:argue: :?

The Republicans have absolutely no grounds to decry partisan actions (at least none that don't make them look like complete hypocrites) by the Democrats following, among other things, the Congressional district redraw in Texas. Talk about your abuses of power. And rest assured that the next time the Dems gain control of a state legislature and redraw boundaries in their own favor, the Republicans will act as if it is the most disgusting thing they have ever seen and is in gross violation of the civil rights of rich white folks whose only wish is to get richer on the backs of working class folk.

Don't get me wrong - the Dems are completely hypocritical on this point as well. All those major party losers tout the value of bipartisanship (note that they never advocate nonpartisanship or multi-partisanship) when seeking election or concessions from their opponents and then use any means necessary to accomplish their goals (ie, staying in office and rewarding the corporate sponsors that enable them to do so).

I do think that the current co-Presidents of the US, Rove and Cheney, have been especially hypocritical in this regard. Their ventriloquist's dummy was adamant that he was a "compassionate conservative," and was committed to bi-partisanship, but this administration has been zealously hyper-conservative in all appointments and policies.

__________________
Thomas Taylor

Interested in NP tech, kids and snark? Follow me on Twitter.

You should get your story right before you use examples. Texas law requires redistricting every 10 years. It was time again. Some judge did it for them, which is illegal, and the Rep. were fighting back. They had the right to redistrict themselves, not the Texas supreme court. 10 years ago, the Democrats were in power in Texas and they redistricted to their advantage. That's the story.

__________________
Jason
Lynn Swann 06'

"Individualism is absent when other peoples' standards, not reality and reason, are ones primary guide."

This isn't true either. Drug benefits is not a conservative policy. Farm subsidies is not a conservative policy. Steel tariffs is not conservative policy. Once again, you don't know what you're talking about.

__________________
Jason
Lynn Swann 06'

"Individualism is absent when other peoples' standards, not reality and reason, are ones primary guide."

I didn't say that what they did was illegal, or even particularly unusual. My point was that it was supremely partisan, ie, it sought to advance the party's agenda to the exclusion of considering what is best for the voters or the process. To have taken this action and then call the Democrats' opposition to Bush appointees reprehensibly partisan is straight-up hypocrisy, identical to the hypocrisy of the Democrats who spoke out against Republican blockages of Clinton nominees, before and after having done the same thing.

By the way, the DeLay redraw specifically targets the seats of several ranking Democrats, weakening the Texas delegation's ability to get discretionary project funds. No Republican incumbent lost his seat following the 1991 redraw.

__________________
Thomas Taylor

Interested in NP tech, kids and snark? Follow me on Twitter.

Okay, I concede that I was being hyperbolic in referring to "all appointments and policies." I wrote that in the obviously mistaken belief that people would catch my meaning without thinking that I was trying to represent the absolute factual truth. Your brilliant truth-sleuthing should also have alerted you to the fact that Dick Cheney and Karl Rove are not actually ventriloquists.

__________________
Thomas Taylor

Interested in NP tech, kids and snark? Follow me on Twitter.

What makes you think that's not what the people want? You act like they did it just for the party, which might be the case, but it's also possible the state is moving right and their senate should reflect that.

__________________
Jason
Lynn Swann 06'

"Individualism is absent when other peoples' standards, not reality and reason, are ones primary guide."

1. Please stop putting words into my keyboard. I didn't say that it's not what the people want, although the evidence to that effect in the form of polls, newspaper editorials, and public demonstrations is substantial.

2. We're talking about their US Congressional delegation, not their Senate. (edit) I realize now that you were referring to their Senate as the body that enacted the redraw, not the body whose districts were being redrawn. Sorry. (/edit)

3. What I did say is that DeLay, Inc. acted without regard for the process or the people. If the state is shifting to the right, isn't it possible that the Republicans could realize gains without extreme gerrymandering? Perhaps they could marshal their troops to defeat Rep. Charles Stenholm, given that their party enjoys a 67% registration rate in his district. They point out that 56% of Texans voted for a Republican congressional candidate in 2000, but the delegation is split D-17/R-15. The Republican plan is estimated to give the Rs 20-22 seats, or 62-69% of the seats. How is that responding to the will of the voters?

__________________
Thomas Taylor

Interested in NP tech, kids and snark? Follow me on Twitter.

If they didn't do it, we couldn't use the word gerrymandering anymore. What fun would that be?

__________________
Jason
Lynn Swann 06'

"Individualism is absent when other peoples' standards, not reality and reason, are ones primary guide."