Make your own free website on Tripod.com


2 Pages  1 2 > 
Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

Outline / [ Standard ] / Linear+

> Democratic Hypocrisy In DeLay Redistricting, Delay did to Dems what they did to GOP

ulTRAX
post 9/29/05 - 02:18 PM
Post #1


Sophomore
**

Group: Member
Posts: 282
From: Outland, Earth

Persuasion: Agitator




Tom DeLay has finally been indicted and it could not have happened to a nicer guy.

A lot has been made about Tom DeLay's attempt to interfere with Texas redistricting in a transparent attempt to pick up more GOP seats. It was part of a grander strategy to Gerrymander the nation to maintain the GOP majority in the House. Democrats love to harp on how immoral his mid-term redistricting plan was.

Yet... the screams of moral indignation ring kind of hollow when we see that the Texas Democrats did the same thing to the GOP back in the 1990s. I first heard about this in Robert Dahl's book How Democratic Is The American Constitution. When I posted this elsewhere some Texas Democrat wrote saying:

"You know nothing about Texas politics. To equate what was legitimately drawn districts overseen by a federal court to what Tom DeLay did with Texas Redistricting is repulsive. Why did Texas Democrats win a majority of Congressional seats in the 1990s. It was simple. We had superior candidates who got out and met with conservative constituents and served their interests as well....

Unless you are from Texas you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about in regards to Texas Redistricting."

Could I have been that wrong? Not being able to find the Dahl quote I decided to start from scratch. I made a spreadsheet using 1992 election data from
http://www.polidata.us/pub/reports/489292a.pdf which gave me these results

Final Numbers of 1992 Texas Congressional vote:

Party------Votes-----%---------Seats Won
DEM-----2806044 (50.2%)---- 21 (70%)
GOP-----2685970 (48%)-------- 9 (30%)
OTHER-----97157 (1.7%)

Seems that in that first election after the Democrats redistricted in 91, they got 70% of the US House seats with only 50% of the vote. It's pretty much what DeLay did.

Here's the spreadsheet: http://members.tripod.com/romcache/texas.zip
It should open with any spreadsheet program. You may have to save it to disk to open it.

Now some Democratic partisans will STILL maintain that Delay was more immoral because his redistricting was done mid-term. To which I ask... is the ever a MORAL time to Gerrymander depriving US citizens of their right to representation?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lojasmo
post 9/29/05 - 04:11 PM
Post #2


Token goon sqad athiest.
*****

Group: Contributing member
Posts: 4,190
From: Fighting with the DFL

Persuasion: dynamite monkey



Mulligatawny Stew Recipe #19230
Great dish for cold weather... warms you all the way through.
5 cups chicken broth
1 (15 1/2 ounce) can chopped tomatoes
1 cup chopped celery
1 cup chopped tart apples
1/2 cup chopped carrots
2 tablespoons snipped parsley
1/2 cup chopped onions
2-3 teaspoons curry powder
1 1/2 teaspoons lemon juice
3 cups cooked, cubed chickens
4 cups hot cooked rice

6-8 servings Change size or US/metric
Change to: servings US Metric

30 minutes 10 mins prep
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Cheswick
post 9/29/05 - 04:24 PM
Post #3


Hammer Geek
*******

Group: Community Guide
Posts: 11,441

Persuasion: The Religious Left



redistricting is supposed to happen no more than every ten years after there is a census. The republicans had no business redistricting only a few years after it had just been done.
There is good reason for some redistricting. What the republicans did was immoral.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ulTRAX
post 9/29/05 - 05:14 PM
Post #4


Sophomore
**

Group: Member
Posts: 282
From: Outland, Earth

Persuasion: Agitator



QUOTE(Cheswick @ 9/29/05 - 04:24 PM)
redistricting is supposed to happen no more than every ten years after there is a census.  The republicans had no business redistricting  only a few years after it had just been done.
There is good reason for some redistricting.  What the republicans did was immoral.
*



As I recall DeLay's plan may have been immoral but it was not found to be technically illegal... and after that many Dems openly advocated for such mid-term redistricting.... if, of course, it helped them.

So much for principle.

Given your position of not answering questions if it doesn't suit you, it comes as no surprise that you avoided the central issue... that the Texas Dems ALSO Gerrymandered the state in 1991... and avoided the question below.

QUOTE
"Now some Democratic partisans will STILL maintain that Delay was more immoral because his redistricting was done mid-term. To which I ask... is the ever a MORAL time to Gerrymander depriving US citizens of their right to representation?"

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ulTRAX
post 9/29/05 - 05:17 PM
Post #5


Sophomore
**

Group: Member
Posts: 282
From: Outland, Earth

Persuasion: Agitator



QUOTE(lojasmo @ 9/29/05 - 04:11 PM)
Mulligatawny Stew Recipe #19230
Great dish for cold weather... warms you all the way through.

*




Don't forget a smidgen of blatant partisan hypocrisy just add a bitter note!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lojasmo
post 9/29/05 - 05:39 PM
Post #6


Token goon sqad athiest.
*****

Group: Contributing member
Posts: 4,190
From: Fighting with the DFL

Persuasion: dynamite monkey



Ingredients:

12 ounces semisweet chocolate, in chips or small pieces
1/2 pound (2 sticks) unsalted butter, cut into 1-inch pieces
6 eggs

Garnish:

1 vanilla bean or 1 tsp vanilla extract
1 cup heavy cream
3 Tbsp sugar
Edible flowers, berries, or chocolate curls
8 mint leaves

Instructions:

Preheat the oven to 350F (175C) F. Grease or spray a 9- or 10-inch tart pan with removable bottom with nonstick spray and wrap the outside and bottom with aluminum foil so the bottom is water tight. If you have no tart pan, line the bottom and sides of a 9-inch pie plate with parchment paper or very smoothly with aluminum foil.

Melt the chocolate and butter in the microwave or in a heavy pan over very low heat, stirring with a rubber spatula or wooden spoon until completely melted. Set aside.

Lightly beat the eggs and stir them into the melted chocolate mixture. Pour the chocolate mixture into the tart pan, cover with foil, and set it in a heavy roasting pan. Pour hot tap water into the roasting pan halfway up the sides of the tart pan to create a bain-marie and place it in the preheated oven for 30 to 35 minutes. Remove the pan from the oven and uncover it.

The torte will be a soft batter that will solidify when cold. Let it cool to room temperature on a wire rack, and then cover it with plastic wrap. Refrigerate or freeze at least 2 hours. Release the sides of tart pan. You can freeze the well-wrapped torte at this point for up to 3 months.

To make the whipped cream garnish, split a vanilla bean with a paring knife and scrape the seeds into a cold mixer bowl with the heavy cream and sugar. Start on low speed, slowly increase the speed, and beat on high speed until firm but be careful not to let it separate. If using vanilla extract instead of the bean, beat it in at the end. Refrigerate. (The tiny brown flecks, the seeds of a vanilla bean, give the whipped cream a "homemade" look.)

When ready to serve, cut the still cold or even frozen torte into 8 pieces with a hot, wet non-serrated knife. (Clean the knife in hot water after each cut.) The torte will defrost rapidly and is best moved when frozen. Place 1 heaping Tbsp of whipped cream on the torte. Place 1 wedge of frozen torte on a plate. Garnish with edible flowers, fresh berries, or chocolate curls.

Yield: serves 8

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Cheswick
post 9/29/05 - 05:47 PM
Post #7


Hammer Geek
*******

Group: Community Guide
Posts: 11,441

Persuasion: The Religious Left



Title: Texas Soup
Yield: 1 Farm Meal

Ingredients

1 1/2 lb ground meat
1 c onion; chopped
1 garlic clove
28 oz can whole tomatoes
1 can whole kernel corn
4 oz can green chilies, chopped
2 c ; water
1 env beef broth (can?)
1 chili powder
1 bay leaf
3 zucchini; sliced

Instructions

In large pan, cook beef, onion, and garlic until beef is brown.
Drain off fat. Add tomatoes, corn, chilies, water, broth, chili
powder, and bay leaf. cover and simmer 20 minutes. Add zucchini and
simmer until zucchini is tender.

: Source: Country Cooking Powers Chapel Cemetery Association
Rosebud, Texas 1986 Edition. Dolly Manning Langley. Typed by
Elizabeth Wood.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
NoPasaran
post 9/29/05 - 06:56 PM
Post #8


Heading out to the open sea like the great white herring
****

Group: Contributing member
Posts: 1,267
From: Peoples Republic of Travis County

Persuasion: Deanocrat



Remember, if it's got beans in it, it AIN'T chili!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ulTRAX
post 9/29/05 - 11:04 PM
Post #9


Sophomore
**

Group: Member
Posts: 282
From: Outland, Earth

Persuasion: Agitator



QUOTE(Cheswick @ 9/29/05 - 04:24 PM)
redistricting is supposed to happen no more than every ten years after there is a census.  The republicans had no business redistricting  only a few years after it had just been done.
There is good reason for some redistricting.  What the republicans did was immoral.
*



Common Ches.... as someone who describes herself as being on the "religious left"... you must embrace some sort of morality... right? So is that morality based on consistent political principles? Let's see.... how about that every citizen's vote should weigh the same? Or that every citizen has the right to vote their conscience and get some representation? Oops... I believe you have in other threads refused to support those principles.

So is "morality" merely what furthers one's ends?


User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Lobo
post 9/29/05 - 11:46 PM
Post #10


Political Junkie
****

Group: Community Guide
Posts: 1,941

Persuasion: Deanocrat



The problem isn't with gerrymandering. It happens every ten years regardless of who's in control. It's called the "Incumbent Advantage".

What makes Tom DeLay immoral, unethical, etc. is that he got in that position by breaking the law.

Sure, the Dems re-districted (at the appropriate time) to benefit their own, but they didn't break the law by pumping illegal campaign contributions into state races.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Cheswick
post 9/29/05 - 11:57 PM
Post #11


Hammer Geek
*******

Group: Community Guide
Posts: 11,441

Persuasion: The Religious Left



QUOTE(NoPasaran @ 9/29/05 - 03:56 PM)
Remember, if it's got beans in it, it AIN'T chili!
*




That's fine with me... I hate beans
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ulTRAX
post 9/30/05 - 10:10 PM
Post #12


Sophomore
**

Group: Member
Posts: 282
From: Outland, Earth

Persuasion: Agitator




QUOTE(Lobo @ 9/29/05 - 11:46 PM)
The problem isn't with gerrymandering.  It happens every ten years regardless of who's in control.  It's called the "Incumbent Advantage".

What makes Tom DeLay immoral, unethical, etc. is that he got in that position by breaking the law.

Sure, the Dems re-districted (at the appropriate time) to benefit their own, but they didn't break the law by pumping illegal campaign contributions into state races.
*



While we can all agree that DeLay is a sleazebag, the only issue I was really raising here was that of Gerrymandering and the hypocritical response of most Dems that rightfully condemns DeLay for what he did while excusing what the Texas Dems did in 1991 . Obviously neither side is principled enough to condemn Gerrymandering no matter who does it. But then one would have to believe in some basic democratic principles for that to happen.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ulTRAX
post 9/30/05 - 10:23 PM
Post #13


Sophomore
**

Group: Member
Posts: 282
From: Outland, Earth

Persuasion: Agitator



QUOTE(Cheswick @ 9/29/05 - 11:57 PM)
QUOTE(NoPasaran @ 9/29/05 - 03:56 PM)
Remember, if it's got beans in it, it AIN'T chili!
*




That's fine with me... I hate beans
*



I know you reserve the right to drop out of a discussion whenever it suits you. In doing so you are a constant source of amusement since it's always when you can't defend your own beliefs yet could never admit that.... probably even to yourself.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Nazgul35
post 9/30/05 - 11:30 PM
Post #14


High Inquisitor of the Flying Spaghetti Monster
******

Group: Community Guide
Posts: 6,787

Persuasion: Deanocrat



QUOTE(ulTRAX @ 9/29/05 - 01:18 PM)
Tom DeLay has finally been indicted and it could not have happened to a nicer guy. 

A lot has been made about Tom DeLay's attempt to interfere with Texas redistricting in a transparent attempt to pick up more GOP seats. It was part of a grander strategy to Gerrymander the nation to maintain the GOP majority in the House. Democrats love to harp on how immoral his mid-term redistricting plan was.

Yet... the screams of moral indignation ring kind of hollow when we see that the Texas Democrats did the same thing to the GOP back in the 1990s. I first heard about this in Robert Dahl's book How Democratic Is The American Constitution. When I posted this elsewhere some Texas Democrat wrote saying:

"You know nothing about Texas politics. To equate what was legitimately drawn districts overseen by a federal court to what Tom DeLay did with Texas Redistricting is repulsive. Why did Texas Democrats win a majority of Congressional seats in the 1990s. It was simple. We had superior candidates who got out and met with conservative constituents and served their interests as well....

Unless you are from Texas you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about in regards to Texas Redistricting."

Could I have been that wrong? Not being able to find the Dahl quote I decided to start from scratch. I made a spreadsheet using 1992 election data from
http://www.polidata.us/pub/reports/489292a.pdf which gave me these results

Final Numbers of 1992 Texas Congressional vote:

Party------Votes-----%---------Seats Won
DEM-----2806044 (50.2%)---- 21 (70%)
GOP-----2685970 (48%)-------- 9 (30%)
OTHER-----97157 (1.7%)

Seems that in that first election after the Democrats redistricted in 91, they got 70% of the US House seats with only 50% of the vote. It's pretty much what DeLay did.

Here's the spreadsheet: http://members.tripod.com/romcache/texas.zip
It should open with any spreadsheet program. You may have to save it to disk to open it.

Now some Democratic partisans will STILL maintain that Delay was more immoral because his redistricting was done mid-term. To which I ask... is the ever a MORAL time to Gerrymander depriving US citizens of their right to representation?
*



Good I love amature statisticians...

You didn't look very close at the data did you?

Five of the Democrats who won their seats won in districts that went to Bush not quite gerrymandered districts now are they?!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So adjusting your numbers it would be better to say the distribution was:

Dems = 17 = 54.8%
Reps = 14 = 45.2%

Have you also looked at the population for each district?

This post has been edited by Nazgul35: 9/30/05 - 11:30 PM
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mberst
post 9/30/05 - 11:49 PM
Post #15


Political Junkie
****

Group: Community Guide
Posts: 1,701

Persuasion: Liberal



I love this new Republican apologist line of defense - "well OK my guys are a bunch of creeps, so lets talk about your guys!!"

It is pathetic and very transparent unitrax. Weren't you a marxist radical or something last week?
QUOTE
Good I love amature statisticians...

Not to mention amateur pundits, amateur revolutionaries, amateur moralists....

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

2 Pages  1 2 >
Fast ReplyReply to this topicTopic OptionsStart new topic


 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 10/2/05 - 12:30 AM

Fair Use Notice
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
20032004 People For Change Forums
Questions? Comments? Contact the Administrator.

Best viewed with: