The Republicans always kill themselves when it comes to who gets these posts because of slavish adherence to the notion that "seniority" must prevail, as opposed to picking the guy (or woman) who would be best suited for the job. This is just hidebound, and shows how mindless application of "tradition" limits the effectiveness of our governing institutions. It manifests itself in tragedies like anointing unelectable individuals to run for governor or President ahead of worthy candidates, because the unelectable one has the seniority.

It's all quite sad, really, but can you imagine our political leaders admitting that meritocracy is the way to go? Never gonna happen.

M.M.,

This may be changing with Bill Frist. That was a smart choice in the Senate, but I rarely ever see him or hear him quoted. (Part of the problem might be that I don't watch the Sunday morning talk shows -- the NYT informed me I was burned out on news.)

This is also a problem at the state and local level. I know of a couple of state parties that are run by morons. This may be true with the Dems, but they do seem to be more organized - benefiting from a cadre of labor organizations and a general mindset of people who want to go into public service. GOP types who are competent tend to go into business.

It just seems interesting to me that somebody like Delay could work his way up the food chain, though. There is something in the background we don't know. And don't forget that his counterpart is Nancy Pelosi.

He also has this post on Delay's rather illogical view of the Constitution and the redistricting embroglio in Texas.

OK Maybe I missed something....

I thought Delay's point was that the constitution said the LEGE had to do it but the Judicial did it.

Assuming that is correct, what is illogical?

I must confess to not having watched this much.

(a wise man would google first, but when you have a polisci phd a post away, you can get lazy;-)

P

Paul,

The legislature had to do it and did--just pursuant to a judicial order. As I understand it, the one originally drawn by the legislature was rejected by a federal judge and who then "suggested" new lines.

The Republicans wanted to take another bite at getting it done through the political process, now that they control the legislature. It's understandable and I can even see an argument for doing it. But it opens up a can of worms that I don't want to see: What's to stop legislatures from drawing new lines any time there's a shift in political power? The old rule has been that you get one cut at it--in the year following the decennial census.

huh- That is not what I thought I heard--- I thought it was court ordered.

thanks

P

---