Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

December 13, 2006
By: Rachel Morris

BYE BYE BONILLA... Yesterday's news that Henry Bonilla lost his runoff in TX-23 to Democrat Ciro Rodriguez was surprising in one sense -- Bonilla had a couple of million dollars at his disposal, while Rodriguez has never inspired much confidence among Dems as a campaigner. But apart from Bonilla's sizeable financial advatange, all the other signs indicated that he was in real trouble.

One problem for Bonilla was that he was a major beneficiary of Tom DeLay's redistricting scheme, which moved Latino voters out of Bonilla's district to make way for more white ones. (Although Bonilla was the GOP's only Mexican-American representative, it's rarely noted that he's never actually commanded real Hispanic support.) The Supreme Court didn't like that idea, and ordered Texas courts to put the Latino voters back. Before the election, it seemed that Bonilla's hard line on illegal immigration -- he equated it with terrorism -- might have cost him with his newly restored (and already irritated) Hispanic constituents. Today, Hotline concludes that stance is probably what finished Bonilla off.

Rachel Morris 11:42 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (28)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

We can parse why all day. But what really matters is he is gone, and not a moment too soon.

(Frist?)

Posted by: Global Citizen on December 13, 2006 at 11:45 AM | PERMALINK

Wow! I am jazzed. Yet ANOTHER kick in teeth for the Repukeliscum.

Hey, where's Al?

Al, you sorry piece of shit, this is a real highlight for the DEMS. You know that the Dems have a LARGER MAJORITY THAN THE REPUKELISCUM EVER ACHIEVED?

WAHHHH!!!! Major league gloat-fest here.

Posted by: POed Lib on December 13, 2006 at 11:47 AM | PERMALINK

Hormonal Citizen:

This is how you say thank you to a fine public servant? The voters have spoken, they have obviously said the wrong thing, and now a good man has to find work so that he can stave off the impending tax increases which will be wrought by the Dumbocrats before Easter.

What is odd to me is that a Republican controlled Supreme Court issued a ruling which put a Republican in Texas, of all places, out of office. One cannot claim that the Dumbocrats did anything other than stand there and let us hand you a seat in the Congress. Of course, none of you has the grace or the good sense to admit that this is exactly what happened.

Proof positive that the Republican Party cares about this country and has the inner fortitude to do the right thing vs. hold on to a seat in the House of Representatives.

Would a Dumbocrat make the same move? Methinkk, no.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on December 13, 2006 at 11:52 AM | PERMALINK

He lived by the redistricting and died by the redistricting. Karma is such a bitch.

Posted by: ET on December 13, 2006 at 12:02 PM | PERMALINK

Fine public servant? WAHHHAHAHAHA!! Try "slavish reptilian lackey of corporate warmongering oppressors of the people"

I am just hoping that Henry contracts a serious disease. Now that he has lost health care, you repukeliscum preach that he is on his own. Wouldn't that just be too bad?

Posted by: POed Lib on December 13, 2006 at 12:04 PM | PERMALINK

There is a big difference between being seen as anti-illegal and being seen as anti-Mexicans. Mexicans in Texas are very pissed off about the first, like everyone else they see the obvious problems and understand quite well that the costs of these people are being pushed off to the public by their employers and they are not happy about paying for it (i.e., by losing jobs to illegals, by seeing their property taxes and insurance costs go up every year, with the slow, steady uptick of violent crime committed by illegals). But they are getting touchy about the second, and Bonilla wasn't too careful about that because he was playing to constituents who, while not very actively racist, aren't hugely fond of Mexicans.

If any Democrat has a strong interest in supporting legal immigration and deporting illegal aliens (yes, all of them), he or she would probably get 60% of the Mexican vote right off the bat. Lots of Mexicans in Texas have relatives in Mexico who have been trying to come over for ten or more years and can't, and they are seriously, seriously pissed at the illegal aliens for jumping the line and (courtesy of Bush) being rewarded for it.

Posted by: old_Bert on December 13, 2006 at 12:05 PM | PERMALINK

And what is AMAZING about this is the THOROUGHNESS of the spanking that the Democratic Party administered to the Repukeliscum!!! A 7-TERM incumbent lost by 10 %!!! BLOW-OUT CITY!!!!

Posted by: POed Lib on December 13, 2006 at 12:15 PM | PERMALINK

POed Lib,

Interesting point about health care - Do the "dearly departed" pols have their own version of COBRA? Or are they allowed to keep their esteemed plan in force?

Posted by: thethirdPaul on December 13, 2006 at 12:23 PM | PERMALINK

The link to Hotline seems to be broken.

Posted by: Simon St.Laurent on December 13, 2006 at 12:23 PM | PERMALINK

Norman --

You said, "What is odd to me is that a Republican controlled Supreme Court issued a ruling which put a Republican in Texas, of all places, out of office."

Gee, Norman. That's revealing. Clearly, you are expecting the Supreme Court to act like an integrated part of a political organization rather than what it is -- the highest court in the land.

Once upon a time, conservatives would have been aghast at the idea of the Supreme Court acting as an openly partisan manner, and making the law up rather than interpreting it. But, awww... what the hell. Who really cares about the Constitution anyway these days. It just gets in the way of the right results. Like W. said, it is just a piece of paper, right?

Posted by: Bokonon on December 13, 2006 at 12:49 PM | PERMALINK

Pokemon:

Clearly, you are expecting the Supreme Court to act like an integrated part of a political organization rather than what it is -- the highest court in the land.

Clearly, liberals cannot claim that it was an integrated part of a political organization when it ruled in favor of George Bush in 2000, yes?

Once upon a time, conservatives would have been aghast at the idea of the Supreme Court acting as an openly partisan manner, and making the law up rather than interpreting it. But, awww... what the hell. Who really cares about the Constitution anyway these days. It just gets in the way of the right results. Like W. said, it is just a piece of paper, right?

The Constitution is written on paper--did you think it was carved into stone? Are you that daft?

One cannot escape the irony--a good public servant is now out of a job and all liberals want to do is pray that the man gets a disease.

For shame!

Posted by: Norman Rogers on December 13, 2006 at 12:54 PM | PERMALINK

Just remember - it is only judicial activism when Democrats favor the ruling.

Posted by: Global Citizen on December 13, 2006 at 12:55 PM | PERMALINK

I was surprised at the big margin of Bonilla's loss.

Is it possible that the ads tying his opponent, Rodriguez, to terrorists, produced a backlash? Maybe when these stupid ads start backfiring, they will stop using them.

Reminds me of when Democrat Bill Orton took a seat from the Republicans in the most conservative corner of Utah (Provo). The Republican ran an ad touting his family "values" and showing a picture of his family. Then he showed a picture of Orton with his "family", he was a bachelor, so it was just Orton, all by his lonesome. The Republican lost two days later in a crushing landslide in the most conservative district in the country.

Goes to show ya.

Posted by: david on December 13, 2006 at 1:03 PM | PERMALINK

I hope that this election result motivates the Democratic House to pass the Bush/Senate version of the immigration reform, instead of waiting for some sort of optimal timing. The fence will be built in places, and the network of towers will be built; with that in the works, and with the Republicans having been hurt by their strong stand, I don't see how there is any advantage to the Democrats in waiting.

Here is a tangentially related matter:

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyid=2006-12-13T140243Z_01_N12380628_RTRUKOC_0_US-USA-SECURITY-RIGHTS.xml&src=rss&rpc=22

I hope Leahy does as he says, beginning with forceful and open committee hearings. I think in the end he'll change little, but the open debate will be worthwhile, and he may change more than I think. Leahy is a bulldog, and there is plenty reason to believe that he'll do this forcefully.

Posted by: MatthewRMarler on December 13, 2006 at 1:08 PM | PERMALINK

Does anyone have a cite for Bonilla "equat[ing] [illegal immigration] with terrorism"? I'm not familiar with his statements, but I wouldn't be surprised if Rachel Morris doesn't understand these issues or is misrepresenting his remarks.

In any case, the Democrats are generally much more relaxed about minor matters like illegal immigration than some Republicans. Trivial issues like illegal immigration leading to massive government corruption or Hezbollah having infiltrated the U.S. over the Mexican border are just trivial, minor, inconsequential matters compared to the things the Democrats care about like raising the minimum wage.

Posted by: TLB on December 13, 2006 at 1:15 PM | PERMALINK

Norman: What is odd to me is that a Republican controlled Supreme Court issued a ruling which put a Republican in Texas, of all places, out of office.

You seem to be saying that you expect, and hope, that the Republicans on the Supreme Court will literally ignore the Constitution and rule in favor of Republicans routinely. That expectation (without the hope) is what leftists generally think about Republican jurists. That's why they so frequently talk about the Bush v. Gore decision as a "coup", "stolen election", and so on. The Republican gerrymandering of Texas districts resulted in the Congressional delegation representing Texas more fairly, increased the number of Republican representatives by about 6, but now it has cost Bonilla his seat -- or rather the voters in his new district voted him out.

The Supreme Court let the Texans' votes count properly. Tough for Republicans.

Posted by: MatthewRMarler on December 13, 2006 at 1:16 PM | PERMALINK

Does anyone have a cite for Bonilla "equat[ing] [illegal immigration] with terrorism"? I'm not familiar with his statements, but I wouldn't be surprised if Rachel Morris doesn't understand these issues or is misrepresenting his remarks.

See, here, sir--Rachel Morris, while she may be a young, misguided liberal with too much education and free time, is still a person with feelings and I should think that a gentleman would apologize for insinuating that she may or may not understand the remarks of the man who was defeated today.

There is no problem with illegal immigration in this country; in point of fact, it's hard to find good help and we need more people to come to this country and do the work that is so vital for our economy.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on December 13, 2006 at 1:23 PM | PERMALINK

You seem to be saying that you expect, and hope, that the Republicans on the Supreme Court will literally ignore the Constitution and rule in favor of Republicans routinely. That expectation (without the hope) is what leftists generally think about Republican jurists. That's why they so frequently talk about the Bush v. Gore decision as a "coup", "stolen election", and so on. The Republican gerrymandering of Texas districts resulted in the Congressional delegation representing Texas more fairly, increased the number of Republican representatives by about 6, but now it has cost Bonilla his seat -- or rather the voters in his new district voted him out.

No, guess again, Daffy Duck.

I made the point that I made to show that liberals CANNOT claim that the Supreme Court acts in the interests of the Republican Party; this case serves as an example of where they have actually ruled against the best interests of the Party and helped a stumblebum Dumbocrat get a free ride into Washington DC on the taxpayers' dime.

If you had a grasp of the material at hand and/or a passing acquaintance with rhetorical discourse, you would be singing my praises (which doesn't happen nearly often enough around here.)

And you wonder why the message is confused these days. Get behind your uncle Norman and let me win the game for us!

Posted by: Norman Rogers on December 13, 2006 at 1:28 PM | PERMALINK

Norman Rogers: "This is how you say thank you to a fine public servant? The voters have spoken, they have obviously said the wrong thing, and now a good man has to find work so that he can stave off the impending tax increases which will be wrought by the Dumbocrats before Easter."

Thanks for being such a good sport.

In 1954, after (pre-statehood) Hawaii voters gave Democrats took control of the Territorial Legislature and elected John Burns their delegate to Congress, a defeated and discouraged GOP Congressional Delegate Betty Farrington lamented to the press that "[t]he people of Hawaii have let the Republican Party down."

Obviously, in fifty years some thing have not changed.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on December 13, 2006 at 1:44 PM | PERMALINK

Well, if he could have had Bobby Bonilla's .279 lifetime batting average, he might have hung around the "Bigs" longer.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on December 13, 2006 at 2:43 PM | PERMALINK

Norman:

A single negative does not disprove a general statement. A man and woman had sex somewhere last night, and the woman did not get pregnant. Does this "show" that sex does not cause pregnancy? Can you say reverse causal fallacy?

I made the point that I made to show that liberals CANNOT claim that the Supreme Court acts in the interests of the Republican Party; this case serves as an example of where they have actually ruled against the best interests of the Party and helped a stumblebum Dumbocrat get a free ride into Washington DC on the taxpayers' dime.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on December 13, 2006 at 1:28 PM |

Posted by: keith on December 13, 2006 at 7:26 PM | PERMALINK

"In any case, the Democrats are generally much more relaxed about minor matters like illegal immigration than some Republicans."

Yeah, TLB, just like our Republican president is all over this "minor matter," just like flies on shit. Yeah, just warms the heart to think of good old George Bush and his buddy friend Vicente Fox working hard (it's hard, I tell you, it's hard) to solve that illegal immigration problem. And all of Mr. Bush's corporate donors are strongly in favor of these efforts.

TLB, you are a dunce.

Posted by: Nixon Did It on December 13, 2006 at 7:29 PM | PERMALINK

President Nixon: You will note that I said "some" Republicans, and I specifically did not say "most" or "all" Republicans, and you will also note that I did so deliberately.

I realize perfectly well that Bush, other GOP leaders, and almost all Democrat leaders are part of the problem, and I've covered that in literally hundreds of posts at my site.

If anyone would like to learn more about these issues - including information the MSM tries to cover up and information that Kevin Drum And Friends don't know about or understand - visit my site.

Posted by: TLB on December 13, 2006 at 8:08 PM | PERMALINK

Norman, Norman, Norman. Calling other people names, attributing false arguments to them and tearing them down, and then whining about how mean liberals are. Tsk tsk. Playground troll stuff, dude. The self-pity angle is particularly unappealing.

About the Constitution being "only a sheet of paper," as the President called it: would you respect the document more if it was engraved in stone? Written in letters of gold on thin sheets of platinum, perhaps?

More specifically, are you claiming that the President can ignore the Constitution any time he deems necessary?

If so, you have no business calling yourself a conservative.

-- Bokonon

Posted by: Bokonon on December 13, 2006 at 8:14 PM | PERMALINK

keith:

A single negative does not disprove a general statement.

No, but the evidence that I posted does support my point, hence, you lose.

TLB:

If anyone would like to learn more about these issues - including information the MSM tries to cover up and information that Kevin Drum And Friends don't know about or understand - visit my site.

I hasten to add, sir, that we need these people to come to this country and take care of my needs--please do not hawk your wares here and attempt to stop any illegal immigration. Illegal immigration is the grease that makes the wheels in this country turn and I would appreciate it if you would stop trying to make it an issue when it is not.

Pokemon:

Calling other people names, attributing false arguments to them and tearing them down, and then whining about how mean liberals are. Tsk tsk. Playground troll stuff, dude. The self-pity angle is particularly unappealing.

I did none of these things when I destroyed your argument. You? I don't care about. Your argument? Dust in the wind.

About the Constitution being "only a sheet of paper," as the President called it: would you respect the document more if it was engraved in stone? Written in letters of gold on thin sheets of platinum, perhaps?

No, YOU stated that:

Who really cares about the Constitution anyway these days. It just gets in the way of the right results. Like W. said, it is just a piece of paper, right?

And, as I pointed out, yes, indeed, it IS a piece of paper and that is the honest truth. That is all the US Constitution is--a piece of paper. North is north, east is east, up is up and down is down. Are you drunk or did your medication arrive on the wrong day and in the wrong dosage?

More specifically, are you claiming that the President can ignore the Constitution any time he deems necessary?

No, again, sir: are you drunk? What the deuce are you babbling about? The fact that the Supreme Court made a ruling has what to do with what? Are you confused? Where are the central tenets of your argument? Oh, that's right--blowing in the wind as well.

If so, you have no business calling yourself a conservative.

I am a conservative; pity that counts for nothing in a forum such as this.


Posted by: Norman Rogers on December 13, 2006 at 8:57 PM | PERMALINK

Norman Rogers: What is odd to me is that a Republican controlled Supreme Court issued a ruling which put a Republican in Texas, of all places, out of office.

Norman rogers: If you had a grasp of the material at hand and/or a passing acquaintance with rhetorical discourse, you would be singing my praises (which doesn't happen nearly often enough around here.)

Norman, you are the one who used the word "odd" with respect to a correct court decision that worked against a Republican interst. If you meant something different from "odd", you need to apologize and say so. It can't be both "odd" and "common" for the Supreme Court to make correct decisions.

yours truly,

Daffy Duck

Posted by: MatthewRMarler on December 13, 2006 at 11:15 PM | PERMALINK

Daffy:

Norman, you are the one who used the word "odd" with respect to a correct court decision that worked against a Republican interst. If you meant something different from "odd", you need to apologize and say so. It can't be both "odd" and "common" for the Supreme Court to make correct decisions.

I meant "odd" as in, it is "odd" for a Republican to take an action against another Republican. It is against our credo. If that is "odd" to you, perhaps you should leave the Dumbocrat Party and join those of us in the Enlightened World.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on December 13, 2006 at 11:42 PM | PERMALINK

In any case, the Democrats are generally much more relaxed about minor matters like illegal immigration than some Republicans

I'll bet Bob Perry, one of the largest home builders in Texas and a major Republican donor who financed Bush's sleazy Swift Boat campagin in '04, isn't all that relaxed about illegal immigration. I'll bet 90% of his work force is illegal aliens. I've seen many a Perry home under construction and, like all the other homes in Texas, the workers tend not to be native speakers of English.

Immigration is an issue that is going to kill Republicans. First, it splits their Southern-fried, pick-up drivin' base from their country club, big bidness financial backers. Even worse, all the tough talk drives Hispanic voters to the Democrats. In red states like Texas, Arizona and Nevada that will have a huge impact in the future.

Posted by: Pug on December 14, 2006 at 9:03 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly