Straight-ticket folks

[Fatty FatBastard]

These are the people I am having a harder and harder time respecting. When someone believes in everything their party believes, they are nothing but a zombie. I've personally never understood it.

While most know me as a conservative, which I mostly am (re: I am an actual Man), I understand a lot of liberal issues, and I can agree with them.

Liberally, I am for:

Gay tolerance at any and all levels, though I feel a legal union for tax purposes makes more sense than "marriage." Look, marriage is a religious term. Most libs don't value religion anyway. It makes all parties happy.

Abortion. While I am personally pro life, I also know that making abortions illegal would be right on par with prohibition. It is, after all, your child. You choose what to do with it. God will figure that part out.

Drugs. I am sick and tired of seeing billions of dollars wasted on this completely unwinnable strategy. To the conservatives who like the war on drugs: That's everyone's tax dollars every year going to lock up an idiot.

Believe it or not, I have several other liberal views that I can agree with.

What makes me more conservative:

I can't even fathom anyone who thinks animals are on par with humans. If you want more humane ways of slaughtering, I can live with that. But anyone who has seen the history of wild pigs and chickens who were just one generation from being domesticated knows that these animals have to have their population kept in check. Or would you like the New York rat infestation to just let animals be? (any New Yorker knows that is impossible. PETA is a joke)

Ultimately what makes me stay on the conservative side are ideals, and taxes. How anyone thinks giving handouts to people is a solution is ignorant.

People. We had a GREAT Depression a few years back. Most of our grandparents went through it. How was it solved? By giving people JOBS through GOV'T funding to pay for PUBLIC good. How are handouts ever good for anyone?

You give me another FDR deal where welfare recipients have to earn it, and I will have no problem. But people TAKING money is BS. Plain and simple.

I'm sure people will argue my views, and that is fine.

But what I'd rather see in this thread is the obvious right or left people conceeding on something you agree on in regards to the other side.

Quite frankly, when people can't do that, I have no sympathy for them. They're obviously too angry to think for themselves.

That's my challenge. Let's see who's up to it?

[A_3PO]

I completely agree with you on straight-ticket voters and people who seem to swallow every idea of one party or the other. They are unthinking robots who are too lazy or too dumb to figure out issues on their own. That's why I'm a flaming, red meat independent. NOT a moderate; an independent. I'm as passionate as the most tutti fruiti left-wing liberal or the most hard core right-wing extremist but I don't agree with either very often.

[insane man]

being a liberal living in a fairly conservative part of houston...i have yet to see a republican i find decent enough to vote for.

however if chuck hagel was from around here...i might consider voting for a republican.

[thadeus]

The mother of one of my ex-gfs would always show up at the polls to vote, as any responsible citizen would.

She would go down the list, and vote for the names that sounded Hispanic. It didn't matter what party they belonged to, what their platform was, or what office they were running for. Just as long as their last names were Hispanic.

Is that straight-ticket voting?

[krosfyah]

Recently I've voted straight ticket Dem not because I support the Democrats but because I'm pretty universally opposed to everything the Republicans stand for at this point in time. I'm generally not opposed to voting for Republicans but right now they unwaveringly follow the party line which I vehmently oppose.

John Mcain seems like a level headed guy that doesn't just give party line responses. I'd be more lenient to hearing AND BELEIVING what he has to say.

If Condi Rice or Colin Powel ever ran, I'd be open to hearing what they had to say. I'm curious to see what Condi will be like when she doesn't have to report to W. but she would have a long way to go to convince me given her track record.

All I want in a politician is somebody who uses reason to make decisions. I don't want a "Yes Man" and I don't want a sell out to special interests. I'm doomed.

[FranchiseBlade]

Ultimately what makes me stay on the conservative side are ideals, and taxes. How anyone thinks giving handouts to people is a solution is ignorant.

People. We had a GREAT Depression a few years back. Most of our grandparents went through it. How was it solved? By giving people JOBS through GOV'T funding to pay for PUBLIC good. How are handouts ever good for anyone?

You give me another FDR deal where welfare recipients have to earn it, and I will have no problem. But people TAKING money is BS. Plain and simple.

I'm sure people will argue my views, and that is fine.


What is your opinion on people who form opinions based on little or incorrect information?

For instance the majority of welfare goes out to the elderly and to pay for their medical expenses. These aren't folks who are going to work their way out of a situation by having the govt. provide them with a job. It is silly to stay conservative because based on a small percentage of people who are able to work and get govt. welfare.

Issues I am conservative on is to a degree the budget issue. I would like to pay down the debt and cut interest payments that go toward nothing.

While not necessarily conservative I support the president in his sentiment towards NASA and funding Space exploration.

[losttexan]

...


How about the environment?

I'm very liberal, but living in NYC I voted for Giuliani, and I could vote for a Republican it that Republican was a true Republican in the since that they believed in a balanced budget, believed that the government shouldn't be too powerful, and didn't try to use the constitution to explicitly try deny rights to American citizens. They would also have to be incorruptible and support campaign finance reform and understand that with every B2 bomber built there is community that doesn't get better schools, roads, and others civil services.

Think Eisenhower.

[underoverup]

i do not support straight ticket marriage.

[RocketRaccoon]

The easiest way for me to express my politics is like this: Nationally, I'm very conservative. Locally, liberal.

When it's time to vote, it depends on what the country is doing: Peace time, I'll vote for a Dem if I like what he's saying (I actually voted for Clinton--don't tell dad). During war time, give me a Republican.

In the end though, if I was running for an office, I'd run as a Republican, and keep my liberal wife in my ear.

RR

[GladiatoRowdy]

These are the people I am having a harder and harder time respecting. When someone believes in everything their party believes, they are nothing but a zombie. I've personally never understood it.

Yeah, people always look at me funny when I go vite because I have a sheet of paper with a list of everyone I am voting for. It seems like a LOT of people are in and out of the booth in 60 seconds flat.


While most know me as a conservative, which I mostly am (re: I am an actual Man), I understand a lot of liberal issues, and I can agree with them.

Liberally, I am for:

Are you saying that liberals who happen to be male aren't ACTUAL men? ;)


Gay tolerance at any and all levels, though I feel a legal union for tax purposes makes more sense than "marriage." Look, marriage is a religious term. Most libs don't value religion anyway. It makes all parties happy.

I agree with you about gay tolerance.

I TOTALLY disagree that liberals "don't value religion anyway." The VAST majority of liberals I know are Christians and are very devoted to religion. Where do you get that stuff?


Abortion. While I am personally pro life, I also know that making abortions illegal would be right on par with prohibition. It is, after all, your child. You choose what to do with it. God will figure that part out.

While I am personally pro-choice, I also know that it makes sense to have reasonable time limits so that you can't just decide at 30 weeks that you need an abortion. God will eventually figure it out, but 30 weeks is a viable fetus for crying out loud.


Drugs. I am sick and tired of seeing billions of dollars wasted on this completely unwinnable strategy. To the conservatives who like the war on drugs: That's everyone's tax dollars every year going to lock up an idiot.

You know my position on this one already, but IMO, it is (or should be) more of a conservative thing as a result of the ineffectiveness of the massive amounts of money we are spending.

This is an issue that should be an anaethma to both liberals and conservatives and I am dumbfounded at how backwards the politicians are on it.


I can't even fathom anyone who thinks animals are on par with humans. If you want more humane ways of slaughtering, I can live with that. But anyone who has seen the history of wild pigs and chickens who were just one generation from being domesticated knows that these animals have to have their population kept in check. Or would you like the New York rat infestation to just let animals be? (any New Yorker knows that is impossible. PETA is a joke)

PETA is a joke, but there is such a thing as cruelty to animals. It is not PETA's definition, but there is such a thing.


Ultimately what makes me stay on the conservative side are ideals, and taxes. How anyone thinks giving handouts to people is a solution is ignorant.

People. We had a GREAT Depression a few years back. Most of our grandparents went through it. How was it solved? By giving people JOBS through GOV'T funding to pay for PUBLIC good. How are handouts ever good for anyone?

You give me another FDR deal where welfare recipients have to earn it, and I will have no problem. But people TAKING money is BS. Plain and simple.

I wouldn't be opposed to having welfare recipients work for their money, but you are really talking about a tiny, tiny percentage of the population here.


That's my challenge. Let's see who's up to it?

Well, I have certainly been called a liberal enough on this board that I am sure that is where everyone assumes I am, however...

I am a staunch fiscal conservative. I am distressed at how much money the government spends, I mean, 2.2 TRILLION dollars?!?!?! That is absolutely insane.

I guess I am "conservative" on immigration as I mostly agree with the Bush immigration plan...
Strong borders
Guest workers
A strong system for verifying worker documentation

I am for strong states rights and a weak federal government. The states are closer to the people and will govern those people most appropriately in most cases.

[ROXRAN]

I'm not straight ticket by any means, and on domestic affairs I am very liberal...But there is an issue I put in front of all that and that is security. I'm far right on security (I guess by definition), and as related to the second admendment to the people...I believe in a base of needs format as an ideology of assessing needs, and I personally feel security is the most important to a nation's responsibility.

As such, I usually lean right... :D

[Saint Louis]

I'm straight, but I still love to watch the lesbian ticket.

[thadeus]

The angle of my dangle is proporitional to the heat of my meat.

[mc mark]

The angle of my dangle is proporitional to the heat of my meat.

Signed,
http://www.bioinformatics.nl/zappa/Cover-L/ZootAllures.gif

[ima_drummer2k]

I'm voting a straight ticket in the next election.

I'm voting against every incumbent.

[thadeus]

Undersigned,
http://www.duke.edu/~tmc/motherpage/covers_funkadelic/cov-standing.gif

[mc mark]

^^^ Zappa would approve!

;)

[Rashmon]

Bless you mcmark for refusing to let the modern day composer die.

Doesn't matter how you vote cause we'll all wind up working in a gas station.

[Fatty FatBastard]

Regardless, congratulations on one of the few threads that have been started where people in the D&D actually think, rather than lashing out at people.

Kudos to everyone who posted. I respect everyone one of y'all.

And keep them coming! We aren't as different as most people think! At the least, it let's the other side know what you agree about them with.

Let this be a cleansing thread.

[Fatty FatBastard]

What is your opinion on people who form opinions based on little or incorrect information?

For instance the majority of welfare goes out to the elderly and to pay for their medical expenses. These aren't folks who are going to work their way out of a situation by having the govt. provide them with a job. It is silly to stay conservative because based on a small percentage of people who are able to work and get govt. welfare.

Funding for medical expenses is truly a double-edged sword. The research profits from our capitalist society gets the products made, and Canada rapes them from us. If you want socialized healthcare (which I would love, as well. That damn payment still comes out of my paycheck), we need to also learn that every great society in the past has fallen. I'd prefer that not to be in my or my son's lifetime. Handouts, to me, are a sure goal that that might happen.

I don't hate the poor. I watched this episode of "30 days" last week where we saw an illegal immigrant family working on chips to make ends meet. And then you got to see what their habitation was in Mexico. To me, that is Mexico's fault, and we should possibly bomb them... Or take over their country. After all, they are begging their people to illegally cross the borger for more GNP! Eminent domain is all I'm saying.

You didn't respond more on this. But please do.

[Fatty FatBastard]

How about the environment?

I'm very liberal, but living in NYC I voted for Giuliani, and I could vote for a Republican it that Republican was a true Republican in the since that they believed in a balanced budget, believed that the government shouldn't be too powerful, and didn't try to use the constitution to explicitly try deny rights to American citizens. They would also have to be incorruptible and support campaign finance reform and understand that with every B2 bomber built there is community that doesn't get better schools, roads, and others civil services.

Think Eisenhower.

Agree with just about everything you stated.

As far as the environment?

Completely retarded argument, unless you are looking for possible vaccines for now.

As every history channel, and the common eye, has shown, the environment will always be here. Mt. St. Helens will be a vast forest of trees. Hawaii was populated solely on Volcanos erupting from the Earth. Politicians accounts that we will go away is absurd. Earth's damnation has nothing to do with us. humans are tantamount to bacteria with this Earth, eventually, and I am a God-fearing man who believes and prays every night. It will always go away, and the Earth will always remain supreme.

No offense, but Global warming, my ass.

[Fatty FatBastard]

I agree with you about gay tolerance.

I TOTALLY disagree that liberals "don't value religion anyway." The VAST majority of liberals I know are Christians and are very devoted to religion. Where do you get that stuff?

Does it really matter? IMO, my church is going with the same thing. For the love of Pete! Let gays get married where they want to, with ministers who are fine with it. For the Gov't. Let's make them legal unions for tax purposes.

After the Catholicism debacle, I hope you can see why my particular denomiation might not want to marry them. Again! Separation between Church and State! "Legal Union" should be just fine. Hell, I'm sure their are plenty of people who would like to start a "left wing" church. Religion is a freedom of speech. Just don't expect our Gov't to accept or acknowledge your religion.



While I am personally pro-choice, I also know that it makes sense to have reasonable time limits so that you can't just decide at 30 weeks that you need an abortion. God will eventually figure it out, but 30 weeks is a viable fetus for crying out loud.

Not sure if you have any children andy, but I can say I thought I was total "pro- life" until I found out I had a surprise baby. I hate to say, but, at 26, I hedged. I specifically asked "you sure you want this?" She said she did, and the rest is history. I was at fault, entirely, and would have deprived my world of my seven year old son. When it gets personal, you tend to get more livid. As a boyfriend of several ex-smokers, I know. ;)



You know my position on this one already, but IMO, it is (or should be) more of a conservative thing as a result of the ineffectiveness of the massive amounts of money we are spending.

but I loathe drugs. They piss me off. I just see it as a viable solution.


I wouldn't be opposed to having welfare recipients work for their money, but you are really talking about a tiny, tiny percentage of the population here.

Unbelievable. I'm not sure where you got this nonsense, but it is political propaganda. If you think our people in homes have work ethic, I'll give you a bit of research on WWII. Those people gave their God-Damn clothing and food to people in our hour of need. Unfortunately the Gov't's "one time shopping spree" turned into a binge.


Regardless, people who aren't disabled should do one of three things: Get a Gov't app'd. job, sit under a bridge, waiting for the Brother's Gruff, or Die.

You would be amazed at a man can do without handouts. There should not be anymore, period.

[thadeus]

The angle of my dangle is proportional to the heat of my meat.

Regardless, congratulations on one of the few threads that have been started where people in the D&D actually think...

Thank you, I will endeavor to create the same quality posts and threads in the future. It is my mission to get people in the D&D to think.

[Fatty FatBastard]

Thank you, I will endeavor to create the same quality posts and threads in the future. It is my mission to get people in the D&D to think.

Fair enough..

Thadeus, you're a blithering idiot who speaks non-sensical things occasionally.

Got it.

[thadeus]

Regardless, congratulations on one of the few threads that have been started where people in the D&D actually think, rather than lashing out at people.

Seriously, though. No really. For serious. Are you congratulating yourself here on starting "one of the few threads" in the D&D where people "actually think"? It's rare that people who post in the D&D actually think, and it took your thread to bring it out. Or, are you congratulating people on thinking? Either way, kudos. We all respect you, and everyone here thinks you should spend more time posting in this forum.

Thadeus, you're a blithering idiot who speaks non-sensical things occasionally.

KEEP D&D SYBIL

:p :mad: :D :o :rolleyes: :) :( :confused: ;)

[Saint Louis]

Fair enough..

Thadeus, you're a blithering idiot who speaks non-sensical things occasionally.

Got it.

All right, brain. You don't like me and I don't like you, but let's just do this and I can get back to killing you with beer. -- {insert typical D&D poster's name} :p

[MR. MEOWGI]

Undersigned,
http://www.duke.edu/~tmc/motherpage/covers_funkadelic/cov-standing.gif

hell yeah.

[Fatty FatBastard]

Seriously, though. No really. For serious. Are you congratulating yourself here on starting "one of the few threads" in the D&D where people "actually think"? It's rare that people who post in the D&D actually think, and it took your thread to bring it out. Or, are you congratulating people on thinking? Either way, kudos. We all respect you, and everyone here thinks you should spend more time posting in this forum.



KEEP D&D SYBIL

:p :mad: :D :o :rolleyes: :) :( :confused: ;)

Of course I was congratulating the posters on here. I congratulate myself in other ways with mass quantities.

[yo]

These are the people I am having a harder and harder time respecting. When someone believes in everything their party believes, they are nothing but a zombie. I've personally never understood it.

While most know me as a conservative, which I mostly am (re: I am an actual Man), I understand a lot of liberal issues, and I can agree with them.

Liberally, I am for:

Gay tolerance at any and all levels, though I feel a legal union for tax purposes makes more sense than "marriage." Look, marriage is a religious term. Most libs don't value religion anyway. It makes all parties happy.

Abortion. While I am personally pro life, I also know that making abortions illegal would be right on par with prohibition. It is, after all, your child. You choose what to do with it. God will figure that part out.

Drugs. I am sick and tired of seeing billions of dollars wasted on this completely unwinnable strategy. To the conservatives who like the war on drugs: That's everyone's tax dollars every year going to lock up an idiot.

Believe it or not, I have several other liberal views that I can agree with.

What makes me more conservative:

I can't even fathom anyone who thinks animals are on par with humans. If you want more humane ways of slaughtering, I can live with that. But anyone who has seen the history of wild pigs and chickens who were just one generation from being domesticated knows that these animals have to have their population kept in check. Or would you like the New York rat infestation to just let animals be? (any New Yorker knows that is impossible. PETA is a joke)

Ultimately what makes me stay on the conservative side are ideals, and taxes. How anyone thinks giving handouts to people is a solution is ignorant.

People. We had a GREAT Depression a few years back. Most of our grandparents went through it. How was it solved? By giving people JOBS through GOV'T funding to pay for PUBLIC good. How are handouts ever good for anyone?

You give me another FDR deal where welfare recipients have to earn it, and I will have no problem. But people TAKING money is BS. Plain and simple.

I'm sure people will argue my views, and that is fine.

But what I'd rather see in this thread is the obvious right or left people conceeding on something you agree on in regards to the other side.

Quite frankly, when people can't do that, I have no sympathy for them. They're obviously too angry to think for themselves.

That's my challenge. Let's see who's up to it?

Agree with you about straight-ticket voting. But it's the nature of people to need the feeling of association, and it makes people feel good.

I most disagree with you on abortion -

I also know that making abortions illegal would be right on par with prohibition.

I can't even fathom anyone who thinks animals are on par with humans.

Animals on par with humans is unfathomable, but alcohol is? You'll probably disagree on the viability of a fetus blah blah blah. Life is life, even if it is potential. To me, it is disgraceful that even though you personally believe abortion to be wrong, you would allow it just because of legal garbage. This is where Bush gets my props, although a lost cause, but he'll stick to his guns despite the opposition.

[UberDork]

i do not support straight ticket marriage.

James Carville and Mary Matalin agrees with you, or is it disagree? :confused:

[Rocket River]

While most know me as a conservative, which I mostly am (re: I am an actual Man), I understand a lot of liberal issues, and I can agree with them.



I am generally Conservative
but
probably more liberal than you on other issues




Liberally, I am for:

Gay tolerance at any and all levels, though I feel a legal union for tax purposes makes more sense than "marriage." Look, marriage is a religious term. Most libs don't value religion anyway. It makes all parties happy.


Who is ANTI-Tolerance
I agree. . . While Liberal scream about religion being forced on them
they
have no problems forcing Secular ideals into Religious themes
I hate that type of hypocrazy



Abortion. While I am personally pro life, I also know that making abortions illegal would be right on par with prohibition. It is, after all, your child. You choose what to do with it. God will figure that part out.


I am ANTI Abortion
I am Pro - Life
I cannot concede to legalized murder just because it is the easy thing to do
just because they will do it any way
those are not good reasons

Abortion is the ultimate selfishness imo
esp for something that is preventable
If you have sex. . . . accept the consequences


Drugs. I am sick and tired of seeing billions of dollars wasted on this completely unwinnable strategy. To the conservatives who like the war on drugs: That's everyone's tax dollars every year going to lock up an idiot.

regulation more than incarceration



I can't even fathom anyone who thinks animals are on par with humans. If you want more humane ways of slaughtering, I can live with that. But anyone who has seen the history of wild pigs and chickens who were just one generation from being domesticated knows that these animals have to have their population kept in check. Or would you like the New York rat infestation to just let animals be? (any New Yorker knows that is impossible. PETA is a joke)

I completely agree



People. We had a GREAT Depression a few years back. Most of our grandparents went through it. How was it solved? By giving people JOBS through GOV'T funding to pay for PUBLIC good. How are handouts ever good for anyone?

You give me another FDR deal where welfare recipients have to earn it, and I will have no problem. But people TAKING money is BS. Plain and simple.



I was under the impression that conservatives say that as BIG GOVERNMENT
and such programs were seen as handouts
that
is why Conservative presidents scaled alot of these programs back

Also
They prefer those goto private enterprise so some few can make bucks off
it .. . rather than the general good.

Rocket River

[ArtV]

I vote both ways on people I know but I will admit that I vote for "my" party when it's 2 people that I have no clue about either though rarely I will sometimes pass. That's the American way isn't it? Oh and last presidential election, I voted for myself and my wife (VP). My first line of order would be to get rid of all lobbyist/lobbying.

[Wild Bill]

Straight ticket for Congress is the only way to go in my opinion. For the most part, the rules dictate that which ever party win a majority of the seats controls the agenda. That is why I'm having such a hard time voting this year. As a conservative, I can't let the liberalism of the democrats go, but the mediocrity and hypocrisy of the GOP is really confusing me on what to do.

Straight ticket just plain doesn't work locally. Alot of conservative politicians will run as democrats just to have a chance in many comunities. In such communities, the republican is often someone who only feeds stereotypes.

[Deckard]

Straight ticket for Congress is the only way to go in my opinion. For the most part, the rules dictate that which ever party win a majority of the seats controls the agenda. That is why I'm having such a hard time voting this year. As a conservative, I can't let the liberalism of the democrats go, but the mediocrity and hypocrisy of the GOP is really confusing me on what to do.

Straight ticket just plain doesn't work locally. Alot of conservative politicians will run as democrats just to have a chance in many comunities. In such communities, the republican is often someone who only feeds stereotypes.
"A lot of conservative politicians will run as democrats just to have a chance in many comunities."

WB, you say that like there are Republicans who are forced to be Democrats in order to win. In Texas?? You've got to be kidding! Texas has a long tradition of conservative Democratic congressmen and senators, or did, until DeLay's redistricting did what it was designed specifically to do, get white, conservative Democratic congressmen out of office, so the Democratic Party would be represented, largely, by minorities. Just to be clear, every one of those Democratic Congressmen were in districts with Republican majorities, and those Republicans liked their representation. What a concept! Bipartisanship that was working... tossed into the dumpster by DeLay and the GOP.

In other words, they wanted white Texans to view the GOP as the party of white Texans, and the Democratic Party as the party for, "all those other people." It was deliberate, and it was a deliberate attempt to, in my opinion, use race to marginalize the Democratic Party. Laredo had been split in half, so that SA's Henry Bonilla, an Hispanic Republican, could win. He was put into a district with 50.9% Latino voters in order to pull it off. Guess what... today he lost, and DeLay and the GOP lost, in Federal district court. It looks like the Democrats will pick up a seat, Bonilla's, that wasn't expected to go Democratic in November, because Bonilla's new district is about 62% Latino. Doggett gets back a chunk of Austin, although Austin is still split like a pizza. DeLay's seat in now in play, another loss by the GOP in th courts, so Democrats may add 2 Congressional seats from Texas that were thought to go for the GOP. Good news, from where I sit.

From the Statesman:

Texas Democrats have good day in two courts
DeLay can't be replaced; new congressional map due soon.

By Laylan Copelin, Tara Copp

AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Friday, August 04, 2006

Two separate courts Thursday gave Texas Democrats a glimmer of hope of recouping a couple of congressional seats as part of their party's uphill battle to take back Congress.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans ruled that the Republican Party cannot replace former U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Sugar Land, on the November ballot, as DeLay and GOP officials had wanted.

A three-judge panel in Austin trying to fix the state's congressional map signaled that it might make it harder for San Antonio Republican Henry Bonilla to win re-election — and also might try to restore more of Democratic Rep. Lloyd Doggett's political base in Travis County. The judicial panel's map could come as soon as today.

"Today was a good day" to be a Texas Democrat, said Norm Ornstein, a congressional analyst with the American Enterprise Institute. "Tomorrow may tell us if it was a great day."

Texas Democrats had sued to keep DeLay on the ballot even though he resigned from Congress in June and testified that he had moved to Virginia. Democratic Party officials argued that GOP officials and DeLay concocted that move as a way to allow the party to replace him.

Those Democratic officials think their candidate, former U.S. Rep. Nick Lampson, has a better chance against DeLay, the former House majority leader who faces money-laundering charges and possible fallout from federal investigations of his inner circle, than against a GOP replacement.

Republicans plan to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

On the other legal front, the three federal judges have been instructed by the high court to remedy discrimination against Latino voters in a Southwest Texas congressional district. Adjusting the boundaries of that district will have ripple effects on other districts, including those in Travis County.

The judges are rushing to ready new districts in time for the November election. The new map they hinted at Thursday might expose Bonilla to a more Hispanic and more Democratic district that would stretch from San Antonio toward El Paso.

Of course, scoring legal points in court does not necessarily translate to victory at the polls.

Bonilla, a seven-term incumbent, has defeated Democratic challengers despite eroding support among Latino voters. With so little time before November, Bonilla would still have the advantage of incumbency and a war chest of more than $2.2 million, according to his most recent campaign filings with the Federal Election Commission.

In DeLay's case, Democrats are taking a calculated risk that the Sugar Land Republican, who's represented the district since 1985, won't be able to persuade voters to return him to a seat he gave up.


Doggett waits


Thursday's hearing in Austin was made necessary after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June that state lawmakers discriminated against Latinos when they created a 23rd Congressional District that replaced 100,000 Latinos in Laredo in 2003 with 100,000 Hill Country residents, most of them Anglo. That was an attempt to bolster Bonilla's re-election in 2004.

DeLay helped push the map through the Legislature to help consolidate Republican power in Washington.

The state, represented by Solicitor General Ted Cruz, offered a map that would split Travis County among three Republican incumbents: Bonilla, Lamar Smith of San Antonio and Michael McCaul of Austin. Doggett would be pitted against Smith in a Republican-heavy district or have to run in the remains of his district, which was redrawn in 2003 to stretch from Lockhart to the Mexico border.

Patrick Higginbotham, an appellate judge who presides over the special redistricting panel, suggested that the court could fix the map without pitting incumbents against one another.

Higginbotham suggested making Laredo the political base for a South Texas district represented by U.S. Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Laredo. That would allow the court, he said, to remove Doggett's district from South Texas and restore more of his traditional base in Central Texas.

The judge said Bonilla's district could pick up more voters in San Antonio, although he warned that the Republican might end up in a more Democratic district as the court tries to restore the number of Latinos in it.

Higginbotham revealed a bit of his hand, saying the judges had found it "very difficult to craft a plan where at least one of these candidates would not be in a very competitive district." "If you draw it and it ends up that way because you must make other changes, why isn't that a fair outcome?" Higginbotham asked a lawyer for Bonilla, Smith and Cuellar.

Special elections would be needed this fall in any redrawn districts to choose candidates for the November general ballot.

Although Democrats were encouraged by the judges' comments, they remained cautious.

"I won't speculate on what I'll do until I see the map," said Doggett, who attended the hearing along with other Democratic members of Congress.

Renea Hicks, who represented Travis County in challenging the current map, predicted that the state's plan to splinter the largely Democratic stronghold among three Republicans is dead.

"I think we'll get back a big chunk of what we lost," he said. "I don't think the state map has a chance because it's over the top."

Cruz, the state's lawyer, criticized proposed maps submitted by Latino groups and Democratic organizations for trying either to add too many Latino districts or gain a partisan advantage.

The court's role, he argued, is "to cure a violation in (District) 23 and, other than that, like a physician, do no harm," Cruz said.


Appeal planned


In the DeLay case, Texas Republicans suffered another setback.

A three-judge panel from the 5th Circuit ruled that state GOP Chairwoman Tina Benkiser acted unconstitutionally when she tried to remove DeLay as the party nominee.

The U.S. Constitution says a candidate for Congress must be at least 25 years old, a U.S. citizen and an inhabitant of the state when the election is held.

Yet Benkiser ruled DeLay ineligible to run because he had moved to a Virginia condo he had owned for 12 years.

"When Benkiser reviewed the public records sent by DeLay and concluded that his residency in Virginia made him ineligible, she unconstitutionally created a pre-election inhabitancy requirement," the court wrote.

Cris Feldman, a lawyer for the Texas Democratic Party, praised the decision, which tracks earlier Democratic victories in state and federal district courts.

"Five judges have now confirmed our legal viewpoint," Feldman said. "Both parties have nominees, and it time to move forward. It's time to look forward to an election and put this behind us."

Benkiser said the GOP plans on appealing to the Supreme Court.

"The Democrat Party wants to force Tom DeLay to withdraw, so that their nominee runs unopposed, or to force Tom DeLay to run, as the court has now decided, so that their nominee will be running against a candidate that is ineligible to serve," she said in a statement. "This makes a mockery of our democratic system and denies voters a meaningful choice."

It remains unclear whether DeLay would mount an active campaign for the seat. A spokeswoman said, "He is exploring his options and has not made any decisions."

Michael Gerhardt, a Supreme Court expert at the University of North Carolina School of Law, said the appeal is a long shot.

Even though the Supreme Court finished its term in June, each justice has the power to grant a stay, Gerhardt said. If that happened, DeLay could present his case to the Supreme Court after it returns to the bench in October — just a month before the election.

However, DeLay would "have to convince the justice that he had a substantial likelihood of success," Gerhardt said.

Ornstein, the Washington-based congressional analyst, said DeLay's name on the ballot helps Lampson, the Democrat, tremendously and could help the party take back Congress because it keeps the former majority leader in the spotlight as indictments continue in the Department of Justice's investigation of convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

The money-laundering charges against DeLay in Travis County stem from his role in helping elect Republican lawmakers in 2002 — the same lawmakers who later drew the map that must now be changed.

Democrats need to win 15 seats nationally to take back the House of Representatives, and the party is already confident of having a good chance in about 10 to 12 of those races.

Texas, where Republicans have a 21-11 edge in the congressional delegation, had not been expected to be a source for any seat.

But DeLay's predicament changes that. And depending on what sorts of districts are created by the federal judges in Austin, there could be two seats up for grabs, Ornstein said.

"Each added seat is enormously important," Ornstein said.

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/08/4redistrict.html


The new map is out, and I think things look much better for Democrats, thanks to a Republican dominated district court, and the Supreme Court, who told the district court to draw a new map, one that didn't under-represent Latino voters.



Keep D&D Civil.

[yaoluv]

while i do not agree 100% with democrats

I vote straight ticket democrat, here is my logic:

i have no respect for anyone who supports george bush
if you support george bush i think you are an idiot or an a-hole
if you run as a republican you either support bush or you are his biatch
either way i hate you. and dont want to vote for you

[StupidMoniker]

i have no respect for anyone who supports george bush
if you support george bush i think you are an idiot or an a-hole
I voted for Bush twice, so which am I?

[Wild Bill]

WB, you say that like there are Republicans who are forced to be Democrats in order to win. In Texas?? You've got to be kidding!
I meant in local government. There are numerous examples of conservatives running as democrats in my area of Southeast Texas. Union labor is very strong in my home city of Beaumont. There are plenty of "democrats" in our government that would be bigger targets of MoveOn.org than Lieberman.

Also, my uncle is involved in politics in Upshur county. He ran recently for office as a democrat. I'm a commie compared to this guy. He told me his community is much like mine. He had to run as a dem just to get noticed.

Texas has a long tradition of conservative Democratic congressmen and senators, or did, until DeLay's redistricting did what it was designed specifically to do, get white, conservative Democratic congressmen out of office, so the Democratic Party would be represented, largely, by minorities. Just to be clear, every one of those Democratic Congressmen were in districts with Republican majorities, and those Republicans liked their representation. What a concept! Bipartisanship that was working... tossed into the dumpster by DeLay and the GOP.
As the democrat party drifted to the left, the blue dogs were hung out to dry. Blame whom you will, but if my vote for Jack Brooks were going to bring Pelosi to power as the third in line to the presidency, he wouldn't get my vote. Sure, the GOP brought attention to the leftward movement, but the democrats did this to themselves.

In other words, they wanted white Texans to view the GOP as the party of white Texans, and the Democratic Party as the party for, "all those other people." It was deliberate, and it was a deliberate attempt to, in my opinion, use race to marginalize the Democratic Party.

Race baiting has been a favorite tool of democrats in every major national election in the last 20 years. Your side is obviously at fault where race relations are concerned as well. It's dishonest and shameful opportunism.

Could you point me to the quote where any legitimate GOP leader said,"if your white, you should vote republican"? Democrats have done a masterful job of calling republicans racists and bigots. This has resulted in major gains in minority votes for the democrats. This doesn't make what they're saying true.

[giddyup]

I voted for Bush twice, so which am I?
You're a-idiot... :D

[FranchiseBlade]

Race baiting has been a favorite tool of democrats in every major national election in the last 20 years. Your side is obviously at fault where race relations are concerned as well. It's dishonest and shameful opportunism.

Could you point me to the quote where any legitimate GOP leader said,"if your white, you should vote republican"? Democrats have done a masterful job of calling republicans racists and bigots. This has resulted in major gains in minority votes for the democrats. This doesn't make what they're saying true.
ACtually the GOP has done a good job of acting against legislation that is important to minorities. Starting with Reagan who showed his true colors when he vetoed sanctions against S. Africa(thank goodness his veto was overturned). Then add to that their proposals to give tax cuts to the wealthy while cutting education spending, fighting against affirmative action, cutting scholarship and funding to Universities, inner city programs, etc. Having tougher drug laws for Crack than regular Cocaine, using Willy Horton in the campaign against Dukakis back in '88. The list goes on and on. With stances on issues like those the Democrats don't to race bait or anything else. The issues that a large percentage of minorities feel is most important to them, are not those that the GOP votes in favor of most of the time. Democrats on the other hand do usually stand with a majority of minority voters on those issues, thus they win a high percentage of minority votes.

[rhadamanthus]

No offense, but Global warming, my ass.

Hrmmm. I may not disagree with you that the earth will "always be here". In what shape however - well - that's open to debate.

You can continue to be ignorant if you like, but global warming is not a joke.

[Rocket River]

ACtually the GOP has done a good job of acting against legislation that is important to minorities. Starting with Reagan who showed his true colors when he vetoed sanctions against S. Africa(thank goodness his veto was overturned). Then add to that their proposals to give tax cuts to the wealthy while cutting education spending, fighting against affirmative action, cutting scholarship and funding to Universities, inner city programs, etc. Having tougher drug laws for Crack than regular Cocaine, using Willy Horton in the campaign against Dukakis back in '88. The list goes on and on. With stances on issues like those the Democrats don't to race bait or anything else. The issues that a large percentage of minorities feel is most important to them, are not those that the GOP votes in favor of most of the time. Democrats on the other hand do usually stand with a majority of minority voters on those issues, thus they win a high percentage of minority votes.


It is like a relationship
Which do you go into
An Abusive one
or
A Neglectful one

minorities more and more feel neither serve our interest
and more often than not work against us

Rocket River