12/7 speech from Mr. Bush

I watched Bush's speech today. Three different comments stuck out for me and I'm interested in how to interpret them:

1) "September...er...I mean...December 7th..." (In mentioning Pearl Harbor Mr. Bush insinuated September 11th. Is this an intentional mishap? Does he use his reputation of 'bad public speaker' to insert subliminal messages??

2) "A Democrat recently called for an immediate redeployment of troops..." (Mr. Bush would not say Cong. Murtha's name in his speech. I understand the political slam of not even uttering your nemesis's name, but if Bush wants to pretend enlightenment and subsequently demonstrate he is right in regard to Iraq, wouldn't you want to at least operate beyond a high school maturity level? I remember being a Freshman and refusing to speak my ex-boyfriend's name because I was still mad about something he said. But then I grew up. And human lives were not at my disposal.

3) Mr. Bush's all around presentation was poor. His apathy was apparent in the lack of emotional attachment he portrayed. Bush did not mean what he was saying. Several recent reports are claiming this is the effect of anti-depressants, which can have a sedative effect on the mind and body. Other reports are claiming it is the effect of his falling off the wagon. Even others are reporting that Bush might be exhausted from doing God's work, as he TRULY believes God is working through him. While it could be one big combination (like when you order Chinese food and ask for pork, chicken, and beef in your noodles), I really think media should attribute his attitude to his status as an emotional midget. I really do not believe that Bush has the capacity to understand the consequences of his actions. I believe that when deaths are reported to him, he views them like he is watching a movie: desensitized and separated by a movie screen.

He called us all pessimists while he wore his signature smirk. In fact, Mr. Bush pointed out that ANYONE who agreed with the Congressman-who-shall-not-be-named was a pessimist. Again, either we are with the President or we are against the President. So, what if he is not my President?

It is so difficult to keep up the fight sometimes. Especially when this default of a man spews fear all over the TV cameras. Any comments? I am spinning today.

Bell County Democrats have new location

The Bell County Democrats have a new location. Democratic chairman Arthur Resa is asking for volunteers to come and help with set-up this Saturday (December 3rd). If you are interested, give Arthur a call at (254) 939-7910.

Fellow Democrats:
We have signed a lease for an office space located at 111 N. East St. in Belton.
We are in need of volunteers to help clean the office space and help load stored furniture onto a trailer for the office. Volunteer(s) will need to mop floor, dust shelves, and arrange furniture.
If you are available to volunteer please let me know. We plan to gather at the office this coming Saturday at 10:30 a.m.

To Belton Office from Killeen:
Merge onto US-190 E.
(16.6 miles)
Merge onto I-35 N / US-81 N / US-190 E.
(0.7 miles)
Take EXIT 294A toward FM-253-SPUR / CENTRAL AVE / DOWNTOWN.
(0.2 miles)
Stay STRAIGHT to go onto I-35 N / US-190 E.
(<0.1>To Belton Office from Temple:
Merge onto I-35 S / US-81 S toward AUSTIN.
(6.3 miles)
Take the exit toward TX-253-SPUR / CENTRAL AVE. / DOWNTOWN.
(0.1 miles)
Turn SLIGHT LEFT onto I-35 S / US-190 W.
(0.2 miles)
Turn SLIGHT RIGHT onto E CENTRAL AVE / FM 253 LOOP.
(0.5 miles)
Turn RIGHT onto N EAST ST.
(<0.1 miles)

Justice Staff Saw Texas Districting As Illegal

Voting Rights Finding On Map Pushed by DeLay Was Overruled

By Dan Eggen

Washington Post Staff Writer

Friday, December 2, 2005; A01

Justice Department lawyers concluded that the landmark Texas congressional redistricting plan spearheaded by Rep. Tom DeLay (R) violated the Voting Rights Act, according to a previously undisclosed memo obtained by The Washington Post. But senior officials overruled them and approved the plan.
The memo, unanimously endorsed by six lawyers and two analysts in the department's voting section, said the redistricting plan illegally diluted black and Hispanic voting power in two congressional districts. It also said the plan eliminated several other districts in which minorities had a substantial, though not necessarily decisive, influence in elections.
"The State of Texas has not met its burden in showing that the proposed congressional redistricting plan does not have a discriminatory effect," the memo concluded.
The memo also found that Republican lawmakers and state officials who helped craft the proposal were aware it posed a high risk of being ruled discriminatory compared with other options.
But the Texas legislature proceeded with the new map anyway because it would maximize the number of Republican federal lawmakers in the state, the memo said. The redistricting was approved in 2003, and Texas Republicans gained five seats in the U.S. House in the 2004 elections, solidifying GOP control of Congress.
J. Gerald "Gerry" Hebert, one of the lawyers representing Texas Democrats who are challenging the redistricting in court, said of the Justice Department's action: "We always felt that the process . . . wouldn't be corrupt, but it was. . . . The staff didn't see this as a close call or a mixed bag or anything like that. This should have been a very clear-cut case."
But Justice Department spokesman Eric W. Holland said the decision to approve the Texas plan was vindicated by a three-judge panel that rejected the Democratic challenge. The case is on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
"The court ruled that, in fact, the new congressional plan created a sufficient number of safe minority districts given the demographics of the state and the requirements of the law," Holland said. He added that Texas now has three African Americans serving in Congress, up from two before the redistricting.
Texas Republicans also have maintained that the plan did not dilute minority votes and that the number of congressional districts with a majority of racial minorities remained unchanged at 11. The total number of congressional districts, however, grew from 30 to 32.
The 73-page memo, dated Dec. 12, 2003, has been kept under tight wraps for two years. Lawyers who worked on the case were subjected to an unusual gag rule. The memo was provided to The Post by a person connected to the case who is critical of the adopted redistricting map. Such recommendation memos, while not binding, historically carry great weight within the Justice Department.
Under the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Texas and other states with a history of discriminatory elections are required to submit changes in their voting systems or election maps for approval by the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division.
The Texas case provides another example of conflict between political appointees and many of the division's career employees. In a separate case, The Post reported last month that a team was overruled when it recommended rejecting a controversial Georgia voter-identification program that was later struck down as unconstitutional by a court.
Mark Posner, a longtime Justice Department lawyer who now teaches law at American University, said it was "highly unusual" for political appointees to overrule a unanimous finding such as the one in the Texas case.
"In this kind of situation, where everybody agrees at least on the staff level . . . that is a very, very strong case," Posner said. "The fact that everybody agreed that there were reductions in minority voting strength, and that they were significant, raises a lot of questions as to why it was" approved, he said.
The Texas memo also provides new insight into the highly politicized environment surrounding that state's redistricting fight, which prompted Democratic state lawmakers to flee the state in hopes of derailing the plan. DeLay and his allies participated intensively as they pushed to redraw Texas's congressional boundaries and strengthen GOP control of the U.S. House.
DeLay, the former House majority leader, is fighting state felony counts of money laundering and conspiracy -- crimes he is charged with committing by unlawfully injecting corporate money into state elections. His campaign efforts were made in preparation for the new congressional map that was the focus of the Justice Department memo.
One of two DeLay aides also under indictment in the case, James W. Ellis, is cited in the Justice Department memo as pushing for the plan despite the risk that it would not receive "pre-clearance," or approval, from the department. Ellis and other DeLay aides successfully forced the adoption of their plan over two other versions passed by Texas legislators that would not have raised as many concerns about voting rights discrimination, the memo said.
"We need our map, which has been researched and vetted for months," Ellis wrote in an October 2003 document, according to the Justice Department memo. "The pre-clearance and political risks are the delegation's and we are willing to assume those risks, but only with our map."
Hebert said the Justice Department's approval of the redistricting plan, signed by Sheldon T. Bradshaw, principal deputy assistant attorney general, was valuable to Texas officials when they defended it in court. He called the internal Justice Department memo, which did not come out during the court case, "yet another indictment of Tom DeLay, because this memo shows conclusively that the map he produced violated the law."
DeLay spokesman Kevin Madden called Hebert's characterization "nonsensical political babble" and echoed the Justice Department in pointing to court rulings that have found no discriminatory impact on minority voters.
"Fair and reasonable arguments can be made in favor of the map's merits that also refute any notion that the plan is unfair or doesn't meet legal standards," Madden said. "Ultimately the court will decide whether the criticisms have any weight or validity."
Testimony in the civil lawsuit demonstrated that DeLay and Ellis insisted on last-minute changes during the Texas legislature's final deliberations. Ellis said DeLay traveled to Texas to attend many of the meetings that produced the final map, and Ellis himself worked through the state's lieutenant governor and a state senator to shape the outcome.
In their analysis, the Justice Department lawyers emphasized that the last-minute changes -- made in a legislative conference committee, out of public view -- fundamentally altered legally acceptable redistricting proposals approved separately by the Texas House and Senate.
"It was not necessary" for these plans to be altered, except to advance partisan political goals, the department lawyers concluded.
Jerry Strickland, a spokesman for Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, said he did not have any immediate comment.
The Justice Department memo recommending rejection of the Texas plan was written by two analysts and five lawyers. In addition, the head of the voting section at the time, Joseph Rich, wrote a concurring opinion. Rich has since left the department and declined to comment on the memo yesterday.
The complexity of the arguments surrounding the Voting Rights Act is evident in the Justice Department memo, which focused particular attention on seats held in 2003 by a white Democrat, Martin Frost, and a Hispanic Republican, Henry Bonilla.
Voting data showed that Frost commanded great support from minority constituents, while Bonilla had relatively little support from Hispanics. The question to be considered by Justice Department lawyers was whether the new map was "retrogressive," because it diluted the power of minority voters to elect their candidate of choice. Under the adopted Texas plan, Frost's congressional district was dismantled, while the proportion of Hispanics in Bonilla's district dropped significantly. Those losses to black and Hispanic voters were not offset by other gains, the memo said.
"This result quite plainly indicates a reduction in minority voting strength," Rich wrote in his concurring opinion. "The state's argument that it has increased minority voting strength . . . simply does not stand up under careful analysis."

Carter insults Murtha

Recently, U.S. Rep. John Carter, R-Round Rock, took a cheap shot at one of his Democratic colleagues, U.S. Rep. John Murtha. Murtha, who was the first Vietnam veteran elected to Congress, had broken ranks with the Bush administration on the Iraq war.
Murtha called "for immediate redeployment of U.S. troops, consistent with the safety of U.S. forces, to create a quick-reaction force in the region, to create an over-the-horizon presence of Marines, and to diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq."
The White House accused Murtha of wanting to "surrender to the terrorists." Carter joined a hastily gathered gaggle of Republican representatives to accuse the recipient of two Purple Hearts, the Bronze Star and the Vietnamese Cross for Gallantry of wanting "to take the cowardly way out."
On Carter's Web site, he claims to have raised his family on "Christian beliefs and strong Texas values." How is that consistent with accusing a decorated veteran of cowardice?

ALFRED STANLEY
astanley@astanley.com Austin

On the other hand is this letter:
I am not a traitor
In several recent speeches out West, President Bush hit hard again on the theme that those who disagree with his running of the Iraq war are somehow unAmerican and/or unpatriotic. My own story is a good illustration. I'm a retired U.S. Air Force combat pilot who flew 70 P-47 fighter-bomber missions in Europe in l944 and 1945, l00 P-51 missions in Korea in l95l and 35 Thunderjet F-84 missions in Korea in l95l and 1952 — voluntarily — and earned the Purple Heart. I thought that patriotism and Americanism somehow figured in there. But I asked simple questions about Bush's motives: How can a two-bit nation in the sand pose any threat to the mightiest nation the world has ever known? Is this war necessary? Are we really in danger?
According to at least one of writer of right-wing books, raising that question makes me a traitor. I am not a traitor, nor am I unAmerican or unpatriotic. The same Texas Air Guard wing that gave me the chance to fight for my country in Korea protected Bush from combat in Vietnam. Count me as standing beside U.S. Rep. John Murtha and the tens of millions around the world, let alone here at home, who raise similar questions.
FRANK LEWIS
Lt. Col. U.S. Air Force (ret.)
Austin


Coward?
Dana Milbank writes on the latest Yellow Elephant Stampede in the Star Tribune:In his 37 years in the military, John Murtha won two Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star with a Combat "V" and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry.
As a Democratic congressman from Pennsylvania for the past 31 years, he has been a fierce hawk, championing conflicts in Central America and the Persian Gulf.
On Thursday, he was called a coward.After Murtha stunned the Capitol with a news conference calling for a pullout from Iraq because our "troops have done all they can," the denunciations came quickly and furiously.House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., accused Murtha of delivering "the highest insult" to the troops.
"We must not cower," Hastert told the former Marine.
Majority Leader Roy Blunt, R-Mo., told Murtha that his views "only embolden our enemies" and lamented that "Democrats undermine our troops in Iraq from the security of their Washington, D.C., offices."Rep. J.D. Hayworth, R-Ariz., told the 73-year-old Murtha that "the American people are made of sterner stuff." And Rep. John Carter, R-Texas, said the likes of Murtha want to take "the cowardly way out." Murtha, whose brand of hawkishness has never been qualified by the word "chicken," was expecting the attacks: "I like guys who've never been there that criticize us who've been there. I like that."Carter, Hastert, Blunt and Hayworth have no military service record.Imagine that. Four Republican congressmen in favour of the war who never served themselves. What are the odds?

AG nixes tax officials' marriage request

The Associated Press-AUSTIN

When Kerr County Tax Assessor-Collector Paula Rector decided to get married, she sought permission not from family or friends, but from the state attorney general. And she didnt get it. Rector, 54, wanted to marry one of the districts tax appraisers. But the couple worried that their marital union would violate the states nepotism law, so they brought the case before Attorney General Greg Abbott. In an opinion released Tuesday, Abbott confirme
Advertisementtheir fears, ruling that the couple could not marry and simultaneously retain their positions. Isnt that crazy? We thought it was funny that we had to wait for an attorney generals opinion to tell us whether we could or couldnt, Rector told the Houston Chronicle on Tuesday. I bet thats never happened before. Rector could not resign from the appraisal district board or appoint someone to replace her because the position must be held by the tax collector, according to state law. But she highlighted the fact that she does not vote on how appraisals are set, nor does the board make any hiring or firing decisions outside of the job of chief appraiser. It doesnt affect his appraisals, and I dont get a percentage of what I collect, Rector said. Kerr County Attorney Rex Emerson had argued in a letter to Abbott that the couples plight did not squarely fit inside the laws provisions. This unfortunate situation is an unintended consequence of a well-meaning statute, and it is urged that the nepotism laws should not be applied in this case, Emerson said. Nepotism laws are designed to prevent a public officer from serving his or her personal interest in full employment for relatives instead of the public interest in hiring the best qualified employees, Emerson said. The (tax assessor-collector) lacks a voice in employment matters. But Abbott ruled that state law trumps love. The employee may retain his employment until the end of his contract with the appraisal district, or if the employee is employed at-will, he may retain his employment until the end of the pay period during which his marriage occurs, Abbott said. Rector said she was disappointed with the ruling but would wait until her retirement to marry her fiance. She has served five terms in office and said she may not seek re-election when her current term ends in three years.