Quote:
|
Originally Posted by balderdash111
Gerrymandering is a problem, no question about it, and both parties are guilty. Take a look at the districts in any given state and you will see bizarre contortions all designed by the party drawing the lines to make the seat safe for their colleagues.
Ok, this may not be true of states with only one representative in Congress, but you get the idea.
The problem with the Texas redistricting was the way it was done: the Texas Republican party ignored very longstanding tradition, rewrote the rules in theif favor and pushed the matter through. This is symptomatic of a larger problem of Republicans doing away with the procedural (formal or informal) safeguards that make our country run so well.
Another example: I have heard Senator Bill Frist suggest that the Republicans may change the centuries-old Senate fillibuster rules to prevent Democrats from blocking Republican judicial nominees. This is just plain shocking, and reeks of the Republicans taking an attitude of "nyah nyah, we have more votes than you so we will do what we damn well please".
This kind of behavior is unprecedented, and, I fear, threatens to seriously undermine the political life of this country.
|
that's why CQ insiders are explaining why it won't happen. for example, they cite that many of the old guard remember when they were a minority. and they know that one day they will be the minority again.
in any case, it's far easier to just have the VP sit as chair in the first session and declare that Congress is not a continuing body. then they redraft the rules. only requires a straight up and down vote. which the senate may win.
keep in mind, that a lot of people on this board don't seem to understand the people filling the label's shoes (or they are acting like they don't in the things that aren't being said). that is, I just watched an interesting analysis where the voters' ideologies were added up and explained. in short, 55 repubs does not necessary mean 55 right-wing votes.
some dems who shift are gone and added, and some repubs who shift are gone or added. it's not as drastic of an ideological shift as people here are claiming. the senate is very clubby. some of these people are ancient in terms of their non-chronological age in politics.
rather than go into the whole thing, hopefully people will tune into the very heady analysis of the situation. it's not as though things are rosy, but hold off on the pessimism and hubris until after the first few sessions. that will indicate the tone.
I mean, why aren't there any threads on the Spectre phenomenon? (someone who does have a real mandate from his constituency, btw, if there is such a thing outside of a victorious narrative).