Shots Across The Bow

I wonder if Republicans will even try this tactic. Especially after blasting the Dems for their behavior.

As for the cheerleaders who supported the stupid Dems, they will say Republicans are killing children, poisoning the air and water, etc. if they don't get back here right now and vote!

The Repubs tried to do this, but failed before:

http://www.wacotrib.com/news/newsfd/auto/feed/news/2003/05/13/1052800784.00303.1352.5667.html

excerpt:

Craddick has no one to blame but himself. He helped write history when he was one of 30 members of the Texas House who disappeared during the 1971 legislative session.

OK...here's a link

Excerpt:
"Dirty Thirty" was the name given to thirty members of the 1971 Texas House of Representatives who grouped against Speaker of the House Gus Mutscher and other Texas officials charged in a bribery-conspiracy investigation by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. The coalition of thirty Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and liberals, has been given credit for keeping the Sharpstown Stock Fraud Scandal alive as a political issue."

Here's a link describing the corruption the Dirty Thirty were fighting.

Here's Molly Ivins talking about the Dirty Thirty:

"Dell-win" as he is pronounced in West Texas, was chairman of the House Redistricting Committee back in 1971 (he was a Democrat then: weren't they all?), when a motley crew of 30 liberals and Republicans rose in rebellion against a corrupt House speaker.

dems and reps banding together to oppose a corrupt administration is a far cry from a minority party walking out to block legislation.

Not to mention that the Dirty Thirty did not break a quorum, holding up all legislative activity.

But, if you want to compare a bipartisan coalition opposing a corrupt administration with a petulant walkout of a minority party to keep the elected majority from doing their job, go right ahead.

Just don't expect me to be convinced...

Let's face it, the rules apply to everyone except democrats. Looks like 2004 will be better for the Repubs than 2002.

And creating a district that is 300 miles long so that it touches 2 Republican strongholds is legitimate? I realize that redistricting is inherently political, but this one takes the cake.

http://www.calpundit.com/archives/001225.html

It's not a question of breaking quorum or not. If the Dirty 30 had 21 more legislators, do you really think that they would have stopped short of breaking the quorum? Each of the 30 in 1971 did the same mis-deed as each of the 59 in 2003. The only difference was that in 2003 there were enough to break the quorum and in 1971 there weren't enough to break the quorum. Do we really look more favorably on someone who shoots another person, but fails to kill them versus someone who shoots and kills someone?

Oh..and just for clarity, Craddick is the current speaker of the Texas House who called in the Texas Rangers.

Thanks for the lobs, manish.
1) Yes, we do look at murder and attempted murder differently. They are separate crimes with separate penalties.
2) The numbers were not the only differences between the 2003 dem walkout and the 1971 Dirty Thirty. You conveniently ignore:
a) the bipartisan nature of the Dirty Thirty compared to the unilateral action of the dems
b) the motivation of the walkout. In 1971, the bipartisan walkout was an attempt to keep the spotlight on a corrupt administration which was stonewalling an investigation which eventually resulted in resignations, indictments, convictions and prison terms. In 2003 dems walked out unilaterally to prevent legislation favored by the majority to correct a situation caused by the dems two years earlier when they blocked all attempts at redistricting.
c) The dirty thirty had no chance to affect quorum, but walked out anyway. Their intent was not to stall all legislative activity, but to focus attention on dirty legislators. They didn't "fail" in their attempt, but succeeded.

If you want to convince me, or anyone who isn't allready blindfolded by partisan loyalty, you have to address those issues.

Or more to the point, if a Rep minority walks out of a legislative session in order to block legislation which is unfavorable to them, will you support them or condemn them?

Or put it another way: What's the difference between the dems walking out to prevent a quorum, and the Senate reps working around the rules to end the filibuster on judicial appointments?

Except for the fact that the Senate manuevers are legal, and the walkout wasn't.

I think you misunderstood my point about murders..yes the criminal system looks at them differently, but on a PR-level (which this whole Texas dispute is about at the end of the day..who comes out looking better and worse), would you really look more favorably on an attempted murderer than a "successful" murderer?

If Nancy Pelosi ever takes a few days off, and misses a bunch of votes, to go to Sacramento to work on a redistricting plan that would setup districts that extend from San Francisco to L.A. so that they touch two big liberal strongholds and effectively mute the voice of large swaths of Republican country in between, I will condemn the action..as long as you are willing to call it fair and for the Repubs to just take it on the chin.

You also conveniently forget that the courts did ultimately work out a redistricting plan in Texas, that it is unusual to redistrict in the middle of two census periods, and that the proposed 15th district of Texas is an absolutely ridiculous partisan ploy.

I will grant you that the 1971 walkout was bi-partisan, but points b) and c) don't answer the question what would have happened if enough Representatives had supported the walk-out to kill quorum in 1971 and for that matter if fewer Dems had walked out in the current spat such that quorum would have been maintained. I suspect that it would have been the same results in each scenario.

1. 2003 is hardly the "middle of a census period.
2. The dem house successfully blocked any opportunity to vote on a congressional redistricting plan, thus denying the people of Texas the chance to be heard through their elected representatives.
3. The solution worked out by the courts included some highly irregularly shaped districts itself. The solution proposed by the 2003 legislature had some odd shaped districts, granted, but you also have to recognize that those irregular districts had already passed a pre-judicial review and were found to be in accordance with the law, which is why the dems had to take such extreme action to stop it; the law was not on their side.
4. Now you're bringing in Delay's role. Are you arguing that the dems were justified because Delay had a hand in drawing up the districts?

Quite a stretch.

5. Had more stood with the Dirty Thirty, a walkout would not have been needed. Again, you insist on mischaracterising the action. The Dirty Thirty were not opposing legislation they didn't like. They weren't attempting to bust a quorum; they had no chance of that. What they were doing was continuing to put pressure on a corrupt administration. I'll use your analogy. A charge of murder requires intent. In 1971, there was no intent to bring the legislature to a halt.

I'd still like your answer to this question:
What's the difference between the dems walking out to prevent a quorum, and the Senate reps working around the rules to end the filibuster on judicial appointments?