|
Wednesday, 12 July 2006 12:56 |
 | | Roland Martin |
CHICAGO ?? I??ll bet anyone a juicy, Texas-size steak dinner that moments after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld most of the redistricting that took place in the Lone Star state, Karl Rove and his band of political mercenaries were running the numbers to see how many more Democrats they could send into retirement.
And just
as the GOP was figuring out how to capitalize on the big shift in how
gerrymandering is done, I??ll bet an equally sized steak dinner that the
Democrats were sucking on their thumbs, lamenting the loss.
That??s the way
it goes these days. Republicans shoot to kill; Democrats want to play
croquet and shake hands at the end of the day.
When the now
?®retired?∆ Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, pushed through the change in 2003,
Texas Democrats were stunned. For years the GOP and Democrats got along
famously; but that was when the Dems were in control.
When the
Republicans took over both houses of the legislature and the governor??s
mansion, compromise went out the window. A group of Democrats fled the
state capitol for enacting the changes to the political lines, but it
was too late.
As a result, six white Democrats lost their seats, and the Republicans increased their lead in the U.S. House to 15.
Democrats
yelled, kicked and screamed, but now the U.S. Supreme Court has spoken:
States don??t have to abide by drawing up political lines every 10
years. They can do it whenever they want.
So, with that being the case, what will Democrats do?
A few months
ago, Rep. Rahm Emmanuel, D-Ill., floated the idea of pulling a DeLay.
Since Illinois only has one Republican elected statewide, he said it??s
time to change the rules in the state. There are 10 Democrats in the
U.S. House and nine Republicans. Emmanuel suggested changing the lines
to better reflect the Democrats?? dominance, but Rep. Dennis Hastert,
D-Ill., who is also the House speaker, went bonkers, calling it wrong.
But this is the same guy who didn??t mind it when DeLay did it!
What??s the big
deal, you say? How about the fact that the wimps in Emmanuel??s party
didn??t support the overt power grab. Instead of saying, ?®Young gun, you
got it right. They did it to us, so we??ll do it to them,?∆ they chose to
stand back and allow the lines to remain the same, thereby making it
difficult for the Democrats to take back one chamber of Congress.
Understand, if
the Democrats could control either the U.S. House or the U.S. Senate,
that means their party faithful would then chair committees, and they
would have the full power to launch investigations of President Bush
and his trusty six-shooter, Dick Cheney. All of that ignoring Congress
when meeting with energy execs and shutting down whistleblowers who
disagree with the war? Sorry, ain??t happening.
President Bill
Clinton knows what it means when one party has the chance to issue
subpoenas for documents. Why shouldn??t Bush have to go through the same
ringer?
The GOP took it
too far when Clinton was in office, but they made it clear that
politics is hardball. And if you are afraid of getting brush backed,
you might as well go play badminton.
This must be the
aggressive attitude assumed by Democrats. No more Mr. Nice Guy. Enough
with choosing leaders who are afraid to kill a fly lest they tick off
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. I??ve said for years that
the party is in desperate need of some political Viagra.
The U.S. Supreme
Court has given them the chance to rally their troops across the
country and inflict some damage to Republicans in Congress. Is it
risky? Absolutely. But what the hell. The Republicans control the White
House, Congress and the courts, so what do they have to lose?
?ÿ
Roland S. Martin, editor of The Chicago Defender newspaper, is author of ?®Speak, Brother! A Black Man??s View of America.?∆
|
