Posted on 11/12/2005 10:30:54 AM PST by StoneColdGOP
WASHINGTON - Congressional incumbents and Capitol Hill alumni rallied 'round in the final week of the fight against California's redistricting overhaul.
The well-placed Proposition 77 opponents came from many states, and with their checkbooks wide open. Amid California's most expensive election ever, the far-flung lawmakers helped pump up the forces defeating Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's agenda.
"There are a number of members of Congress who don't want to face the voters," Tulare Republican Rep. Devin Nunes said Friday, "and Prop. 77 would have made that happen."
At least 53 House members contributed to the anti-Proposition 77 effort between Halloween and Tuesday's election, public records show.
Lawmakers from at least 18 states weighed in financially, in addition to Californians whose jobs were directly on the line.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
I guess winning one election gives you lifetime congressional tenure.
The start of our recent mess here was the Pubs rolling when the California redistricting was done last go around.
Obviously the dems took all the advantage that they could of it and some resistance was present, but... sadly
Out of 153 seats up for election last election, none changed hands.
Amazing.
One of my California Republican Friends got a communication from Dick Army (sp) telling him to vote no on 77.
I guess that the House was afraid that if 77 passed, some of them might lose their golden parachute and paycheck.
Amazing.
One of my California Republican Friends got a communication from Dick Army (sp) telling him to vote no on 77.
I guess that the House was afraid that if 77 passed, some of them might lose their golden parachute and paycheck.
No doubt about it. California has earned its ultimate destruction at the hands of Leftists and illegals.
It's about perpetuating "the system"
who cares if some GOP seats are lost
the GOP's surely not passing GOP legislation, lately
sadness if new legislation isn't passed ? BOO HOO
Government's prime objective, no matter what our elected officials may say, is always self-perpetuation of its own power.
This was a glaring example of that.
I'd have gladly given up some of the "safe" House GOP seats for fair redistricting. When Dubya's big-government conservatism is the Republican agenda, why the hell do I owe him or them my loyalty?
I voted against 77 as I thought it wasn't a good solution to the problem. I'm all for improving the system, but using unelected judges is a loser.
So letting the politicians do it themselves is a better solution?!
We had judicial redistricting back in the 90s and 70s too, I think when Reagan and Wilson kept vetoing the Dem Legislature's gerrymanders. Those maps came out pretty fair and we even managed GOP capture of the Assembly at one point.
The aptly named John Doolittle, California Republican avidly supported the bills defeat. How about finding someone to contest the next election and see if we can't get at least one Doolittle out of Congress.
Nice thought, but it would be very difficult to oust an incumbent in a primary in very safe seat. He did not want his district changed to a competitive one that he would have to work to defend. As it is now, he is safe every election.
That being said, Republican congressmen who opposed Prop. 77 have joined the RINO club and no longer deserve support from conservatives.
On the contrary, the fight over Prop 77 was motivated specifically over representing one's constituency... The CADEM, like its brethren nation wide, is a collection of disparate, single issue, factions typically culturally or racially based. In California's case, these factions are united by the their common success through union representation.
Under more typical circumstances a republican representative of any group would be 70/30 favoring closely held constituent issues over state wide interests. In California's case, the CADEM allows each elected representative to pursue his constituent's single issue goals at state wide expense imposing constraints only when those goals weakening the common purpose: increased transfer of wealth. California's Democrat republican representatives operate 99/1 with impunity.
As usual, the GOP shot their own guy in the back, for personal political advantage. The GOP came out against prop 77 (anti-Gerrymandering), and gave lukewarm support (if any) the other reform propositions. The voters said "to hell with them all", and voted every single proposition down on the ballot, with a very, very low turn out.
I haven't missed an election in over 30 years, but to be honest, I'm not motivated to go to the polls. I sure as heck will not work for the CA GOP, as I and my family have in the past.
As far as the national GOP is concerned, the "fish or cut bait" issue is the judiciary, and it appears that the GOP is quite willing to trade lifetime judicial appointments to questionable candidates for a few minutes of "nice-nice" publicity from the network news. Bush has nominated some good conservative justices, but not the best candidates. And with RINO Andy Card and former left-wing Democrat Miers at Bush's side, we'll never see the best conservative judicial candidates on the bench.
The GOP has had the majority of Governorships, the Presidency, and both houses of the Legislature. Yet the 10-15% RINO minority still calls the shots, causing gridlock. President Bush talked about "political capital" having a short life span, that he had to either use it or lose it. The other half of that equation is that if you burn political capital with nothing to show for it, it'll be very difficult to regain the trust of the constituents who funded that trust to begin with.
For all those GOP talking heads who recommend taking conservatives for granted, that "they have no where else to go", nothing could be further from the truth. They don't have to start a new party. They don't have to join the other dominate party. Believe it or not, they can just go home and stay home. It's not in their best interests, but as the GOP have made absolutely clear since the Reagan era, voting and supporting the GOP in lockstep is ALSO not in their best interests.
SFS
============================================================================
It should be technically possible to come up with a common definition of a geographically contiguous district. The "fairest" district would be one created with no other agenda other than contiguity, demographics, and retaining the existing (after reform) geographic contiguity as much as changing demographics will allow. Cut the state into geographic rectangles, circles, squares, etc., - I really don't care, but keep the districts contiguous, change them as little as possible every 10 years with the census, and let the chips fall where they may. That would keep faith with the original constitutional purpose for redistricting. Perhaps a district or too might be shaded slightly "right" or "left", but if objective guidelines governed the decisions, little gerrymandering would be possible.
Still, proposition 77 would have been better than nothing, since the ultimate decision was remanded back to the voters.
SFS
Actually, gerrymandering ensures a less corrupt bunch of legislators.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.