Home > Thinking Right > Archives > 2006 > November > 28 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USRedistricting will never be politics-free
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Had they been a bit less clever, Democrats might still rule Georgia. But cleverness and greed caused them to overreach in drawing legislative districts, provoking a fair-minded electorate and an equal-protection court to collapse the empire.
Prior to 2002, Democrats had it all. Within two years, they’d lost it all. The system works.
A task force appointed by Gov. Sonny Perdue in April reported back after November’s elections, declaring the current system — by which horse-trading legislators draw political districts — to be faulty. Instead, the group recommended, an independent, seven-member commission appointed by the Legislature should draw congressional and state legislative districts, presumably to take the politics out of politics.
Ho-hum. An idea 10 years too late and 25 years too early. And not a great one, in any event.
As recommended by the task force, the General Assembly and the governor would appoint six of the members. The six would then pick a seventh as chairman. The panel would draw boundaries following a new census and submit its work to the Legislature for an up-or-down vote. If rejected, the commission would start work anew, repeating the process until it comes up with one that’s acceptable.
The reality is, however, that it can’t work as idealists believe. Editorialists, who love the idea, have the impression that academics without a partisan bone in their bodies will start at one corner of the state drawing boxes that, to the extent possible, follow existing city and county lines and preserve communities of interest. But that can’t happen.
One reason it can’t is the Voting Rights Act of 1965, provisions of which were just extended this year for another 25 years. Since Georgia is among the handful of states where redistricting and election law changes are subject to preclearance by the U.S. Justice Department’s civil rights division, an independent commission starts with half the Democratic seats in the General Assembly essentially off the table.
An independent commission, therefore, gets to play with every Republican seat and probably fewer than half the Democratic seats. It is working around protected districts that were created to satisfy incumbent Democrats. So they rearrange a few chairs, shift a precinct, meddle and muddle, but to what different end? None to speak of.
This assumes, of course, that the appointees will be less partisan than the elected officials. The State Elections Board is constituted about the way the proposed redistricting commission would be. It has five members, one appointed by each major political party and one each by the House and Senate. It’s chaired by the Secretary of State. There’s not a nonpartisan in the lot.
The same would be true, of course, of the redistricting commission — except that there’s no elected official to pay the price for overreaching, as was the case with Democrats in the 2002 election and thereafter. If I’m the Legislature, my appointees have demonstrated to me how they can creatively maximize my party’s advantage, while hiding behind the “independent commission” cover.
Do-gooders, bless their hearts, fall in love with concepts, such as campaign finance reform and independent commissions to take the politics out of redistricting. They rarely succeed because, as with campaign finance reform, they simply move the politics and the money to another category.
I have come to believe that the solution to campaign finance reform is full and immediate disclosure of who gives and who gets without limits imposed. As for redistricting, the solution is for the General Assembly to adopt principles to guide redistricting, agreeing, for example, to try to preserve communities of interest and to follow existing city and county lines where possible, but otherwise to be as partisan as they choose.
Voters are perfectly capable of recognizing when a party has gone too far. And the courts are perfectly capable of determining when redistricting has been jiggered so districts are unequal in design, deliberately configured to make voters unequal. In that case, aggrieved voters have an immediate remedy.
The independent commission requires a constitutional amendment, which requires two-thirds of the House and Senate. Don’t bother. It’s an idea whose time has gone — and not yet come again.
Permalink | Comments (163) | Post your comment | Categories: Column
Comments
By jbmlaw
November 28, 2006 08:19 AM | Link to this
Good morning all. Any “special commission” is evidence of legislative cowardice. I don’t like the idea of policy making legislative “staff” either, for the same reason. I don’t like the idea of bureaucrats writing “implementing regulations.” I expect our legislators to consult individual experts in any area, but when it comes to writing the laws – whether redistricting or anything substantial – I think that ought to be the work of the people elected to the position. If they intend to delegate these duties, we need to reduce their pay to the level of an HR clerk, since that is all they are doing.
I don’t know, and thus cannot credit, the author of the line, but I am certain we would be better off if we replaced our Congress/Legislatures with 100 death row inmates chosen at random. They would steal less, and would enact more intelligent legislation.
By jbmlaw
November 28, 2006 08:21 AM | Link to this
And Jim, with all due respect, “And the courts are perfectly capable of determining when redistricting has been jiggered so districts are unequal in design” - you must be kidding. Have you not followed the actions of the Rome maniac? Keep it away from the black robes. I think Baker-Carr may have done more damage to the republic than the 17th Amendment.
By Political Foreskin
November 28, 2006 08:25 AM | Link to this
I think we should let Kramer redistrict Georgia. Then we should let Vick rewrite the curriculum for finishing schools (the fork-U goes on the right). Then we should let the pope and W write the diplomacy 101 textbook for speech impaired gaff jockeys.
Are we coming apart at the seams? Kramer, then Vick, and now I see that Paris Hilton swatted her poor dog with a rolled up newspaper. (the dog was heckling her vogue act). That one moved the doomsday clock up 37 seconds closer to midnight.
I guess Americans just dont like to be dissed. “Dont diss me” should replace “Dont tread on me”. When we are heckled, we lash out. Heckling is what makes us Americans and Venezuelans, (remember “Bush is the devil”?)
But lets give W credit for not lashing, swatting, or flipping. But now he needs to start redistricting……iraq.
By CJ
November 28, 2006 08:57 AM | Link to this
Wooten: “Do-gooders, bless their hearts, fall in love with concepts, such as campaign finance reform and independent commissions to take the politics out of redistricting. They rarely succeed because, as with campaign finance reform, they simply move the politics and the money to another category.”
Proud to be a “do-gooder” Jim. However, the “rarely succeed” line isn’t entirely true.
First of all, let me say that we do-gooders are pragmatists, not ideologues. When a commission fills a need not already filled elsewhere, has been proven to work in similar circumstances and could possibly promote bi-partisan solutions to overcome gridlock, then we do-gooders are open to them. The 9/11 Commission is a good example.
On the other hand, when commissions are primarily intended to procrastinate or distract, then do-gooders are against them. An example of a procrastination and distraction commission would include the two commissions proposed by Republican Senator Isakson, bless his heart, in his “Stop Over-Spending Act” (proposed for a Republican-led Congress).
With regard to campaign finance reform, Clean Elections have worked and are working in Arizona. We do-gooders like to use successful programs in one State as models for proposals in others.
On the subject of redistricting, Iowa uses a commission whose members are not allowed to “be as partisan as they choose”. In fact, its members are forbidden from considering political leanings. The result is a political map that looks like stacked bricks instead of a kindergartner’s drawing. Iowa’s congressional districts have more competitive races than other states, and their delegation is considered to be more moderate.
I know that Jim thinks that the system is working when Republicans win and broken when Republicans lose, but we do-gooders don’t measure success that way.
By Diogenes
November 28, 2006 09:12 AM | Link to this
Jim,
I realize that this morning’s topic is redistricting, but more of that anon. Let’s revisit your editorial of November 23 first. At that time, flushed with blood lust, I suppose, you stated: “That the shooter was a 92-year-old woman who may have been frightened and confused adds to the tragedy, but — again — if police had legitimate reason to believe drugs were being sold from the house, it’s hard to find fault with their procedures.”
I cautioned you then that your endorsement of the Atlanta Police Department might be a rush to judgment and that you should wait until more evidence was available. But no, conservatives rush in where angels fear to tread. The latest developments in the case, to wit, the snitch claims he was lying, makes your endorsement even more questionable than it was on the morning after. I am curious, of course, how this will play out. There’s too many police agencies currently nibbling around the edges to believe that we shall ever find that elusive quarry, “truth.”
By candide
November 28, 2006 09:12 AM | Link to this
Of course redictricting will always be political. That is why single-member districts for the legislature and Congress is wrong. We should have proportional representation, a system in which each of the parties gets members at large in proportion to their slice of the vote. This is the European way — and just as they have better food, they have a better political system.
By Sanity
November 28, 2006 09:31 AM | Link to this
How interesting that CJ takes issue with Mr. Wooten’s reasoning by citing the work performed by a commission in Iowa. Well CJ - Georgia isn’t Iowa and I believe that, if you read the complete text of Jim’s article, you will note that he cites a condition that separates the politics of the Iowa and Georgia, the Voting Rights Act. Jim is dead on when he states that these guaranteed minority seats will be “off the table” in setting political boundaries for the state and will, therefore, give an overt advantage to the Democratic Party in the redistricting process.
Interesting that the AJC never thought it necessary to write articles concerning redistricting reform while their party, the Democrats, ruled the roost. And now, with Republicans in overwhelming control of Georgia politics, they call for reform. Sounds a bit hyocritical to many.
When it comes to redistricting the current system has served Georgia wel. So let us employ the old phrase, “to the victor goes the spoils”.
By @@
November 28, 2006 09:43 AM | Link to this
Jim: Political schemes never die, they’re rooted in partisanship footholds. And political committees, puhleeeeze. I’ve sat on a few committees, and I’m always amazed at the time and energy spent to accomplish little, if anything.
The mention of the word committee puts me in mind of a story I once heard. What follows isn’t it, but close enough.
WHAT TO DO WITH A DEAD HORSE
By zeke
November 28, 2006 09:46 AM | Link to this
All political districts should be drawn only to insure that residents living close to one another are in the same district! Whether white, black, latin, asian or other they should be in the same district! To draw lines as current practice of running a district maybe over 100 miles and in some places less than a mile wide to insure a majority minority district is ridiculous and has been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court! However the politicos still draw those districts and they are not challenged! How un-American!
By Diogenes
November 28, 2006 09:48 AM | Link to this
Jim,
Districting in the State of Georgia has been a plaything of the Democratic Party since long before you and I were born. Now it has become a plaything of the Republicans, and, most likely will remain so for the foreseeable future. “Fairness to the electorate” is a phrase I have never heard applied to Georgia politics. As you state in your editorial, “fairness” and “legislative balance” is not something we can anticipate any time in the near future.
Jim in the past 20 years, only 5412 dead people have voted in Georgia elections. Sounds to me as if Georgia politics are getting dull, since the turn out is so low. I guess that’s to be laid at the doorstep of the conservatives; they’ve been known to numb the electorate to a stupor. Redistricting, alas, will not take us back to the wonderful days of stump oratory and dead men voting. And that’s how politics in Georgia have evolved, “not with a bang, but a whimper.”
By Dennis
November 28, 2006 09:50 AM | Link to this
Do I detect a little hypocracy here?
In his last column Jim decided the courts weren’t capable of deciding whether schools were adequately funded and should stay out of such financial decisions. In short, don’t trust the courts to make the right decision.
Yet today he says, “And the courts are perfectly capable of determining when redistricting has been jiggered so districts are unequal in design”….
Is Jim thinking of using two different sets of judges?
You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
By phil
November 28, 2006 09:52 AM | Link to this
Hey Realist, do an AJC search on the last redistricting done in Georgia. You’ll see that your whiney “the librul AJC hates me” routine is a joke. The AJC spoke out loudly and often against the new Congressional lines.
By jbmlaw
November 28, 2006 09:54 AM | Link to this
Dear Diogenes @ 9:12, I am generally a fan of your arguments, but in your “Jim’s-a-dummy-style” diversion you restrict your vision of the problem. Is the core problem not the “nanny state?” I admit that I take my pokes at the police, but I think the problem is much larger than mere execution of the law (you should pardon such a dreadful pun.) The death of grandma is an inevitable by-product of the unnecessary restriction on commerce. Such “collateral damage” is a potentiality, and should be anticipated, every time the government restricts or conditions the sale of anything. By making illicit a market, and then raising penalties to the point that few choose to engage in the commerce, the government raises the potential profits and inevitably elevates the depravity and willingness of the truly evil among us. If we suddenly saw psychoactive and recreational drugs sold at the local WalMart, these unnecessary deaths would end, yet nobody not already-predisposed would newly engage drug use.
By Buy Danish
November 28, 2006 09:58 AM | Link to this
“This is the European way — and just as they have better food, they have a better political system.”
Candide,
If you are correct and their system is better, why is it that only 16% of Germans are optimistic about the future, compared to, say, 60% of Americans?
Germany is the realization of the Utopian Welfare State with all its bennies, but everyone is miserable. I might add that it is also unsustainable, but I digress.
You want us to copy that system?
Forget about it.
Diogenes,
You are doing a stellar job of “numbing the electorate into a stupor”. Conservatives are trying to get you to wake up.
By JK
November 28, 2006 09:59 AM | Link to this
Where IS Mr. Realist?
By Van
November 28, 2006 10:02 AM | Link to this
candide,
The European way???
The EU can’t even debate and decide on a constitution. One part of the EU wants England to change its inheritance laws for “fairness”.
Unemployment is about 10% and no one likes anyone else.
Yes, lets do it the European way.
By Kris Sauriol
November 28, 2006 10:07 AM | Link to this
I agree Mr. Wooten, legislative districts should be as homogenous as possible with as little to no competition coming from opposing parties. By ceding the power to draw legislative districts to the government “we the people” long ago gave away our right to choose who represents us, and I for one trust legislators in their infinite wisdom to choose their constituents. Things have only gotten better with the increased accuracy of computer generated demographic information. Legislators can now draw a district - essentially picking and choosing their constituents - to maximize their chances of winning elections. The best part about this process is that when Election Day comes we “the people” only have to worry about voting for an unopposed incumbent. I won’t speak for everyone but I know that when there is a close race between two or three candidates representing differing viewpoints I don’t vote, I only vote when the incumbent is running unopposed and is guaranteed to win.
This past election there were only 2 competitive districts in the entire state of Georgia. That tells me the system works. The incumbents are running unopposed, we are all neatly fitted into our cozy little districts where for the most part we are surrounded by either 60-80% Republicans or Democrats.
This talk about an independent commission burns me up, just who do “we the people” think we are, who gave us the right to choose who represents us in Congress. Find me the document that gives the people of this country the right to choose who represents them. I am sick of all this power to the people nonsense. Politicians are not in office to represent the people, they are in office to represent the special interests and the current system of gerrymandering is the best way to ensure that it stays that way!
By Diogenes
November 28, 2006 10:32 AM | Link to this
jbmlaw,
Years ago, the Republicans stood for removing the constraint of trade barriers; now I’m not so sure that you could persuade Jim to take interest in the topic. Of course, from the other view for a moment, were Wal-Mart to get the franchise, it would present in its own way a constraint of trade. All the independents would, as in every other market in which Wal-Mart engages, be run out. Do you remember the old adage, “What’s good for General Bullmoose is good for the USA”? Wal-Mart is the current Bullmoose, and Jim, and his ilk, seem to be guilty of aiding and abetting. The satirical bite is just as sharp now as it was then.
Back to the point at hand. Instead of Jim’s Nov. 23 (or subsequent) editorial being about constraint of trade, it was about a killing that becomes more questionable with additional information. I just hope Brother Jim doesn’t end up with egg on his face as a consequence of his rush to defend.
By time for the truth
November 28, 2006 10:43 AM | Link to this
As ever its quite nauseating to see how the leftists refuse to condemn the blatant bigotry involved in the protection of black seats. ALL seats should be sorted out purely on the basis of local residence/geography etc - NEVER race. Giving blacks, or any minority “extra” seats, above their actual statistical presence in any state population is evil and wrong. But pandering bigoted liberals can’t ever be intellctually honest when it comes to racial spoils - as more blacks always means more corrupt lefties in state legislatures.
Its hilarious to see how the noxious left still can’t accept that GA has changed for the better - after well over a century of corrupt good ole boy demoNcrat rule. Even in recent years, despite the deeply unfortunate increase in yankkkeee infestation in GA the state has unerringly trended GOP which is good for GA and good for the folks who live here. Racial spoils pandering sadly still goes on albeit more at the local council level - but happily not quite as much. Hopefully this historic demoNcrat instigated racism and racial spoils will just quietly fade away like three band aids means three purple hearts Kerry’s presidential primary chances already have and HiTllary’s White House chances will when Rudy or whom ever gets the GOP nomination.
By carl
November 28, 2006 10:45 AM | Link to this
Kris,
I hope your post was sarcasm. Judging from what some people write here I feel compelled to respond in case it is not sarcasm.
Quoting you “Find me the document that gives the people of this country the right to choose who represents them.
I believe the document is called the Constitution of the United States. In Article 1 Section 2 Clause 1 it states “The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States…”
Mr. Wooten was pointing out that the Democrats paid the price for their overzealous gerrymandering in 2002. Gerrymandering has been around as long as this country has been. When a party gets out of line it is up to the voters to correct the situation. Our system is not perfect, but I would much rather live here than anywhere else.
By Charles
November 28, 2006 10:49 AM | Link to this
It’s funny because most of the conservatives in this blog forget that it was their man under the gold dome, Sonny Perdue, who brought this issue up. It was Sonny Perdue who took the initiative and created an Executive Order establishing the Independent Redistricting task force. Y’all make it seem like the AJC and the far left is pushing this issue. Last I checked Perdue is a Republican. Come on peole why does everything have to be a left/right issue.
Georgia is about as red a state as any in the country. An independent redistricting commission will not change that. It is not the purpose of an independent redistricting commission to change Georgia into a more progressive state. Trust me that isn’t going to happen for a long, long, long time.
What id does do is restore a power to the people. I don’t think legislators should be allowed to choose their constituents, do you? An independent commission will take that power out of their hands. What is wrong with that?
By BPJ
November 28, 2006 10:49 AM | Link to this
Voters should choose politicians, rather than politicians choosing voters. What we have now is politicians choosing voters, with the result that most US House districts are “safe seats” for one of the two parties.
The only thing most House members have to fear is a primary challenge (from the right for the Republican incumbent, from the left for the Democratic incumbent). Hence the increased polarization of the House.
I’m a moderate Democrat, and I was in favor of the Iowa method for years BEFORE Republicans took control of our state government. So no hypocrisy here, just common sense: voters should choose politicians instead of the other way around, and general elections should matter (routinely, not just the occasional 1994 or 2006). And the nearly 50% of Americans who identify themselves as moderates should be more represented in Congress than the roughly one-third who consider themselves conservatives, or the roughly one-fifth who consider themselves liberals (polling has been pretty consistent on this point for decades).
That would be my kind of Congress. Of course, it wouldn’t please conservatives such as Mr. Wooten, who would like us to think we have to choose between conservative and liberal. Conservatives will usually win that battle. But it doesn’t represent where the center of American (or Georgian) politics is.
By Charles
November 28, 2006 11:00 AM | Link to this
It’s funny because most of the conservatives in this blog forget that it was their man under the famous Georgia Gold Dome, Sonny Perdue, who brought this issue up. It was Sonny Perdue who took the initiative and created an Executive Order establishing the Independent Redistricting Task Force. Y’all make it seem like the AJC and the far left is pushing this issue. Last I checked Perdue is a Republican. Come on peole why does everything have to be a left/right issue.
Georgia is about as red a state as any in the country. An independent redistricting commission will not change that. It is not the purpose of an independent redistricting commission to change Georgia into a more progressive state. That isn’t going to happen for a long, long, long time.
What it does do is take power away from the GOVERNMENT and gives it to the people as in us. I don’t think legislators should be allowed to choose who votes for them, do you? Just because the Democrats did it in years past doesn’t give the Republicans a pass on it. It says a lot about people who let their enemy set the moral standard and then strive to meet it. I know for a fact that a lot of Georgia Republicans in high positions support this proposal, (Governor Perdue is #1 on that list) so I am not picking on republicans, just you Jim Wooten types because apparently you still drag your knuckles.
I say again because this SHOULD resonate with conservatives, an Independent Redistricting Commission will take a major power out of the hands of the GOVERNMENT. What is wrong with that?
By e. t.
November 28, 2006 11:03 AM | Link to this
Very few readers and bloggers have picked up on Jim’s comment that the Voting Rights Act will preclude an “independent commission” from drawing our legislative districts, at least for the next 25 years. The Justice Department will handle that chore for us. And, at one time I was naive enough to hope that the state would sue to get out from under the “pre-clearance conditions” of the Voting Rights Act. Then I realized that this probably had as much to do with the Republicans’ takeover of Georgia politics as the flaggers, teachers, etc. So, as much as I hate the idea of federal oversight of our voting districts, regulations, etc., it seems that those who pushed so hard for this act, originally Democrats, got what they deserved - minority status in government as well as population. By the way, Jim, it must be lonely for you sitting in on the editorial board meets at the AJC.
By Buy Danish
November 28, 2006 11:11 AM | Link to this
BPJ
If you’re not a liberal, I’m curious as to where you stand on the issues, domestic and foreign. How are you a “moderate” and not a “liberal”? Conversely, what is it about “conservatives” that you disassociate yourself with? What is your perception of us?
Next door, Mike Luckovich claims to be a “moderate Democrat” but most of us are having difficulty seeing what is not flamingly liberal about him.
Thanks!
By Second Story Man
November 28, 2006 11:12 AM | Link to this
Voters should choose politicians. (not vice versa). I like that. Now that is an original insight well presented, profusely illustrated and best of all, it moves the discussion forward.
By Mrs. RepubLady
November 28, 2006 11:26 AM | Link to this
Labels are so important. I can’t stand people who want to discuss actual issues or facts. Let’s assign labels to people and demand they defend themselves instead. And if they won’t, we’ll just keep hurling labels at them. What FUN!
By DebbieDoRight
November 28, 2006 11:29 AM | Link to this
The COURTS!! r u serious? Right now the Repugs are trying to stack the state supreme court, in their ever-going zeal to steal anything not tied down, in their favor!!! The people have voted, picked the person they want to rule on their courts but, (drum roll please), the good-ole-redneck-boys-of-jawja have decided to “up” the count of judges from 7 to 9.
Why? Because they can’t stand to be beaten at anything, they are the most snivelling bunch of whining liars that have ever put on a sheet. They lie in their campaign speeches about “less government and higher morals” then they turn around and throw as much mud as they can get to stick.
But they STILL got beat — so how to rectify that? Let’s just change the rules; that way NO ONE WINS —- at least no one who’s not accepting big business bribes that is…….
http://www.mdjonline.com/articles/2006/11/28/268/10239034.prt
By Diogenes
November 28, 2006 11:35 AM | Link to this
Buy Danish (1111),
Your comment, “Next door, Mike Luckovich claims to be a “moderate Democrat” but most of us are having difficulty seeing what is not flamingly liberal about him.”
I have no trouble seeing Mike as a moderate Democrat. His satire bites deep into the conservative hide because their antics are so hilarous. Mike would show constraint beyond human capabilities were he not to wax satiric about that Republican nut house in Washington or about our local brand of buttoned up stupification.
By DebbieDoRight
November 28, 2006 11:42 AM | Link to this
So, as much as I hate the idea of federal oversight of our voting districts, regulations, etc., it seems that those who pushed so hard for this act, originally Democrats, got what they deserved - minority status in government as well as population
U know it just occured to me — with the rise in the hispanic population, pretty soon the “white folks” will be the minority. Big Grin
By CJ
November 28, 2006 11:49 AM | Link to this
Sanity @9:31,
You’re correct in your observation that Georgia isn’t Iowa — very astute. But, you’re mistaken when you say that I didn’t read the complete text of Jim’s article. I did.
You should know that the Voting Rights Act doesn’t preclude Georgia from implementing the Iowa approach to redistricting. The Department of Justice’s website says that “while [taking race into account when drawing election districts] compromises traditional districting principles, such districts must be drawn where the Section 2 violation occurs and must not compromise traditional principles [such as geographic compactness and keeping communities of interest together] more than is necessary to remedy the violation.” So, depending on the result, Georgia districts originally drawn using the Iowa model might need to be modified to comply with the Voting Rights Act. However, the possibility of Voting Rights Act modifications doesn’t supersede the principals or eliminate the benefits of applying the non-partisan Iowa model, nor does it condone your “to the victor go the spoils” philosophy.
With regard to hypocrisy, I wonder if you believed that the current system had served Georgia well when Democrats still “ruled the roost”? Never mind…I already know the answer.
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/
By Wootenlover
November 28, 2006 11:50 AM | Link to this
Jim, you are so intellegent and insightful…always correct. I suggest you and Michael Richards redistrict Georgia…and don’t forget to consult David Duke. I’m sure he is on your speed dial. “Common Sense Consevatism”? - well, you’ve got Common correct…common intellegence and myopic perspective. You are aces buddy! You express exactly what Republican’s are. Between brilliant minds like yours and Ann Coulter, there is no way the Democrats can lose anytime soon. Keep up the good work!
By DebbieDoRight
November 28, 2006 11:52 AM | Link to this
Mike would show constraint beyond human capabilities were he not to wax satiric about that Republican nut house in Washington
I wonder if they’ve forgotten the Clinton / Lewinsky fiasco and how many really wicked jokes Mike made about that? I guess when the shoes on the other foot, it’s not so funny anymore….
By Buy Danish
November 28, 2006 12:04 PM | Link to this
Diogenes,
Do you think this cartoon, originally titled “Pot to Kettle” (If you don’t believe me look at the URL)is “hilarious”??. Prior warning - due to the controversial nature of this disgusting cartoon there were considerably more comments than usual, hence the server will take awhile to open the page.](http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/shared-blogs/ajc/luckovich/entries/2006/06/21/pottokettle.html)
[Here’s a cartoonist that gets the Illiberal Mike Luckovich exactly right.)(http://www.joelsamuelson.com/index.html)
Indeed, some of us have so little respect for the “moderate Democrat” views of ML that we call him a Pulitzer Patriot. Scroll down to N-Z for the definition.
P.S. I still await your Moderate Democrat explanation as to why dogs and cats prove Darwinism.
By Diogenes
November 28, 2006 12:08 PM | Link to this
DebbieDoRight (1152),
Touche.
By CJ
November 28, 2006 12:09 PM | Link to this
e.t. reminded me of something in his 11:03.
Not taking away from my previous post, it’s entirely possible that applying the non-partisan Iowa model could actually exempt Georgia from the pre-clearance conditions of the Voting Rights Act. This Act allows jurisdictions that are subject to it to avoid DOJ review by going through a “bailout” process. Through this process, Georgia would have to demonstrate that it hasn’t “used a test or device with a discriminatory purpose or effect with respect to voting” when redrawing its districts.
I think that’s great. What about you, Sanity?
By Redneck Convert
November 28, 2006 12:16 PM | Link to this
If we didn’t have that librul Voting Rights Act, we could fix all the problems in this state. We could make sure none of Those People was ever elected, just the way it was when I was a boy. As it is now, we have to give them a couple seats just to make sure we can elect Republicans in the others.
I got to thinking about the sorry situation we are in yesterday. A black family—black as the ace of spades!—moved in to the trailer down the road. I seen that the man was giving my missus the eye, cause all they want is to take our white women. It won’t be long before they’ll be lining up mixed race couples and gays to be married right in front of my eyes.
Let’s get rid of the Voting Rights Act now. Then we can make sure all our elected people Think Right. Maybe a poll tax or a reading test can keep some of Those People from voting and ruining things for the rest of us. Anyway, I long to see a return of the good old days when us good people run everything.
Wooten has a bunch of good points here. I’m glad he’s on our side. If we all get together on this, he could run that whole rotten newspaper. I’d love to see the AJC give Those People the what for and that Luckovich fellow get throwed out on his butt. It sounds like TFTT and jbmlaw are with me. Is anybody else?
By Buy Danish
November 28, 2006 12:18 PM | Link to this
DebbieDimBulb (and soldier’s wife who “supports the troops but not the war”),
You don’t mind ML comparing our military to savages who routinely behead their victims (after defiling their bodies by cutting off their genitals and sticking them in their mouth)?
You think that is funny?
Could you be an ersatz military wife, or are you just a damned fool who would stab your husband’s “band of brothers” in the back as long as you get to take a stab at what Diogenes inelegantly refers to as that Republican nut house in Washington?
By Van
November 28, 2006 12:20 PM | Link to this
e. t.,
You are right. The lefties ignore that part of Jim Wooten’s comments.
As far as I can see, it is the left that has benefited from the Justice departments meddling in Georgia’s affairs.
Other sates utilize computer programs that can divide up a state for the Congressional districts. I do not know if the “safe” districts can be set aside. Because of human nature, I do not think a committee can fairly and honestly set up the voting districts, I don’t think it can be done.
By Buy Danish
November 28, 2006 12:22 PM | Link to this
Diogenes and Debbie,
Let’s try those links to the Moderate Democrat again. I’d hate for you to miss an opportunity for a good laugh -
Open this cartoon.
AND
This response.
By Wootenlover
November 28, 2006 12:23 PM | Link to this
Hello “time for the truth”. Interesting word choices you made my friend: “…nauseating…protection of black seats. Giving blacks…“extra” seats…is evil and wrong…more blacks always means more corrupt lefties in state legislatures. despite the deeply unfortunate increase in yankkkeee infestation in GA… Racial spoils pandering sadly still goes on…Hopefully this historic demoNcrat instigated racism and racial spoils will just quietly fade away…HiTllary’s White House chances”
Yes, I edited to highlight your more colorful language (most of the black color). Let’s recap: protecting “black” seats is “nauseating”. “Giving Blacks” seats is “evil and wrong”. “More blacks always means…more corruption.” “Yankees” are an “infestation”. Democrats are “Demons” and Hilary Clinton is “Hitler”.
My friend, you need to join Michael Richards in race counseling. You are creeping toward absolute bigotry if you haven’t already set up residence. Sorry the “blacks” make you so, so upset…I hope it continues until you are a minority. I imagine your tune will change consideribly (or will you still be whistilin’ Dixie?).
By Diogenes
November 28, 2006 12:30 PM | Link to this
Buy Danish (1204),
I realize that I have encountered an immovable object and that discussion is not possible. Although I have been told that Satan comes in many guises, my life has been so sheltered the past few years that I was totally naive about that particular guise. Thank you, but no thanks. You’re not willing to listen or to consider the discussion. It’s a waste of our time. You know the old saying, “All’s fair in love and religion. I don’t buy your brand of religion, so let’s stick with politics; at times, we almost converge in our opinions, such as your very harsh condemnation of your school system the other day. On that we agree. We merely disagree on solutions, but over time solutions can be negotiated, which is the human part of politics. Civility reigns.
By Wootenlover
November 28, 2006 12:30 PM | Link to this
Mr. Redneck Convert, you are an overt racist. I dare you to go to downtown ATL and say one word of your idiotic post about “Those People”. Good God man, your bigotry made me vomit in my own mouth. By the way: What’s the weather like up you own a*? Sickening, just sickening.
By RW-(the original)
November 28, 2006 12:33 PM | Link to this
Buy Danish,
Here’s a screen capture of when “Pot to Kettle” still had the original name.
Let me know if it won’t let you go directly to the picture and I’ll turn it into a blog post.
As for Diogenes and DebbieDumbA$$, if you go back and look you’ll see most of those cartoons portrayed how poor Billy Jeff was being picked on. You should have seen the scribbler on Craig Fergusen’s show last night talking about what a great looking man Clinton was. I think he was jealous of Monica.
By jbmlaw
November 28, 2006 12:36 PM | Link to this
Dear Charles @ 10:49 and, for emphasis, @ 11:00, a better way to phrase your argument would be to praise the conservatives on this blog for intellectual honesty, in their willingness to disagree with a procedure proffered by the Republican leader. But, if you did that, it would cease to be a left/right issue, wouldn’t it?
Dear BPJ, also @ 10:49, I am compiling a list of the great moderates in world history; perhaps you can help me. I have Neville Chamberlain, Quisling, and then my list ends. Who are some of the other moderates who have contributed to “peace in our time?”
Good catch e.t. @ 11:03, I missed it too.
Dear Buy Danish @ 11:11 Lukovich is a main-stream leftist. It would benefit our side to magnify Lukovich’s work, to show the world the way the leftists think. Whenever a leftist says “main stream,” they mean, “way off the road, running wild with no idea where it will all end.”
By RW-(the original)
November 28, 2006 12:38 PM | Link to this
Dennis,
A funding concern for public schools is a legislative matter and a legal dispute over proportional representation is a judicial matter, so you are just as wrong about Jim’s so called hypocrisy as you’ve been about everything you’ve commented on the last few days. (Your wrongheadedness probably extends back further, but I’m new around these parts)
By Second Story Man
November 28, 2006 12:42 PM | Link to this
Back to the topic, RW, “letting the voters pick the politicians” leads the discussion into the very nature of constituency itself. This lies at the-very heart of the electoral process. Your cheekish comments add up to so much bidet-room splish-splash and we, the readers of the AJC, take total offense to you (and your little wet trolls)
So stfu, or stay on Wooten’s topic, you horrid troll.
By CJ
November 28, 2006 12:43 PM | Link to this
Van @12:28,
You must have missed my posts at 11:49 and 12:09. You also ignored the posts pointing out that Iowa has done exactly what you’re claiming cannot be done.
Is this an honest mistake, or do deliberately ignore facts you don’t like?
By getalife
November 28, 2006 12:43 PM | Link to this
So w is abroad begging for help in his Iraq disaster.
Crying for help from Iran and Syria is flip flopping of the worst kind.
Resign in disgrace w and Cheney.
By Diogenes
November 28, 2006 12:45 PM | Link to this
RW (the uninformed)
Since I could not make my explanations simplistic enough to suit you and since those brief entries in Wikipedia were also too confusing for you, the librarian and I spend quite some time yesterday seeking Evolution for Dummies to help you out with your ignorance. Since it does not exist, alas, we did find this for you: Jonathan Miller and Borin Van Loon, Darwin for Beginners. We think it is simplistic enough to suit even your intellect, and it will certainly quench your insatiable thirst for facts for at least a month or so. I hold no hope that you will ever be sufficiently knowledgeable enough in this topic to engage in debate without breaking into a uncontrollable rant, which, I fear, is the identifier of the species.
By DebbieDoRight
November 28, 2006 12:46 PM | Link to this
DebbieDimBulb (and soldier’s wife who “supports the troops but not the war”),You don’t mind ML comparing our military to savages who routinely behead their victims (after defiling their bodies by cutting off their genitals and sticking them in their mouth)?
What is WRONG with you Con-Serv-A-Trons!! r u all just literal minded? good lord u people creep me out! OK i don’t personally know Mike L. but, judging by the date of the cartoon, i’m hazarding a guess that he was referring to Dubya’s repeated assertion that some “tolerant levels” of torture are ok. looking at the cartoon it looked to me as a poke at Dubya and his henchmen, NOT the military.
You think that is funny?
Funny, no — true, that we are turning into the very things we profess to be liberating Iraq from, yes.
Could you be an ersatz military wife,
Danish Cow, maybe you’re an ersatz female — who knows….?
Oh, and it is a nut house in DC. Only a bigger nut would think it was sane.
By DebbieDoRight
November 28, 2006 12:48 PM | Link to this
Danish Cow: Mike L does POLITICAL cartoons — here’s a hint, if you don’t like his cartoons, u don’t have to read them.
By CJ
November 28, 2006 12:49 PM | Link to this
Wootenlover,
Your heart is in the right place. However, you should know that Redneck Convert’s daily posts are satire (easy mistake for newcomers).
Enjoy them…they’re fantastic.
By RW-(the original)
November 28, 2006 12:49 PM | Link to this
Polly Prepuce @ 12:42,
Don’t you have an audition at the Laugh Factory as Kramer’s clean up boy?
By candide
November 28, 2006 12:52 PM | Link to this
Buy Danish: If 60% of Americans are optimistic after all the evil Bush has done in their name, that only proves what intelligent people have known for a long time: Americans are really dumb.
How can you respect a people who believes in a God who sacrificed his son to save people from a fate worse than death, when He could have done it all differently. Anyway, anyone believing in god, Christianity and Jesus is either a fool or a knave, probably both.
By Diogenes
November 28, 2006 12:53 PM | Link to this
Jim,
The headlines are full of shootings. It’s about time you did another anti-gun contol essay before some one gets the notion that it would be a good idea.
By DebbieDoRight
November 28, 2006 12:53 PM | Link to this
WootenLover: Ignore Twisted Sister Truth — I think he/she must be a NY police officer who hates everything and everybody.
Twisted Sister Truth: I just saw Borat last night at the movies. There’s this guy who plays the “minister of information” in the film, (a big fat, hairy, ugly little guy), was that you?
By RetiredLTC
November 28, 2006 01:00 PM | Link to this
By Buy Danish
November 28, 2006 12:18 PM | Link to this
DebbieDimBulb (and soldier’s wife who “supports the troops but not the war”),
Buy Danish, would you please explain to me why one cannot support the troops but not a war? As a West Point grad and combat veteran, I can easily see why that is entirely possible. Especially for a military wife. Mine included, who supported me and my men in all of our wars but prefered that they not have been fought at all. You might just be the last person in this world that should call a military wife names. She has kind of a personal interest in the issue, you might say.
By RW-(the original)
November 28, 2006 01:04 PM | Link to this
Buy Danish,
Here’s a Pot to Kettle post from After Dark. You should be able to click the picture to enlarge it.
Diogenes,
What happened to your cries for civility the other day when I was making you look like a complete fool on this topic? Sounds like you’ve gone the way of the typical loser lib and taken off on a crazed rant, all the while trying to profess your superior intellect. Our words remain on these pages and I’ll happily stand by mine.
Did you come up with any species that ever became a different one yet? Maybe you and the librarian should find that little factoid first or are you staying with your “hopeful monster” theory to explain why there is absolutely no evidence in the fossil record of any species ever becoming a different one?
By time for the truth
November 28, 2006 01:04 PM | Link to this
@ jealousofWooten
Cheers for biting so nicely. I knew that certain colourful imagery and a witty but robustly pragmatic presentation would wind some one up. My earlier post was perfectly correct though - blacks should NOT have ANY seats guaranteed -solely because of race - nor should whites, mexican types etc. Elections should wherever possible be based on ‘natural geography/population’ - not a despicable desire to pander to blacks or anyone else. Protecting seats for blacks is evil and wrong. The 25 year extension of an outdated act is a detestable outrage - but very typical of panderers, some of whom sadly are GOP types.
It would be naive to suggest that an element of partisanship doesn’t insert itself in the drawing/modification of constituency boundaries - but as the demoNcrats had charge of GA for well over a century its now the GOP’s turn to enjoy the electoral whip hand.
Conservative blacks are supercool and need to be encouraged in their political vision and voting preferences. I would ALWAYS vote for a true conservative black over a white liberal or white moderate every time (assuming they weren’t a rabid religious nutter). Its the racebaiting/racial spoils blacks and liberals that I naturally loathe.
I was almost slightly miffed you wilfully misspelt demoNcrats - but your enormously amusing churlish tone makes that unsurprising.
Richards doesn’t need race counselling - he’s a bloody liberal - just spewing what so many liberals think privately. Like KKK Byrd and sick Willie Klinton (according to AK State Troopers who were forced to be his bodyguards).
Trying to control people’s race topic speech is also evil and wrong. Inciting folks to actually go and kill others because of their race is wrong and should be illegal and elicit public moral opprobium. What Richards did - like the alcoholic Brit/Jew hater Gibson did merely reflects a world view they are entitled to. Certainly folks are entitled to voice their disgust at such verbal comments -but to force folks into race counseling is pathetic and repugnant. But typical of liberal thought police.
There are numerous black, white, mexican type, asian, arab cultural practices I detest. Doesn’t make me a racist - but leftist morons like yourself love to point fingers.
The sickest thing about all this vile political correctness is that the leftist imposed moral fascist anti-racist ideology festers the ludicrous view that only whites can be racist. Which is utter horseh!t.
Say what you think and take the commercial/professional consequences. There are numerous black racebaiters who get away with verbal murder in the US with NO leftist media lynchings. BET has anti-white bigotry on most nights - masquerading as moronic ‘black comedy’. Funny how blacks never ever screech about this kind of overt racism.
By time for the truth
November 28, 2006 01:13 PM | Link to this
crackpipe ho debbie …
There’s this guy who plays the “minister of information” in the film, (a big fat, hairy, ugly little guy), was that you?
NO, it was your younger sister after she paid for that experimental hormone treatment that you tried first went horrendously wrong again.
I just despise (but love effortlessly goading) liberal hatepigs and crackpipe ho liberals like your self lovey dovey.
By Buy Danish
November 28, 2006 01:14 PM | Link to this
Diogenes,
Are you saying that I am Satan? Wow! You’re the second person who has told me that, the first being a certifiably insane kook who objects to summer vacations for kids. Nice company you’ve put yourself in.
I may be the Devil, but the devil is in the details. Your ability to take details, use them to illustrate an argument, and debate is non-existent.
Your self-righteous sanctimony is pathetic. I provided you a link to a cartoon that is not in the least bit “moderate”. Do you think that you will turn into a vampire if you open it? What a demonstration of cowardice!
Your idea of a “discussion” is to post endless links to wikipedia. You still can’t tell me in your own words why dogs and cats prove Darwins theories.
Anyone can pull a book from a shelf and quote from it. Debate requires the ability to analyze what you’ve read and then present views coherently.
You get an F.
By Buy Danish
November 28, 2006 01:22 PM | Link to this
Retired TLC,
My statement to Debbie DumbA$$ the soldier’s wife had nothing to do with her support of the Iraq War.
It had to do with her support of a cartoonist that slanders our military.
I’m sorry that your years at West Point didn’t provide you with the ability to discern the difference.
By DebbieDoRight
November 28, 2006 01:24 PM | Link to this
I just despise (but love effortlessly goading) liberal hatepigs and crackpipe ho liberals like your self lovey dovey.
Twusted Sister Truth: Yo Mama!
By Reece
November 28, 2006 01:27 PM | Link to this
Ok, for all of you right wing thumper morons, here’s another of your great ConHeroes. Of course, like the Deciderer-in-Chump, he’s concluded that Freedom of Speech must be done away with.
All of the Wootenannys here must be soooo proud.
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Gingrich+raises+alarm+at+event+honoring+those+who+stand+up+for+freedom+of+speech&articleId=d3f4ee4e-1e90-475a-b1b0-bbcd5baedd78
By Mrs. RepubLady
November 28, 2006 01:28 PM | Link to this
Buy Danish, go get him girlfriend! Who does that retired military officer think he is, anyway? Commenting on supporting the troops. What does he know? You are so much smarter.
Hey, have you all noticed that the hours of daylight have gotten shorter every day since the Democrats were voted a majority in Congress? Mark my words: before January of 2007 we’ll experience one of the shortest days of the year! It’s God’s judgment on America for embracing the liberal Democrat homosexual baby-killing agenda!
By time for the truth
November 28, 2006 01:29 PM | Link to this
Crackpipe Debbie
Yo Mamma - Yo Sister - Yo Ho Family!!
see the level you have dragged this down to, you noxious transgendered termite!!
By DebbieDoRight
November 28, 2006 01:30 PM | Link to this
blacks should NOT have ANY seats guaranteed -solely because of race
What seats are that? there are seats in the legislature, congress, etc. that are “guaranteed” solely because of race? which ones, name a few.
Protecting seats for blacks is evil and wrong.
So is changing the state supreme court to better reflect a party’s right leanings. do u support that?
The 25 year extension of an outdated act is a detestable outrage
Oh please, your 25 year fight to never bathe again is a detestable outrage, but no one is hounding you! (smelling you yes, hounding you no) it must be lonely, and smelly, in your world.
By Reece
November 28, 2006 01:32 PM | Link to this
TFTT,
Not an American, just don’t matter.
By DebbieDoRight
November 28, 2006 01:32 PM | Link to this
Danish Cow: Diogenes is right….. YOU ARE SATAN!!! (and a cow moo…!)
By DebbieDoRight
November 28, 2006 01:35 PM | Link to this
Twisted Sister Truth: Oh but how you loooovvvved to go down!!!
By Wootenlover
November 28, 2006 01:46 PM | Link to this
Mr. “time for truth”, the only finger I would waste pointing at you is my middle one. There is no reasoning with the intractable. And I take it from you freedom of speech over racist comments gives me the right to call you a racist bigot who wishes for a return to the days of Jim Crow and poll taxes. That would keep the “blackies” away from “destroying” this precious state. bon voyage bigot boy!
By jbmlaw
November 28, 2006 01:48 PM | Link to this
Dear Buy Danish @ 9:58, you will get a laugh out of this essay, on the virtues of Europe, by Dr. Walter E. Williams. Candide, I respectfully suggest you avoid the essay. http://www.townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2006/11/22/shouldwecopy_europe
By time for the truth
November 28, 2006 01:52 PM | Link to this
crackpipe debbie is obviously politicially very ignorant and doesn’t understand that it is perfectly possible, using racially informed boundaries to determine the racial makeup of a constituency and thus heavily if not completely determine the race/party of the successful candidate in this two party nation.
crackpipe debbie is just being ignorantly and obtusely petulant. what else is new?
as for crackpipe’s moronic bollocks about changing state courts for political reasons - try telling that to the folks enduring decades of highly partisan leftist judges in say CA, FL or Assachussetts.
I see that the brainless LYING bigot reece has regrettably slithered back out into cyber space.
I am actually an American you sad little twonk … and your bigotry about “non-Americans” is very revealing.
By Southern Democrat
November 28, 2006 01:54 PM | Link to this
Buy Danish,
Before you criticize Debbie (wife of someone who has sacrificed his time and, potentially, his life for this country) and Retired LTC (you spelled it incorrectly, it refers to “Lieutenant Colonel,” the 6th highest rank one can achieve in the Armed Forces), you should take a step back.
Are the Republicans who criticized the war and called for Rumsfeld’s resignation while still funding the troops unpatriotic? Are the four military periodicals who criticized the war’s strategy (or lack thereof), but still serve the troops a contradiction in terms? Is John McCain, who suffered in the Hanoi Hilton and stood up to the administration’s terror policies by stating that “in the darkest times, we always knew that if the roles were reversed, Americans would never treat any captive this way”) un-American?
I think you’re out of your league and simply being a troglodyte.
It is one thing to have a discussion, it is another to personally attack and be dismissive of others’ opinions simply because they do not agree with yours.
Bring up your level of discussion and, for that matter, your level of respect, and many on both sides of the aisle will be eager to parry with you. I doubt you want to be viewed like Time for the Truth, whose filthy monologues are ignored by most who read this blog.
By Wootenlover
November 28, 2006 01:56 PM | Link to this
CJ. Thank you for the explaination of “Redneck Convert” and his/her bent for satire. “Redneck Convert”, my apologies friend. I thought your post was eight thousand miles over the top…I should have realized the satire - hell I watch The Colbert Report all the time. It’s all good. Thanks again CJ and take it easy “convert”.
By jbmlaw
November 28, 2006 01:56 PM | Link to this
Dear Reece @ 1:27, I understand your alarm:
“Gingrich, speaking at a Manchester awards banquet, said a “different set of rules” may be needed to reduce terrorists’ ability to use the Internet and free speech to recruit and get out their message. We need to get ahead of the curve before we actually lose a city, which I think could happen in the next decade,” said Gingrich, a Republican who helped engineer the GOP’s takeover of Congress in 1994. Gingrich spoke to about 400 state and local power brokers last night at the annual Nackey S. Loeb First Amendment award dinner, which fetes people and organizations that stand up for freedom of speech. Also from the article: “Gingrich sharply criticized campaign finance laws he charged were reducing free speech and doing little to fight attack advertising. He also said court rulings over separation of church and state have hurt citizens’ ability to express themselves and their faith.”
Not only does Gingrich support some governmental interference with the terrorists’ capacity to use the internet to destroy an American city, he decries present US laws that restrict free speech – both positions antithetical to the positions of leftists. Just cannot stand those conservatives who can connect the dots, can you? Yes, I guess I am proud to read such brilliance - we can get the message out.
By Reece
November 28, 2006 02:00 PM | Link to this
jbmlaw,
That’s the best you have? A sellout who gets paid by the administration to promote, create and disseminate propaganda? This guy has less intellectual honesty than any of the other Al Quaeda operatives in the White House.
By Reece
November 28, 2006 02:04 PM | Link to this
Jim Wooten,
It just thrills me to see you complimenting and nurturing some of these declared favorite posters of yours here here. This paints such a clear picture of what a horrible little man you must in fact be. Not that I expect much better.
By RW-(the original)
November 28, 2006 02:05 PM | Link to this
Southern Democrat,
Before you chastise Buy Danish, you should keep in mind that people can and very often do misrepresent who and what they are on here. I have no reason to believe that Retired LTC isn’t what he says because he has been generally consistent whenever I’ve seen him show up on the blogs. As for Debbie and her “husband” last I heard he was stationed at a closed base in California, yet you seem to have evidence that there may be a different duty station. Debbie’s rantings don’t pass the smell test and yesterday she was caught posting under multiple names.