Let ‘em Go? 15.April.09
Posted by checkypantz in Uncategorized.trackback
So, today, Republic of Texas President Governor Rick Perry obliquely announced that Texas could secede from the union.
First: Wow. Everything’s bigger in Texas, even Teh Crazy.
Second: he clearly hasn’t thought this through. Texas secession = immediate brain drain in Houston, because Texas doesn’t get to keep NASA. Also, good luck in cleaning up Galveston the next time another Ike comes through. Also, good luck on building that border fence y’all are so fond of talking about.
Third: This is addressed specifically to my Republican friends who don’t live in Texas: You will never have another Republican president in your lifetimes. Let alone the fact that you’ll have to live down the albatross of being the party that rent the Union asunder, losing Texas puts an impossible strain on your Electoral College hopes. Texas represented 34 electoral votes in the 2004 and 2008 elections, 32 in the ‘92, ‘96 and ‘00, and 29 in the 80’s. Care to imagine what those elections might have looked like without Texas?
2004: In the real world, Bush won 286 to 252 (let’s imagine that the weirdo in MN actually voted for Kerry, not an Ewards / Edwards ticket). In the Forty-Nine United States (the Seven Squared), the 2004 election would have ended in an electoral lockup at 252. With two fewer Senators and 22 fewer Representatives, it’s not clear-cut that the Congress would have been leaning Republican, and thus unclear that a tie would have automatically gone for Someone Other Than Bush (since, being from Texas, might not have been eligible to run in the first place). Result: Unclear, but likely Kerry wins.
2000: Real world: Bush 271, Gore 266. Seven Squared outcome: Bush’s alt-hist replacement 239, Gore 266. Gore wins handily, and Katherine Harris never becomes a notable figure in history.
1996: Was alreadya Clinton cakewalk, but the margin for Dole gets that much more embarrassing: 379-127.
1992: Clinton’s first election is an easy victory over George H. W. Bush’s alt-history replacement (most likely: Howard Baker of Tennessee, who could match Bush’s chops in intel & defence, or, without TX as the southern anchor, a pick from the NE like Lowell Weicker.), 370-136.
1988: Bush was never Vice President (ineligible to run), so Reagan’s VP pick in ‘80 might have been someone like PA Senator Richard Schweiker, Reagan’s pick in ‘76, when he lost the nomination to Ford, or someone else. (Bob Dole, arguably the heart and soul of the party, at least in the Senate, was probably an unlikely candidate for the job, sharing the same mid-west roots and fiscal conservatism that Reagan possessed. He wouldn’t expand the ticket by a whole lot. Schweiker, Baker, Weicker, Dole – one of them go up against Dukakis in 1988. Aside from being one of the biggest snoozefests in the history of narcolepsy, it’s hard to extrapolate which alt-history VP-cum-candidate would have made the biggest impact, and who (if any of them) would have beaten Dukakis. In any event, the real world 1988 results were 426-111 for GHWB. It would have been much, much closer than that (397-111 at a minimum, minus GHWB’s stature on the world stage), and the biggest swing in electoral college history (as the Democrats mount an amazing comeback from the alt-hist 496-13 drubbing they took in 1984). But, hell, I’m feeling generous. Let’s say the Republicans still carry in ‘88.
So, ignoring for the moment that it wouldn’t have even been GWB running in 2000 and 2004, The Democrats win five consecutive Presidential elections, aren’t out of power nearly as long in Congress (because remember, you Republicans suffer a net loss ten or more seats in every session – not enough to overcome 1994, but it makes the D comeback easier), and we don’t have to listen to the insufferable Jerry Jones talk about how awesome his Cowboys are. Ever.
In short, a Texas secession virtually guarantees that Democrats win the White House for the foreseeable future. It behooves you, my Republican friends not in Texas, to beg and plead with Perry and his ilk (tea partiers, all) to tone down the crazy a bit. You are doing nothing good for your party, or the country.
(There’s another side of me that thinks, as a Democrat, and a cynic, let them go. Not worrying about Texas’ EVs, plus the benefit of everyone not liking a brown-skinned President moving to the same former State and out of the United States, seems like it might not be such a bad thing. Plus, I’m going to San Antonio in August for a conference. It’ll give me an excuse to renew my passport and collect some of that crazy foreign money you non-Americans use.)
PS: The DHS report that came out this week talking about the dangers of “right-wing extremists” was not talking about you, my Republican friends (yes, even you, Texas), unless you choose to affiliate yourself with Timothy McVeigh circa 14 years ago this week, or Richard Poplawski circa two weeks ago. Let’s put that canard to rest now, shall we?
On another note, if the ice cap keeps melting and the east and west coast become part of the oceans, thus losing their senate and representative seats and electoral votes, the Republican Party will once again dominate and you may not have another democratic President in your lifetime. But, in your favor, I have changed light bulbs and I do recycle. LOL
And believe me, we would not miss Jerry Johnson, Mack Brown, or any of the Texas Longhorns.
HA! Well, there you go – even the earth believes in the two party system.
FWIW, Jason, the document you mentioned at the end of your post is pretty poorly written. If you actually read the document itself (not the vague quotes in media articles) it defines right wing “extremists” pretty clearly, and yes, broadly. It might not have been the INTENTION of the document to suggest that (for example) people who believe in states-rights are “extremists” but the document states pretty much exactly that.
Unfortunately, most of the document is covered in For Official Use Only and Law Enforcement Sensitive markings, so it can’t really be quoted directly to prove my point.
One particularly frightening thing in the document is the claim that even though several of these groups are not now and have never before been violent that they should be investigated anyway because they are likely to be unhappy with the policies of the current administration.
B, I went back and read the report again, and I guess I can see some of the vagueness you’re talking about. The key point, though, is right at the start of the report (I’ll give you chapter & verse offline if you want) where it pretty clearly links the concept of extremism with violent acts and terrorism.
My larger point in the postscript, though, is the reflex that some conservatives had to the report. The automatic assumption that the report was a signal to the non-violent conservative movement that they would soon be watched (or worse) as Enemies of the State was not the reaction the report should have engendered. Not everyone has the time or desire to sift through government reports and examining their minutiae – those folks tend to consume the media outlet(s) of their choice, and it’s simple intellectual dishonesty for folks (and I’m going to name names here) like Malkin to cherry-pick quotes for the masses to hear, knowing full well that most people won’t take the time to verify what they’re being told.
Also, what’s been almost completely ignored is the fact that a mirror report about leftwing extremism was also released by the DHS back in January, and while the report does paint some similarly broad strokes against animal rights activists and environmental extremists, there wasn’t the same sense of outrage. It’s my contention that, as with the report that came out this week, it is clear (in context) what groups or individuals were the objects of scrutiny – and it’s not your everyday, run-of-the-mill treesitter.