pacino wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:When Democrats draw majority minority seats or call for more majority minority seats, that's standing up for minority representation. If Republicans do it, they're ghettoizing minority voters. Pick one.

Have many of those Democrat-instigated reconfigurations been entirely dependent on waiting for key legislators to be unavailable for votes to authorize?

Obama's DoJ did not care what Texas's legislators, key and not key alike, had to say in their votes to authorize the maps.

are you being purposefully obtuse or something? in both instances, it is Republicans trying to make Democratic and minority voters' votes useless through pretty ridiculously-looking districts. That VA lawmakers waited until the day of the peaceful passing of power for them to try to circumvent democracy is telling.

pacino wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:When Democrats draw majority minority seats or call for more majority minority seats, that's standing up for minority representation. If Republicans do it, they're ghettoizing minority voters. Pick one.

Have many of those Democrat-instigated reconfigurations been entirely dependent on waiting for key legislators to be unavailable for votes to authorize?

Obama's DoJ did not care what Texas's legislators, key and not key alike, had to say in their votes to authorize the maps.

are you being purposefully obtuse or something? in both instances, it is Republicans trying to make Democratic and minority voters' votes useless through pretty ridiculously-looking districts. That VA lawmakers waited until the day of the peaceful passing of power for them to try to circumvent democracy is telling.

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:That said, the article there is absurd in its description of what happened. The Obama Administration was aggressive in mandating the drawing of majority-minority districts during redistricting. Texas is battling the DoJ in court over the federal government overturning Texas's plan for drawing too few majority Hispanic seats. When Democrats draw majority minority seats or call for more majority minority seats, that's standing up for minority representation. If Republicans do it, they're ghettoizing minority voters. Pick one.

I find it pretty hysterical that you're claiming any sort of expertise in what happened yesterday (across the street from my office) over and above the in-person observances of a very knowledgeable VA political blogger (who merely echoed the observations of a number of others who've written about it)... let alone lumping it in with what has or hasn't happened in other states. There are so many things I'd like to discuss publicly about this issue but cannot b/c of where I work. The one innocuous thing that I will throw out there in response to your post is that the DOJ already approved VA's 2011 plan and its 2012 congressional redistricting plan, so it's not as if we'd been having a contentious fight with the feds until now.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/virginia-politics/post/justice-dept-approves-virginias-congressional-redistricting-plan/2012/03/14/gIQAXW1pCS_blog.html

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:BTW, jersey, there has been a huge backlash here in VA over this, even among some prominent VA conservative pundits. For example: http://bearingdrift.com/2013/01/21/am-i-the-only-republican-in-virginia-who-thinks-this-reeks/

The only reason it happened in the first place was b/c our Republican Lieutenant Governor was going to vote against the bill if it came down to a tiebreaker b/c he felt it was most likely unconstitutional (VA Constitution mandates redistricting in 2011 and every ten years thereafter).

jerseyhoya wrote:

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:That said, the article there is absurd in its description of what happened. The Obama Administration was aggressive in mandating the drawing of majority-minority districts during redistricting. Texas is battling the DoJ in court over the federal government overturning Texas's plan for drawing too few majority Hispanic seats. When Democrats draw majority minority seats or call for more majority minority seats, that's standing up for minority representation. If Republicans do it, they're ghettoizing minority voters. Pick one.

I find it pretty hysterical that you're claiming any sort of expertise in what happened yesterday (across the street from my office) over and above the in-person observances of a very knowledgeable VA political blogger (who merely echoed the observations of a number of others who've written about it)... let alone lumping it in with what has or hasn't happened in other states. There are so many things I'd like to discuss publicly about this issue but cannot b/c of where I work. The one innocuous thing that I will throw out there in response to your post is that the DOJ already approved VA's 2011 plan and its 2012 congressional redistricting plan, so it's not as if we'd been having a contentious fight with the feds until now.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/virginia-politics/post/justice-dept-approves-virginias-congressional-redistricting-plan/2012/03/14/gIQAXW1pCS_blog.html

I do not need any particular expertise in the exact details of what happened in one instnace to comment on a double standard of it being intrinsically good when Democrats pursue majority minority districts and it being automatically nefarious when Republicans do it.

jerseyhoya wrote:

pacino wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:When Democrats draw majority minority seats or call for more majority minority seats, that's standing up for minority representation. If Republicans do it, they're ghettoizing minority voters. Pick one.

Have many of those Democrat-instigated reconfigurations been entirely dependent on waiting for key legislators to be unavailable for votes to authorize?

Obama's DoJ did not care what Texas's legislators, key and not key alike, had to say in their votes to authorize the maps.

are you being purposefully obtuse or something? in both instances, it is Republicans trying to make Democratic and minority voters' votes useless through pretty ridiculously-looking districts. That VA lawmakers waited until the day of the peaceful passing of power for them to try to circumvent democracy is telling.

Republicans generally try to draw maps that elect more Republicans. Democrats typically try to draw maps that elect more Democrats. And both parties try and use the law to their advantage when it suits them. In Texas, Republicans passed a map they felt abided by all federal guidelines while also maximizing GOP representation. The Obama Administration intervened in Texas to try and make sure the state elects more Democrats to the House of Representatives. The map drawn by the courts in Texas has more ridiculous looking districts than the one passed by Republicans because generally when you're drawing districts trying to pick up pockets of minority voters they end up looking bizarre.

Overall the rule requiring majority minority districts helps Republicans more than it helps Democrats because much of the time it encourages an inefficient allocation of Democratic voters. This is less true with Hispanic majority districts than African American ones because Hispanics are not as monolithically Democratic. And it's not always true with African American districts depending on how heavily Republican the state/area is.

Depending on what you think of the relative importance of descriptive vs. substantive representation the rule either helps or hurts minorities. African American Democrats often ally themselves with Republicans during redistricting though getting more seats predisposed to elect black Dems at the expense of white Dems in the rest of the state. For the most part minority groups have backed the districts, but it's not as unanimous as it once was. But as long as the racial grievance lobby makes up an important part of the Democratic coalition, it's hard to see concerted Democratic efforts to overhaul that portion of the Voting Rights Act. And if Republicans tried to eliminate it they'd be called racist for their troubles. So I don't think they'll be going away any time soon unless the SC wants to go after it (and a ton of previous court rulings).

But nevermind all that. I'm being obtuse. Republicans are evil and draw weird maps. Democrats are noble and oppressed.

td11 wrote:"racial grievance lobby." wow

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:That said, the article there is absurd in its description of what happened. The Obama Administration was aggressive in mandating the drawing of majority-minority districts during redistricting. Texas is battling the DoJ in court over the federal government overturning Texas's plan for drawing too few majority Hispanic seats. When Democrats draw majority minority seats or call for more majority minority seats, that's standing up for minority representation. If Republicans do it, they're ghettoizing minority voters. Pick one.

I find it pretty hysterical that you're claiming any sort of expertise in what happened yesterday (across the street from my office) over and above the in-person observances of a very knowledgeable VA political blogger (who merely echoed the observations of a number of others who've written about it)... let alone lumping it in with what has or hasn't happened in other states. There are so many things I'd like to discuss publicly about this issue but cannot b/c of where I work. The one innocuous thing that I will throw out there in response to your post is that the DOJ already approved VA's 2011 plan and its 2012 congressional redistricting plan, so it's not as if we'd been having a contentious fight with the feds until now.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/virginia-politics/post/justice-dept-approves-virginias-congressional-redistricting-plan/2012/03/14/gIQAXW1pCS_blog.html

I do not need any particular expertise in the exact details of what happened in one instnace to comment on a double standard of it being intrinsically good when Democrats pursue majority minority districts and it being automatically nefarious when Republicans do it.

No offense, but that's a ridiculous oversimplification of an extremely complex issue. Especially considering that you compared it to Texas, whose plan did not receive DOJ clearance, whereas VA's 2011 plan did just that.

So sorry, but with all due respect, this is an area where a certain degree of ignorance lead to a sweeping statement that factually has no bearing on this incident.

pacino wrote:sorry i'm not hte partisan hack you are, jh, that i reflexively defend everything my party does with a 'simpsons did it!' mentality

jerseyhoya wrote:

pacino wrote:sorry i'm not hte partisan hack you are, jh, that i reflexively defend everything my party does with a 'simpsons did it!' mentality

You're the most predictable poster in this thread.

td11 wrote:yeah no i'm sure that the republican party, especially in these times, is really really looking out for minority voters

td11 wrote:"racial grievance lobby." wow

jerseyhoya wrote:There are five majority minority districts under the current map drawn by the Democrats two years ago. The map passed yesterday added a sixth. At what point does it become ghettoization? The answer appears to be when Republicans do it. The one spot where a certain degree of ignorance might lead to a sweeping statement that factually has no bearing on this incident is how the person who wrote that article feels about majority minority districts in general. Maybe the blogger is a strident opponent of majority minority districts in all of their incarnations.

Michael McDonald said a sixth district could be created but they didn't look at it as closely because of limited budget and concern of how it would hold up under judicial scrutiny. The five current majority minority districts were left intact in the new map so that should alleviate the judicial scrutiny concern about that aspect.

jerseyhoya wrote: The racial crap treating this as an anti-civil rights move is just a distraction.

Senators who play a major role in federal health care financing were happy to help Amgen, the world’s largest biotechnology company, evade Medicare cost-cutting controls by delaying price restraints on a class of drugs used by kidney dialysis patients, including Sensipar, a drug made by Amgen. That provision was inserted into the final fiscal bill by Senate aides. Many members of Congress did not know it was in the bill until just hours before it was approved.

Although other companies will benefit financially from that delay, Amgen, which has 74 lobbyists in Washington, was the only company to lobby aggressively for the provision. The delay will cost the Medicare program up to $500 million over a two-year period.

The disturbing details were revealed in a report by Eric Lipton and Kevin Sack of The Times on Sunday. The maneuvering to exempt these drugs undercuts a five-year effort to change the incentives used to pay for kidney dialysis care. Previously, Medicare had paid providers separately for the drugs and for administering dialysis treatment, a system that often encouraged overprescribing.

But, in 2008, Congress reversed the incentives by requiring Medicare to pay a single, bundled rate for a patient’s dialysis treatment and related medications, starting in 2011. But certain oral drugs, including Sensipar, were given a two-year reprieve, to expire in 2014, from being included in that more cost-effective bundled system. The fiscal bill has now extended that exclusion for an additional two years.

Supporters of the delay — notably, Senator Max Baucus, a Democrat of Montana, who leads the Senate Finance Committee, and Orrin Hatch, of Utah, the ranking Republican on that committee — say it is needed to give the Medicare system and dialysis providers time to absorb other complicated changes in federal reimbursements for kidney care. But there is good reason to suspect other factors were involved as well. Both senators have political and financial ties to Amgen, as does Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, who exerted great influence over the fiscal negotiations and praised the Medicare provisions.

A top aide to Mr. Hatch, who was involved in negotiating the dialysis delay, previously worked as a health policy analyst for Amgen. The current lobbyists for Amgen include former chiefs of staff for both Mr. Baucus and Mr. McConnell. And the three senators have received substantial contributions from Amgen’s employees and its political action committee since 2007 — almost $68,000 to Senator Baucus, $59,000 to Senator Hatch, and $73,000 to Senator McConnell.

Amgen’s strong influence prevailed even though it had pleaded guilty just weeks ago to marketing an anti-anemia drug illegally and agreed to pay criminal and civil penalties of $762 million, a record settlement for a biotechnology company.