Posted on 01/08/2008 7:43:34 PM PST by LdSentinal
Elba's Jimmy Holley expected to announce decision Jan. 10
MONTGOMERY - A veteran Democratic senator will switch to the Republican Party, but his move won't affect the Democrats' stranglehold on the Alabama Senate.
Sen. Jimmy Holley of Elba is expected to announce his decision at a news conference in his hometown on Jan. 10.
Neither Holley nor Rep. Mike Hubbard, R-Auburn, who is chairman of the Alabama Republican Party, would officially confirm Holley's switch Wednesday.
But Hubbard called it "the worst-kept secret in the state."
Holley, 63, who has served in the Alabama Legislature for 30 years, joined the GOP coalition in the Senate during the 2007 legislative session.
He voted with Republicans, which ground to a virtual standstill because of GOP dissatisfaction over rules imposed by the Democrats.
Contacted Wednesday about his plans, Holley said, "I'm not at the point of making an announcement." He added, however, he would be issuing a statement later about a Jan. 10 announcement.
While Holley's move across the aisle won't help Gov. Bob Riley's programs in the Senate, Hubbard said, "Psychologically, it's good for us."
The Jan. 29 special election in House District 12 to replace former Rep. Neal Morrison, D-Cullman, could also be a turning point for the Alabama Republican Party, said Hubbard.
A victory by GOP nominee Wayne Willingham over Democratic nominee James Fields "would be a milestone for us to reach," he said.
Hubbard said a win by Willingham would bring the GOP within nine votes of a majority in the 105-member House.
Alabama Democratic Party Chairman Joe Turnham did not immediately return a phone call.
Holley was among five Democrats who caucused with the Senate's 12 Republicans in 2007, but the Democrats have since strengthened their hold in the upper chamber.
Sen. Parker Griffith, D-Huntsville, said he was aware of Holley's decision and knew that he had "been unhappy with the Democratic caucus."
"He voted with the Republicans last session," he said. "My reaction is that he needs to be where he can be the most effective."
Sounds like it’s true principle when a man changes to the minority party!
War Eagle!
What you said BUMP!
Slowly eroding away the rodent deathgrip on the AL legislature since Reconstruction...
True. It’s too bad that the Alabama state legislature only holds elections in off years, not Presidential years.
Not unlike our home state of Tennessee.
Seriously though, is this like as if John Wilder stepped across the aisle or another case of Aging Increasingly Ineffective Politician Gasping For Relevance?
Better question: How do you keep up with, analyze and make judgments on nearly all levels of political activity, even knowing the scandals of all the ne’er do wells?
Just concerned “they” are going to come and get you one day.
I can understand that for the Senate, but 4-year terms for House members is a real pain. Same goes for LA & MS, all of whom have 4-year terms for both bodies. I guess the upside is that they’re not always in constant campaign mode. AL’s Senate has been especially difficult to make inroads into. We’ve largely been stuck with the same numbers there for a decade because of a geriatric group of rodents that won’t get out of the way (and at least one Judas weasel turncoat who switched from GOP to rodent). The one time we elected a GOP Lt Governor to preside over the body, the rodents stripped him of his power completely (that was where the poor man had to hold the rostrum and had to relieve himself in a bucket). We narrowly failed to get Luther Strange into the office in ‘06, so they still hold disproportionate sway there.
I think it’s a case of a man who has gotten quite fed up with the increasingly liberal and crooked rodents holding the body. He is, after all, taking a bigger risk going from the majority to minority party.
I’m a wee bit more familiar with AL since it is the first state in alphabetical order, so I probably went over it with a fine-toothed comb more times than any other state, politically-speaking. Even absent that, it has an interesting political history. Well, I should say most of our states do (except maybe for Vermont, which seems to be deadly dull, at least until recently and a handful of exceptions).
Yeah, they might come and get me one day when President O’bama forces us Conservatives to register with the government and wear crosses sewn to our clothes to distinguish us.
Guess it just goes to show ya that its never too late.What took ya so long?
You think gerrymandering is also a problem in AL? Or it’s pretty much incumbency? I’d like to get the Dems’ hands off the congressional redistricting, they nearly cost us AL-03 in 2002.
Most of the old Democrat politicians on the news shows answer that question with “You tend to keep dancing with the partner that brought you”.
Old age may bring wisdom but in many cases it’s just in time to make a person realize he’s spent his life being a fool.
Even with the Dems in charge, it’s going to be hard for them to shift the balance too much (especially so if Riley has a GOP successor in 2010, which is likely). As you pointed out, they tried with the 3rd, but couldn’t quite pull it off. Incumbency helps, too. Since the 1960s, only 3 House incumbents have ever been beaten, and they were all in the Birmingham-based 6th (the 1st one was RINO John Buchanan by Albert Smith in the 1980 GOP primary because he became too liberal and with the increasing Black presence in the days before the now-7th was created, Smith was beaten after a single term in 1982, and lastly that Dem, Ben Erdreich, was beaten in ‘92 solely because Black voters were sheared off for the 7th).
Ultimately the 5th will fall to us once Bud Cramer retires, so we should have a 6-1 delegation before long.
The Democrats could have picked up a seat easily had they decided to draw two black-majority CDs instead of one with a black majority and one that is like 35% black that they thought would elect a white Democrat (the incompetent Joe Turnham, the Democrat state chairman). They could have drawn a 55%-black district in B’ham and counties to its south, and then another 55%-black CD from Mobile to Montgomery and beyond-—white Republican areas in the current AL-01 and AL-02 could be combined to form a single hyper-Republican CD. The Democrats could have also shored up Cramer’s AL-05 a bit and drawn a new AL-03 in eastern AL that could elect a moderate-to-conservative Democrat; to do so, they would have to pack Republicans into a CD in the B’ham suburbs and GOP areas to the north and east and another CD in the Montgomery suburbs and GOP areas to its north. That would have resulted in 3 hyper-Republican CDs, 2 safe CDs for black Democrats, a CD that would be safe for Bud Cramer and in which the Democrats would have a good chance of holding, and a AL-03 that would lean GOP in federal races but would lean Democrat in state races and in which a conservative Democrat would probably be favored. I guess we each have to draw our own conclusions as to why Alabama Democrats were so opposed to drawing a second district for a black Democrat.
The Democrats could have picked up a seat easily had they decided to draw two black-majority CDs instead of one with a black majority and one that is like 35% black that they thought would elect a white Democrat (the incompetent Joe Turnham, the Democrat state chairman). They could have drawn a 55%-black district in B’ham and counties to its south, and then another 55%-black CD from Mobile to Montgomery and beyond-—white Republican areas in the current AL-01 and AL-02 could be combined to form a single hyper-Republican CD. The Democrats could have also shored up Cramer’s AL-05 a bit and drawn a new AL-03 in eastern AL that could elect a moderate-to-conservative Democrat; to do so, they would have to pack Republicans into a CD in the B’ham suburbs and GOP areas to the north and east and another CD in the Montgomery suburbs and GOP areas to its north. That would have resulted in 3 hyper-Republican CDs, 2 safe CDs for black Democrats, a CD that would be safe for Bud Cramer and in which the Democrats would have a good chance of holding, and a AL-03 that would lean GOP in federal races but would lean Democrat in state races and in which a conservative Democrat would probably be favored. I guess we each have to draw our own conclusions as to why Alabama Democrats were so opposed to drawing a second district for a black Democrat.
I remember you mentioning that, but I tend to dismiss that possibility out of hand. The old White rodent solons in the legislature aren’t going to draw 2 Black Dem districts for obvious reasons. I’d still think if they did that, there’d be little opportunity for them to take any of those other districts, they’d be depopulated of enough rodents to keep the other 5 safely in GOP hands. Hence, no White Dems will ever win a federal office in the forseeable future.
It won’t matter much, since the GOP will be in majority control of the legislature within a decade, and we’ll have that 6-1 majority for the federal offices by then as well (unless Cramer plans on sitting there until he drops dead, and eventually, he will become vulnerable as someone sitting in a GOP leaning seat voting for Pelosi for Speaker, which we ought to be nailing him on now).
You’re correct that, usually, the creation of black-majority CDs hurts the Democrats by making surrounding districts lily-white and thus Republican. But there is one exception: when white voters in the area are so heavily Republican that a Republican would win even in a 30%-black CD. Thus, the only way that the Democrats could win House seats in the Winston-Salem/Greensboro area or the Savannah/Augusta area is to create a black-plurality district there, and the only way that they can win in South Alabama is to create black-majority CDs (or at least 40%+ black CDs, where blacks are a comfortable majority of RAT primary voters). Given that there aren’t enough white Democrats left in South Alabama to elect a Democrat to Congress for a district that is less than 40% black, then creating one 65%-black CD and hoping to elect a white Democrat in a 35%-black CD is not a good strategy. And drawing two black-majority CDs in B’ham and South Alabama would not affect the election chances of white Democrats from North Alabama such as Bud Cramer, since blacks from that region would not be placed in one of the black-majority CDs; it would also be true, albeit to a lesser extent, in a district drawn for a conservative Democrat in eastern Alabama. Also, keep in mind that by drawing two black-majority CDs in Alabama the Democrats would make sure that the Republicans wouldn’t be able to draw 6 GOP districts (and only one RAT CD) when the party finally controls redistricting, since the Voting Rights Act would protect both black-majority (and thus safely Democrat) districts.
BTW, the same holds true for South Carolina. Had the RATs drawn two black-majority CDs in SC (and combined the GOP Charleston suburbs with the Hilton Head area for one hyper-Republican coastal district), it would guarantee two RAT seats in the state and would not foreclose the possibility of drawing a third competitive district for John Spratt (as it is, there is only one safe RAT CD in SC, Clyburn’s black-majority CD, and the CD that Spratt has to hustle to win is the only white CD where the RATs are even remotely competitive).
I would just be mighty surprised if they tried that. Given that there will likely be a GOP Governor to succeed Riley, they won’t sign off on that plan.
As for SC, since they’ll likely be regaining their 7th seat they lost in 1933, it will be interesting to see how they will draw the districts. The GOP legislature might very well have to draw a 2nd Black Dem district (make one centered on Columbia and the rural Black areas nearby towards the GA state line, and the other centered on Charleston and the coastal areas). Getting rid of Spratt should be a top priority. He’s far worse than Cramer in AL.
I think the GOP will probably have to draw a second black CD if SC gains a 7th seat (as it’s currently poised to do), since it would mean that 29% of the districts are black-majority, which is around the black percentage for the state. By doing so, the GOP could easily get rid of Spratt and thus gain a seat in the delegation. If, however, the RATs were to control SC redistricting (not bloody likely), they would be able to draw two black CDs and still draw a CD that protected Spratt, allowing them to pick up a seat; other than how they redraw Spratt’s CD, the main difference between the optimal GOP plan and the optimal RAT plan would be that the GOP plan would try to exclude white conservatives from the black-majority CDs while the RAT plan would try to exclude white liberals from the black-majority CDs. But I actually think it makes sense for both parties to draw a second black-majority CD in SC.
I think that getting rid of white Democrat congressmen should be the top priority for GOP redistricters in every Southern state (except for obvious cases where that’s too dangerous to try, such as in Florida’s Gold Coast or the DC suburbs of VA). I would like to see the day in which Wexler, Wasserman-Schultz, Price, Cooper and Moran are the only white Anglo Democrats in Congress representing Southern states.
Another white Dem that needs to go is Charlie Melancon down here in LA, and redistricting may just do that. Due to Katrina, we’re set to lose a seat, and Melancon’s CD includes a lot of the Gulf Coast. Since New Orleans will need to gain area, and I doubt they’ll put in any of the Northshore or more of Jefferson Parish to do it (too Republican), they may cut into the small parishes like St. James and St. John along the Mississippi River that have strong black populations. However, we really don’t have control of the legislature, aside from a GOP Speaker, so this is not assured. We could probably get it out of the House, but the Senate, if the Dems are inclined, could bottle it up. It may come down to a “compromise district” that both Boustany and Melancon could run in, and to the victor goes the spoils.
But if McCrery’s seat goes Dem, the Democrats may leverage that to protect Melancon and abolish either Boustany or Alexander’s seats, perhaps hoping to have their guy win and have us drop to a 3-3 split in the congressional delegation. (If they do it, they’ll probably throw Lake Charles and Alexandria into the CD-4 and put Lafyette and maybe even Bossier City into CD-5, but Bobby’s veto ought to stop that dead in its tracks.) Plus, under Foster in 2002 we did get a pretty good map, in that it protected Baker by taking out black precincts that nearly defeated him in 1998. We may be able to “persuade” some Democrats.
And oh yeah, perhaps we can make another try at ousting Chet Edwards in Texas as well. He’s also big on my list.
When LA loses a seat in 2010 (and it will), priority one for redistricters will be to draw a black-majority LA-02, which would be mandated by the Voting Rights Act. Given post-Katrina black flight from New Orleans, I think redistricters will have to connecting black parts of Orleans, Jefferson and St. Charles Parishes with black parts of East Baton Rouge, St. John the Baptist, St. James, Assumption, Iberville, St. Landry, Point Coupee, West and East Feliciana and St. Helena parishes, using Lake Pont as a bridge. Once that is done, it would be very difficult for Democrats to draw winnable districts in the rest of the state. The LA-01 would be centered in St. Tammany and would likely include St. Bernard, Plaquemines, and white parts of St. Charles, Jefferson and Orleans parishes (it wouldn’t be able to cut through Lake Pont anymore, so the CD would need to include St. Bernard and Plaquemines, much to Melancon’s chagrin, in order to connect St. Tammany to Jeffeson and St. Charles). Baker’s CD would still have Livingston and white parts of Baton Rouge in it, and the fact that black parts of Baton Rouge and some heavily black parishes would be replaced with the Florida Parishes would make it pretty much unwinnable for the Democrats. There would likely be a 100% Cajun CD in Lafourche, Terrebonne, St, Mary, Iberia, Lafayette, Acadia and Vermillion parishes (plus parts of surrounding parishes), in which Melancon would run but would probably be trounced by Boustany. The Democrats’ best shot at drawing a district for a white Democrat would likely be in the Shreveport area, but I think that it would be very difficult for them to do so (unless they can capture McCreery’s seat, which would be a sign that things are swinging back to the RATs in GOP-trending North LA).
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.