52 Democrats Walk Out of Senate -- Speaker orders Arrest

Given the news lately, it seems like they ought to change the signs as you enter Texas:

"Welcome to the Land of Anarchy and Infanticide."

 

A Democrat before the 1960's was equal to a Republican from the 1980's on. Southern Democrats were conservatives until the Reagan era. They voted for conservative policies. Many changed from Democrat to Republican when Reagan took office, thereby confusing registered voters. They just stayed Democrat as a result of post Civil War politics. If you remember from history, the Democrats were conservative, and the Republicans were liberals. Hence the Democrats became the conservative "White Male" party that enjoyed popularity until the Reagan era (the roles have changed since then- the catalyst was the Great Depression, but that's a whole other discussion). It was easier to get elected if you were a Democrat. Today just say you are a Republican, and it is the same thing.

So this business about Republican payback for Democratic dominance doesn't really hold water. In reality, this boils down to Conservative versus Liberal- not Republican versus Democrat.

 

i was born in 1974...since my birth, democrats have been in control...since my birth, they've gerrymandered to set up favorable voting districts. they also nominated McGovern just two years before my birth. yeah...they were a little liberal then.

 

I voted for McGovern. It was my first Presidential vote. I argued with my Dad the whole time until we went into the booth that Nixon was a crook, that I didn't much like McGovern, but he wasn't a crook, and how DARE he vote for a Republican anyway?? He voted Democratic the vast majority of the time because he was very liberal on social issues, especially for the era. Dad was a hoot.

Let's see, did McGovern carry Texas? I don't think so. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. Astroagg was largely on target. You have no idea just how conservative Texas was back then.

 

So what?? McGovern didn't carry Texas...again you're drawing implications from facts that aren't necessarily connected.

But I'll give that argument up...during the 80's...and the 90's...the texas legislature was STILL controlled by dems. Please don't tell me these were republicans in dems clothing.

I can't believe we're all still arguing this...it's gotten so mixed up now, I'm not even sure what we're arguing. I think it was bad they left...I think that was my original point. Yeah. That was it. Bad.

 

Where did you get that info., do you have a link? And what are the numbers for the rest of the districts? I don't see how this proves that the boundaries are fair.

 

Did you hear about Willie Nelson sending the Dems whisky, red bandanas and a note telling them way to go, and to stand their ground?

 

Page A5 of the Austin American-Statesman, May 14, 2003.
Source: the Texas Legislative Council.

The Texas Legislative Council is a bipartisan "commission or branch" of the Texas Legislature. Basically, they are a group of (you should get a kick out of this, MadMax) attorneys who draft legislation for the Legislature. Yes, they work for the Legislature.

I'm looking at the page right now. It's next to my keyboard. I've tried to get a link to it, but haven't had joy as yet. You can take my word for it or you can see if you have better luck. If I had gotten it off the Net, I would have posted the link. You might do a Google, find the link for the Texas Legislative Council, and get the info from there. I may later, but I don't feel like it right now.

Ain't life a *****? I've read that mixed in with all the smoke from down south of the border are a bunch of pesticides. Now I know why I feel so bad. (sniff) I hope Bush has them next on his hit list. Send in tha Marines!

 

Why is it childish for Democrats to walk out, but it's not childish for Republicans to refuse to negotiate a fair agreement?

Instead of letting Republicans screw them again, Democrats did what they had to do. What they did was admirable, and it showed their opposition that they're tired of being kicked in the teeth. I applaud that.

I'm not a Democrat, but I'm sure glad to see that there's some fight in their party.

 

Did you hear about the DPS and the Republicans using department of homeland security resources to try and track the dems, which is against federal law. Then the DPS destroyed the records being involved. And the department of homeland security is now refusing to hand over their records to an investigation of the incident.

This is amazing. Federal resources were diverted from the war on terror to track these democratic congressmen who broke no law. This happened at the same time when the security threat level goes to orange.

Then the DPS and a federal agency attempt to stonewall any investigation into the incident.

I believe heads should roll. Everyone involved in the crime, or the coverup should step forward and tell what they know, or face serious consequences.

 

FB: those new laws, those new procedures were never about terrorists. They were, like so many other shameful things, about using 9/11 (and the deaths of innocents) to justify the systematic elimination of all those civil liberties which might keep John Ashcroft from looking under our collective American dress for any sign of dissent. Ashcroft is the opposite of an American and Bush is the same for hiring him. Down with both of them for being in cahoots on this sort of thing. It is they who are anti-patriotic. It is they who hate America. Any true patriot will oppose them in everything they do.

 

This IS amazing. It surprised even me. Someone really wanted to cover something up. I'm really stunned that the DPS would do this. I thought better of them. I hope the truth behind the destruction of these records comes out.

As for the Department of "Homeland" Security poking it's nose into this (when did we become a "homeland", anyway?? It sounds very strange to me... I'll never get used to it), I wish that I could say that THIS surprised me. I hope reforms and a name change are one of the top items on the agenda of the next Democratic President.

This is one of the very things informed people concerned about preserving our fundamental liberties were worried about when this monster was created. It didn't take long for them to stop pretending that it was all about protecting us from terrorism.

 

Clearly the DPS overreached...and I'm really disturbed about the news of the homeland security office being used for this. That's just ridiculous.

But why is it against federal law? Not being argumentative...just really want to know. I know state authorities can't be forced into doing the job of the federal government...there's supreme court decisions that say that. But I'm not familiar with this...so...if you know why it's against federal law, let me know.

 

Well supposedly the DPS told the dept. of Homeland Security that the plane which was carrying the dems was in danger of being lost, of possibly crashed or missing. That was the excuse they used to get the plane tracked. The federal regulation stipulates that unless there is probable cause to believe that the missing people are engaged in criminal activity, etc. So a plane being lost doesn't constitute anyone being engaged in criminal or terrorist activity. Of course the DPS knew there was no criminal activity involved, because they explanation they gave for destroying the records was that it was not legal to keep records where there was no criminal activity.

That's all paraphrased, but is the general idea.

The dept. of Homeland security has a tapes and transcripts of conversations between the DPS and themselves. Tom Ridge has refused to hand them over. They were asked on what grounds they were witholding the information but the investigation team was given no answer. They've also sent requests to Ashcroft, and the FBI. They are trying to find out exactly what happened, but are being stonewalled and coming accross destroyed evidence. I'm really eager to know what they are covering up, and to see justice served.

 

Here's part of an article on the debacle.

http://www.statesman.com/hp/content/coxnet/texas/legislature/0503/0522dps.html
Seeking refuge in the federal code, however, raised more questions about the agency's destruction of records.

"The mere invocation of it is nothing more than an attempt to find an excuse, to find some sort of cover for what is clearly an embarrassing action that was probably taken hastily," said Houston attorney Rob Wiley, a former president of the Texas Freedom of Information Foundation. "It seems on its face to be ludicrous."

Wiley and Austin media law attorney Bill Aleshire said the records destruction might have violated state open records laws, or worse.

"We've got DPS using the criminal investigation apparatus of the U.S. to track the Killer Ds, and then they destroy the evidence of the tracking on the grounds that it wasn't a criminal matter," Aleshire said. "DPS knew the first day they were looking for the Killer Ds that it was not a criminal investigation. If they violated federal regulations, if not other laws, in using the criminal investigation apparatus for this political purpose, the destruction of the records that were created could be considered obstruction of justice."

Aleshire noted that the federal code the department cited to destroy the records also seems to prohibit it from using its criminal intelligence program to collect information on the missing lawmakers.

The code is a lengthy federal provision setting guidelines for handling records in far-ranging criminal investigations such as loan sharking and drug trafficking.

Among other things, the code requires that law enforcement agencies "shall make assurances that there will be no harassment or interference with any lawful political activities as part of the intelligence operation."

Political waves from the ongoing controversy continued to cascade through Austin and Washington throughout the day.

State Rep. Kevin Bailey, D-Houston, who would head a possible Texas House investigation, said his General Investigating Committee could begin discussing the matter as early as today, though the topic might not come up until the May 29 meeting.

Bailey met with two department officials Wednesday to discuss the destruction of the documents.

"One must ask why are they in such a hurry to get rid of this evidence. What is there that someone wants to hide?" he said. "They are either misreading the laws or misusing the law to justify destruction of information."

In Washington, Texas Democrats called for House and Senate oversight hearings into potential obstruction of justice by the Texas DPS, Republican leaders or federal law enforcement agencies.

Democrats also vowed to conduct their own mini-hearings when federal law enforcement officials appear before congressional committees.

The questions will begin today when Department of Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge testifies before the House Judiciary Committee.

Democrats renewed demands that the U.S. homeland security agency release information about the search for Rep. Pete Laney's plane. GOP officials suspected Laney used his plane to shuttle Democrats out of town.

Among the information being sought are tapes of a DPS official's call asking for help in finding the plane. The department has rebuffed requests for the data, saying the agency's inspector general's office should have first access to aid in its investigation.

"We've had nothing but ducking and dodging on our request for a complete explanation and for the missing tapes and related documents," said U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Austin.

 

Here's something of interest for both parties... make of it what you will.


53% aren't happy with lawmaking
In pre-boycott poll, Texans' rating of Legislature's job is lowest since mid-'80s
ASSOCIATED PRESS

Monday, May 26, 2003

Fifty-three percent of Texans disapprove of the Legislature's job performance, a new survey indicates.

The marks are the lowest since the mid-1980s when lawmakers also had to bridge revenue shortfalls to balance state budgets. According to the Scripps Howard Texas Poll, 32 percent of Texans approve of the Legislature's job performance.

The telephone survey of 1,000 Texans included both voters and nonvoters. It was conducted April 28 through May 10, before House business was halted by a four-day boycott by more than 50 Democrats the week of May 12 to block action on a Republican-backed congressional redistricting bill.

In the poll, 50 percent of respondents approved of Gov. Rick Perry's job performance. That's a statistically insignificant rise from the 49 percent who gave the governor good marks in February. The number of respondents disapproving of the governor's work increased from 40 percent to 44 percent.

Forty-seven percent of respondents to a similar poll had a favorable impression of the Legislature during the 2001 session when lawmakers weren't dealing with a budget crunch. Then, 38 percent disapproved of lawmakers' performance.

Sixty-four percent of Texans think state government is already doing a "poor" or "only fair" job of providing services to the needy, according to the poll.

Fifty-nine percent think Texas is doing a "poor" or "only fair" job of providing a quality education in the public schools.

Despite the state leadership's opposition to higher taxes, 56 percent of people responding to the Texas Poll said they backed a combination of tax increases and spending cuts to balance the new budget.

Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst's job performance was viewed favorably by 38 percent of respondents and unfavorably by 39 percent. Twenty-three percent either didn't know who Dewhurst is or had no opinion on his performance.

Craddick, the first Republican speaker in more than 100 years, had an approval rating of 27 percent and a disapproval rating of 36 percent. Thirty-seven percent didn't know how to rate him.

The poll, conducted by the Scripps Data Center, has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

from:
http://www.statesman.com/metrostate/content/auto/epaper/editions/today/metro_state_13.html


It would appear that the current Republican leadership in the House and Senate aren't doing a good job... according to Texans. Their own internal polling must show them similar numbers, so who are they trying to please with their agenda? The answer is clear. Just open your eyes.

 

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/1927358

<B><font size=4>Democrat search probe spreads to Perry, aide

</font>Pair reportedly in DPS command post</B>

By R.G. RATCLIFFE
Copyright 2003 Houston Chronicle Austin Bureau<I>

AUSTIN -- A legislative investigator said Tuesday that Gov. Rick Perry and his point man on anti-terrorism were in a state police command post the day the state enlisted federal Homeland Security forces to help search for runaway House Democrats.

House General Investigating Committee Chairman Kevin Bailey, D-Houston, said Capitol security tapes show Perry entering and leaving the office of House Speaker Tom Craddick. Bailey said sources told him that Perry went from that office to the command post established in a reception area of the speaker's office.

Bailey also said Perry's homeland defense coordinator -- Assistant Attorney General Jay Kimbrough -- gave the Texas Department of Public Safety a California telephone number for the federal air interdiction service that was used to track former Speaker Pete Laney's plane during the walkout.

Laney and 50 other legislators were found later that day in Ardmore, Okla., just across the state line.

"Obviously, it raises some serious concerns about the use of Homeland Security in domestic political matters," Bailey said.

Federal officials have said they were misled by the state into assisting in the search. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security's inspector general has opened an investigation into possible waste or abuse of agency resources.

"This was a state matter. There should not have been federal involvement," Bailey said.

The Democrats fled the Capitol on May 12 to kill a Republican congressional redistricting plan by breaking the House quorum.

After a vote of members present, Craddick ordered that missing members be arrested and returned to the Capitol.

Bailey said his committee may look into what role Kimbrough might have had in bringing the U.S. Department of Homeland Security into the search for the lawmakers.

He said he is dropping his investigation into whether the Department of Public Safety destroyed records about the search as part of a cover-up. Bailey said he believes a "technical violation" of the state Public Information Act occurred but that state police had "no criminal intent."

Bailey said Capitol security tapes also show that Jim Ellis -- a political aide to U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay -- probably had no role in directing the hunt for the missing Democrats. DeLay, R-Sugar Land, is pushing for redistricting to give Republicans a majority in the state congressional delegation.

Bailey said Kimbrough, one of Perry's former deputy chiefs of staff, was in the DPS command center that was set up May 12 in the speaker's reception room.

"We don't know how much of a role he played, but it does appear he was very heavily involved in the process," Bailey said.

Angela Hale, spokeswoman for Attorney General Greg Abbott, said Kimbrough was in the room in his capacity as an assistant attorney general, not as homeland defense coordinator.

Hale said Kimbrough had gone to the command center with Abbott's first assistant, Barry McBee, to offer legal assistance to Craddick and the DPS. McBee is Perry's former chief of staff.

Hale said McBee called U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton in San Antonio to see if the FBI could be used to bring the lawmakers back from Oklahoma or whether the DPS could arrest them across the state line. She said Sutton's office said "no" to both questions.

Perry spokeswoman Kathy Walt refused to discuss what Perry did while in the command center but denied he had any role in the use of federal Homeland Security resources.

"I've never had any inkling that anybody on our staff, including the governor, called Homeland Security," Walt said.

Sometime the afternoon of May 12, DeLay's staff obtained information from the Federal Aviation Administration that Laney's airplane was en route from Ardmore to Georgetown, Texas.

The Department of Transportation is conducting a review into whether FAA employees acted properly in dealing with DeLay.

DeLay said he gave the information to Craddick.

DPS Lt. William Crais apparently then called the Air & Marine Interdiction Coordination Center in Riverside, Calif., and asked for assistance in finding Laney's airplane. The service is a branch of the federal Department of Homeland Security.

Hale said Crais asked for a phone number for the interdiction service and that Kimbrough provided it.

"It wasn't his idea, and he didn't make the call," Hale said.

The interdiction service's parent agency, the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said on May 15 that it had been misled into believing the search was on for a missing lawmaker's aircraft that might have crashed.

"That agency is supposed to go after terrorist and drug dealers, not missing legislators," Bailey said.

Bailey said Crais told his committee's investigators that he made the decision to call the federal agency without direction from anyone else.

"He also is saying he did not mislead the federal agency into believing a plane had crashed," Bailey said.

"My understanding is that he asked some hypothetical questions such as: How would you track a plane? What if a plane was down? How would you find a plane? That kind of thing."

DPS spokeswoman Tela Mange declined comment.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., a Democratic presidential candidate and member of the Governmental Affairs Committee, Tuesday wrote White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card demanding a full investigation of how federal resources were used in the Texas walkout.

"I am writing to you ... to ensure that we have a complete picture of what happened," Lieberman said.

Republicans dismissed Lieberman's letter as political posturing.

"Someone should ask the good senator if he believes he's using government resources to further his presidential campaign," DeLay spokesman Jonathan Grella said in response to Lieberman's letter.

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said Homeland Security already is investigating.

"It was intended less to be a serious letter and more to be a campaign gambit by somebody who is running for the presidency," Fleischer said.

DeLay aide Ellis said he is gratified that the security tapes proved he was not in the command center. He said the investigation is a "subterfuge" by Democrats to draw attention from attempts to redraw congressional district boundaries to reflect statewide Republican voting patterns.

Democrats currently hold a 17-15 majority in the state congressional delegation. The GOP map would have allowed Republicans to gain four to seven seats in next year's elections.

"Obviously, we hope there is a special session called at some point and this is added to the call," Ellis said.

The governor sets the agenda for special legislative sessions.


Houston Chronicle reporter Karen Masterson contributed to this story from Washington, and Armando Villafranca contributed from Austin.

</I>

 

Wow this is really a sad state of affairs. It didn't take like long for the slippery slope argument of taking away rights for homeland security to pick up some momentum.

Already the new powers given to these agencies have apparently been misused for domestic political agendas. I mean a lot of these departemenst and agencies are just in their infancies and we are already seeing how they can be abused.

I also like how the dept. of homeland security is doing the investigation, when they are part of what needs to be investigated. The Texas Republicans seem to have really abused their power, and then sadly an attempt at cover up.

 

As far as I'm concerned, read it and weep. But at least read it... you should know what this Legislature did. I'm a proud Texan, but I'm not proud of this.


Budget is passed, but few are happy
Most lawmakers see spending plan as better than tax hikes
MORE ON THIS STORY



Final Senate and House votes on House Bill 1

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


By Gary Susswein

AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF

Monday, June 2, 2003

Nearly four dozen Democrats and a lone Central Texas Republican took one last futile stand Sunday against a $117.4 billion state budget that protects Texans from new state taxes by reducing services, eliminating 10,000 jobs and allowing college tuition to go up.

The bill, probably the most enduring legacy of the 78th Legislature, was approved on the last full day of the session as the threat of an immediate special legislative session cooled.

"With this budget, we mark the passage in Texas from compassionate conservatism to just plain old mean-spiritedness," said Sen. Eliot Shapleigh, D-El Paso. "We don't make the investment in Texans so Texans could lead productive lives into the future."

He and other critics of the budget bitterly complained that it hurts programs for the state's children and elderly and disabled, especially Hispanics, and will force local governments to raise taxes to pay for more services.

Most lawmakers dismissed such talk as rhetoric.

But they acknowledged that the state's estimated $9.9 billion budget hole forced them to make cuts they're not happy about. Overall, they said, the spending plan is better than the alternative of raising taxes and better than the original budget proposals they considered in February and March.

"The unprecedented freedom you enjoy today was not to guarantee your security but to give you opportunity," said Sen. Steve Ogden, R-Bryan, who represents Williamson County. "This state has always been about giving people opportunity. I don't think anyone can honestly say that in this budget, we deny people the opportunity to improve themselves."

The Senate approved the measure 24-7, with Sen. Jeff Wentworth, R-San Antonio, joining six urban and border-region Democrats in opposing the measure.

The House approved the measure 105-41. Members appeared to delay a vote on the budget until they were sure the Senate had passed a bill to allow state colleges and universities to set their own tuitions next year.

House leaders had said tuition deregulation was needed to offset a 1 percent cut in the all-purpose state money for higher education. (Total funding for higher education will grow by 1 percent.)

Total spending on public education will grow 3.6 percent under the budget, thanks to a 22.8 percent jump in federal aid that will offset a decrease in state dollars going to public schools. Critics say that growth won't keep pace with inflation and enrollment growth.

Spending on health and human services will also rise 2.8 percent, despite a decrease in state money for the programs. Most of the new federal money, though, will be needed to pay for soaring Medicaid costs, and the state will reduce the Children's Health Insurance rolls by more than 160,000 by changing enrollment procedures, cut home health care hours for frail and elderly Texans by 15 percent, and shrink other social service programs.

Those cuts drew the most outrage from Democrats on Sunday and prompted them to renew their calls to raise the state's 41 cents-per-pack cigarette tax by $1 and force more companies to pay the corporate franchise tax.

Many state leaders were elected on the promise not to raise any new taxes.

"Those campaign promises, in my judgment, have been overtaken by events of time," Wentworth said, noting that the anticipated gap between projected income and what was needed to maintain services jumped from $5 billion on election day to $9.9 billion by the time lawmakers came to Austin in January.

"This budget is not a bad one, as such. I prefer to consider it a work still in progress. We can do it right, and we can do more if we stick around a few more days," said Wentworth, who represents part of Travis County.

Even without prolonging the session, lawmakers Sunday night were poised to approve some revenue-generating measures that had appeared dead earlier in the weekend.

Those included joining a multistate lottery, which would pump an estimated $101 million into Texas coffers over the next two years. That money would be used for public education.

Shapleigh complained that more than $10 million for university health centers along the border was taken out of the budget and lawmakers will have to try to get the money from the new Texas Enterprise Fund meant to attract new companies to Texas. He said it was political punishment to Democrats from those region, a charge Republicans dismissed.

Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn will have 10 days to certify that the state has enough money for the budget. It will then go to Gov. Rick Perry for approval.

gsusswein@statesman.com; 445-3654

 

please tell me that's an editorial....if that's a front page story, then the Austin American Statesman is the worst paper in the country.