Erbe writes that she wants to "gender-mander" the Census for "feminist leaders" and wants to make sure that "hispanics and Latinos" aren't "under-counted." She claims the Census is "part of the spoils of victory" and wants her lefties to be able to wield that power. She says that the Democrats should "spare us the theatrics of trying to look nonpartisan." So, the Dems should continue to cynically use the Census merely for partisan political purposes.
So much for the new tone in Washington, eh?
Erbe calls it "un-American not to gerrymander, as if the simple fact that it has gone on so long makes it OK. Apparently she is unaware that gerrymandering was not a concept that was born with the Constitution and country, but was only invented later. "Gerrymandering" is a term made up by the cynical patchworking of a voting district intended to benefit a particular party. It was originally created in Massachusetts in 1812 when Elbridge Gerry re-engineered a Boston district strictly for his party’s benefit.
As a conservative, I am all for tradition. But not everything that has gone on for over a hundred years is good. After all, should mere age protect anything from change then we'd still have chattel slavery in this country today. Somehow, I doubt Erbe would think slavery is a time honored tradition!
Unfortunately, Erbe seems not to care what the national Census was supposed to be used for. Originally is was to be a strict counting for purposes of representation in Congress not a power grab used to warp districts for partisan political gain.
The Census is required by the U.S. Constitution in the following clauses:
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. (14th Amendment alteration of original clause)... The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such manner as they shall by Law direct. (As originally stated in Article 1, Section 2)
But, Erbe wants to stick with a cynical and unfair warping of the system and it can only be because that warping will benefit her favorite party this time.
In her piece Erbe talks about what is un-American. I'd say that not to want to right a wrong is un-American. Wouldn’t you?
But wait. If Erbe was at least always against bipartisanship and solidly for power politics, we could at least give her kudos for her consistency. Unfortunately, she has in the past longed for it as a palliative for what ails us.
Not long ago, Erbe was bemoaning the loss of wonderful bipartisanship and pinned for its return. But, then, those were the days when a president Bush sat in the White House. Typical of hypocritical lefties, Erbe wants bipartisanship when her favorites are out of power, but wants it done away with when her party is in power. Of course, that’s not really bipartisanship, is it?
And with Erbe as a perfect example of the dissembling and double dealing from the left, she wonders why Republicans are not too keen on any bipartisanship themselves?
(Photo credit: yoest.org)
