Monday, December 12, 2005

Texas Redistricting Comes Under Supreme Court Scrutiny   The US Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case that argues that the Texas redistricting did not just break hundreds of years of tradition, it also violated the voters' civil rights.  It will come as a surprise to no one who has been paying attention for the last five years that Republican appointees to the Justice Department overruled their own civil rights division, which declared that the Texas redistricting illegally violated the Civil Rights Act of 1965 by depriving blacks and Hispanics of adequate representation.  The problem here isn't the resolution of the case:  The Justice Department's own legal experts declared years ago that the new Texas Congressional districts are discriminatory; the Supreme Court is unlikely to fail to notice.  The problem is a remedy.  A ruling on this case is not expected until after the Congressional election process for 2006 is well underway.  Therefore, when the Supreme Court decides that Republicans in the Justice Department rubberstamped something they knew was a racist plan by Representative Tom DeLay, Governor Rick Perry, and the Republican-led Texas legislature to deprive minorities of representation in Texas, they will probably let the elections for 2006 occur with the current borders.  But the 2008 elections for Texas's delegation to the US House of Representatives are likely to either revert to the previous borders, or to be redrawn by a panel of judges. Nathan Carlisle who supports Rep. Tom DeLay, the chief mastermind of the racist anti-democratic and anti-Democratic conspiracy, likened Rep. DeLay to Ty Cobb, the racist baseball player who was believed to have literally gotten away with murder.  He went on to say, "It is widely agreed that Republican Representative Tom DeLay plays politics the way Ty Cobb ran the base paths--spikes up.  How lawful that style is depends on who is answering the question." 7:13:11 PM    comment []

Unfair Criticisms of Rowley   Coleen Rowley had a rough first quarter as a candidate for the US House.  Her fundraising was anemic; and beyond the initial splash of publicity following her announcement, she had trouble getting press coverage.  But in the next two-plus months, she has been running an energetic campaign; despite talk of other Democrats running against her (runs that are entirely a matter of rumor at this point), she has been doing enough personal appearances that Democrats in her district have become comfortable with her candidacy.  And her fundraising for this quarter is likely to double what she gained in the previous quarter.  Analysts are trying to make her look bad by making false comparisons; they suggest she needs to raise over a million dollars to be a competitive candidate; while I don't dispute that number, the time by which she needs to raise that money is next Winter, not this one.  And the Representative who she is running against, John Kline, is a nonentity.  People can't remember why they ever elected him, because, well, he hasn't done anything.  His is a membership in the House without a purpose.  He's not a particularly adept politician, and has rarely faced a serious challenge.  When you go to JohnKlineforCongress.com, you find a message advocating his removal, and linking him to the disgraced Rep. Tom DeLay.  On Rep. Kline's own website, he identifies no legislation he was involved in crafting, and no issue on which he is regarded as a leader, or even an important voice.  A slight breeze might be able to knock over this unsturdy reed. Ms. Rowley is a former FBI agent, and one of Time's People of the year for her role in catching one of the 9/11 attackers, Zaccarias Moussaoui, and drawing attention to the failure of the FBI to pay attention to warnings of a possible impending suicide attack by plane.  She has come under fire because she is focusing on ongoing failures to safeguard our national security, which include the prosecution of the war in Iraq.  She argues that the money we are spending on failing to win the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism sucks up all the money needed to do anything else, so they are necessarily her focus.  She also stands for honor, and ethical behavior, a claim Congressional Republicans can no longer make.  The only other criticism people have against her is they feel she hasn't raised enough money yet.  If you want to help silence that criticism, you can go here, and contribute. Another way you can help Ms. Rowley is by voting here.  Senator Feingold’s PAC is going to donate $5000 to one of 11 Democratic candidates for the US House.  Of the available candidates, Ms. Rowley is one of two very serious candidates; the other is former Rep. Nick Lampson, who is running against Rep. Tom DeLay.  However, Mr. Lampson is already a proven fundraiser, and $5000 will make little difference in what is certain to be an incredibly expensive House race, while the money could make more of a difference for Ms. Rowley. 12:56:13 PM    comment []