North Texas Liberal

Showing posts with label tom delay. Show all posts

Monday, May 21, 2007

Voter Suppression and Politics at the Justice Department

If the scuttle over political appointees at the Justice Department draws yawns instead of outrage, perhaps it would be helpful to present a little object lesson in the form of one Justice Department civil rights lawyer named Hans von Spakovsky. The story serves to highlight the on-going attempt to subvert career civil service positions for political ends, and further emphasizes why defeating the pending Texas voter ID bill is so critical.

Greg Gordon has some great coverage of the story (here, here and here.)

For six years, the Bush administration, aided by Justice Department political appointees, has pursued an aggressive legal effort to restrict voter turnout in key battleground states in ways that favor Republican political candidates.....

Facing nationwide voter registration drives by Democratic-leaning groups, the administration alleged widespread election fraud and endorsed proposals for tougher state and federal voter identification laws. Presidential political adviser Karl Rove alluded to the strategy in April 2006 when he railed about voter fraud in a speech to the Republican National Lawyers Association.

First, a little background on von Spakovsky. If you want to know why Senator Harry Reid is planning on reconvening the Senate every ten days during the summer, look no farther than President Bush's December 2005 recess appointment of Hans von Spakovsky to the Federal Election Commission. The New York Times opined after his appointment:

[von Spakovsky is] a former Republican county chairman in Georgia and a political appointee at the Justice Department. He is reported to have been involved in the maneuvering to overrule the career specialists at Justice who warned that the Texas gerrymandering orchestrated by Representative Tom DeLay violated minority voting rights. Senators need the opportunity to delve into that, as well as reports of Mr. von Spakovsky’s involvement in such voting rights abuses as the purging of voter rolls in Florida in the 2000 elections.

Yeah, you knew there would be a Texas connection in there somewhere, didn't you? The redistricting plan was later ruled unconstitutional. And the purge of the Florida voting roles disenfranchised enough legitimate voters to give the presidency to Bush. As a key Republican operative, von Spakovsky brought those same goals to his four-year stint at the Justice Department as a civil rights lawyer.

"Mr. von Spakovsky was central to the administration's pursuit of strategies that had the effect of suppressing the minority vote," charged Joseph Rich, a former Justice Department voting rights chief who worked under him.

He and other former career department lawyers say that von Spakovsky steered the agency toward voting rights policies not seen before, pushing to curb minor instances of election fraud by imposing sweeping restrictions that would make it harder, not easier, for Democratic-leaning poor and minority voters to cast ballots.

During his stint at the Justice Department, von Spakovksy

• Sped approval of tougher voter-ID laws in Georgia and Arizona in 2005, joining decisions to override career lawyers who believed that Georgia's law would restrict voting by poor blacks and who felt that more analysis was needed on the Arizona law's impact on Indians and Latinos.
• Tried to influence the federal Election Assistance Commission's research into the dimensions of voter fraud nationally and the impact of restrictive voter-ID laws -- research that could undermine a vote-suppression agenda.
• Allegedly engineered the ouster of the commission's chairman, Paul DiGregorio, whom von Spakovsky considered insufficiently partisan.

Just how effective are voter ID laws in suppressing turnout for Democrats?

Among Republicans it is an "article of religious faith that voter fraud is causing us to lose elections," Masset [former political director of the Republican Party of Texas] said. He doesn't agree with that, but does believe that requiring photo IDs could cause enough of a dropoff in legitimate Democratic voting to add 3 percent to the Republican vote.

Now it might be a little clearer why Lt. Gov. Dewhurst, who obviously has higher ambitions, is so keen to do the administration's bidding that he would resort to last week's procedural tactic to pass the Texas voter ID bill. Say a little prayer for Senator Gallegos and let's hope that the Senate Republicans still have a conscience.

Sunday, February 11, 2007

ntl celebrates black history: senfronia thompson

State Representative Senfronia Thompson, D-Houston, stood on the House floor in Austin back in 2005 and said the following poignant words:

Members, I'm a Christian and a proud Christian. I read the good book, and do my best to live by it. I have never read the verse where it says, "gay people can't marry." I have never read the verse where it says, "though shalt discriminate against those not like me." I have never read the verse where it says, "let's base our public policy on hate and fear and discrimination." Christianity to me is love and hope and faith and forgiveness -- not hate and discrimination.
...
So, now that blacks and women can vote, and now that blacks and women have equal rights -- you turn your hatred to homosexuals -- and you still use your misguided reading of the Bible to justify your hatred.

Thompson was talking about the 2005 referendum to constitutionally ban same-sex unions in the state of Texas (a measure that would eventually be voter-approved).

Called "a Democrat to watch," Senfronia Thompson has long been a supporter of equal rights. Her opposition to the discriminatory marriage bill was not the first time she took a stand. She was one of the lawmakers that, in 2003, left the state in protest of Tom DeLay's redistricting fiasco.

Thompson demonstrated her staunch principles last spring when she and 51 of her House colleagues walked out of the Legislature and checked into a motel in Ardmore, Okla. Their absence denied the Republicans the quorum they needed to carry through a scheme by Rove and DeLay for a midterm redrawing of the boundaries of the state’s congressional districts.

Thompson has never been afraid to stand up to the Republicans in power, either. After the famous 2003 walkout, returning Democrats were treated unfairly and consistently undermined by the majority. Thompson openly objected to this treatment.

The Republican leadership also unleashed a full-scale vendetta against the Democrats, with $57,000 fines on each of the Democrats for their walkout. “We must pay it out of our own income, not from campaign funds,” Thompson said. The Republicans also reduced the expense allowance for Democratic staff members to $200 per month. The staff workers parking privileges have been revoked and their vehicles are ticketed and towed if they park in Capitol parking lots. When Democrats attempt to speak, their microphones are turned off.

During floor debate on redistricting, Thompson displayed her disgust at the GOP’s arrogant disregard for House procedures. She walked up to the podium holding up the House rulebook, thick as a Manhattan phone directory, and dropped it with a bang on the floor. The widely respected Texas columnist, Molly [Ivins], wrote that Thompson’s act was an eloquent protest against what she called the “creepin’ fascism” of the Republicans.
...
“The Republicans in Texas didn’t want to play by the rules,” Thompson said. “Or they make the rules up as they go along. Their aim is to terminate the Democrats.”

In 2006, Thompson ran for Speaker of the Texas House of Representatives. Predictably, she was defeated by incumbent Tom Craddick. But once again, she wasn't afraid to take a stand, even when the odds were stacked against her.

Born in 1939 in Booth, Texas, and raised in Houston, Thompson has served in the State House longer than any other African-American, and longer than any other woman in Texas history. In addition to her numerous achievements, Thompson was named 1995's “Woman of the Year” by the bipartisan Texas Women's Political Caucus.

Friday, January 12, 2007

Congressman Burgess Votes Against Fiscal Reforms

Remember Congressman Burgess' proclamations in the run-up to the 2006 election?

I am a strong proponent of a balanced federal budget and an advocate for reducing the size of the federal government.

Well, guess who just voted against modest fiscal reforms? Last week, Congressman Burgess voted against rules that would reinstate pay-as-you-go (a policy that a bill cannot be considered if it reduces the surplus or increases the deficit) and identify all the earmarks in a bill along with their sponsors. Of the Texas delegation, 13 Democrats and 2 Republicans (William Thornberry and Ted Poe) voted in favor, and 17 Republicans voted against. The measure passed 280-152.

So let's take another look at that 2006 campaign promise.

The state of the federal deficit and debt is a sore spot for Republicans, because those who consider themselves true conservatives deplore the profligate spending of the last six years. The Bush administration, aided by ousted House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, presided over the biggest run-up in government spending in U.S. history.

Does this sound like smaller government to you?

Total government spending grew by 33 percent during Bush’s first term. The federal budget as a share of the economy grew from 18.5 percent of GDP on Clinton’s last day in office to 20.3 percent by the end of Bush’s first term.

The deficit (the difference between revenues and expenditures) went from a $284 billion surplus in 2000 to a $296 billion deficit in 2006. George W. Bush has presided over four of the top five largest deficits in U.S. history. (The fifth largest came under his father's administration.)

The federal debt, the amount borrowed by the government to finance the deficits, increased 62% to a sum larger than all the previous administrative debts combined, a staggering $8.5 trillion dollars. That amounts to $28K for every man, woman and child in the U.S. Interest on the debt is now the fastest growing category of spending in the federal budget. The U.S. now spends as much just to pay interest on the debt -- $105 billion per year -- as it spends on Medicaid, which provides health-care payments for poor and uninsured Americans.

Several things account for this fiscal freefall. Funding for the Iraq war, originally budgeted for $60 billion, now stands at $400 billion and rising.

The use of earmarks to "buy" key votes has been unprecedented. The earmarks included in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 amounted to $85 billion in subsidies and tax breaks, including massive subsidies for energy companies, many of whom have since posted windfall profits. The 2005 transporation bill included over 4000 earmarks, pork to prime the pump in key Republicans regions.

But more than any other policy, the extensive use of tax cuts, the majority of which went to the top one percent of earners, contributed to our financial crisis by reducing projected revenues by billions of dollars. The full effect of these policies has yet to be realized.

What role did Burgess play in this financial debacle? Burgess was elected to Congress in 2002. He was not yet serving in Congress when the Iraq authorization for military force passed, but in subsequent votes on appropriations for the war, he failed to demand accountability from either the administration or its contractors for the use of those funds. While lamenting the practice of earmarks, he nevertheless bragged at a town meeting that as long as pork was part of the process, he was not "going to unilateraly disarm." He voted for the energy and transportation bills, even sponsoring an amendment that gives states incentives to toll new roads. He voted repeatedly for tax cuts for the rich, and was one of the key backers behind repeal of the estate tax .

There is one area where spending was reduced. Due to the ballooning of government spending in other areas, Republican budget resolutions sought and received reductions in several domestic programs, such as education and healthcare. In his campaign statements, Burgess indicated he "strongly" supported The Family Budget Protection Act, which would have capped spending on military pensions and benefits and Medicare Part B, among others, amounting to a cut in these programs of over $2 trillion over a ten year period. Thankfully, the bill never became law.

So keep this in mind. When Republicans start talking about smaller government, they actually mean reducing programs aimed at helping middle and lower class citizens in areas such as health care, college costs, and retirement, in order to fund tax cuts for the wealthiest one percent of Americans, and its largest corporations. As a result, the percentage of tax burden for most of us is increasing, while the percentage of taxes paid by America's ruling class and corporations is decreasing.

We are increasingly becoming a nation of haves and have nots, with the highest income inequality among any industrialized nation. The Republican sellout of the middle class helped propel Democrats to power in 2006. The fiscal reforms proposed by the Democrats are a decent start. But no matter how well Democrats respond, we are stuck in a fiscal crisis that will demand tough choices and reduced benefits for all of us. When we're feeling that pain, let's not forget who got us there in the first place.

Thursday, November 16, 2006

Redistricting Reform on the Agenda for 2007

The midterm elections were hailed as a "tsunami" for the Democrats, but many pundits have suggested that the win might have been even bigger if not for gerrymandered districts. Nationwide the shift in governors' races and state legislatures bode well for handing Democrats control of the redistricting process in several states. So will the 2006 victories and the potential for more gains after the next census make the Democrats complacent, or are they serious enough about reform to tackle the redistricting debate?

There are reasons other than the issue of competitiveness to oppose partisan redistricting. By eliminating the need to appeal to moderates of the opposite party, gerrymandering contributes to the polarization of political parties, although its role is often overstated. Still, according to Thomas Mann of the Brookings Institute:

"The U.S. is an outlier in the democratic world in the extent to which we allow those in office to control their own fates by rigging the rules."

The ruling on the Texas plan earlier this year highlighted the limits of the judicial branch in resolving the redistricting debate. It did not throw the door completely open on mid-decade redistricting. Two factors were key in the decision: 1) the legislature was replacing a map drawn by a federal court and; 2) the courts had preserved a majority Democratic delegation in a majority Republican state. But as the challenge to the Texas redistricting plan proved, courts are reluctant to address the issue of competitiveness. With the courts limited ruling, and without an initiative and referendum process, the best possibility of reform still lies with state constitutional amendments.

In Texas, there are signs that redistricting will be a major issue on the agenda for the 2007 legislature. Bills already introduced to address the abuses of the Tom DeLay era.

State Rep. Allan Ritter, D-Nederland, introduced a proposed constitutional amendment Wednesday that would prohibit congressional and legislative redistricting more than once a decade unless the courts order otherwise.
House Joint Resolution 31, to be considered when lawmakers return to Austin in January, is intended to forever forbid a repeat of the maneuver engineered by DeLay in 2003 when he was the Republican leader of the U.S. House of Representatives.

A constitutional amendment would have to be approved by the public, but once passed, it could not be overturned at the whim of the legislature. While HJR 31 would prevent a mid-decade redistricting such as the one conducted by Tom DeLay, it still allows a partisan redrawing of the map in the year after a decennial U.S. census. Other legislators are considering taking the redistricting process out of the hands of politicians altogether.

Several efforts have been made over the years to reform the redistricting process. Sen. Jeff Wentworth, R-San Antonio, has long advocated turning the process over to a nonpartisan panel and has said he will likely renew that effort during the 2007 session. Rep. Mark Strama, D-Austin, has signaled his intention to join forces with Wentworth.

The real reason such reform hasn't been more popular, of course, is that the party in power is the only one who can push for this kind of legislation, and usually they are the beneficiaries of the gerrymander. Since the Democrats are still a minority party in the Texas state house, it will require the cooperation of a significant number of Republicans to support the non-partisan approach. Don't hold your breath.

Capitol Annex and Off the Kuff have links here and here to help you follow all the action on redistricting (HJR31, HB112 and HJR22) and other bills in the upcoming legislative session.

Friday, August 04, 2006

redistricting drama: is it over?

Texas courts have decided to be good to Texas Democrats... twice in a row! The blogosphere has been abuzz discussing the decision that determined that Tom DeLay must either stay on the November ballot or not be replaced with another Republican.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has declined to allow the Republican Party of Texas to replace former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay on the November Ballot.

The Court upheld a ruling by U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks, who said in July that DeLay’s name had to stay on the ballot even though he resigned and claimed to have moved to Virginia.

Today, the buzz has grown even louder as the courts have released a map the redrawn districts. Vince from Capitol Annex, who has been following the redistricting drama closely, discusses the freshly-drawn districts and offers this interesting speculation about John Courage and other candidates:

The biggest question that remains unanswered is what Congressional Candidate John Courage will do. Courage is one of the Democratic party’s stars among Texas congressional—on a national and local level—gaining recognition from groups like Democracy for America and Governor Mark Warner’s political action committee. Courage, who is running against Rep. Lamar Smith (R-San Antonio) in the old 21, saw key Travis County territory—Democratic precincts—slip away in the court’s new remap. It seems most likely, however, that if Courage continues his race (when remedy maps first started being examined, he indicated he would) it would be in CD 21.

The other affected districts, CD 15 and CD 25, will likely not change hands from their current Congressmen: Lloyd Doggett (D-Austin) for CD 25 and Ruben Hinojosa (D-Mercedes) for CD 15.

KT from BOR has more analysis of the new maps (and what they mean for Texas Democrats) over at DailyKos.

Saturday, July 22, 2006

Who Is Fred Zeidman and Why Should You Care?

A recent Washington Post article covering the conflagration in the Middle East lured me in with its title: "In Mideast Strife, Bush Sees a Step to Peace."

President Bush's unwillingness to pressure Israel to halt its military campaign in Lebanon is rooted in a view of the Middle East conflict that is sharply different from that of his predecessors.

The article goes on to quote several authorities giving their take on Bush's current policy toward the Israeli-Lebanon flare-up. It concludes with this interesting quote.

Fred S. Zeidman, a Texas venture capitalist who is active in Jewish affairs and has been close to the president for years, said the current crisis shows the depth of the president's support for Israel. "He will not bow to international pressure to pressure Israel," Zeidman said. "I have never seen a man more committed to Israel."

Now I'm just a blogger, not a journalist, but it seems to me that there is some context to that little paragraph that as a reader you ought to know. And since the author didn't see fit to fill you in, here ya go.

Zeidman's name might be familiar in Houston circles, where he was known as an old and close friend of George Bush. He was a Bush Pioneer in the 2000 presidential campaign and a Bush Ranger in the 2004 election cycle.

Zeidman has ties to another infamous Texan. In 2003, he accompanied House Majority leader Tom DeLay on his 2003 trip to Israel. The trip made headlines because, while there, DeLay contradicted the President's own policy on Israel, condemning cease fires as "vacations" for terrorists.

“He really made an impression,” Fred Zeidman, a longtime Jewish Republican activist and now chair of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council, said of DeLay. Zeidman took DeLay on his first trip to Israel in the mid-1980s.

Oh, and did I forget to mention that Zeidman's son just got hired to represent the White House?

[Jay] Zeidman is the son of Fred Zeidman, chairman of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council and a fund-raiser for President Bush in the Jewish community. The younger Zeidman said he attended a lot of meetings with his father for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and the Anti-Defamation League in Houston, and walked away with strong support for Israel and political activism.

Oh, by the way, Jay is 22. But don't be thinking his father pulled any strings for this appointment.

Both father and son acknowledge that some may try to depict the appointment as an act of nepotism. But Fred Zeidman said that after he introduced his son at the White House for the first time, he was on his own.

Nepotism? In the administration of the son of a former president? Oh, wait...

And of course, you've probably heard of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) because they were implicated in the indictment and prosecution of Larry Franklin, a Pentagon analyst on the Iran desk who plead guilty to passing classified documents to AIPAC regarding U.S. plans to destabilize Iran.

Oh, and if you're looking for the obligatory oil connection, that's there, too. Zeidman is the former Chairman of Seitel, Inc. a leading provider of seismic data and related geophysical expertise to the petroleum industry. When he was appointed, the company was trying to burnish its image after restating earnings in the wake of the Enron scandal, and SEC charges against a former CEO for abuse of company funds.

Okay, here's probably the most important thing to remember. In 2004 Fred Zeidman was appointed the Senior Director of Governmental Affairs to the lobbying firm of Greenberg Traurig. Greenberg Traurig was in the headlines recently, after one of its former lobbyists, Jack Abramoff, got in a little trouble over some PAC money.

Greenberg Traurig provided lawyers to the Bush-Cheney team during the Florida recount. And speaking of nepotism, the firm also hired Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's son on election day 2000, just a few weeks before his father famously quashed the recount in a 5-4 decision.

And did I mention that Congress is opening an investigation into the ties between Abramoff and the White House?

Chairman Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.) authorized a subpoena weeks ago to Greenberg Traurig, according to several of the law firm's former clients who have been notified that it is turning over billing records, e-mails, phone logs and other material that reflects efforts to lobby the White House. Abramoff, the once-powerful lobbyist at the center of a wide-ranging public corruption investigation, was sentenced to five years and 10 months in prison on March 29, after pleading guilty to fraud, tax evasion and conspiracy to bribe public officials in a deal that required him to provide evidence about members of Congress.
Representatives of four of Abramoff's former tribal clients said they have been notified by Greenberg Traurig that the firm is turning over records. In some cases, there were scores of phone calls or other contacts with the White House. It is not known whether any of those contacts resulted in improper aid to Abramoff. Several tribal representatives said they believe many contacts were with staff members at the White House office of intergovernmental affairs.
In a subpoena -- read to The Washington Post by a former client who received a copy from Greenberg Traurig -- seeks all firm billing records "referring or relating to matters involving Jack Abramoff or any person working with Jack Abramoff," as well as all records reflecting any contacts those lobbyists had with the White House. The subpoena seeks records from Jan. 1, 1998, to the present, though Abramoff did not begin work at Greenberg Traurig until early 2001.

So yeah, Zeidman is a "Texas venture capitalist who is active in Jewish affairs and has been close to the president for years." I guess it's accurate as far as it goes. Like Forest Gump, he has the distinction of showing up in the background at auspicious moments in history. Now I'm not implying anything by all this, mind you. I just thought you might like to know.

Thursday, July 06, 2006

"The Big Buy" Showing at Peace Action Denton

If you haven't seen The Big Buy: How Tom DeLay Stole Congress, Mark Birnbaum and Jim Schermbeck's documentary on the fall of Tom DeLay, here's your chance. The Peace Action Denton group will be showing the movie this Saturday as part of their quarterly meeting. Congressional candidate Tim Barnwell will be saying a few words before the viewing of the film.

WHAT: Denton, Texas screening of The Big Buy

WHEN: Saturday, July 08 2006 07:00 PM

WHERE: Trinity Presbyterian Church, 2200 Bell (at Sherman), Denton

TICKET PRICE: FREE, RSVP required below

TIME: 5:30 P.M. Quarterly General Membership Meeting with Potluck supper - everyone invited. Movie starts at 7:00 PM.

Special Guest Congressional District 26 Candidate Tim Barnwell, who is running against Michael Burgess, will make a short presentation before the film.

Admission is free and film is followed by discussion. Please visit our website for information on all our upcoming events.

HOSTED BY: Peace Action Denton.

Disclaimer: I volunteer for the Barnwell campaign. Join me.

Thursday, June 29, 2006

supreme court rules on redistricting

On Wednesday in a 5-3 decision (Chief Justice John Roberts abstained from voting), the United States Supreme Court decided to uphold most of the Texas congressional district map. Politicos had been whispering for days that the high court was poised to issue a ruling on the case. It's hard to decide the victor, though.

In 2003, the Texas Legislature voted to enact Tom DeLay's mid-decade gerrymandering, despite numerous attempts from Texas Democrats to block the perceived illegal action. Democratic legislators fled to Oklahoma and New Mexico while trying to block its passage, but inevitably the Republicans prevailed and gained six coveted congressional seats in 2004.

With the "new swing voter" Anthony Kennedy casting the deciding vote, the Supreme Court only took issue with one congressional district.

The justices ordered lower courts and the state to fashion a new District 23. The district takes up a huge part of west Texas, from El Paso to San Antonio, and the seat is held by Rep. Henry Bonilla, a seven-term Republican.
It is unclear whether a new map for District 23 can be redrawn in time for the November midterm elections.

Boyd Richie, Chairman of the Texas Democratic Party, considered Wednesday's ruling a victory for Texas Democrats. Because of the Supreme Court's decision, disenfranchised Hispanic voters in South Texas will now be assured that their votes really count. Mr. Richie also expressed disappointment that the entire map of Texas wasn't thrown out or revised.

Tom DeLay exploited a weak-kneed governor and compliant President to abuse voters in every corner of Texas. Republicans in the Texas legislature wasted millions of taxpayer dollars and ignored addressing important issues such as school finance and insurance prices to do Tom DeLay's dirty work.

The challenges that remain for us are to rebuild our Party and elect good Democrats to every office from the Governor right on down to our local commissioners, clerks, and judges. I urge everyone to vote a straight Democratic ticket and let's put government back where it belongs-- in the hands of the people of Texas.

Attorney Rolando Rios agreed with Mr. Richie's assessment in a CNN interview. "The federal courts have to come in and protect the rights of Latinos against the abuses of the state of Texas. [Republicans] do everything they can to keep us from having our due."

It will be interesting to see the implications of this ruling. Expect more from NTL as they unfold in the weeks to come.

Wednesday, June 14, 2006

Gone But Not Forgotten - Tom DeLay's Legacy

One of the speakers called it an irony of "mythic proportions" -- that Tom DeLay's last day in office should coincide with the start of the Texas Democratic convention and the official nomination of Chris Bell, the former congressman and now gubernatorial candidate who initiated the ethics charges that eventually resulted in DeLay's resignation. In his swan song last week, rather than the traditional bipartisan olive branch, Mr. DeLay took one last opportunity to stick a figurative finger in the eye of Congressional Democrats.

Pundits are still weighing in on Mr. DeLay's legacy, but judging from a sampling of the editorials published in the last few days, time alone may not be enough to burnish the reputation of one of the most controversial political figures of his era. Here's a sampling:

"In any time or place, on any issue, what does liberalism ever seek, Mr. Speaker?" DeLay asked. "More. More government, more taxation, more control over people's lives and decisions and wallets."
Yet it was conservatism, at least as DeLay embodied it, that has enacted a vast expansion of government power over the people, culminating in the utterly bizarre episode in which Congress was called back from recess to intervene in the Terri Schiavo tragedy.....
It was also under DeLay's leadership in the House that government spending -- even nondefense spending -- rose faster than it had in four decades under the Democrats, and that all controls were removed from pork barrel appropriations. In response to that criticism, DeLay actually argued that "there is simply no fat left to cut in the federal budget" of $2.5 trillion.

DeLay was a hypocrite who sold out "old school" conservative values of smaller government in order to spread the pork that bought the votes that pleased the lobbyists who paid for the House that Tom built.

Part of the reason that DeLay was so effective was his unwavering conviction in the righteousness of his goals. He embraced the concept of Atwater and Rove that politics is war, and in war, the end justifies the means.

Reading the list of political achievements he recited in his farewell speech to thunderous applause from his GOP colleagues, one is perplexed as to why he is walking away from it all. Surely, the FBI agents and Texas prosecutors who are hounding him following the guilty pleas of former top DeLay associates are unaware that he is doing the Lord's work?
"Mr. Speaker, as God is my witness and history is my judge," DeLay proclaimed dramatically, insisting he has at all times acted "honorably and honestly." Modestly placing himself in the company of Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln, he celebrated his engineering of the destruction of wicked liberalism by any means necessary.

DeLay believed in doing well by doing good, at least as defined by his donors. He brazenly and openly declared that he would not entertain lobbyists who had not contributed to Republican fundraising, and then set about changing the rules to remove any barriers to consolidating Republican power.

DeLay will be forever remembered as the political hack who melded party fund-raising, special-interest influence buying and the legislative process into a perfect storm of institutional corruption, permanent partisan warfare and astonishingly bad lawmaking. He is leaving a Congress that is held in almost universal disdain by the American people. His name will be forever linked to that of convicted super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff, the king of K Street. And as he goes off to defend himself against criminal charges of his own, DeLay leaves behind a still brewing ethics scandal that may yet envelop still more of his hapless ex-colleagues.

In the end, DeLay's contempt for subtleties may be a back-handed gift. Only through such over-the-top, mouth-gaping excess, was it possible to bring almost universal contempt for his corruption of the political system. In today's world of spin, anything less would have seemed justifiable. But ethics reform has been a paper tiger, and DeLay's prodigies, although lacking his vicious skills, nonetheless constitute more of the same. It will take a coup in Washington, and a true dose of populism, to turn this tide.

We'll leave the last word to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

A little partisanship is not a bad thing. That’s why we have political parties: to reflect different political values. But governance is the art of compromise in the interest of the nation as a whole, and there DeLay’s two decades in Congress were an unmitigated disgrace. ...
In the end, Tom DeLay, the former pest exterminator from Houston, himself became a human cockroach, scuttling under the door when the lights were turned on. Good riddance.

Sunday, June 04, 2006

DeLay Wannabes Work the Crowd at GOP Convention

Tom DeLay did not attend the Republican Convention in San Antonio last week, and no one knows whether the soon to be ex-Congressman has put in a plug for one of the eight candidates seeking to replace him. But the contenders were all out in full force, working the precinct chairs who will choose four representatives ultimately responsible for selecting DeLay's successor.

The candidates at this point are:

State Reps. Charlie Howard of Sugar Land and Robert Talton of Pasadena, state Sen. Mike Jackson of La Porte, Houston City Councilwoman Shelley Sekula-Gibbs, Sugar Land Mayor David Wallace, lawyer Tom Campbell, former state executive committee member Tim Turner and retired Air Force major Don Richardson.

The Houston Chronicle has some select quotes from the contenders.

In printed campaign materials he handed out, Talton, a former precinct chairman and convention delegate, touted his A+ rating from the National Rifle Association and his standing as one of the most conservative members of the House. ''This is about relationships built up over many years," Talton said.
''I know the precinct chairs and delegates because I've been among them. Some people change their position on issues for political opportunity."

Shocking, I know. My faith in politicians has just taken a huge hit.

But Talton has some competition for the conservatives from Councilwoman Shelley Sekula-Gibbs.

Sekula-Gibbs gave the Republicans red meat to chew on — telling them she is anti-abortion, pro-business, for limited government, immigration reform without amnesty and lowering crime, ''since Katrina evacuees came into our life [emphasis mine]."

While we're at it, why don't we just build a wall between Texas and Louisiana?

Ms. Sekula-Gibbs seemingly has come from left field to become a major contender in this race. Apparently, her campaign mailings claim support from money-bags Bob Perry, which makes her definitely one to watch.

Tuesday, May 30, 2006

the delay strategy

Can Texas Democrats use Tom DeLay as a strategy in this year's midterm elections, even with the absence of DeLay as a candidate or even an incumbent?

There on the screen was Tom DeLay – 30 feet tall, flickering in black and white like the man who wasn't there in a film noir.

For political activists intent on highlighting the message of political corruption in this year's House and Senate races, it did not seem to matter that Mr. DeLay was actually no longer a candidate and soon won't be a congressman, either.

To the crowd that gathered Friday night for the premiere of The Big Buy, a documentary about the former House majority leader's precipitous rise and fall, Tom DeLay is still big box office.

"DeLay becomes a symbol," said Glenn Smith of the liberal advocacy group Drive Democracy. "And the symbol floats free of his particular circumstance in or out of power. That's a political fact."

The Democrats couldn't have asked for a better Republican poster child. Tom DeLay, the embattled U.S. Representative from Sugar Land, Texas, has become the face of political corruption. As President Bush witnesses an erosion of his conservative base (yes, even in Texas), more and more people are also opening their eyes to the Republican leadership that has railroaded the Bush agenda through Congress.

Some Republicans have suggested that Democrats stop harping on DeLay now that he has agreed to resign from office this summer, months before the midterm elections take place. Democrat Nick Lampson, a former U.S. Representative that was ousted from his seat due to DeLay's redistricting, is running for DeLay's vacant seat in the 22nd Congressional District of Texas. Lampson's campaign has heavily focused on Tom DeLay and his gerrymandering, elitist, neo-conservative ways.

It's clear, though. American voters won't tolerate people like DeLay anymore. Even the conservative pundits are catching on to the new political tides (for example, Bill O'Reilly thinks he may have been "a little unfair" to Hillary Clinton). Texas Democrats, especially Nick Lampson, cannot stop talking about Republican corruption or its king... Tom DeLay. They need to employ "the DeLay strategy" from now until November. Texans are smart people and they will recognize that it's time for a little "House-cleaning." DeLay left of his own accord, but we'll have to vote out his cronies on our own.

Friday, May 12, 2006

DeLay Sets Date for Departure

So would anyone care to wager on who will be the first out the door, Karl Rove or Tom DeLay? The odds at the moment favor DeLay, who has set a date of June 9th as his last day representing Texas Congressional District 22. And to be honest, I'm getting kind of worried here. We've only been blogging for three months, and already we're losing our number one favorite target--not to be confused with subject, as in the subject of an investigation, which brings us to Mr. Fitzgerald. If the rumors about Karl are true, it could be any day now...

Fortunately, the Bush administration is the gift that keeps on giving. I'm pretty sure we're still going to have a few scandals to chew on around here. And although the Houston Chronicle article doesn't mention him, Texas House Representative Robert Talton is reportedly still in the running for DeLay's seat. To my mind, Talton taking over DeLay's seat is a little like John Roberts taking Rehnquist's on the Supreme Court -- it's not so bad as long as you're replacing a conservative with another conservative, right?

Talton, as you may recall, is infamous for his introduction of legislation banning gays and lesbians from serving as foster parents. The legislation failed, but for a little insight into Mr. Talton's psyche, I quote from a House Committee on State Affairs in 2003:

[Rep. Mike Villareal, D-San Antonio]: You're talking about the sexual orientation of the parent, not the child.
...
RT: Right. Of the foster parent, or the alleged foster parent.... Some of us believe that's a learned behavior; you're not born that way. And so if it's a learned behavior, then if you're taught that that conduct is OK, then that's what they're gonna do. We know that it's a learned behavior on sex offenders ... same thing with this, it's a learned behavior. Same thing with pedophiles -- it's all a learned behavior.
Groans of disbelief from the audience.
MV: Is that a religious opinion?
RT: No, I think that's probably the majority of Texans.
Audience laughs; committee Chair Ken Marchant, R-Coppell, scolds the crowd.
MV: I also sit on Human Services [Committee] and our number one priority is placing children with caring, nurturing, loving parents, period. ... Are you concerned that we are going to be holding this value of yours above this other priority?
RT: Quite frankly, I don't look at those that may be homosexuals as parents as such. ... We think of a parent -- y'all heard DOMA [Defense of Marriage Act] -- as a mother and a father and not persons of homosexual conduct. And I would put that value ahead of the value of foster care. Quite frankly, if it was me I would rather [leave] kids in orphanages. ... At least they have a chance of learning the proper values, and if that's not important, than I don't know what is.

Values are important, but there's something missing here. Bonding. It's the key to the emotional development of a child, and it depends on the relationship between caregiver and child. And orphanages sucked at providing it. That's why we did away with them. If bonding doesn't take place, the child fails to develop a conscience, becomes obsessively focused on meeting her own needs, and has trouble empathizing with others.

Now I know what you're thinking, but there is no way that the entire Republican legislature was raised in an orphanage. Anyway, we're anxiously awaiting Tom DeLay's replacement. We'll keep you posted.

Tuesday, April 04, 2006

The Bug Man's Gone

We never thought he'd do it, but facing a strong opponent in the general election, and coming off a brutal primary fight, a chastened Tom DeLay announced he is stepping down from his congressional seat in May, acknowledged his mistakes and asked his voters to continue the fight for reform in Congress.

Okay, so I made that last part up. But he is retiring. And give him credit, at least he's consistent. Defiant to the end, DeLay told Time interviewer Mike Allen:

TIME: Do you think you did anything that made you more of a target for your critics? Do you think you made it easier for the opponents to —
DeLay: No. The opponents HATE what we do—what we have done in the last 11 years in the majority. We have built the largest political coalition of my adult lifetime. They hate that. We have been effective for 11 years going now, doing some pretty amazing things. They hate that. The reason we've been effective is we've tried to change the culture of Washington, D.C. And do it legally and ethically.

And that silly ole indictment? Move along, nothin' to see. The ethics violations? Pure partisan hoohah. Corrupt staff? Well, now, I can't be accountable for every little detail. Abuse of house rules? Those Democrats just wish they'd thought of it first. That $500,000 paid from PAC funds to his wife and daughter? Family values in action.

The Time article is worth reading just to hear his wife, Christine's, perky cheerleading. There are still a lot of unknowns concerning who will replace DeLay, and whether his seat will be filled prior to the November election. DeLay could have bowed out before the primary and allowed one of the challengers to run. Salon has some theories as to why he didn't do that:

Those who contributed to Tom DeLay's campaign may be onboard for his legal defense, too. As the Washington Post points out, under federal election law, DeLay is allowed to spend the money in his reelection coffers on attorneys' fees. "Election lawyers say one advantage of bowing out of the election now is that the campaign cash can be converted to pay legal bills immediately, instead of being drained in the course of a bid to stay in office," the paper says. (Why, one wonders, would such a law exist? Lawmakers and regulators sure do think about all the contingencies when drawing up finance rules.)
This is good news for DeLay, because although he has amassed a large legal fund, contributions had lately been declining. The fund collected $318,000 in the third quarter of last year, the Post says, but in the fourth quarter it collected only $181,500. As of the end of 2005, the defense fund contained $600,000. Meanwhile, DeLay's campaign account has $1,295,350, according to the most recent filing with the Federal Elections Commission.

Now there are some whispers that Ronnie Earle could eventually be the least of DeLay's worries. But to suggest that he stayed in the race just to raise funds for his legal defense -- what in Rep. DeLay's two decades in congress would make you so cynical? Unfortunately for us, the bug man's demise doesn't mean his legacy won't be with us for a long time to come.

Monday, April 03, 2006

Tom DeLay Dodges Another Bullet

This is what passes for good news in the DeLay camp these days:

DeLay's former deputy chief of staff, Tony Rudy, 39, did not implicate him in any wrongdoing when he pleaded guilty Friday to conspiracy in the case involving convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

Add this to the other good news that Jack Abramoff himself appears unlikely to implicate DeLay in his plea bargain, and Michael Scanlon, Abramoff's lobbying partner-in-crime, didn't name him either. Of course, Rudy did implicate DeLay's chief of staff, Ed Buckman, in the congressional bribery scandal. Buckman was DeLay's closest aide and spiritual adviser. But just because this admission takes the scandal into DeLay's inner circle, don't go jumping to conclusions. DeLay was completely clueless and you'd better believe it hurts to know that the people he trusted so well were capable of such duplicity.

All this good news probably made him want to get up and do the Snoopy dance. But some people just can't catch a break. It seems the Hollywood libruls made a movie star of the Hammer, and he's upset they didn't portray him in the best light. Mark Birnbaum and Jim Schermbeck are releasing The Big Buy: How Tom DeLay Stole Congress, a movie about DeLay's recent, er, troubles with Ronnie Earle. As DeLay describes it:

“The same day I secured the Republican nomination to continue serving you and the good people of the 22nd District, my Democrat opponent Nick Lampson’s liberal Hollywood buddies gave me a “welcome” gift. They officially released a documentary about Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle’s partisan witch-hunt.”

But the documentarians have a different take:

Mark and me, Hollywood Liberals? I live in rural West Texas. I drive a ten-year old Civic. I just voted in the Republican primary. My family and I paint the town red by going to one of many chain restaurants in Lubbock. Mark is a grandfather who lives with his cat in a 30-year old middle-class home in North Dallas built by a Texas Instruments engineer.

Well, for those of you who've never been, Lubbock does have it's own special charm. Still, pity poor Tom. Everytime he dodges another bullet, somebody else has him in their sites. No wonder he wants his gun back.

Friday, March 17, 2006

sandra day o'connor speaks out!

The newly retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, appointed by President Reagan but considered by many to be a moderate and "the swing vote," recently spoke out against right-wing attacks on the judiciary.

Sandra Day O'Connor was born in El Paso, Texas, and spent much of her life in Duncan, Arizona. She later attended Stanford in the 1950s. She had trouble finding work as a lawyer because of her gender, but she was appointed to the Arizona State Senate and was subsequently elected to two full terms as a Republican. She became the first woman to become Senate Majority Leader in any state. She was serving as judge on the Arizona Court of Appeals when she was tapped by President Reagan.

Ms. O'Connor spent twenty-four years on the Supreme Court. She was the first woman to be appointed to the highest court of the land, and part of her service was spent with the second woman ever appointed and confirmed, Clinton-nominated Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

On March 9, Sandra Day O'Connor gave a speech at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C. In her speech, she criticized Republican leaders for their attacks on the independent judiciary. She declared, "We must be ever-vigilant against those who would strong-arm the judiciary" and said that such threats "pose a direct threat to our constitutional freedom."

Many point to former Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) as an example of what O'Connor is warning against. Last year during the Terri Schiavo debacle, DeLay called for scrutiny of "an arrogant, out-of-control, unaccountable judiciary that thumbed their nose at Congress and the president." Unfortunately for these Republicans, the Supreme Court is in place to uphold the Constitution rather than to enforce the conservative moral agenda.

"It takes a lot of degeneration before a country falls into dictatorship," Ms. O'Connor said, "but we should avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings."

Sunday, March 05, 2006

Redistricting Update

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard arguments regarding the legality of the Texas congressional redistricting plan. Anthony Zurcher of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram has an op-ed arguing that if this plan doesn't qualify as overly partisan, there's no such thing.

But in their zeal to redraw Texas' electoral map and maximize their party's representation in the congressional delegation, Rep. Tom DeLay and the state Republicans have gone too far - and, depending on the increasingly fickle views of Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Supreme Court might agree.

But David Broder doesn't think it likely. The arguments against the redistricting center on three issues: 1) A mid-decade redistricting was unfair; 2) Gerrymandering was excessive; and 3) Probably the strongest argument, that the redistricting violated the Voting Rights Act. Broder notes:

Questioning showed that about 100,000 Hispanics had been moved out of a South Texas district, improving the election prospects of Republican Rep. Henry Bonilla. The state contended that they were shifting Democrats - not Latinos - and Roberts, for one, appeared to buy the argument that the motivation was political, not racial.

So it's okay to crack and pack districts according to race, as long as you're a political hack and not a bigot. Ah, but I'm sure that Chief Justice Roberts, who attended private boarding schools, graduated from Harvard, and spent his formative years working with an ethnically diverse group of middle-aged white men, (Rehnquist was Scandinavian, after all) would certainly have a keen antenna for these issues.

Monday, May 21, 2007

Sunday, February 11, 2007

Friday, January 12, 2007

Thursday, November 16, 2006

Friday, August 04, 2006

Saturday, July 22, 2006

Thursday, July 06, 2006

Thursday, June 29, 2006

Wednesday, June 14, 2006

Sunday, June 04, 2006

Tuesday, May 30, 2006

Friday, May 12, 2006

Tuesday, April 04, 2006

Monday, April 03, 2006

Friday, March 17, 2006

Sunday, March 05, 2006

Sponsors

Twitter Updates

Contributors

Praise & Awards

Texas Progressive Alliance

Blog Roll

Links

Contact Us

Support

Blog Archive