|Harry Reid's Henchman Attacks Ted Cruz|
|by Tom McGregor||Mon, Feb 4, 2013, 08:41 PM|
Texans overwhelmingly elected Ted Cruz to the U.S. Senate and the freshman senator has already been the target of liberal attacks from a Democratic strategist, who worked for Sen. Harry Reid (D.-Nv.) and the late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D.-Ma.).
The Houston Chronicle reports that, "Texas Sen. Ted Cruz hasn't yet been on the winning side of a majority policy vote since joining the Senate last month. Indeed, he is the only senator with an umblemished record of zere 'wins' and 11 'losses' in the new Congress, according to a story from the Washington Times that dubbed him the 'biggest loser' on Capitol Hill."
Nonetheless, Cruz is wearing the honor as a badge of honor.
The Washington Times quotes Sean Rushton, a Cruz spokesman, as saying that, "he didn’t come to Washington to make friends; he came to help save the country. Sen. Cruz is proud of his votes and will continue to stand up for America and the Constitution."
Democratic strategist Jim Manley, a former spokesperson for Sens. Harry Reid and Ted Kennedy, blasted Cruz and is demanding that Cruz stop accepting a salary.
To read the entire article from the Houston Chronicle, link here:
written by Jonathan Green , February 05, 2013
The Republican brand, as we are so often reminded these days, is tarnished to a point where even Republicans are worried. It is clear that most Americans reject the far right’s plans to tear down one hundred years of social progress by regressing into a semi-feudal system of a few haves telling millions of half-nots to stop whining and eat their gruel.
Logic would suggest that the proper response would be for the Republicans to examine their message and excise what isn’t selling at the polls. After all, If you are assuming that the Republicans are getting the message you would be wrong. Instead, they are going with the Lance Armstrong strategy. They want to cheat.
The GOP is excited about an idea that would, in effect, give the White House to the candidate who wins the most votes in the House of Representatives, now solidly in the hands of Republicans and likely to remain that way for the foreseeable future because of gerrymandering of Congressional districts.
Here’s now the scheme would work: Instead of giving a state’s Electoral College votes to the Presidential candidate who wins the most votes in the state, the Electoral College votes would be apportioned by Congressional districts. Win the district, win the vote. The idea has Republicans in Virginia so excited they’ve put it on the fast track. You can just see them smacking their foreheads and shouting, “Why didn’t we think of this earlier?”
According to the Washington Post, the scheme would have given President Obama only two of the state’s thirteen electoral votes last November. Under the current system, he won them all. That’s because Virginia’s Congressional delegation is mostly Republican. That, in turn, is due to the gerrymandering of Congressional districts into “safe” seats for the party in power. This isn’t a problem unique to Virginia. Nearly every state legislature uses Census numbers to create districts that reflect current party power, Republican or Democrat.
And Virginia isn’t the first state to attempt to gerrymander the Electoral College. Maine and Nebraska already have such systems. Supporters claim it is “fairer” because it gives less populated areas a bigger role in choosing the President. In Virginia, for instance, the densely populated Washington suburbs went for Obama while the rural areas supported Romney. In a sense, this issue was resolved by the Supreme Court in the 1960s in its “One man, one vote,” ruling that population was more important than geography in apportioning Congressional seats. This new scheme will test that.
By the way, a casual observation shows that the faces of those who are supporting this plan are white, male, and straight (it appears). Not one of them is saying the plan is designed to benefit the black, the poor, the disadvantaged.
If this latest attempt by Republicans to turn Presidential elections into 435 individual races for the White House succeeds, it will change the political dynamic of the entire nation. The bitter divisions we see between red and blue states will turn into political battles within states and that will likely produce ever more radical positions on both sides.
The Republican plan is, simply, a scheme to steal the country from voters by rigging elections. They’ve learned that they can’t win with their message, so they’ll game the system and see how that works for them. The legendary House Speaker Tip O’Neil’s observation that “All politics is local” is even truer today than it was when he said it decades back. What is happening down the block and in the State House will determine the future of America.
Don’t let them get away with it. Call, phone, raise hell.
written by Carlos Zaldivar , February 06, 2013
...what about Obama's new license to kill, from liberals?... What about liberals not wanting us using the word "Illegal Emigrants? We need to end the liberal madness!..
written by Pope1944 , February 08, 2013
Joathonn, please stop reading the Washington Post and using it for the basis of your scurrilous post.
The Republican platform statement on the Electoral College is contained in a section titled The Continuing Importance of Protecting the Electoral College. The party adopted the platform at the August 2012 Republican National Convention held in Tampa, Fla.
The wording of the platform statement is:
"We oppose the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact or any other scheme to abolish or distort the procedures of the Electoral College. We recognize that an unconstitutional effort to impose 'national popular vote' would be a mortal threat to our federal system and a guarantee of corruption as every ballot box in every state would become a chance to steal the presidency."
|< Prev||Next >|