The inability of Dems to properly gerrymander shows how weak the party is

[fujiyama]

There was an incident in Illinois where several of the congresspeople from the state were unhappy with Rahm Emanueal because he wanted to step up the opposition to the pukes.

Hell, he's not even some sort of flaming liberal, but we're at a point where someone like him is seen as too "wild eyed".

Something is seriously wrong. We can't gerrymander worth crap. Illinois is a state where the GOP is a mess and the Dems can't even take advantage of that?!

Edit: Here's the article I am referring to.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chicago/chi-05...
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WASHINGTON -- U.S. Rep. Rahm Emanuel was picked recently by fellow House Democrats to try to lead them back to power. But last week, the hard-charging Chicago congressman's big political idea for his own state was promptly slapped down by other Illinois Democrats.

The scene was a Capitol Hill office where most members of the state's Democratic House delegation had huddled to warn Emanuel off a plan to try to grab more House seats for the party by redrawing district boundaries in Illinois years ahead of schedule.

Such a proposal, several worried, would needlessly inflame Republicans, including House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), and make Illinois Democrats appear duplicitous by breaking a remap agreement negotiated just a few years ago.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

[tom_paine]

1. The Amerikan Democrats are too busy emualting the German Social

Democrats of 1933 to give a second thought to the whining of Jews...err...liberals (sometimes I get similar nations going through similar tribulations in different eras mixed up)

[ClassWarrior]

5. YOU'RE doing that??

WE are the party, you know. Why do you surrender your fate to someone else?? Why do you speak of the party as "they" when YOU could get involved with your county party and have an INFLUENCE on what "they" do??

NGU.

[tom_paine]

13. First, I am speaking nationally, second, I busted my ass 3 nights/week

(after working full 9-1- hr days) making phone calls, canvassing, etc. for Kerry's and the Local Congressional campaigns.

I also donated my ass off, too.

So I have my creds, I did my part, and the simple fact of the matter is that the Democratic Party isn;t all that responsive to it's base anyway because the Bushevik Totalitarian Sub-Media has convinced them we're a bucnh of pariahs and wingnuts who's votes are to be expected no matter how much they kiss Busha nd the Corporations' asses.

Does that mean I am switiching to the Greens? Of course not. Infact, even though it's as pointless as campaigning against Hitler, I will probably do the same thing in '06 and '08, which is work and donate my ass off to a Democratic Party that considers me in almost the same way that the Busheviks do.

(and if you don't see that, go look at the writings of the DLC and NDOL...and I am a Moderate, albeit a Radicalized one, who probably shares a lot of views with DLC/NDOL if only they didn't counsel bootlicking cautious weakness and collaboration with Tyrants at every turn...how must the Passionate Liberals feel if I feel this way?)

You are right, or would have been if we still lived in Free America.

But we don't. That place is gone.

And I believe we Filthy Little Nobodies have very little influence on the Democratic Party or else they wouldn't have run like scared rabbits at every turn, even choosing to have that soft "non-confrontational" convention while being PILLORIED 24/7 by the Busheviks and the compliant Corproate TV Pravda.

This after MILLIONS were coming out to work for them for the first time, and screaming for some backbone on so many levels it is unfathomable that they turned away from the voters and instead to the wretched cautious, timorous, weak bunch that gave us Appeasement of the Fuhrer and Don't Stand Strong for Anything that could get Fox "News" to attack you.

When as anyone who has EVER studied a thing about Totalitarians like the Busheviks KNEW that NO MATTER WHAT we did, that was going to happen. And if the Busheviks didn't have facts, they made them up.

Today, the Democrats remain clueless as the German Democrats who's mantle they have inherited and "proudly" assumed.

And even knowing all of that, I still grit my teeth and work for and donate to them.

Then comes the bankruptcy bill and added with their curious appeasing weakness sinec Old America died, they show that, even if they COULD wrest power from the Imperials (an impossibility not for electoral reasons, but forf Totalitarian ones), they have not clue one as to what is going on nor have any inkling that something deep and systemic is wrong with Amerika...

...let alone have a clue to fix it. The best we can probably hope for (and don't get me wrong, it would still be an improvement) is a little slowing of the trends, both economic and social, that Amerika is taking on it's way down the bottom of the well of totalitarian Darkness, 21st Century BushPutinist style.

You asked for it, you got it. That's how I feel.

And yet, I worked and donated in 2002, 2004, and likely 2006 and 2008, too.

[ClassWarrior]

16. We need to work year-round, my friend. Are you on any committees?

Do you hold a position in your county party? Someone with the axe you're grinding SHOULD.

We need to infiltrate. We need to influence. A million of us pushing in the same direction in a million different little ways. It's how the Radical RW did it. Have you read "What's the Matter with Kansas?" We can do it too.

Never Give Up.

[LittleClarkie]

23. Amen. Talking to the county membership chair

he says there are many here in our parts who feel the same. Membership has swelled, and the reason several have given for joining now, and the reason the Membership Chair said he is still involved on a non-election year, is because we can't wait. We must get organized NOW. I think Dean and Kerry both know this as well. I wish it seemed like folks like Biden and others got the idea, but several of them seem to be only interested in their own hides.

[NVMojo]

2. I agree and we will continue to lose and implode if we don't figure

this all out.

[ClassWarrior]

3. First, please be more judicious with your language.

We should NEVER say in public that our party is weak. Perhaps we say it's having difficulties, perhaps we say it's suffered some setbacks - but please don't use language that just creates despair and disillusionment!! Words are powerful!!

Second, Rahm isn't "seen" as too "wild-eyed" - the Radical RW is FRAMING him as too "wild-eyed." They tried that with Kerry and it didn't work, so we know we can beat it. I think we need to turn this kind of language right back on them. Any time a Radical RWer speaks with any modicum of passion, i.e.:

"Did you see how Donald Rumshead was RAVING at that press conference? Well, waddaya expect from those wild-eyed Radical Right Wingers?"

NGU.

[fujiyama]

8. Of course the RWers

are going to paint him as wild eyed. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out. They painted Daschle as an "obstructionist" for God's sake.

That doesn't excuse other Dems from buying into it. Here's the article that I should have linked to and will:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chicago/chi-0503130169mar13,1,1541747.story?coll=chi-newslocalchicago-hed&ctrack=2&cset=true
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WASHINGTON -- U.S. Rep. Rahm Emanuel was picked recently by fellow House Democrats to try to lead them back to power. But last week, the hard-charging Chicago congressman's big political idea for his own state was promptly slapped down by other Illinois Democrats.

The scene was a Capitol Hill office where most members of the state's Democratic House delegation had huddled to warn Emanuel off a plan to try to grab more House seats for the party by redrawing district boundaries in Illinois years ahead of schedule.

Such a proposal, several worried, would needlessly inflame Republicans, including House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), and make Illinois Democrats appear duplicitous by breaking a remap agreement negotiated just a few years ago.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

[ClassWarrior]

10. "That doesn't excuse other Dems from buying into it."

So then let's - you and I - stop reinforcing Radical RW frames.

NGU.

[tom_paine]

14. Thanks for proving my point, fujiyama, the German Socials Democrats of '33

The scene was a Capitol Hill office where most members of the state's Democratic House delegation had huddled to warn Emanuel off a plan to try to grab more House seats for the party by redrawing district boundaries in Illinois years ahead of schedule.

Such a proposal, several worried, would needlessly inflame Republicans, including House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), and make Illinois Democrats appear duplicitous by breaking a remap agreement negotiated just a few years ago.

Gutless turds. How goddamned MUCH do you WUSSIES (and you KNOW what I really meant there!) have to be pushed before you people push back?!?

It is this shit, replayed again and again and AGAIN, that disgusts me to my core. Such attitudes back during Free America might have been udnerstandabe and possibly excusable as compromise.

But this is Imperial Amerika and we stand and the end of a long train of abuses and usurpations that would have Jefferson and Midsion in Gitmo as "wild-eyed socialist terrorists".

:puke:

[xray s]

4. There may be more to it than meets the eye

As far as gerrymandering goes, there are plenty of Democrats who like the current set up fine, because they have their safe districts cut out for them. The fact that this hurts the prospects of Democrats taking back the House is secondary to their desire to have guaranteed reelection.

[ClassWarrior]

6. So which one of them told you his or her seat is more important than...

...a majority? Hmmm? You say that with some certainty. Actually, you call it a "fact." Please prove this "fact."

NGU.

[fujiyama]

9. That is a possibility

and would prove more of the same - that politicians usually care for themselves first, their big money contributors second, and the people and their constituents - LAST.

It would also show that there is little loyalty to any party principles, because as the party has shown it can't keep discipline to have even one unanimous party line vote on any issue.

[peacetalksforall]

7. THE DNC & DLC and all the rest can say that Dems should practice

ethics - no lying, no thieving, no killing, careful spending, stay within budget, unlike the repubs and no attacking the personal stuff of the opponent - all to show that we are not the repubs....however, we already gave up on the no killing element by our representatives' votes for the killing in Iraq.

I can't comment on redistricting without knowing all the sides.

I can comment that something is fishy with some of these representatives because they have every right to speak out against our pending serfdom and they can't come up with whimpers.

Who supported the Dems in Texas when they tried to stop DeLay?

They play into the hands of the right wing corporations all the time except for a very few good people who know how to not fall for the tricks and who don't have to be Mr Nice Guy or Mrs Nice Lady.

[depakid]

11. Needlessly inflame Republicans?

Whther or not this was a good idea, that statement is absolutely pathetic... and all too typical.

This is a good example of why dems are perceived by the electorate (and rightly so) as being weak....

[ClassWarrior]

12. So then let's prove we're STRONG, and smack those who said this.

According to the article, it was Illinois' "Democratic House delegation."

NGU.

[ulTRAX]

15. Dems Should NOT engage in ANTI-DEMOCRATIC Practices

fujiyama wrote: "Something is seriously wrong. We can't gerrymander worth crap. Illinois is a state where the GOP is a mess and the Dems can't even take advantage of that?!"

Then you wonder why some have to hold their nose when they vote Democratic? I'd prefer to let the Right have a monopoly on immoral and anti-democratic practices. For the Dems to do the same only pushes the party further into the moral abyss of giving lip service to democracy while it actually works to oppose it.

[LittleClarkie]

24. We had to destroy the village to save it, sir

Indeed, destroying democracy in the process of saving it doesn't seem too swift.

But I can understand the frustration. Sometimes it feels like we're fighting nukes with sharpened paper clips.

[adwon]

17. Just an idea

Why not propose and implement a scheme to district that makes no reference to demographic categories? In other words, just do it on a numerical and geographic basis. Or draw all the districts to be as close to 50/50 party affiliation as possible. Then, when Hastert & co. start whining, you can laugh and call them what they are: neo-Stalinists.

[w4rma]

18. Because 50/50 turns every district into a coin toss where money is likely

going to be the deciding factor. And Democrats only have the power to do that in Democraticly controlled states, which means that the Republican states will keep their safe seats for their Republicans.

Contrary to what you say Hastert would do, he would laugh if Democrats did what you say should be done.

[adwon]

19. Actually

50/50 makes the election of radicals extremely unlikely. If a Representative has to answer to constituents in this type of district, the Representative would be forced to occupy the middle ground.

While this type of scheme might not affect a Hastert, a Tom Delay would find life extremely difficult if he tried to run as a radical Republican in an evenly divided district.

As for the money issue, this is somewhat indeterminative. Anecdotally, I can think of one GOP State Senator in NC who found herself out of a job when her district went from overwhelmingy GOP to more of a mix between the parties. I just think that in a mixed district, you'd be much more likely to see Republicans running to the left and losing because people could pick 100% Donkey over Donkey-Lite :).

[w4rma]

20. The moderate Republicans are just as bad as the radical ones.

They vote for and cover up for Hastert and Tom Delay, just like the radical Republicans do.

And why would I want to trade Democrats of varying ideologies for a bunch of toss up (tilted towards monied interests) districts that are all money sinks with "moderate" Republicans and Democrats?

[adwon]

21. I don't view politics as a zero sum game

I'm not advocating drawing districts to elect Republicans. I threw out two ideas, either district without reference to party or go for an equitable split in each district. I personally lean toward nonpartisan because I view it as more honest and more intrinsically fair. As a citizen of a state that has redistricted 3 times in about the last 5 years or so, I'm tired of watching blatantly partisan districting scams get nullified by the courts.

I also don't believe in protecting incumbents through gerrymandering. The basis of representative democracy is that public servants are accountable. Well, if districts are drawn that grossly favor one party or the other, it's pretty clear from an examination of imcumbent reelection rates that there is little accountability. All I want is a districting scheme that gives no one a leg up before the fact. If you can get that, you move a lot closer to the ideal of elections being a contest of ideas rather than of pandering to one's core while throwing a few sops to pick up a few swing voters.

Though I'm not a fan of the 50/50 plan, I really see no reason why it should be a guarantee of GOP wins. With an evenly, or near evenly, divided constituency, it just doesn't stand to reason that radicals will get elected. I can't say that it wouldn't elect Republicans, but I see no real reason why it should.

[fujiyama]

33. Well said

These "moderate" republicans spoken of are an endangered species. It is fast becoming something of a myth.

Hastert is supposedly a "moderate", but in reality he's nothing but a bitch for HMOs, pharmacueticals, big business, and ultimately Tom DeLay.

We're fighting a war here and it's obvious that many of our elected officials don't understand this.

[Padraig18]

22. Did anyone mention that our (Illinois') AG thinks it's unconstitutional?

That's a small detail the opening post leaves out.

[John_H]

29. maybe he needs to shut the fuck up then

I thought you cut your teeth on ward politics? The Mayor and my 42nd ward precinct captain granpa are undoubtedly spinning in their Evergreen Cemetary graves.

[fujiyama]

32. Politics is a nasty game, as you well know.

I'm not advocating anything criminal or unconstititional and I certainly trust that Rahm Emanuel isn't as well.

As an attorney general I don't expect her to cover for Dems when they're doing something wrong but I see no evidence that what Emanuel wants to do is illegal. Perhaps the attoryney general is simply trying to appear "fair and balanced". It's a problem among Dems in judicial positions going along with what the right wants just to appear even more impartial.

[Padraig18]

36. Well, unfortunately, he's not the AG

Like it or not, Lisa Madigan (daughter or OUR House Speaker, btw) thinks it is, and she's the one who would have to defend the State in any court case. The voters elect her and pay her salary to be our chief legal officer, so the buck sorta stops with her.

[napi21]

25. I've constantly been saying we need to fight fire with fire!

The Dems need to recognize that you can't fight a forest fire with a garden hose...so to speak!

It sounds good to say we're taking the high road, and that we don't use ethicly questionable tactics, but sounding good doesn't make you the winner!

[bvar22]

30. The Democrats took the "high road" at the convention

last year.
Worked great!!

What ever we do, lets not piss off the republicans!

[leyton]

26. Who can we e-mail about this?

I can't believe that the Illinois Dems don't have the guts to match the GOP in Texas.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

27. NO! gerrymandering out of season is UNETHICAL and ILLEGAL.....

the Taxes repukes and delay are criminals and will one day be held accountable!

[Jim Lane]

31. The gerrymandering dilemma

On the one hand, gerrymandering is certainly sleazy. (It's probably not illegal, or at least it's probably going to survive legal challenges. I haven't followed the Texas case closely, but I know that a three-judge court upheld the Republican gerrymander. On the appeal to the Supreme Court, the case was remanded for reconsideration in light of the Court's decision in Vieth v. Jubelirer, but since Vieth rejected a challenge to a Pennsylvania redistricting, I don't imagine there's much chance that it will change the Texas outcome.)

On the other hand, if they do it and we don't, then the House will be tilted toward the Republicans. It's bad enough that all those rural red states are already overrepresented in the Senate!

I've thought about this here in New York. For years, it's been the case that the State Assembly is Democratic and the State Senate is Republican. Thus, each decennial redistricting has to be approved by both parties. Last time around, we lost two House seats; the plan split up the district of one Republican, leading to his retirement, and threw together two Democratic incumbents, one of whom retired.

In 2004, though, we picked up a few State Senate seats. We have a shot at taking both houses and the governorship in 2006. Then we could do a DeLay in reverse -- a between-census redistricting that would shaft the Republicans. For example, one New York City district, on Staten Island, now has a Republican Congressman, but the Democrats in the districts near it win with huge margins. We could split up Staten Island. The incumbent Democrats would have to take on some Republican voters, and thus win by smaller margins, but it would be possible to flip one seat from leaning-Republican to leaning-Democratic, while retaining the others as safe-Democratic.

Should the Democrats do it?

I lean toward thinking that it's not unethical for us to play by the rules that are established. If the Supreme Court says that partisan redistricting is OK in Texas, then by gosh it's OK in New York. It's kind of like the 527 groups. You can make a good argument, from the point of view of campaign finance, that 527 groups should be greatly restricted or prohibited. As long as they're allowed, though, the people who disagree with that law aren't required to engage in unilateral disarmament. Maybe a blatantly partisan redistricting in New York would help lead to national standards that would make everyone's elections more fair.

[fujiyama]

37. They will never be held accountable

in Bush's America.

By bowing down to Hastert (DeLay's own bitch) like he's some sort of God, we're showing fear and compliance.

[John_H]

28. Bingo. "But...sniff...but...but that would mean we'd be like THEM..sniff"

[cestpaspossible]

34. Dems in Montana redistricted and look what happened... nt

[Lefty48197]

35. I'm sure this would really piss Hastert off

since his little Marinette Tom DeLay did the exact same thing in Texas. It's not that we Democrats CAN'T Gerry-mander, it's pretty easy actually, it's just that we aren't cut-throat enough. I think it's time we join the Republicans in the slaughterhouse.