Republican Senators jumping ship

[ericn1300]

With Kay Bailey Hutchinson anounicing her retirement today the number of Republican Senators jumping ship has reached 17. Now if we can just get our Senator Larry "wide stance" Craig to add his name to the list.

[BNaylor]

Not too fast on Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison. What you are implying is disinformation.

The facts are she will not retire now. See below. She plans on running for Governor of Texas as a Republican. She has been in office as a U.S. Senator since 1993. Regardless, she is a staunch supporter of G.W. and the Republican Party.

Whether you like it or not Texas will stay a red state for quite some time. Don't mess with Texas!!!

(The Politico) Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) said that she will not be seeking re-election in 2012, and may resign her seat earlier to run for governor, according to The Associated Press.

The AP is citing a piece from Texas Monthly that is scheduled to run in the magazine’s December edition.

"Is it better for Texas for me to leave early and give someone else a chance to start building seniority before the class of 2013? I think it probably is," Hutchison told the magazine.

Hutchison strongly considered running against Gov. Rick Perry (R) in last year’s primary, but ultimately opted to remain in the Senate. His term expires in 2011, and he has not indicated whether he plans to run for reelection in 2010.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n3373406.shtml

[ericn1300]

Originally Posted by BNaylor

Whether you like it or not Texas will stay a red state for quite some time. Don't mess with Texas!!!

According to that story, and everything else I've read she's going, just a matter of when. By mentioning that her exit might be early she just made a lame duck of herself.

Texas is not as red as you might think, it's just that the reblicathugs down there have given a new meaning to gerrymandering. Don't you still have a few lawsuits pending over that? Damn I misss Molly Ivans, RIP.

[BNaylor]

If you are going to post something at least post an issue worth discussing or debating. And at least put up proof of your speculative partisan non-sense.

Texas is red enough and it won't change much in the 2008 elections.

To answer your question on June 28, 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the statewide redistricting as Constitutional. In the 2006 election Republicans won 19 seats and Democrats won 13 in the House which was a big shift from the 2002 elections where the Demos had control in Texas for 130 years. The redistricting was irrelevant. Both U.S. Senators from Texas are Republican as is the current Governor so go figure.

As far as I'm concerned the deceased Molly Ivins and her deceased friend former Governor of Texas Ann Richards can rot in hell.

[ericn1300]

Originally Posted by BNaylor

:If you are going to post something at least post an issue worth discussing or debating. And at least put up proof of your speculative partisan non-sense.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archi.../17/33180.aspx

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/uc/2...rmlu071012.gif

Originally Posted by BNaylor

To answer your question on June 28, 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the statewide redistricting as Constitutional. In the 2006 election Republicans won 19 seats and Democrats won 13 in the House which was a big shift from the 2002 elections where the Demos had control in Texas for 130 years. The redistricting was irrelevant. Both U.S. Senators from Texas are Republican as is the current Governor so go figure.

Take another look, the premise of redistricting whenever a new party decides to was found legal but the way they went about it wasn't:

2006 Supreme Court review

The Supreme Court of the United States issued an opinion on the case in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry on June 28, 2006. While the Court said states are free to redistrict however often they like, the justices invalidated Texas's District 23, citing a Section 2 violation of the Voting Rights Act. This decision will require lawmakers to adjust boundaries in line with the courts ruling.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Texas_redistricting

Originally Posted by BNaylor

As far as I'm concerned the deceased Molly Ivins and her deceased friend former Governor of Texas Ann Richards can rot in hell.

Wow, even Bush doesn't go so far as to speak ill of the dead in public.

[BNaylor]

Originally Posted by ericn1300

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archi.../17/33180.aspx

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/uc/2...rmlu071012.gif

Thats proof? You're starting to derail your own thread.

Originally Posted by ericn1300

Take another look, the premise of redistricting whenever a new party decides to was found legal but the way they went about it wasn't:

Originally Posted by wikipedia

League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry, 547 U.S. (2006), is a Supreme Court of the United States case in which the Court ruled that only District 23 of the 2003 Texas redistricting violated the Voting Rights Act. The Court refused to throw out the entire plan, ruling that the plaintiffs failed to state a sufficient claim of partisan gerrymandering. The opinion requires lawmakers to adjust Congressional district boundaries in comport with the Court's ruling, though the ruling does not threaten Republican gains as a result of the redistricting in Texas.[1] The Court also declined to resolve a dispute over whether partisan gerrymandering claims present nonjusticiable political questions.

The Opinion:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/05-204.pdf

Read again ^^^. One district? That was a sideshow issue raised by LULAC which was nonsequitor to the outcome of the 2006 elections. LULAC is pissed off because at least 35% of Hispanics in Texas vote Republican and that would undermine their dumb straight Democratic ticket voting philosophy. Redistricting occurs nationwide regardless of what one party wants. Regardless, the premise raised about partisan gerrymandering was frivolous.

Originally Posted by ericn1300

Wow, even Bush doesn't go so far as to speak ill of the dead in public.

Wow, you speak highly of him.

See my prior reply: