trying to take away the voting rights of the majority of Texans. That is wrong. That is why the senators are in New Mexico and that it why we are standing here."

If you want to show your support for the Democratic Senators (or I suppose, register your complaints), you can email them at: Texas11@txdemocrats.org, fax them at (505) 828-0230 or visit them at:

Albuquerque Marriott Pyramid North
5151 San Francisco Rd., NE
Albuquerque, NM 87109

There has been some talk about a big Austin rally in the next couple of weeks. When I get more details about the rally, I'll be sure to pass it along.

Darn tootin'

By Jim Dallas

The New York Post says Howard Dean is now the unquestioned frontrunner in the race for the Democratic nomination (via Political Wire):

July 31, 2003 -- SUDDENLY, Democrats are coming smack up against a stunning fact: anti-war upstart Howard Dean has become their 2004 presidential front-runner. He's the only Dem moving up in the polls. And Sen. John Kerry (Mass.) - the early quasi-front-runner with lots of establishment support after Al Gore dropped out in December - is going nowhere now.

Consider the tests of a front-runner. Take fund-raising. Dean, a physician and former governor of Vermont, topped the Dem pack in the last quarter by raking in $7.6 million.

No rival comes close in Internet savvy. Dean raised $507,000 on the 'Net last weekend in a whimsical "Cheney challenge" just to show his supporters could top Vice President Dick Cheney's $300,000 lunch. No other Dem could hope to do it.

Or take the first two test states that vote next January. Dean is either ahead or tied for the lead in Iowa. He tops the last few public polls in New Hampshire over Kerry by as many as three percentage points - but private polls are said to show a much bigger lead.

National polls don't matter that much right now - Iowa and New Hampshire are the key - but this week's Zogby national poll had Dean tied with Sen. Joe Lieberman (Conn.) and Rep. Dick Gephardt (Mo.) at 12 and Kerry at 9 percent.

Hey, maybe KOS isn't crazy after all...

Redistricting Polling

By Byron LaMasters

No one will know what the voters of Texas really think about redistricting until next November, when the voters have an opportunity to let everyone know. But there's certainly no shortage of polls trying to suggest that Texans are thinking one way or the other. The latest was a poll by Survey USA saying that 53% of Texans oppose the Senate Democrats actions. The state Republican Party has been quick to tout that poll, along with a poll done previously (which was commissioned by the Republican Party):

53% of Texans oppose Democrat walkout Jul 30, 2003

A scientific non-partisan statewide poll conducted by Austin television station KVUE shows a strong majority of Texans are opposed to the latest Democrat walkout.

Fifty-three percent of Texans said Democrat senators did the wrong thing by walking out on the legislative session and fleeing to New Mexico. Only 37% said Democrats did the right thing. 10% were unsure.

Independent polling firm Survey USA surveyed 500 Texans across the state. The poll has a margin of error of 4.4%.

Perhaps most interesting is the number of Hispanics and African Americans – often considered key constituencies within the Democrat Party – opposed to the Democrat walkout. Most Hispanics - 44% – were opposed, while 42% were supportive. Nearly one-third of African Americans were opposed as well.

"The people of Texas elected their lawmakers to work for them in Austin, not shirk their responsibility by running away to neighboring states," said Texas GOP Chairman Susan Weddington. "Clearly, the majority of Texans recognize that the Democrat walkout is nothing more than a blatant abdication of duty staged solely for the benefit of the Democrat Party. This poll confirms that Texans want these runaway Democrats to get back home and get to work."

The KVUE survey mirrors a poll conducted by the Austin firm Baselice & Associates after the House Democrats’ walkout in May. In that poll, 59% of Texans said House Democrats had done the "wrong thing," while only 23% said they did the "right thing."

Democrats, on the other hand, tout a poll by Jeff Montgomery, that shows 45% supporting the Democrats actions, and 30% opposing.

A plurality of Texans oppose the current redistricting efforts in Austin, according to a recent statewide survey.

Since the summer of 2001, Montgomery and Associates, an independent research firm based in Austin, Texas, has been running surveys tracking statewide political issues and elected officials. In partisan political races, the firm works for Democratic candidates. This survey was conducted from July 2-16, 2003 and tested 1,031 Texas residents over the age of 18. The margin of error is plus or minus 3.1%. This survey was a random sample of adult Texas residents matching the state's demographics.

Surveyors told respondents, "Governor Perry has called an unusual special session to change current congressional districts, although they were redrawn just two years ago," and then asked "Do you support or oppose this redistricting effort?" 45.5% of Texans opposed redistricting; 30% supported it. One in four respondents (24.5%) did not have an opinion.

Strongest opposition came from Democrats (70.9%), East Texans (55.7%), African-Americans (55.7%), Central Texans (52.5%), and Hispanics (51%). Self-identified Republicans were the only demographic group who were more likely to support than oppose the redistricting effort (47.9% supported, 24.8% opposed). Texans aged 18-34 were in a statistical tie on the issue, 36.9% supporting and 35.4% opposed.

"Frankly, it's surprising that the special session was called when we're seeing so little support for redistricting," said Jeff Montgomery, president of Montgomery and Associates.

Of course, Republicans tried to discredit the Mongomery poll by saying that he was a Democratic pollster and that he used words that slanted the results.

Finally, Save Texas Reps tries their best to discredit the Survey USA poll.

Yesterday, the Texas Republican Party touted a "poll" showing that a slim majority of Texans support redistricting.

The GOP is grasping at straws.

The only independent poll made public thus far shows that a mere 30 percent of Texans support this redistricting power grab orchestrated from Washington D.C. by Tom DeLay.

In desperation, the Republican Party of Texas has latched onto a "poll" conducted by Survey USA for TV stations. This "poll" is universally dismissed by experts in public opinion surveys. The main goal of Survey USA and other television "polls" is to generate news, not credible results.

Survey USA does mainly automated calling, rarely speaking to an actual human being. They don't even bother to weight their results to account for party affiliation, minority representation, or other common forms of over-sampling and under-sampling common in legitimate polling. And their 500 sample size is inadequate for a state the size of Texas, as the margin of error (+ - 4.4%) shows.

Other questions remain. Does Survey USA do bi-lingual interviews? Do they call back when no one answers on the first or second or fifth try, or do they just run through a call list until they get a response? The difference is important, because minorities and lower-income voters -- not to mention those who speak little or no English -- are disproportionately Democratic. These are the same voters who often require several tries to get on the phone and, as a result, are very likely under-sampled in this TV poll.

What about the geography and partisan breakdowns of these polls? Were there more respondents from West Texas than South Texas? More urban respondents than rural respondents? Did they find more well-to-do respondents at home in the early evening? Did they get through to more Republicans than Democrats on the first try?

And then of course, there was the unscientific KRLD listener poll from yesterday.

Even right-wing radio talk shows are finding that Texans do not support the redistricting power grab orchestrated from Washington D.C. by Tom DeLay. A listener poll on Dallas' KRLD yesterday showed that 53 percent support the Democrats -- almost exactly the same unscientific result in the TV poll touted by the Texas Republican Party.

Of course, don't forget about the results of the Senate committee hearings, where testimony ran 8% for and 89% against redistricting. So where's the truth? I guess we'll just have to wait until next year.

Redistricting Articles

By Byron LaMasters

I'm not really in the mood to provide much analysis, but there's lot of articles on redistricting today. Nothing really new, though.

The Houston Chronicle writes on the financial cost of the trip on the Democratic Senators. They also write that Republicans and Democrats are far apart on redistricting.

The Dallas Morning News writes on Democratic attacks of Gov. Perry. The paper editorialized again opposing redistricting and supporting an independent panel to deal with the issue.

The Fort Worth Star Telegram repeated that there's not really much middle ground, and wrote that the Democrats are comfortable. They also said that October 6th would be the deadline for a redistricting map to be used in the 2004 elections.

The San Antonio Express-News suggests that Lt. Gov. Dewhurst may try and expel Democratic Senators.

Thats all for now.

GOP Budget Cuts Kill A&M Journalisn Dept.

By Byron LaMasters

Being a good Longhorn, I usually tend to act with glee when I hear of Aggie misfortunes. But, its not funny. The Republican budget cuts are already having real effects on students. Several weeks ago, it was the cuts in the UT library hours. Now, it's the A&M journalism department. More from the Daily Texan:

After years of neglect and perhaps outright sabotage, Texas A&M University has decided to kill its 54-year-old journalism program. No doubt, many on campus will line up to dance on its grave.

Before everyone breaks out the blue suedes, though, Aggie journalism deserves a requiem.

The A&M administration will argue that the program must be eliminated for budget reasons, that it was plagued with high faculty turnover, out-of-control enrollment and an antiquated curriculum. While true, these are merely rationalizations. After all, it was the College of Liberal Arts, through its own poor stewardship, that allowed these problems to fester.

Crazy cool teacher tech.

By Jim Dallas

You know how your teachers in high school would drone on ominously about your "permanent record?" Did you ever wonder if there actually was such a thing?

Turns out they weren't kidding - but that isn't a bad thing.

Slashdot.org user rhadamanthus links to a Houston Chronicle article on the emergence of a new database which lets teachers tap into student records. To help them keep track of student progress and prevent dropouts.

While many paranoid cyberlibertarians (get down! black helicopter!) won't like this, I think it's about time that teachers were able to put all that information the public school bureaucracy collects to good use. You can't help kids unless you can know who they are and what they are about.

And the increase in access will help to end corrupt practices which hurt kids, such as the blatantly fraudulent misreporting of dropout rates that has burned HISD recently:

Starting with an investigation of possible dropout reporting fraud at Sharpstown High School and culminating with a state audit that may lower the district's accountability rating, HISD has come to know how badly it handles some student data.

"The dropout issue is a key battleground for our future," Stockwell said. "We must keep these students in school and learning. Failure is not an option."

The Sharpstown investigation showed that employees can and have changed student records to reflect lower dropout rates. The state investigation and one by a district task force exposed computer records managed so badly that the district has no way of knowing where students have gone.

(Incidentally, David Brin, who delivered the 2000 keynote speech to the Libertarian national convention, wrote a whole book about this debate).

And even if the idea has visions of 1984 dancing in your head, remember this. Private sector employers do this on a routine basis.

Unfortunately, putting together student records in a useful way is not at all routine in education. The system (called the Profiler for Academic Success of Students, or PASS), is the first of its kind in the entire country (HISD press release).

HISD should be commended for this innovative approach to monitoring students' needs.

Recall Roundup 7/30

By Andrew Dobbs

Alright, here’s what’s old, new, borrowed and blue in the California Recall Roadshow.

First, the California Insider reports that the California GOP spokesman has said that Arnold Schwarzenegger will not be running for governor of California on the recall ballot.
Republican Party spokesman Rob Stutzman, speaking on Eric Hogue's radio show on KTKZ in Sacramento, says it's official: Arnold is out. "I had that confirmed late last night," Stutzman said.
For those of you keeping score at home, that means that Dick Riordan- the moderate Republican former mayor of Los Angeles- will almost certainly run now. Riordan has said that he would not run if the action star did, but now that the Austrian muscleman has decided that years of illegal drug use and making stupid movies probably doesn’t qualify you to head up the nation’s most populous state. If the Republican field shapes up like it likely will and Dems stand fast behind Gray, Riordan is likely to end up finishing first on line two and will be governor if line one passes. But Gray Davis isn’t going to take this lying down, the San Francisco Chronicle reports.
Gov. Gray Davis spent $7 million to blast Riordan out of the Republican primary last year. Now, the governor's team says those TV whacks -- over Riordan likening abortion to murder and Los Angeles' profiteering on the energy crisis -- were only a taste of what they would have hit Riordan with in the general election.
"We were just getting warmed up," said a Davis insider.
If there is one thing Gray Davis’ knows how to do, its sling mud. Thankfully some candidates are making it easy for him. Turns out that much of Darrell Issa’s bio is made up, the ”>LA Times is reporting.

In his short political career, Issa — so far the only declared Republican candidate for governor in the special election this fall — has faced both small and large questions about his record in business and the military and his brushes with the law. Republican and Democratic opponents have accused him of concealing arrests as a youth and embellishing his personal story.

The Times examined Issa's statements and campaign literature over the past 13 years and compared them with military records and other public documents. The review reveals a number of claims contradicted or unsupported by records and verifiable facts.
I think that it serves as poetic justice that a guy will shell out millions of dollars to push an electoral effort hoping to set himself up for an office he couldn’t win outright and it ends up that it ruins his career. A no name US Rep from a safe district like Darrell Issa could have spent his career away from the scrutiny of the press and eventually got enough influence in DC to be a mover and shaker, but now after just two terms he has put himself in a place where the microscope gets focused on his shotty record and he ends up without anything. How great is that?

Both Riordan, Issa and all the others are counting on the Democrats not running a candidate to succeed, but that looks less and less likely. US Reps Loretta Sanchez and Cal Dooley have both publicly urged US Sen. Diane Feinstein to put her name on the ballot. This is an interesting story by itself, two prominent elected Dems breaking ranks and calling on another Dem to run on line two, but add to it the fact that Loretta Sanchez suggested that she might run if Feinstein doesn’t and it might just be the story of the day.
Sanchez, one of the state's most prominent Latino politicians, was in San Francisco Tuesday, and appeared to be seriously considering a campaign of her own.
"We need to have a strong Democrat on the ballot. And the strongest would be Dianne . . . otherwise, I'll have to," she said in an interview. "Stay tuned."
But when pressed, Sanchez would say only that she is not ruling out putting her name on the ballot as a Democrat.
This would be an interesting development. With Michael Huffington, Dick Riordan, Darrell Issa, businessman and 2002 GOP candidate Bill Simon and State Sen. Tom McClintock all running as Republicans, Peter Camejo running as a Green and Loretta Sanchez as the Democrat, Sanchez would easily win line two. Chances are having any Dem on line two, plus Ward Connerly’s reactionary “racial privacy” referendum on the same ballot will mean a high enough Dem turnout to keep Davis in office in the first place. But this would up Loretta Sanchez’ name ID and put her in a good place for a future statewide run. Feinstein would be the dream candidate, but there is a significant chance that her candidacy would mean Davis was dead in the water.

Davis got some kinda good news today- the Assembly finally passed a damn budget. Of course it is a smoke and mirrors affair that really amounts to the state government writing itself a bunch of IOUs that will leave the state with at least a $10 billion for the next time around, but who’s keeping count? Gray has come under a lot of scrutiny for not being able to get a budget passed, but this particular monstrosity really had nothing to do with Davis- Assembly Speaker Herb Wesson walks away the winner here. His bold move of locking all the members in the chamber until something came out was the real force behind the budget passage. But actually having a budget frees Gray up to begin his campaign for his political survival.

So there you have it. The score card today: thumbs up for Riordan, Sanchez, Wesson and Feinstein; thumbs way way down for Issa; split decision for Gray. See ya tomorrow!

KRLD Listener Poll

By Byron LaMasters

This is the station I called in on the other night. They're having a listener poll on redistricting, here. Not scientific, but fun nonetheless.

On a related note, the Dallas County Democratic Party is urging Dallas Democrats to call in talk shows:

Fellow Democrats -

As many of you know, eleven of our State Senators boarded planes yesterday for Albuquerque, New Mexico to block a quorum in the State Senate. They were warmly greeted upon arrival by New Mexico Lt. Gov. Diane Denish.

"Without question, we did the right thing," Sen. Royce West of Dallas said of the walkout. "We're playing by the rules. When the other side doesn't play by the rules, you have to find other solutions to deal with it."

Not all people, especially Republicans, share Senator Royce's beliefs. And these people are calling talk radio shows in droves.

SO WE MUST HAVE OUR VOICES HEARD.

Please consider calling a talk radio show and expressing your support for our brave State Senators. Two prominent stations with selected shows are listed below:

WBAP--820 214-787-1820
Brian Wilson In For Mark Davis Show WEEKDAYS: 9:00 AM - 11:45 AM
Gary McNamara Show WEEKDAYS: 6:00 PM - 9:00 PM

KLIF--570 1-800-583-1570
Darrell Ankarlo Show WEEKDAYS 5:00 AM - 9:00 AM

Dallas County Democratic Party
Susan Hays, Chair
Russell Langley, Executive Director

Let's Make a Deal?

By Andrew Dobbs

So Rick Perry has decided that the best way to denounce the Killer D Senators would be to lie to the people of Texas. This article from the Houston Chronicle quotes Perry as saying:

Perry... (blamed) Democrats for also walking out on health care issues he hadn't added to a special-session call.

Strayhorn had been rebuffed when she repeatedly asked Perry to let lawmakers appropriate the money for health care during the first special session.

You see, in a special session the legislators can only work on legislation that the Governor says they can. For instance, if/when Perry calls a session to deal with school finance the legislature won't be able to work on water rights legislation- it isn't allowed. This particular call has only one issue on the docket- congressional redistricting. For Slick Dick Perry to accuse Democrats of skipping out on HIV patients and pregnant women is a lie. Not misleading, not deceptive, not any other nice word- a goddamned lie.

While we should point that out, it suggests that Gov. Perry might be interested in freeing up $800 million for social services. It also looks like Dewhurst might be interested in a more modest plan as Charles points out. This might all add up to an interesting alternative scenario.

Let's say that Dewhurst agrees to put out the modest map and both Perry and Craddick promise to keep it intact in the conference committee. We would lose maybe 4 seats, a strong maybe in that we might be able to keep them as we already have 21 GOP districts and we do fine. Let's say we also got Perry et al to agree to use this extra money to restore cuts made to CHIP and other vital programs. We have them make a public announcement- Rick Perry, Tom Craddick, David Dewhurst and Gonzalo Barrientos standing together saying we'll let the Armbrister Map pass and we'll fund social services. Everybody is a little happy and as soon as Perry signs the new map into law a couple of dozen federal law suits get filed. Chances are any map will be ruled illegal and tossed out. Win, win, win for the Dems.

I don't know that I support this idea- if the law suits don't work the Democrats end up a lot worse off and we lose the ability to call them a bunch of cheating weasels- we made a deal with them. But I'm not sure we can keep holding out as the 11 senators will have to come home eventually and when they do the GOP will ram redistricting down our throats. This is a solution we should keep in mind for when the rest of our options run out. Kids get to go to the doctor, AIDS patients get their medicine, the poor and needy in Texas keep the services they've come to count on and we have a map that stinks, but that is stomachable. If we can kill the plan, by all means we should; but if we can't we must be ready to make some sort of deal so that we don't come out completely battered and bruised.

Redistricting Grab Bag

By Byron LaMasters

ToT caught another picture of the protester outside of the governor's mansion. If you scroll down a little bit, you'll find a picture of the "backless house" which I ride by everyday during my bike ride from my apartment to the UT campus. Just found that interesting.

Also, Mike continues the debate between myself and Owen Courreges over the myths and realities of redistricting. Another reader, Richard Kelly, emailed me his thoughts. He makes an interesting point:

Any way, you linked to the following site today as a place for Republican talking points of note. That got my interest so I clicked:

-------

http://www.courreges.us/

Myths of the Democratic walkout

Myth: Republicans are only trying to pass redistricting because they can't win fairly.

Reality: The current US House districts are still gerrymandered from 1992, when Texas Democrats rammed through redistricting after waiving the two-thirds requirement. Accordingly, they are still tilted in favor of Democratic candidates. This is not a matter of opinion, but of fact. Republicans recieved 56% of the vote overall in Congressional elections in 2002, and yet they make up less than 47% of the congressional seats. That, my friends, is unfair.

-------

If you check the comments section on that site you'll see that I tried to engage the Courreges folks in a bit of civil dialog, but I really didn't get very far.

The point I was hoping to discuss is as follows: There's plenty of arguments to be made as to why the United States, the State of Texas, or Texas Congressional District XYZ might be better off with Republican representation. Of course you and I know that all those arguments are dead wrong, but this 56%/47% deal is worse than wrong. In fact, it's a patently bogus set of numbers. And it irks me to see it repeated all over the place.

To illustrate, let's imagine a football team with a ten game season. They lose the first nine games, each by a score of 27-24. In the last game, with the season basically over and the championship already decided, the other
team just mails it in, and our boys roll to a 50-0 victory.

The athletic director takes a long look at that 1-9 record and starts poking around for a new coach. The coach protests, "Unfair! Look at the season point totals: 266 for us, 243 for our opponents. That means we scored 52% of the total points. If we hadn't gotten screwed by the refs, we should have won over half our games. In fact, in consideration of equity and ethics, I think I deserve a raise."

Maybe we can label this the John Mackovic Defense, and it sounds a little nutty to me. But while we're playing with numbers, let's look at the 2000 election, in District 7, where John Culberson chalked up 89% of the vote.

In stark contrast, his Democratic opponent got... well, actually he didn't have a Democratic opponent. At the same time Lloyd Doggett's Republican challenger couldn't even beat the Libertarian candidate--partly because in Lloyd Doggett's district there was no Republican challenger on the ballot.

And while Chet Edwards was fighting tooth and nail for 51.55%, a couple Valley races were conducted in the grand Soviet tradition of one party, one candidate, 100% plurality.

I'd suggest that these minor details have major implications for that great unmentionable of electoral data points: voter turnout.

I'd also argue that it's grossly misleading to add up all the votes cast in such wildly divergent situations and to then conclude, "Aha! Republicans got 56% of the vote, therefore they're entitled to 56% of the seats." I don't doubt that 56% is an accurate sum. And it certainly sounds precise. You know, not 55%, not 57%, but 56%. Maybe it's even 56.73%. But it's precisely meaningless when used to evaluate statewide election results as a whole. In fact, it's no more a proper use of statistics than say, using Al Gore's popular vote total to decide the Presidential race.

What Courreges's little piece of Republican spin advocates is nothing less than proportional representation. In other words, they're suggesting that the votes cast for or against Congressman Smith (D) be given some weight in determining the fate of Congressman Jones (R). Maybe it's a good idea, maybe it's not, but it's certainly one that puts them in exactly the same camp as the Green Party and the glorious & honorable nation of (ahem) France.

Unfortunately it puts them exactly at odds with the Constitution of the United States. And it's why this fight goes beyond blocker bills, Senate tradition, or whether David Dewhurst is as nice (or as nasty) as Bob Bullock. Because if they really believe what they're saying, it means that Tom DeLay thinks the Founding Fathers were a little confused in structuring the federal government and that he's got a few ideas on how to tighten things up a bit. That, my friends, is pretty damn scary.

Oh well. Thanks for listening. Y'all keep up the good work. Hope you're enjoying the summer. I'm counting the days until the UT-New Mexico State game which now seems a somewhat ironic way to open the season.

Charles also took a look at more editorials from Day 2:

More editorials:

The Lubbock Avalanche-Journal calls Governor Perry a disappointment and compares him to a "spoiled 2-year-old child".

The Chron calls the endless fight for redistricting madness.

The Waco Trib really smacks the Governor, whom they call a "well-pressed con man". This needs some quoting:

How hypocritical is Perry in light of the partisan meltdown over redistricting? Let us count the ways.

----1. His silence was deafening----

Perry speaks now about $800 million in newly freed-up money that could go to human services if the Democrats would only come back. What was he saying during Special Session No. 1? Nothing.

[...]

If Perry really wanted to direct $800 million to social services, all he had to do was put it on the agenda. Instead, legislation he supported would have routed the extra money into an "emergency fund" under the control of the governor and the Legislative Budget Board.

Just how many Texans would benefit from that, Mr. Governor?

----2. He dropped ball in 2001----

Perry is the very last person on the planet to be saying, "It is lawmakers' responsibility, not the courts', to redraw congressional lines." That responsibility sat snugly in his lap in 2001. He brushed it off like lint.

[...]

----3. He would dispense with rules----

Whenever Perry uses the words "fair" or "fairness," he isn't thinking that way when it comes to the legislative process and redistricting.

Harsh.

The Lufkin Daily News compares the whole thing to the movie Groundhog Day.

The Corpus Christi Caller-Times also uses the term madness, but they're actually pretty mellow about the whole thing.

Finally, the El Paso Times, which was nearly alone in condemning the Democrats for the Ardmore walkout, condemns everyone for the current boycott.

Good stuff.

Open Thread

By Jim Dallas

Get your kicks.

Also, a thought to ponder - is the War in Iraq over? I noticed some other folks implying this, as in, "I haven't done that since the War in Iraq."

My feeling is that U.S. versus Saddam is sort of like (to use a football analogy)Texas versus Baylor. You know the game is over by the end of the first quarter -- but you've still got to sit through 3 more quarters during which you still risk injuries and the ever-so-remote possibility that they might just come back and beat you if you don't put up an effort.

OK, enough of my ramblings. Be free, wild spirits.

Redistricting: Point / Counterpoint

By Byron LaMasters

Owen Courreges made a list of "myths" and "realities" on redistricting on his site. I thought that I'd go for a good, old-fashioned point / counterpoint with him. He actually has some decent Republican talking points, but there is always another side.... and here it is!

Myth: Leaving the state to thwart a quorum is a legitimate legislative tactic.

Reality: The Texas Constitution states clearly that in the absence of a quorum, the remaining members may "compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner and under such penalties as each House may provide." Considering that the Constitution allows for both arrest and penalties, it is difficult to argue that thwarting a quorum is a legitimate means to keep legislation from passing. The Senate rules bolster this interpretation -- Senate Rule 5.03 states that "[n]o member shall absent himself or herself from the sessions of the Senate without leave unless the member be sick or unable to attend." The Texas 11 are violating Senate rules.

Normally, I would agree. Busting a quorum is not something that should be taken lightly. It's not something that should be used simply because the minority doesn't get what they want. It should only be used in the most extreme of circumstances such as a time when the majority tramples over the rules, precident and tradition. That is the case. The Republicans have abandoned the Senate tradition of a blocker bill, requiring a two-thirds vote to bring up any bill. The Republicans have abandoned the decades-old tradition of not redistricting in mid-decade, unless the courts mandate it. If Texas Democrats don't stand up to it now, what's to stop congressional redistricting from happening every time any state legislature changes hands? Finally, Abraham Lincoln, an American hero, and father of the Republican Party gives the best example:

About a year later Lincoln had become a leader in the Illinois legislature and he repeatedly opposed proposals by Democrats to audit the Illinois state bank. In December 1840 the Illinois Democrats wanted to require the bank to make payments in gold or silver instead of paper. The bank was authorized to continue its suspension of specie payment through the end of the year. Lincoln wanted desperately to avoid this outcome, so he bolted for the door and instructed his fellow Whigs to follow him. Without a quorum the legislature could not vote to adjourn, and the suspension of specie payment would continue.

But the door was locked and guarded, so Lincoln literally jumped out of the first-floor window, followed by his lemming-like Whig followers...

I'm sure that Republicans feel that Abraham Lincoln was justified in breaking quorum. So are the Democrats today.

Myth: Democrats are just upset that Lt. Governor David Dewhurst has waived the 'blocker bill;' a rule that requires two-thirds of Senators to agree to legislative debate.

Reality: Unlike the tactics the Democrats are employing, it is well within Dewhurst's authority to waive the two-thirds requirement. Moreover, Texas Democrats have used precisely the same tactic before, rendering their claims hypocritical. In 1992, Lt. Governor Bob Bullock waived the blocker bill to get through a redistricting plan after a Republican judge slapped down an earlier plan. It should also be noted that in that case, Republicans didn't flee the state to keep a redistricting plan they didn't like from passing.

In 1992, the court mandated that the lines be redrawn. There was bipartisan support for withdrawing the blocker bill. Republicans wanted to get the process over with so that they could immidiately turn to the courts. Dave McNeely of the Austin American Statesman wrote on this:

In the debate over how to debate congressional redistricting, some Republicans are making a case that an example has already been set by the late Lt. Gov. Bob Bullock.

Current Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst cites "The Bullock Precedent," from a 1992 special session on redistricting, when a bill about Senate redistricting came up with less than the traditionally required two-thirds vote.

[...]

On Dec. 24, 1991, three Republican-appointed federal judges threw out the plan that 19 Democratic senators had agreed to in settling a court challenge by minorities. The judges ruled the plan illegal because it had not cleared the full Legislature. They drew their own map, just for 1992.

Gov. Ann Richards had already called a special session on redistricting, to begin Jan. 2. A majority of the senators — all Democrats — revived the settlement plan and hoped to use it for primaries on March 10.

Bullock, a Democrat, did not have the traditional "blocker" bill atop the calendar, which usually means other bills need a two-thirds vote to come up out of their regular order.

Although there were 22 Democratic senators and just nine Republicans at the time, three Democrats opposed the Senate map, and one Democrat was absent.

Without a blocker bill, when the bill came out of the Committee of the Whole on Redistricting — comprising the entire Senate — it went straight to the Senate floor, where it required just a majority vote. It passed the full Senate 18-12. But Senate Dean John Whitmire, D-Houston, said there was unofficial agreement at the time that a two-thirds vote wouldn't be required.

Indeed, Republican senators who had planned to filibuster decided not to.

"I am going to oppose this bill," explained then-Sen. Buster Brown, R-Lake Jackson. "But I hope that it gets out of here quickly and into the courts. . . . The best chance of having a March 10 primary is to get this bill out of here."

Despite their efforts to have the plan in place for the primary, the U.S. Supreme Court said the 1992 Senate elections should be on March 10 but use the three-judge federal court's plan — just for 1992. The state Republican Party unsuccessfully asked later that the court plan be used for the remainder of the decade. (An ironic request, since the party is insisting that the court-drawn congressional plan be redrawn by the Legislature now, even though it is good until 2011.)

There is also the 1979 precedent for skipping the two-thirds rule. Lt. Gov. Bill Hobby tried to circumvent the rule to set up a separate presidential primary. A dozen Democrats, known as the Killer Bees, hid out to break a quorum for 4 1/2 days.

Hobby said that in 18 years presiding over the Senate, it was his biggest mistake.

See. Even Republicans admit that there was bipartisan support to remove the blocker bill. The purpose of the two-thirds rule is to protect the rights of the minority. In that case, the minority had no problem with the removal of the blocker bill because they felt that the there was a better chance that the courts would protect the their rights. They were right. In this case, there is no bipartisan agreement to end the two-thirds rule. The whole purpose of the rule is to prevent power grabs by the majority... and that is why Democrats are furious.

Myth: Republicans are only trying to pass redistricting because they can't win fairly.

Reality: The current US House districts are still gerrymandered from 1992, when Texas Democrats rammed through redistricting after waiving the two-thirds requirement. Accordingly, they are still tilted in favor of Democratic candidates. This is not a matter of opinion, but of fact. Republicans recieved 56% of the vote overall in Congressional elections in 2002, and yet they make up less than 47% of the congressional seats. That, my friends, is unfair.

Nonsense. Republicans have majorities in 20 of the 32 (or 63%) districts. If anything, there should be more Democratic majority seats. I've said this before, and I'll say it again. Max Sandlin, Jim Turner, Chet Edwards, Ralph Hall and Charlie Stenholm won last year in districts that supported every statewide Republican candidate in 2002 and gave George W. Bush over 60% of the vote in 2000. What Republicans want is a district quota system (which is odd, seeing that they oppose affirmative action). If we lived in a proportional representation system, then fine, Republicans should have 57% of the seats. But we don't. Just because Republicans had a better turn-out last year doesn't mean that they're entitled to change the rules. Also, just because Democrats tend to represent districts with less citizens and less voters doesn't mean that those people don't count. Republicans come up with the 57% number by running up the score in places like Montgomery County (suburban Houston) with Kevin Brady in district 8, who beat a Libertarian opponent with 140,575 votes last year, and by the fact that Democrats who represent heavily Hispanic and heavily immigrant districts like Gene Green (district 29) nearby get substantially less votes against Libertarians (55,760). Basically what Republicans are trying to say is that the suburban Republican voters of district 8 are 2.5 times as valuable as the (majority) Hispanic Democratic voters of district 29. Charles posts on some of his observations on the issue as well.

Myth: These special sessions are costing the taxpayers money, and it's all the GOP's fault.

Reality: If the Democrats didn't keep on thwarting quorums, which is an illegitimate tactic, then we wouldn't need to hold these special sessions. We would be getting back to other issues that need to be addressed. However, instead of simply admitting that they don't have the votes and losing with dignity, the Democrats are using every dirty trick in the book to thwart redistricting. And that's why Texans are paying.

It's Republicans that won't admit that they don't have the votes. If Republicans could have drawn a map in which just one of the 11 quorum-busting Democratic Senators and Bill Ratliff would have supported, then this wouldn't have happened. Senators Lucio and Madla stated earlier in the session that they were open to redistricting. However, Republicans insisted on a plan which would retrogress minority voting rights by packing minority voters in some districts, and by diluting their strength in other districts. For Lucio and Madla, that was unacceptable. These special sessions are wasting taxpayer dollars and all the major papers in the state have agreed that Rick Perry is the one to blame for it.

Myth: Republicans have no right to redistrict since a court-ordered plan has already been handed down. It's unprecedented.

Reality: Whether or not it's unprecedented, the GOP has every right to do it. It has the statutory authority, and besides, the very situation the Republican Party faces is unique. We've never been in power before, and we'd prefer not to endure another seven years of gerrymandered US House districts. If the Democrats hadn't been so insistant on drawing hyper-partisan district lines in 1992, this wouldn't be such a sticking point. They only object to this innovation because it harms them, not because it's illegitimate or somehow ethically dubious. In any case, I haven't seen a credible argument made to the contrary.

Again, the current districts favor Republicans in 20 out of 32 districts. If anything, the current map favors Republicans. As you almost admit, this is an unprecidented power grab. Republicans have the right to do their own gerrymander if they are in power... in 2011. Not now.

Gay Math? A Different View

By Byron LaMasters

There's been some fuss in the past couple of days about the gay public high school opening in New York. To be honest, I'm a little uneasy about it. Not that I have a problem with the concept of a gay high school. I think that for some students, a high school for gays and lesbians is the best option. I strongly support the Walt Whitman Community School in Dallas. For some gay and lesbian students, harassment is so severe, and the ridicule from classmates is so harsh, that the best option is to go to an alternative school. I think that we all know that middle school / junior high students that are openly gay or are perceived by their peers to be gay face a lot of harassment. My friend Chris blogged on this earlier:

Being a gay student in public high school was the hardest thing that I’ve ever done. While most of you were worried about what to wear, I was worried how severe the physical harassment would be that day. Harassment was a daily challenge. I heard some form of the word “fag” hurled at me at least 10 times every day. While some of you got in trouble for holding hands with your significant other in the hallway, I yearned to have a significant other. Even if I was attracted to someone, how would I know their sexuality? No one was out in my high school. I have never had a boyfriend. I didn’t know innocent, light-hearted, puppy love. I didn’t go to my senior prom. I couldn’t give blood in the blood drive. I was frowned upon for using the words “gay” and “lesbian” as though they were profane. I feared for my life on several occasions including graduation. If I would have had the opportunity to attend the Harvey Milk High School, I would have done so. If I wanted to date someone, I'd only have to worry about someone being attracted to me, not my gender. The HMHS senior prom would not have forbidden same sex dates. “Gay” and “lesbian” would be part of daily speech. No one would be harassed for their sexuality.

I really know where Chris is coming from. I felt many of the same feelings at times in high school, although to a lesser extent. I have mixed feelings about my high school years, but in general, I don't regret attending the school in which I went to.

My concern is with the fact that the school is public and taxpayer supported. I think that it sets up a dangerous precident. I strongly oppose private school vouchers, and if taxpayers can pay for a gay public high school, the arguement for private school vouchers becomes much easier (if those gays can use public money to promote their values, why can't money be spend to promote Christian values...). I think that the money would be more wisely spent on counseling programs for gays and lesbians in all New York public high schools. We should support sex education in all high schools that includes homosexuality. We should support efforts to include gay and lesbian contributions to literature and history into all high schools, not just one. Most importantly, we should help protect all gay and lesbian high school students by enacting anti-harassment laws and strongly enforcing them in all high schools. Public money should be spent on ensuring the education and safety of all children and students in all high schools, rather than establishing a slippery slope arguement for advocates of "school choice".

Latest Redistricting Articles

By Byron LaMasters

Here's the latest for you junkies out there. Another anti-Perry editorial, this time from the Houston Chronicle, and a lot more on the action from across the state.

The Houston Chronicle comes out today strongly opposed the the second special session:

There are a number of good arguments that have been stated and restated as this issue has unfolded about why this redistricting power play is ill-advised.

But, one of the underplayed ironies of the issue is that there are likely 19 or 20 districts under the current scheme that already could elect Republicans to Congress. Voters in several of those districts in the last election split their tickets to vote for President Bush and for statewide Republicans while re-electing Democratic congressional delegates. Dewhurst acknowledged as much.

Why, then, wouldn't Perry et al. -- and Texans in general -- be better served if they devoted their resources to electing Republicans in those districts instead of engaging in the partisan gamesmanship that we're now witnessing, and paying for?

Amen to that. The Chronicle also has the story on the House action today, and the story of how the Democrats left:

Van de Putte planned the revolt, including selecting the destination, hotel accommodations and flight arrangements. And she did so in the utmost secrecy.

Ellis said everyone had expected to leave either Monday night or Tuesday morning. He said the Senate Democratic Caucus met Monday afternoon and members were planning to be in the Senate chamber when it was scheduled to reconvene at 2 p.m.

But about a half hour before the session was to begin, they learned from a group of Democratic and Republican House members that Perry was planning to adjourn the then-current special session at 3 p.m. and proclaim a second special session 30 minutes later.

That's when they decided to leave immediately. Sen. Ken Armbrister of Victoria was the only Democratic senator to stay behind in Austin.

About an hour later, the 11 senators were onboard a pair of private jets whose services were contributed by constituents of state Sen. Juan Hinojosa, D-McAllen. Gallegos said every precaution was taken to keep the details of their flight a secret, even on the drive to the airport.

"At one point, I said, `Where are we going?' " he said. "It was a back road. I didn't know there was a back road to the airport."

Van de Putte said she had selected six potential city destinations in four states, including bordering Mexican states. She said she picked the places based on their proximity to Texas, the political climate of the city and, most importantly, the medical facilities available.

Because state Sen. Eddie Lucio of Brownsville had recently suffered a heart attack, she said a city with a good medical facility was essential.

And as predicted, Gov. Bill Richardson gave them a warm welcome

Since their arrival, the senators have been protected by about a half dozen New Mexico state troopers, all but one in plainclothes.

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, a Democrat, said Tuesday that the state, his administration and a majority of the state Legislature stood behind the Texas senators and their mission.

"My message to Texas state senators is that they are most welcome in New Mexico," Richardson said. "These men and women are courageous. They're strong. They acted on principle and they are here protecting their constituents, protecting those that potentially could be disenfranchised."

The Dallas Morning News wrote on the Democrats Tuesday press conference.

"There is nothing fair about a partisan redistricting effort that turns a deaf ear to the overwhelming majority of Texans and turns its back on minority participation," said Sen. Leticia Van de Putte, D-San Antonio, chairwoman of the Senate Democratic Caucus

The article also discussed the tension in the House.

Tension between Republicans and the late-arriving Democrats ran high.

When Rep. Will Hartnett, R-Dallas, questioned why Rep. Roberto Alonzo was late for the day's opening roll call, the Dallas Democrat took the microphone and tearfully explained that his brother had died Monday evening and he was assisting family members.

Earlier, Mr. Hartnett had posed the same question to Rep. Garnet Coleman of Houston, who said he was comforting his wife, who was concerned that she was about to be fired from her job.

The Morning News also carried an AP article on the issue.

The Fort Worth Star Telegram has more on the unusual process in which the House voted on redistricting without a committee hearing:

A quasi-organized quorum bust of in the House lasted two hours Tuesday morning, leading House Speaker Tom Craddick to place a "call" to compel members to come in. A quorum was reached just before 1 p.m. with 100 members and House leaders convened the session instantly with some 80 redistricting supporters, mostly GOP members and a small handful of Democrats.

That gave them the four-fifth majority they needed to sidestep time-consuming processes such as committee hearings and legislative delays intended to give lawmakers and the public time to read the bills before they get a floor vote. Had just a few more redistricting opponents been on the floor, they could have blocked the majority and forced the House to send the map through the longer process.

The Austin American Statesman has its round-up as well. It's got the article on the House action, article on the Democratic Senators, article on DPS authority and more.

Houston Chronicle Cartoon

By Byron LaMasters

Blogging the Senators

By Byron LaMasters

So who all is blogging the latest story of the Albequerque 11?

As always, Charles is on the story. He had a great morning roundup of everything that happened overnight. Greg found a great picture for his blog. Take a look. Rob's keeping up with things from a libertarian Republican perspective. He posts the oath of office from the Texas Constitution, which I must say makes for a good talking point. However, Democrats like myself, who elected our Democratic Senators are very proud of our senators for "faithfully executing the duties of the office of Senator" by breaking quorum. I voted for my State Senator, Gonzalo Barrientos because I trusted him to fight tooth and nail against to Republican power grabs. I think that the vast majority of Democratic voters feel similarly, and the 11 Democrats would be in much more danger of losing re-election (renomination) if they were to let themselves get rolled over.

For some partisan Republican rants on those lying, dirty thugs and liars (Senators for the rest of us), check out InSane Antonio and Courreges. They remind me of Republican Shock Troops. Courreges actually does have well written talking points (see the "myth/reality" post, not the crazy rant above it) that a lot of Republicans are using (so, go look at them, I'm all about the free speech business). I'm more than willing to debate all of them, and I might post on it later tonight.

Courtney wrote this about my coverage:

Burnt Orange Report: a gleefully liberal Austin blog, looks at Democratic lawmakers on the lam as a good opportunity for a roadtrip. Overall tone of coverage is somewhat like a slumber-party. Personally, I feel this is the most honest Democrat representation of the situation. Kind of "Nah, nah, nah nah, nah, you can't catch us!" when kids about to lose a game tip over the board so no one can win.

I've never claimed that I don't have a bias. I try to be fair, but I know that I'm partisan. I don't apologize for that. Oh, and Courtney, it's "..honest Democratic representation". As for her thoughts, very well, Courtney, but the talk about Democrats subverting democracy and being "whiny little bitches" is fair and balanced. Yes?

Anyone else been following the story that I've left out?

House In Session

By Byron LaMasters

The House has a quorum and are on their third reading of the redistricting bill within 5 minutes. Watch it in action, here.

Update: With lightning speed, the House passed the redistricting bill (which it passed last month) by a 75 to 26 vote (with one present not voting). With 102 members present, the House had a quorum. Democrats were quick to point out that the record would reflect the fact that the bill had no committee hearing, no testimony and no (public) debate.

A Call on the House

By Byron LaMasters

I just heard on the radio that there is a call on the House to find 5 more representatives to produce a quorum. They're looking for Representatives in the building, but not on the House floor, but no one knows where the majority of representatives are. Whether the representatives can be arrested outside of the capitol is debatable.

Want to watch the House? Click here.

And the Senate (non) action is here.

Via Save Texas Reps.

Good Taste?

By Byron LaMasters

So here's where the Senate Democrats are staying. I approve. So does Mark.

The only concern of mine is that it looks kind of nice.... a little too resort-like. Still, I think that Democrats need to remind voters that they chose the location because Sen. Eddie Lucio (D-Brownsville) who had a heart attack last month, would have access to the type of facilities needed to help him fully recover.

Senate Democrats Press Conference

By Byron LaMasters

It's over now, but the 11 Democratic Senators in New Mexico held a press conference.

They said that Ken Armbrister (the Democrat that did not go) respected their position and that they respected his. The Democrats in New Mexico said that Armbrister felt that he should stay in Austin and fight for his rural constituents.

State Sen. Gonzalo Barrientos (D-Austin) and several others spoke on minority voting rights. The Republican plan diluted some minority districts and packed others.

Sen. Leticia Van de Putte (D-San Antonio) and others have said that they will return if the two thirds blocker bill would be included.

Sen. Mario Gallegos (D-Houston) gave a timeline of the redistricting process in 2001.

Sen. Judith Zafirini (D-Laredo) said that the input of the people of Laredo was ignored. They asked that their county not be divided, yet it was in Republican maps.

No Quorum in House Today

By Byron LaMasters

The Senate isn't the only place where Democrats broke quorum yesterday, the Democratic State Representatives decided not to show up either. The Austin American Statesman reports:

The hunt for missing lawmakers has expanded to the Texas House.

The chamber was unable to produce a quorum when it met this morning at 10 a.m. Only 96 members of the 150-member showed up — four short of the number necessary to conduct business.

House Speaker Tom Craddick, R-Midland, ordered the doors locked and placed a call, or order to return, on those who are missing — mostly Democrats.

The 54 missing representatives are in addition to the 11 state Senators who fled the state Monday to prevent the Legislature from passing a bill on congressional redistricting. Gov. Rick Perry called a second special session Monday which can last for 30 days.

It is unclear whether the House members have merely stayed home or have left the state as well.

This is the first time in Texas history that both chambers have failed to have a quorum.

Awake Again

By Byron LaMasters

I just woke up, so expect some posts soon. I'm looking at editorials, and so far, so good. Take a look at the Dallas Morning News and San Antonio Express-News. Personally, I'm surprised with how strong the DMN editorial is. Usually, whenever they have a pro-Democratic editorial, they usually find someway to be critical of Democrats or say something good about Republicans in the process. This time, there there was only a little praise for Jeff Wentworth and a little critisism of previous Democratic maps, but the force of the editorial was directed on Perry.

Update: Via Off the Kuff are anti-redistricting editorials from the Austin American Statesman and the Fort Worth Star Telegram.

We must destroy this party to save it: a View from the DLC

By Andrew Dobbs

There was a time when I was proud to call myself a New Democrat. I believe that we ought to have a strong military, balanced budgets, a right to bear arms, strong businesses and I am a Southerner. The Democratic Leadership Council stands for all of these things, and as far as I can tell, so does the man that the DLC once praised as being the kind of governor they wanted other Democrats to be- Howard Dean. A rabid fiscal conservative with an “A” rating from the NRA and a market-driven health care proposal (as opposed to ur-DLCer Bill Clinton’s socialized single-payer system) ought to be the DLC’s go to guy in 2004. Especially if this guy is building the kind of grassroots support that Howard Dean is. But alas, Adam Nagourney of the New York Times reports:

Al From, the founder of the organization and an ally of Mr. Clinton, invoked the sweeping defeats of George McGovern in 1972 and Walter F. Mondale in 1984 as he cautioned against a return to policies — including less emphasis on foreign policy and an inclination toward expanding the size of government — that he said were a recipe for another electoral disaster

The warning, by the Democratic Leadership Council, an organization of moderate Democrats that helped move the party to the center 10 years ago, was largely a response to the popularity enjoyed in early presidential primary states by Howard Dean, the former governor of Vermont.

The DLC seems uninterested in electing a Democrat unless it is their Democrat. Their fear might be an honest one- perhaps they truly believe that Howard Dean is a hopeless liberal who will lose dramatically to George Bush. But their very rhetoric, calling Dean supporters elitists who are out of touch with the “real” Democratic Party, is ignorant and destructive. Maybe it is your classic Southern apprehension for Yankees, but wherever it comes from it is uninformed and unnecessary. Furthermore, their grasp of demographics and Democratic electoral politics over the last 25 years seems to be feeble at best. Dan Balz writes in the Washington Post:

Dramatic erosion in support among white men has left the Democrats in a highly vulnerable position and unless the party strongly repositions itself, President Bush will be virtually impossible to beat in 2004, according to a new poll commissioned for the centrist Democratic Leadership Council (DLC).

Hmmm…. white men eh? We haven’t won that demographic since the mid 1970s. Our electoral success is built on a coalition of women, liberals, union members and ethnic minorities. Let’s also point out that Democratic support has grown dramatically among college-educated professionals, Hispanics, Asians and suburban women- four of the fastest-growing demographics in the country. The DLC seems to want to out-Republican the Republicans and we will always lose that game.

Polls suggest that our country is evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats with about 15-20% of the population identifying themselves as Independents. The Republicans have won elections by sticking to a hard right program that turns out the vast majority of their base, and then softening it up with good images and rhetoric that get the few points of swing voters they need to win. Democrats have abandoned our base and so we are left grasping at 75% of the swing voters and we lose. If we can nominate a Democrat like Howard Dean that gets our base excited to vote again through grassroots organizing, plus keep pulling in many of the swing voters that are attracted to his moderate qualities we will beat Bush in a landslide.

Additionally, Al From and Bruce Reed need to remember that the President is elected by the electoral college. Democrats hold 260 votes that would be hard for us to lose, these are states dominated by post-industrial metropolitan areas that are home to minorities and college-educated professionals, the two most Democratic demographics. That means that an additional big state (Florida, Arizona, Ohio, Missouri) or a combination of a few smaller states (Louisiana and Arkansas, Nevada and West Virginia) will mean a victory for the Democrat. This effort will be much harder if the Democratic Party appears to be divided. What if Howard Dean is the candidate? All of the DLC’s bluster and dishonest rhetoric will feed right into the GOP’s hands. They’ll portray our candidate as a liberal out of touch even with his own party and they’ll have “Democrat Al From himself” to put on their commercials. Let’s say that one of the DLCers makes the ballot. The ill will they’ve sown among many of the party faithful who are supporting Dean will create an anti-candidate backlash and our party will look like a bickering, in-fighting group of people that can’t agree on anything against a Republican Party united and cooperative under a strong leader like Bush.

The DLC ought to put out position papers and ought to stress the values it believes in, but it ought to leave the name-calling and bomb-throwing at home. They might be surprised to see that the people they call out the hardest are actually the ones most likely to serve them.
.

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. T