A Mixed Decision

UPDATED: To include link to Supreme Court's decision...

The ruling from the Supremes is in... Read the actual decision here.

Via AP: Court Nixes Part of Texas Political Map

"The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld most of the Texas congressional map engineered by former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay but threw out part, saying some of the new boundaries failed to protect minority voting rights."

Yeah, this is the kind of race-based politics that really chaps my hide... you know, when you read stuff like this:

"Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority, said Hispanics do not have a chance to elect a candidate of their choosing under the plan."

Uh, I'm sorry, Mister Justice, but where in the US Constitution does it say that a racial group is entitled to "elect a candidate of their choosing"?!? Does that mean that the Blacks, Asians, Native Americans, etc. get their own representatives as well?

Does that mean that members of Congress are elected to serve the interests of a particular race -- or for all the citizens of a district?!? Arrggh!

But, the decision isn't all bad... (You know the one about blind squirrels and nuts, right? The one about stopped clocks? You get the point.) After all, it did say this:

"...the court ruled that state legislators may draw new maps as often as they like - not just once a decade as Texas Democrats claimed. That means Democratic and Republican state lawmakers can push through new maps anytime there is a power shift at a state capital."

That might bring some nasty fallout to the GOP in some areas of the country, but it's good for Texas (at least for the near future). The bottom line of this, though, was that they ruled that the recent redrawing of the boundaries in Texas was acceptable, vindicating Republican claims to that fact. It only disagreed with how some of those boundaries were drawn.

The technical legalese is summed up by Justice Kennedy thusly: (via SCOTUSBlog)

"In sum, we disagree with appellants' view that a legislature's decision to override a valid, court-drawn plan mid-decade is sufficiently suspect to give shape to a reliable standard for identifying unconstiutitonal political gerrymanders. We conclude that appellants have established no legally impermissible use of political classifications. For this reason, they state no claim on which relief may be granted for their statewide challenge."

Read some soon-to-be great commentary on the decision (which the bloggers there have not posted on yet, but will soon) at National Review's Bench Memos.

It may not be good news for Congressman Henry Bonilla, but it's good news for Texas Republicans.

Now this is a 5-4 I can support!

With the changes in the members of the US Supreme Court, it's nice to see that Roberts and Alito have helped keep the Court on the "right" side of most issues -- particularly this most recent ruling by the Court released today:

New justice breaks tie to uphold Kansas death penalty law

Rather than get into the minutia of the decision -- like most Supreme Court cases, the technical issues at hand are a lot more complicated than the way reporters make them out to be -- it's at least comforting to know that this guy will still have a death sentence hanging over him:

"Marsh was convicted in the June 1996 killings of Marry Pusch and her 19-month-old daughter, M.P. Marsh confessed that he had been waiting in Pusch's house when she and her child came home. Pusch was shot, stabbed and her throat was slit. Her body was set on fire. M.P. died several days later from severe burns."

How his lawyer can look at himself in the mirror after trying to get such a barbaric and merciless killer off death row on an alleged technicality is beyond my understanding.

And if Kansas has trouble finding time to get Mr. Marsh on the docket for an execution, just send him to Texas. We'll take care of him.

Oh, and yes, I am just a little nervous about this Court when we have to count on Justice Kennedy for vote #5...

Dominoes, anyone?

The first domino in the Jack Abramoff scandal takes a fall... the first of many, I would imagine.

Former Bush administration official found guilty

Seems there was this little trip to Scotland that David Safavian went on that was paid for by Jack Abramoff when Abramoff had pending business with the General Services Administration while Safavian was its chief of staff... anyone know anyone else who took a similar trip???

But are you ready for this? You want to know who his wife is?

Her name is Jennifer Safavian -- and she is Chief Counsel for Oversight and Investigations on the House Government Reform Committee.

You can't script these serendipitous circumstances, my friends... but that doesn't mean someone won't try. This is a movie waiting to be written.

Tom DeLay, call your agent.

En América, hablamos inglés

And it's not just me that thinks so...

According to Rasmussen: 85% Support English as Official Language Of U.S.

"Eighty-five percent (85%) of Americans believe that English should be the official language of the United States. The latest Rasmussen Reports survey of 1,000 adults found that only 11% disagree and 4% are not sure."

Wow. I knew there was pretty strong support for such a measure, but 85% is overwhelming. And it's not a partisan issue, either.

"Making English the nation’s official language is favored by 92% of Republicans, 79% of Democrats, and 86% of those not affiliated with either major political party."

There's not much of an age gap.

"It is supported by 91% of those over 40 and 78% of those under 40. "

Or a gender or income gap.

"There is little difference in the views of men and women or across income categories."

And it's not a race issue, either.

"Eighty-eight percent (88%) of white Americans support English as the official language along with 76% of non-white Americans."

I bet you more than a few illegal immigrants are talking among themseves and saying: "You know, my friend, maybe those protests were not such a good idea after all."

Or, "Tu sabes, mi amigo, esas protestas no era quizá una tan buena idea después de todos."

I can name that tune in... C-notes!

(Good ol' "Name that Tune"... I wonder what ever happened to that perky gal who hummed those catchy tunes? (Yes, I know what happened to Kathie Lee Gifford!) )

Seems our (arguably, at least in this case) morally tone-deaf Speaker of the Texas House of Representatives just doesn't get it. No wonder people think politicians are just about money and power... the cushy corporate jets, lavish family vacations paid for by lobbyists, $500 lunches, treated like royalty, and then this from the AP via the Houston Chronicle:

$700,000 donated to fix up Craddick apartment

"Businessmen, a lobbyist and a major corporate foundation have donated almost $700,000 in the past eight days to pay for the renovation of Texas House Speaker Tom Craddick's [nearly 2,000 square foot] apartment inside the Capitol, according to documents obtained today by The Associated Press."

I agree with this guy:

"Special interests shouldn't be lined up to give the Craddicks a personal gift of a new apartment," said Craig McDonald, director of Texans for Public Justice. "If it's in need of repair or if it's in need of renovation, then it should be paid for by the people of Texas.""

and this guy:

"But Alex Winslow, executive director of the consumer advocate group Texas Watch, said the way the project is being handled "creates a sense of impropriety.""

Not to mention the sheer extravagance of it all. ("The carpets in the apartment and the speaker's office also are being replaced with carpets made of 100 percent New Zealand wool at a cost of nearly $37,000.") I mean, it's a frickin' 2,000 square foot apartment and the "renovations" (which seem rather minor) cost $700,000!

Well, maybe it's old and run down right? Nope!

"The apartment was extensively renovated in the mid-1990s during a sweeping $187 million Capitol restoration project. And three years ago, the Craddicks spent at least $25,000 in private donations refurbishing the unit."

That's a lot of renovations for such a small place. What kind of parties and party-goers are they entertaining that it should need so many fixes?!?

I mean, I certainly appreciate the sentiment expressed here by Craddick's spokes(wo)man -- "the speaker and his wife don't think it would be appropriate to use public money for the renovation project" -- but it just doesn't pass the smell test.

And not even Kathie Lee could sweeten this deal any more... does this bother anybody else, or is it just me?

Blame Game

Random thought that's been mentioned by a lot of different people in a lot of different places:

If you are at all upset, dismayed or distraught over the whole CD22 mess, you only have one person to blame.

His name is Tom DeLay.

Period.

Patrick Kennedy says, "OUI"!

"Oui!"

As in O-U-I -- "Operating Under the Influence"

As I previously blogged about here: ("I'm not as think as you drunk I am..."), U.S. Representative Patrick Kennedy (D - R.I.), 38, wrecked his car into a barricade near Capitol Hill at 2:45 one morning. His explanations varied as to the what/why/how of the accident, but there was no doubt it shined a bright light on his substance abuse.

Now it is reported that he is heading to court today to plead guilty to one charge in order to avoid prosecution for additional charges...

"Kennedy is slated to appear in court this afternoon where he is expected to plead guilty to the charge of operating under the influence. Charges of reckless driving and failure to exhibit a drivers permit will be dismissed as part of the deal, which was worked out behind closed doors."

Kennedy was not reported to have said, "Please help us! Please help stop our family before we drive again!" At least we have one Kennedy who is willing to take at least some blame for his vehicular misadventures.

As usual, Mary Jo Kopechne could not be reached for comment.

Picking your fights

One of the more important things a campaign can do is to "frame the debate" -- to pick the key issues where your vision/experience/results differ from your opponents vision/experience/results and to make them a focus of the campaign.

After reading this article in the Houston Chronicle which implicitly referred to Chris Bell as conservative, I shook my head a bit. I mean, come on -- Chris Bell??? Conservative???

Then I thought, well, let's just check out his website. So I did.

I thought perhaps he'd hit on some good liberal issues like abortion or affirmative action. To my surprise, it was rather tame. His "issues" page highlights these topics:

Rebuilding Public Education
Reducing Barriers to Higher Education
Honoring our National Guardsmen
Protecting Kids
Fighting for Rural Texas
Healing the Sick
Expanding Home Ownership
Finding Common Ground

Not "conservative" issues, but certainly not "lefty" ones, either. A nice, safe assortment of "America, Mom, & Apple Pie" topics. (I mean, really, who would rationally be against any of these things?) Rather than poke into each one here, I'll just highlight one in particular: "Expanding Home Ownership".

Now, remember framing the debate is usually about highlighting your opponent's weaknesses and showing your strong alternative. Not only does Mr. Bell set up a false straw man based on things that haven't happened and don't exist, the reality flies in the face of his allegations.

Perhaps Mr. Bell's team didn't run across this little nugget:

Governor Rick Perry Proclaims June Home Ownership Month in Texas: Home Ownership Makes a Vital Contribution to Building and Strengthening Texas Communities

In that article (press release), we find out that:

"While Texas is among the states with the 10 lowest home ownership rates in the
nation, Texas' home ownership rate is steadily increasing, facilitated by
homebuyer programs like those offered by TDHCA."

See the article for other details about what Texas (under Gov. Rick Perry) actually does regarding home ownership.

Again, this topic was considered so important by the Chris Bell campaign that it is highlighted on his website. If this is the best he can do, this is just one example of many why Chris Bell will not win this election.

Catfight! (H.C. vs. A.C.)

Me-OW!  Granted, Ann Coulter didn’t exactly “win friends and influence people” with her insensitive and ill-advised attack on some liberal 9/11 widows – writing in her latest book, “I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much.”  So she should have expected these remarks from resident NY alpha-female Hillary Clinton who lashed out at Ann Coulter for her "vicious, mean-spirited attack".

And then came the smackdown from Ann (via Drudge):

“Before criticizing others for being ‘mean’ to women, perhaps Hillary should talk to her husband who was accused of rape by Juanita Broaddrick and was groping Kathleen Willey at the very moment Willey’s husband was committing suicide.”

OUCH!

(I would add his illegal release of classified information on Linda Tripp, his use and abuse of Monica Lewinsky in the Oral – er, Oval – Office, that flight attendant, oh – and then there’s THIS excellent summary.)

It's About Time!

UPDATE: Just as an FYI, I found this nice little factoid via Conservative News Service (from data provided by the Congressional Research Service) -- "From its modest $1 billion budget in 1966, the Medicaid program’s cost has rocketed. It now costs taxpayers approximately $300 billion a year."
--------------------------
Let's see.... Medicaid has been around for over 40 years, and they are finally getting around to ensuring that illegal immigrants cannot legally receive benefits. It may not be much, but it's a start. After all, it's estimated that here in Texas we spend around $100 million a year on Medicaid for illegal immigrants.

First, there was this article via AP: Medicaid Recipients Will Need Citizenship

"The requirement that beneficiaries provide proof of citizenship goes into effect July 1. It's designed to root out cases of illegal immigrants getting their health care paid for by the government."

By the way, did you catch that at the end? You know, where it said "paid for by the government" as if the government has its own little bank account that doesn't consist of taxes forcibly extracted from workers' wages? So don't worry -- it's not your money paying for these services -- it's the government's money!

The next day, the Houston Chronicle rounded up the usual "groups" who had this to say about it: Groups say change in Medicaid will do little

"The Bush administration's plan to make Medicaid applicants show proof of U.S. citizenship will have little impact on illegal immigrants because few of them apply for the low-income health benefit, Houston immigrant advocates said Monday."

Inside the article was this unintentionally amusing quip:

"However, advocates say that illegal immigrants have always been wary of applying for a government benefit that requires citizenship, especially when lying on the application is a federal offense that could lead to criminal prosecution and deportation. "

Yeah, because illegal immigrants are so concerned about upholding the integrity of our laws. And, plus, they are extra concerned because we are so ruthlessly efficient in our "criminal prosecution and deportation" of illegal immigrants.

The Bush Administration has fumbled this immigration issue since day one, but here's at least one thing they got right!

Just checking

Did you do your first assignment of required reading?

I hope so, because here it comes...

Bush to Back Gay Marriage Ban Amendment

It's just a sop to appease the social conservatives, but it signals the beginning of the fight for the integrity of our social fabric. Are you ready? There are no sidelines in this game. Everyone has to take a side...

More Required Reading

Via Drudge, I ran across the following article by respected Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan:

Third Time: America may be ready for a new political party

In the article, she suggests that:

"Something's happening. I have a feeling we're at some new beginning, that a big breakup's coming, and that though it isn't and will not be immediately apparent, we'll someday look back on this era as the time when a shift began."

I must say that I share her sense of, well, let's call it foreboding. She highlights the problem here:

"The problem is not that the two parties are polarized. In many ways they're closer than ever. The problem is that the parties in Washington, and the people on the ground in America, are polarized. There is an increasing and profound distance between the rulers of both parties and the people--between the elites and the grunts, between those in power and those who put them there. "

The fact that a candidate like Rick Perry (for governor of Texas) will be facing such credible third-party/independent challegers like Carole Keeton Rylander Strayhorn Mellencamp (seriously, "one tough grandma" needs to pick a name and stick with it) and Kinky Friedman (who'da thunk it!), it's clear that even the stalwart Texas GOP is in a state of disarray. Her conclusion:

"I don't see any potential party, or potential candidate, on the scene right now who can harness the disaffection of growing portions of the electorate. But a new group or entity that could define the problem correctly--that sees the big divide not as something between the parties but between America's ruling elite and its people--would be making long strides in putting third party ideas in play in America again."

When a thoughtful pundit of her erudition, experience and vision sees such things, I grow concerned that our nation is disintegrating before our eyes. More on why in a future post. For now, read the article and take heed.