I think one of the best part of tonight's debate was the closing statements.
I believe John Edwards came into his own tonight, and that is reflected in his closing arguments. On CSPAN after the debate, a number of Democratic and Republican callers noted they felt he won the debate, and one Arizona Republican said he was a moderate who disliked bush, and would support Edwards even though he was too liberal for his taste because he believed he has working people's interests at heart.
EDWARDS
Dean is obviously losing ground in a number of areas, and Sen. Lieberman's continued attacks concerning his sealed gubernatorial records isn't helping.
Overall, though, I have to say that the most elequent closing statement was delivered by Ambassador Carol Moseley-Braun, the former Senator from Illinois.
BRAUN
She said, in part:
"I want to make sure that our generation leaves this the land of liberty and leaves it the land of opportunity, and that we give the next generation of Americans no less opportunity, no less hope, no less optimism about the future than we inherited from our ancestors. A generation ago, one income would support a family; now, people are struggling on two just to make ends meet.
I want to work with others in the international arena, with the Congress, to give Americans income security, health security, retirement security, education security, and protection of our environment. "
That first paragraph should be the motto of EVERY DEMOCRAT EVERYWHERE.
To view a full transcript of the debate, click here.
TRANSCRIPT OF CLOSING STATEMENTS FROM DES MOINES REGISTER DEBATE
ANGER: Candidates, we're now on the home stretch. It's time for closing statements. Each of you will have 45 seconds, and the order was established by what else, a drawing.
We apologize for the short time, but we're about done here.
Congressman Gephardt, you are first.
GEPHARDT: I'd like to end with my philosophy of life, because I think it will give you a good sense of how I'll look at every issue when I'm president.
I think we're all tied together. Martin Luther King, I think, said it the best. He said, "I can't be what I ought to be until you can be what you ought to be." And that's what I really believe.
My own life is a good example. I grew up in a poor household. My dad was a truck driver. It was the best job he ever had. We didn't have a lot of money, but I got a great education in the public schools in the city of St. Louis. I had church loans, government loans, scholarships, whatever my parents could save.
I had three jobs. I got a great education. And now I'm running for president of the United States, from that background. When I'm president, on every issue, I'll be trying to figure out how every person in this country can fulfill their God-given potential.
ANGER: Thank you.
And to Ambassador Braun.
MOSELEY BRAUN: When the Constitution was written, I wasn't included. Blacks couldn't vote; women couldn't vote; poor people couldn't vote. But our country has made progress in the direction of inclusion and sharing the blessings of liberty with all Americans.
I want to bring the perspective of someone who can stand on this stage because of the struggle of people who have gone before tothe doors of America to bring all the talent that can be brought to bear in making our country -- keeping our country strong, keeping our country great.
I want to make sure that our generation leaves this the land of liberty and leaves it the land of opportunity, and that we give the next generation of Americans no less opportunity, no less hope, no less optimism about the future than we inherited from our ancestors. A generation ago, one income would support a family; now, people are struggling on two just to make ends meet.
I want to work with others in the international arena, with the Congress, to give Americans income security, health security, retirement security, education security, and protection of our environment.
ANGER: Thank you, Ambassador.
And to Congressman Kucinich.
KUCINICH: The president of the United States released a budget which shows cuts in veterans benefits, in education, in health care, in housing and a whole range of -- and job programs.
I contend that this is related directly to the drain on the federal budget that's occurring because we're in Iraq.
Fear led us into attacking Iraq. Fear led us into passing the Patriot Act. My candidacy is about the end of fear and the beginning of hope for America -- hope that we can reconnect with the world community, which will enable us to bring U.N. peacekeepers in and bring our troops home; hope that we can reestablish our civil liberties; hope that we can once again become a nation where we are respected around the world for the quality of our morality, for our willingness to work with our hands instead of our arms.
Iowa caucus-goers can change this whole debate and this whole election nationally by voting for someone who will take this country out of Iraq and reconnect with the world community.
ANGER: Thank you.
To Senator Edwards.
EDWARDS: You know, I've been in all 99 counties. And I've not just been talking; I've been listening to Iowa caucus-goers. And this is what they say to me, very direct: Are you ready for this fight?
I am here to say to every single person who goes to the Iowa caucuses, I am so ready for this fight. I have been preparing for this fight my entire life. I fought in courtrooms for 20 years for you. I come from you. I have fought on the floor of the United States Senate, passed the patients bill of rights.
The truth of the matter is, we need to not just change George Bush and his presidency; we need to change America.
And if you believe we can change America with people who spend most of their lives in politics or have been in Washington for decades, you have other choices.
I believe that you and I can change America together. I can't do it alone. But we can do it together.
And I believe in you. And don't you deserve a president of the United States who actually believes in you?
ANGER: Thank you. And to Senator Lieberman.
LIEBERMAN: Thank you, Paul. I am running for president of the United States because I love this country, and I hate the direction in which George Bush is taking us.
I'm running for president of the United States because I believe I'm the Democrat who can get elected, who can deny George Bush a second term and give the American people a fresh start.
We're not going to defeat the extremism of the Bush administration with extreme anger of our own.
For 30 years, I've been working in public life, rejecting the extremism of both parties, bringing people together to fight for what's right, based on our shared values and our common goals.
I want to reach out to all segments of our party and unite them. And then get the support we need for my new ideas, for strong on security, for pro-growth in the tradition of Bill Clinton, for social progress, health care reform.
Anger and negativism and division don't win elections in America. It's unity, constructive new ideas and hope that win them.
That's what my candidacy is based on. And that's why I thank you for the opportunity you've given me here today.
ANGER: Thank you.
Governor Dean?
DEAN: The front-runner in this campaign is George W. Bush and all the powerful people who have given him millions of dollars and benefited from his policies. The underdog is the American people.
The biggest lie that people like me tell people like you at election time is, "If you vote for me, I'm going to fix all your problems."
The truth is, the power to change this country is in your hands, not mine. You have the power to take back the Democratic Party and give us new leadership so we can beat these Republicans again. You have the power to take back our country so the flag of the United States is no longer the sole property of John Ashcroft and Rush Limbaugh and Jerry Falwell; it belongs to every single one of us again.
And together, we have the power to take the White House back in 2004. And that is exactly what we're going to do.
ANGER: Thank you.
And Senator Kerry?
KERRY: Paul, thank you.
The decision is now in the hands of Iowa caucus-goers. And this is the most important election of our generation.
George Bush has taken America in a radically wrong direction. And, yes, we can't beat him by being Bush-Lite, but we also can't beat him by being light on national security or light on fairness for working Americans.
We can't go back to raising taxes on the middle class. We need a president who has the temperament and the judgment to be able to convince America that we know how to make this country safe.
We need a president who can give confidence to Americans that we will take on powerful special interests. And I've been doing that all of my life.
George Bush intends to make national security the key issue of this campaign. He has to. There's nothing else for him to run on.
Well, I have one message for him: I know something about aircraft carriers for real. And if he wants to make national security the centerpiece of this campaign, three words he understands: Bring it on.
I'm ready for that debate. And we can win that debate.
(APPLAUSE)
ANGER: Thank you, Senator.
Thank you, all.
Our debate has now ended, but the campaign goes on. In 15 days, the Iowa caucuses. In July, Democrats will convene in Boston to answer the big question: Who will oppose President Bush? In September, the Republican convention in New York will celebrate the president's nomination. And in November, we all know what all of our responsibilities are.
I want to thank David Yepsen and Michele Norris for joining us. Special thanks to the candidates: Senator Lieberman, Congressman Kucinich, Senator Kerry, Ambassador Braun, Senator Edwards, Congressman Gephardt and Governor Dean. Thank you so much for joining us.
For Iowa Public Television and The Des Moines Register, I'm Paul Anger. Thank you for joining us.
Democratic Rivals Attack Dean at Iowa Debate
Sun Jan 4, 6:26 PM ET
Seven of the nine Democratic candidates for president pose before a debate in the Des Moines, Iowa suburb of Johnston on January 4, 2004. From left, are: Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri, North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, former Illinois Sen. Carol Moseley Braun and former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean . {Rick Wilking/Reuters}
By John Whitesides
Political Correspondent
JOHNSTON, Iowa (Reuters) - The Democratic presidential contenders took aim at front-runner Howard Dean on Sunday, tangling over taxes, trade and foreign policy in a lively debate two weeks before Iowa hosts the first nominating contest.
With Dean leading the Democratic race in national polls and in the early-voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire, Democrats Joseph Lieberman, John Kerry and Richard Gephardt led the attack against the former Vermont governor as they tried to slow his momentum.
Lieberman, a Connecticut senator who earlier in the day said Dean had "a short fuse and quite a temper," slammed his comment that the capture of Saddam Hussein in Iraq had not made America safer. Kerry, a Massachusetts senator, criticized Dean for a recent remark that he would not prejudge the guilt of al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.
With the race intensifying, they said a series of recent controversial statements by Dean showed he did not have the temperament or judgment to lead the party in a general election race against President Bush in November.
Kerry told Dean the statements raised "a serious question about your ability to be able to stand up to George Bush and make Americans feel safe and secure."
Dean defended the bin Laden comment, saying as president he would have to uphold the rule of law, and said recent events such as the raised U.S. alert level had shown his comments about Saddam were right.
"The fact is, since Saddam Hussein has been caught, we've lost 23 additional troops; we now have, for the first time, American fighter jets escorting commercial airliners through American airspace," Dean said.
Missouri congressman Gephardt criticized Dean on trade. Dean has called for revisions to the North American Free Trade Agreement to include more labor and environmental standards, but backed the treaty when it was passed. Gephardt said the pact had led to a job drain in the United States.
"It's one thing to talk the talk, it's another thing to walk the walk," Gephardt said. "We've got to get labor and environment in these treaties."
The debate kicked off an intense two-week race to the caucuses in Iowa on Jan. 19, with New Hampshire voting in the nation's first key primary the week after.
ABILITY TO CHALLENGE BUSH
After the Iowa and New Hampshire contests in January, the nominating process moves to seven more states on Feb. 3, when each contender hopes to emerge as a clear alternative to Dean and rally the more moderate elements of the party.
Dean's fiery denunciations of Bush, the Iraq war and Democratic leaders in Washington have taken him to the top of the pack but raised questions about whether he can expand his support in a contest against Bush.
Dean, who refused to be drawn into a lengthy debate with his accusers, said Washington Democrats like Lieberman, Kerry and Gephardt had failed to mount a challenge to Bush and he would draw new supporters to the polls.
"What has happened to so many Democrats in Congress is that they've been co-opted by the agenda of George Bush, who came into office with 500,000 fewer votes than Al Gore, and what we need is a Democrat who's going to stand up to George Bush," he said.
North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, who has rarely attacked his rivals while insisting Democrats need a positive agenda, was more aggressive. Edwards, who entered the Senate after the early 1990s NAFTA vote, questioned Gephardt's claim that all of the other candidates supported NAFTA.
He also challenged Kerry for saying he was the only one with a health plan that would bring down costs and said Dean had no proposal to reduce the tax burden on middle-class families.
Candidates were allowed to address questions to each other, with Dean getting four. Dean promised to support the Democratic nominee and asked the other candidates to make the same pledge. They all raised their hands in support.
Lieberman pushed Dean tohis sealed records as Vermont governor -- a judge will decide whether tothem -- and characterized Dean's refusal as "disappointing." He also challenged Dean, who supports a repeal of Bush's tax cuts, over his comments that there was no middle class tax cut.
"I don't know which is worse, that he wants to repeal the tax cuts, or that he won't admit that they ever existed," Lieberman said.
Retired Gen. Wesley Clark, who is not competing in Iowa, and civil rights activist Al Sharpton skipped the debate. Lieberman is not competing in Iowa but joined the debate.
The following was taken from the Political State Report.
The actual article referenced here can be found online at the Los Angeles Times, but you will have to register for a sign in name to view it (it's free).
It should be noted that the Texas Association of Business endorsed and supported Dan Flynn (R-Van) for State Representative and Dr. Bob Deuell (R-Greenville) for Senate, as did Texans for a Republican Majority. It is interesting that TAB supported Flynn even in the primary, considering his opponent, Greenville Mayor Sue Ann Harting was a longtime member of TAB.
Sunday | January 04, 2004
TX: LA Times Highlights Texas Investigation Into PAC Activities
In a story in yesterday's editions, the Los Angeles Times highlighted an ongoing investigation into the activities of Texans for a Republican Majority, the Texas Association of Business and other groups in raising funds and sending our campaign mailers for GOP candidates in the 2002 election cycle.
As the Times summed the story up pretty well, most of the story, with slight edits follows:
{Writer's Note: I usually frown on quoting anything this long, especially when it is published elsewhere, but I believe this story is very well done and is one of the best written about this controversal Texas issue.}
The Times Story:
Political Fundraising in Texas Is Target of Probe
Officials look at whether money linked to House Majority Leader Tom DeLay improperly financed Republican campaigns.
By Scott Gold, Times Staff Writer
AUSTIN, Texas — Authorities are conducting a criminal investigation into whether corporate money, including hundreds of thousands of dollars linked to U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, improperly financed the Republican Party's takeover of the Texas Capitol.
The probe is focused on several political and fundraising organizations run by Republican activists, investigators said. One of the organizations, the political action committee Texans for a Republican Majority, has direct ties to DeLay, a Texas Republican and one of the most powerful politicians in Washington.
At issue is whether the organizations improperly used corporate contributions to help finance the campaigns of more than 20 Republican candidates for the Texas House of Representatives in 2002, according to documents and interviews with prosecutors and government investigators.
Many campaign finance watchdog organizations believe the investigation is a test of whether "soft money" — unlimited contributions from corporations, unions and wealthy individuals — will begin playing a more direct role in state and local elections.
Such donations were outlawed at the national level by a campaign finance reform law, recently upheld by the Supreme Court, but the measure does not ban the contributions at the state level. Reform advocates worry that soft-money donors will begin contributing at the state level to curry favor and advance their causes.
Texas law bans corporations from contributing money to candidates for office. Corporations are allowed to fund many ancillary costs of a political campaign, such as office rental or telephone lines, and in many cases are allowed to educate voters through advertisements and other programs, provided they do not specifically advocate a candidate's defeat.
Texans for a Republican Majority is an offshoot of DeLay's Americans for a Republican Majority, created in 1994 to elect conservatives to public office. The Texas group was created in 2001, with the 2002 elections in mind, using seed money from Americans for a Republican Majority.
Investigators said they suspected that the Texas group spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on telephone banks and other initiatives during the election — projects, they said, that went beyond the administrative costs corporations are allowed to fund in Texas elections. The money, in effect, represented a direct contribution to Republican candidates, they argue.
...
Republican leaders said they worked with lawyers who specialize in election law to ensure that their corporate money was used legally. They denied wrongdoing and pointed out that the force behind the investigation, Dist. Atty. Ronnie Earle of Travis County, Texas, is a Democrat. They said the investigation — and two lawsuits containing similar allegations brought by five Democrats who lost in the 2002 election — represent sour grapes among Democrats.
"I think it is definitely politically motivated. And I think it is without merit," said Bill Hammond, a former Republican member of the Texas House of Representatives.
Hammond's business and lobbying organization, which is based in Austin and known as TAB, is another focus of the investigation. According to TAB's newsletter, it spent nearly $2 million to mail Texas voters 4 million advertisements that attacked Democratic candidates and supported Republicans.
Sources close to the investigation said that as many as 20 people, including several of Austin's power brokers, have appeared before two grand juries as prosecutors push for indictments. Most, including Hammond, have retained criminal lawyers. The sources said at least two people, including the former director of Texans for a Republican Majority, John Colyandro, have been granted limited immunity in exchange for testimony.
Colyandro, also the executive director of the legislative group Texas Conservative Coalition, did not return a phone call seeking comment.
Almost all the candidates supported by the organizations won their races in the 2002 election, which was a turning point in Texas. According to documents distributed among Republican activists and gathered by investigators, several of the GOP candidates concede that they would not have won without the advertisements produced by Hammond's organization.
The election gave Republicans their first majority in the House of Representatives in 130 years. That paved the way for a host of initiatives favored by conservative advocates. The Legislature, for example, last year set limits on lawsuits brought by consumers against manufacturers and health-care companies, passed abortion restrictions and, most controversially, redrew congressional districts in Texas.
...
Details of the investigation are emerging just weeks after a divided Supreme Court upheld the major provisions of Congress' new federal campaign finance law.
The law prohibits soft-money donations from corporations and labor unions to political parties. That money had been widely used by activists and politicians across the ideological spectrum — a trend the majority of the Supreme Court called a "growing evil … of big money."
If the Republican activists behind the financing in Texas were vindicated, and they say they will be, they have suggested that similar arrangements could, and should, be used in local elections everywhere.
Political activists have tried similar money arrangements in other states, like Wisconsin, according to campaign finance reformers. Nowhere, however, have those efforts been as widespread and disciplined as they were in Texas during the last election cycle, several reform advocates said.
"We've never seen this before," said Fred Lewis, director of the Austin-based watchdog group Campaigns for People, which works to reduce the influence of money on state government. "The level and the impact of it were profound."
If the Texas financing is upheld as proper and legal, "it would essentially allow very powerful financial entities, corporations being the biggest, to have a tremendous impact on [local] elections," said Nick Nyhart, executive director of Public Campaign, a nonprofit campaign finance reform group in Washington that supports public financing of elections. "It means we get a government that isn't serving the interest of the people, but special interests."
Earle, who has been district attorney for 27 years, said he was aware of claims that the investigation was motivated by partisan politics. But he said he had brought charges against 15 politicians over the years; 11 of them, he said, were Democrats. He called the financing of the 2002 election "the greatest threat to democracy I've ever seen."
"This represents the corruption of the democratic process by large amounts of money given by people with a stake in who gets elected — whose profit depends on who holds the regulatory range of government," he said. "Basically, it's an attempt to buy influence in government, to use secret money from hidden sources to hijack democracy."
Both Texans for a Republican Majority and TAB said that they funneled money into the 2002 election. Both, however, disputed charges that the money was used improperly, saying they were merely exercising their 1st Amendment rights to participate in the political process.
Texans for a Republican Majority, whose leaders did not return phone calls, raised about $1.5 million during the 2002 election, investigators said. About a third of that came from corporate donors, many outside Texas. Among the group's purposes, leaders have said, was to elect a Republican speaker of the Texas House and to gain a GOP majority in the House. Both goals were accomplished in the 2002 election.
Sources close to the investigation said they are looking at several aspects of Texans for a Republican Majority's finances.
They said, for instance, that the group reported one batch of finances to the Texas Ethics Commission, but a different set of numbers to the IRS.
They also are interested in a $190,000 transaction in September 2002, two months before the election. The sources said they suspect the money was sent from Texans for a Republican Majority to an arm of the Republican National Committee, which in turn donated it to Republican candidates in Texas — among the allegations GOP leaders deny.
Some corporations that gave money to Texans for a Republican Majority have worked with DeLay on federal issues. For instance, the tobacco company Philip Morris donated $20,000. DeLay has long opposed raising taxes on cigarettes.
The investigation's connections to DeLay represent just another way that Democrats have tried to attack him in recent years, Republicans said.
"This whole thing has amounted to a partisan witch hunt," said Ted Royer, spokesman for the Republican Party of Texas. "The Democrats have been trying to make Tom DeLay into the boogeyman for a long time."
Like other companies that donated money, Philip Morris said there was no relationship between contributions and policy decisions that might affect its business.
"We tend to support candidates who generally are in the same position we are on a whole host of issues," said David Sylvia, director of external communications for Altria, the parent company of Philip Morris. "There is no quid pro quo."
Investigators said they believed that Texans for a Republican Majority and TAB coordinated their efforts during the election, sharing staff, for instance, meeting to plot strategy and supporting virtually the same slate of Republican candidates. It is unclear whether that combined effort violated any campaign law, investigators said. Hammond said the two groups did not coordinate their efforts.
TAB raised nearly $2 million during the election in an effort to sway 22 House races, according to its newsletter. The money was spent on advertisements, most of them mailers.
Many of the ads attacked Democratic candidates. Some supported Republicans, noting their opposition to taxes and the GOP's links with President Bush, a former Texas governor.
Hammond said the ads, which he calls "voter education," were legal because they did not use what some courts have termed "magic words" — words that directly encourage people to vote for or against a candidate.
The group has refused to disclose the source of the money it collected, saying that information is private under constitutional grounds. The American Civil Liberties Union is supporting TAB's effort to keep the donors secret.
"The question revolves around the ability of an association such as ours to criticize the government," Hammond said. "It is a sad day when a group of people can't band together and express their feelings to the public about what the Legislature is doing. We feel very strongly about this."
TAB boasted about the influence it had on the elections. One of its newsletters contained testimonials from GOP candidates, including one who said TAB ads "absolutely won the race for me." Weeks before the election, Hammond sent a letter to supporters saying that his organization had "caught the attention of statewide governmental leadership."
"The Texas business community is a force to recon [sic] with," the letter said. "Thank you again for helping to make this effort such a success! P.S. Don't forget to vote!!"
From today's Austin American Statesman.
Winds have shifted in state politics
GOP takeover in 2003 brings dramatic changes, painful divisions
By Dave McNeely
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Sunday, January 4, 2004
"You know, people gather at a car wreck."
Sen. Bill Ratliff, R-Mount Pleasant, meant that comment humorously. And indeed, it brought a laugh from the more than 100 current and former legislators, lobbyists, staff members, family members and friends gathered in the Senate chamber.
Ratliff had been asked how he felt that so many folks would turn out just to hear him announce that he's quitting the Senate, with three years left on his term.
Ratliff, now 67, admitted to some burnout after almost 15 years in the Senate. He likes spending time with his wife. He wants to lower his golf handicap.
But the early retirement of the man considered the conscience of the Senate nonetheless put an exclamation point behind the theme of the past year in Texas politics and government: the death of bipartisanship and a strong shift in the direction of state government. Some longtime observers think that's at least a car wreck.
The change was the culmination of a long push by Republicans, with longtime state Rep. Tom Craddick of Midland as one of the principal architects.
Craddick was first elected to the House in 1968, becoming one of just nine Republicans among its 150 members. But with considerable help from the coattails of men named Bush and from former House colleagues who have moved into powerful positions, Craddick became speaker last year and finally accom- plished the first GOP takeover of the House in 130 years.
The former House buddies who helped push things along include U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, Gov. Rick Perry, Perry's chief of staff Mike Toomey and Texas Association of Business head Bill Hammond.
The results of the now complete Republican domination of Texas government have been dramatic, and Ratliff's retirement is just one of them.
For the entire legislative period last year, the governor and speaker purposely ignored the ticklish chore of rearranging the state's tangled school finance system. Even though the new lieutenant governor, Republican David Dewhurst, had used his position to fashion a school finance bill that the Senate unanimously passed, the House paid it no attention.
Meanwhile, two major issues dominated the regular legislative session: writing a no-new-taxes budget in a time of shortfall and passing further cutbacks on consumer and worker lawsuits. Both changes were goals of the dominant donors who had backed Perry's race for governor and helped finance the House takeover.
Most Democrats resisted both efforts. They argued that the Legislature's budget, particularly in human services and education, was cutting into not just fat, but muscle and bone. They complained that health care changes, including dropping 55,000 children from the Children's Health Insurance Program and cutting the state's share of teacher health insurance in half, were the wrong direction to go. But some of the cuts in spending weren't as deep as originally planned in the House Appropriations Committee.
After the Republicans passed the budget and lawsuit legislation, their next effort was to redraw congressional redistricting maps. It was the first time lawmakers changed district boundaries in the middle of a decade without a court ordering it done.
At DeLay's urging and with his help, Craddick got House approval for a new map in special sessions after House Democrats succeeded in blocking the issue in the regular session with a four-day boycott. Democrats said the new map was not just unnecessary but harshly punitive to Democrats and to Texas' influence in seniority-conscious Washington.
Even though some of Ratliff's fellow Republican senators didn't fully support the plan, cementing the GOP takeover had become the prime goal. In the end, Ratliff was the only Republican senator to buck it.
Ratliff had earlier been pleasantly surprised that Dewhurst maintained the Senate's treasured tradition of requiring a two-thirds vote to bring a bill to the floor. Dewhurst earned the respect of Democrats in that body by doing so.
But as Perry eventually held the Legislature in session for more days than in any previous year in Texas history, Dewhurst decided to go along with the governor, Craddick and DeLay.
With an eye to what he considered best for his political future, and to assuage concern that he'd become too bipartisan, Dewhurst ignored Ratliff's strong advice not to and abandoned the two-thirds rule during the second and third special sessions Perry had called to pursue redistricting.
In doing so, Dewhurst drained the reservoir of good will he had painstakingly built during the regular legislative session.
Eleven Democrats fled to New Mexico in an effort to block Senate action on the matter. It worked for a while, but they came back after one of their number, Sen. John Whitmire of Houston, declared that there was no end in sight for the standoff. The redistricting bill passed and is under challenge in federal court.
The governor has said he'll call legislators back yet again, probably in the spring, to deal with school finance. But whether solutions can be reached will hinge a great deal on how bitter the memories and deep the distrust and divisions are from the past tumultuous year.
The following is a post from the Political State Report.
Of course, since the courts haven't ruled on redistricting, we don't even know if Van Zandt County will be in his district.
ROCKWALL, Texas--Many political observers were surprised Friday when U.S. Congressman Ralph M. Hall of Rockwall filed to seek re-election as a Republican Friday.
Hall told the Dallas Morning News for Saturday's editions:
"I've always represented a Republican district, a conservative district. I've
always said that if being a Democrat hurt my district, I would either resign
or switch parties."
He continued saying:
"I got right down to it and I wasn't ready to resign and decided to switch,"
Hall said.
Hall, the oldest member of conress at 80, currently represents a district that stretches from Dallas east to Tyler, Canton and Longview.
Hall also criticized the partisan rancor he said hit new highs during this session of congress, noted his decision wasn't an easy one, and that "...The Democrats-have not been unkind to me." He also noted he favors no Democratic contenders for President.
Although GOP leaders and some Democrats said they were surprised by Hall's decision, they probably should not have been. Hall has been one of the most reliable votes for the Bush White House, and is widely known as a friend of the President and his family. Bush, in fact, hosted an 80th birthday party for the congressman at the Whitehouse last year.
If the courts keep Hall's district intact, it will be the first time in decades that the Fourth District, made up primarily of territory represented by the late U.S. House Speaker Sam Rayburn (sometimes known as "Mr. Democrat") will have been represented by a Republican. Hall, a conservative Democrat, won 58 percent of the vote in 2002.
If courts keep the Fourth District intact, Hall will face more opponents than he has ever faced in a Primary.
Among Hall's leading challangers will likely be Longview attorney John Graves, who was unsuccessful in his bid to unseat Hall in 2002. Hall's other GOP opponents include: Rockwall telecom executive Steve Clark, university faculty member Bob Collins of Farmersville, Gene W. Christianson of McKinney, and Celina businessman Mark Murphy.
Democrats seeking the post include Jim Nickerson of Pittsburgh, and Jerry D. Ashford, Jr., of Sherman.
Hall is the 174th elected official in Texas to switch from the Democratic Party to the GOP since 1992.
The following post is from the Political State Report.
AUSTIN--The redistricting antics of the Texas governor, house speaker, Lt. Governor and a U.S. Congressman earned them the dubious honor of being named Texas Monthly magazine's "Bum Steer of the Year" for 2003.
The "award" which is presented by the magazine each January, makes light of Texans whose conduct during the previous year causes them to fit the description of a "bum steer."
This year, a quartet of Republicans who put redistricting above all (Gov. Rick Perry, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, House Speaker Tom Craddick, and U.S. Congressman Tom Delay) were named "Bum Steer of the Year."
In noting the "award," Texas Monthly noted:
"...Congratulations, Tom Delay, whose idea this was in the first place. Take
a bow Rick Perry, who put getting red of Martin Frost above getting rid of
Robin Hood. And kudos to you, David Dewhurst and Tom Craddick, who
were only following orders (no German military uniforms necessary). You all
win our Bum Steer of the Year award. Sorry, there's only one trophy--but
now that you've had some practice, you ought to be able to carve it up."
| |
