Dubya Discovers Good Government?

(Completely tongue-in-cheek headline; don’t worry.)

As I’ve noted in the past, one of the advantages (if you can call it that) of reading the Bucks County Courier Times is that you’re alerted to the very latest in wingnuttia, and the paper didn’t disappoint again recently, republishing this column from Cokie and Steve Roberts.

And isn’t it such a shame – boo hoo! – that Dubya is sooo unhappy that “his proposals have died on Capitol Hill”? I’m sure “no one could have predicted” how that would happen with this hanging around the neck of Incurious George like the proverbial millstone.

Well, in response, Dubya said to Cokie darling that he has found a new foe – the gerrymander (cue scary incidental theme music; du-du-duuuh!)…

Too many congressional districts, he said, are drawn to guarantee safe seats for one party or the other. So for many lawmakers, their only real threat comes from their "flank," from a primary challenger who accuses them of ideological impurity. As a result, they respond to the extreme views in their own party, and won't risk making compromises across the aisle.

Expanding on his point to the Washington Post, the president argued that the result is legislative paralysis. When lawmakers "have no worry about the general election," they have no incentive to take "a rational position" on "polarizing, tough issues," he said. They're much safer playing to their base. And for most Republicans, that means decrying as "amnesty" any "rational" attempt at reforming immigration rules.

This really is just too damn funny (he actually was right about immigration, believe it or not, but that whole issue was a case of the “chickens coming home to roost” big time). And you can rely on the Robertses to produce more quotes from their beloved DLC on this, representative of their sacred “sensible center.”

This is what the new president will face next January - a dysfunctional Congress that seems totally incapable of dealing with "polarizing, tough issues," and the problem goes far beyond immigration. Health insurance, energy independence, budget deficits and strains on the retirement system from aging baby boomers - the list of congressional failures is endless.

It doesn’t matter how many times I try to communicate the fact that the 110th Congress, for all its myriad imperfections, is such a vast improvement over the wretched 109th that you cannot quantify it; the Robertses will just continue to grind the tired narrative of a “do-nothing 110th” through the mill over and over, as they say.

But for Dubya to complain about congressional redistricting is the ultimate in historical revisionism, even for him. In response, I have to ask a simple question.

Remember “The Bug Man,” Dubya? A certain Tom DeLay?

This tells us the following…

The untold story of DeLay's belligerent power grab in Texas redistricting involves partisan political domination, intrigue, alleged corruption and perhaps most significantly -- minority disenfranchisement.

U.S. Congressional redistricting takes place in state legislatures once per decade, following the decennial census to reflect population shifts, as mandated by the U.S. Constitution. Tom DeLay led the effort to violate all historical precedent by drawing the Congressional district lines in Texas -- twice.

In the first redistricting, the Texas state legislature was divided and could not agree on a plan in 2001. So, a three-judge Federal District Court drew the plan, finalizing the redistricting process, which is quite common. But the court-ordered plan did not fully guarantee that Republicans would completely dominate the U.S. Congressional delegations from Texas. So Tom DeLay decided to do it all over again mid-decade, which has never been done before.

…

After an epic battle, DeLay's efforts paid off and he ultimately succeeded in securing a new plan from the Texas legislature. But first, DeLay and other Texas Republicans walked unflinching, through the scorching flames of public, media and Democratic opposition, in an attempt to eliminate 5-7 more Congressional Democrats than the original court-ordered plan required.

The Republicans disregarded the booming cacophony generated by the Texas body politic which opposed DeLay's plan. With a total of over 200 editorials, every major newspaper in the State of Texas editorialized against redistricting. The TV coverage was more than 2-1 against his plan. The respected Texas Poll showed that only 26 percent of the Texas public thought there was a need to redraw the congressional district lines.

Thousands of people testified in statewide, public hearings about DeLay's unprecedented plan. In Dallas County, where 200 people were expected to testify, 700 people showed-up spontaneously and stayed until 2 or 3:00 in the morning to testify. In emotional appeals, the vast majority of participants asked that time and resources be devoted to real issues that effect people's lives -- not to a second round of redistricting.

In court testimony, Republicans in Texas, guided by DeLay's congressional staff, brazenly admitted that they were rewriting the plan for partisan political purposes. Tom DeLay's intention was to leave no Democratic leaders standing. He went after the most senior, capable Democratic members of the Texas Congressional delegation.

"We must stress that a map that returns (Democratic U.S. Reps. Martin) Frost, (Chet) Edwards and (Lloyd) Doggett is unacceptable and not worth all of the time invested in this project," wrote Delay aide Tom Ellis in a memo circulated among Republicans.

Tom DeLay's efforts paid off big in the 2004 elections where he eventually gained 6 additional Congressional seats for Texas Republicans to replace a 17-15 Democratic majority in the congressional delegation with a 21-11 Republican majority. This partisan victory helped guaranteed Republican control of the U.S. Congress and the policies that go with it, well into the future.

Well, fortunately for us all, that “future” didn’t last as long as DeLay intended; he resigned from the House in June 2006, and the Democrats returned to congressional power in both chambers of Congress that November.

And how did Dubya respond to all of DeLay’s escapades during that time, particularly the Texas redistricting?

(…cue the sound of crickets…)

The ruinous reign of President George W. Milhous Bush has done more to “(violate) the principles of democracy and (cripple) the workings of government” than any alleged congressional redistricting scheme.

But what can we expect from Exhibit A of our compromised punditocracy, who once called workers who opposed “free” trade deals “losers” here?

By the way, this is one of those stories where I particularly miss The Eternal Molly Ivins; we must continue to try and emulate her good work today and every day.