Mediaboss Marketing

The Australian Democrats was a centrist[1]political party in Australia with a social-liberal ideology. The party was formed in 1977, a merger of the Australia Party and the New Liberal Movement, with former Liberal minister Don Chipp as its high-profile leader. Though never achieving a seat in the House of Representatives, the party had considerable influence in the Senate for the following thirty years. Its representation in the Parliament of Australia ended on 30 June 2008, after loss of its four remaining Senate seats at the 2007 general election. As of October 2012[update], the organisation had disintegrated and control was contested by two factions associated with two former parliamentarians.[2] The party was deregistered by the Australian Electoral Commission on 16 April 2015 due to the party's failure to demonstrate requisite 500 members to maintain registration.[3] Even before its deregistration and since it became extinct as a parliamentary party anywhere in Australia, the party saw many of its prominent members including former federal party leader Andrew Bartlett and former NSW MLC Arthur Chesterfield-Evans defect to the Greens.

The party was founded on principles of honesty, tolerance, compassion and direct democracy through postal ballots of all members, so that "there should be no hierarchical structure ... by which a carefully engineered elite could make decisions for the members."[4]:p187 From the outset, members' participation was fiercely protected in national and divisional constitutions prescribing internal elections, regular meeting protocols, annual conferencesand monthly journals for open discussion and balloting. Dispute resolution procedures were established, with final recourse to a party ombudsman and membership ballot.

Policies determined by the unique participatory method promoted environmental awareness and sustainability, opposition to the primacy of economic rationalism (Australian neoliberalism), preventative approaches to human health and welfare, animal rights, rejection of nuclear technology and weapons.

The Australian Democrats were the first representatives of green politics at the federal level in Australia. They played a key role in the cause clbre of the Franklin River Dam.

The party's centrist role made it subject to criticism from both the right and left of the political spectrum. In particular, Chipp's former conservative affiliation was frequently recalled by opponents on the left.[n 1] This problem was to torment later leaders and strategists who, by 1991, were proclaiming "the electoral objective" as a higher priority than the rigorous participatory democracy espoused by the party's founders.[n 2]

Over three decades, the Australian Democrats achieved representation in the legislatures of the ACT, South Australia, New South Wales, Western Australia and Tasmania as well as Senate seats in all six states. However, at the 2004 and 2007 federal elections, all seven of its Senate seats were lost.[5] The last remaining State parliamentarian, David Winderlich, left the party and was defeated as an independent in 2010.

On the evening of 29 April 1977, Don Chipp addressed an overflowing Perth Town Hall meeting which unanimously passed a resolution to form a Centre-Line Party, which Chipp was invited to lead[4]:p185but he firmly declined to reverse his avowed decision to quit politics, having resigned from the Liberal Party and been offered a lucrative position as a radio public affairs commentator. The Centre-Line Party was the provisional title of the Australian Democrats party.[4]:p 185 The occasion was a meeting at the Perth Town Hall to which Don Chipp had been invited in the hope that he would accept the position of leader of the new party, which would be an amalgamation of the Australia Party and the New Liberal Movement. On that occasion, Chipp declined to commit himself but did so at a corresponding public meeting in Melbourne on 9 May 1977. Chipp received a standing ovation from over 3,000 people, including former Prime Minister John Gorton, and decided to commit himself to leading the new party which was already being constructed by a national steering committee.[4]:p186 The new party was eventually renamed the Australian Democrats by a ballot of its membership. "Fifty-six suggestions produced by members were listed on the ballot paper, including Uniting Australia Party, Australian Centre Line Party, Dinkum Democrats, Practical Idealists of Australia and People for Sanity Party!! After the ballot, the suggestion of the Steering Committee, 'Australian Democrats', was overwhelmingly accepted."[4]:p188 The name "Australian Democrats" was already in informal currency before this decision.[6]

The first Australian Democrats (AD) federal parliamentarian was Senator Janine Haines who filled Steele Hall's casual Senate vacancy for South Australia in 1977. Surprisingly, she was not a candidate when the party contested the 1977 federal elections after Don Chipp had agreed to be leader and figurehead. Members and candidates were not lacking in electoral experience, since the Australia Party had been contesting all federal elections since 1969 and the Liberal Movement, in 1974 and 1975. The party's broad aim was to achieve a balance of power in one or more parliaments and to exercise it responsibly in line with policies determined by membership.

The grassroot support attracted by Chipp's leadership was measurable at the party's first electoral test at the 1977 federal election on 10 December, when 9.38 per cent of the total Lower House vote was polled and 11.13 per cent of the Senate vote. At that time, with five Senate seats being contested in each state, the required quota was a daunting 16.66 per cent. However, the first 6-year-term seats were won by Don Chipp (Vic) and Colin Mason (NSW).

The Australian Democrats' first national conference, on 1617 February 1980, was opened by the distinguished nuclear physicist and former governor of South Australia, Sir Mark Oliphant, who said:

I was privileged to be in the chair at the public meeting in Melbourne when [Don Chipp] announced formation of a new party, dedicated to preserve what freedoms we still retain, and to increase them. A party in which dictatorship from the top was replaced by consensus. A party not ordered about by big business and the rich, or by union bosses. A party where a man could retain freedom of conscience and not thereby be faced with expulsion. A party to which the intelligent individual could belong without having to subscribe to a dogmatic creed. In other words, a democratic party.[7]

At a Melbourne media conference on 19 September 1980, in the midst of the 1980 election campaign, Chipp described his party's aim as to "keep the bastards honest"the "bastards" being the major parties and/or politicians in general. This became a long-lived slogan for the Democrats.[8]

At the October 1980 election, the Democrats polled 9.25 per cent of the Senate vote, electing Janine Haines (SA) and two new senators Michael Macklin (Qld) and John Siddons (Vic), bringing the party's strength to five Senate seats from 1 July 1981 .

A by-election in the South Australian state seat of Mitcham (now Waite) saw Heather Southcott retain the seat for the Democrats in 1982. Since 1955 it had been held by conservative lawyer Robin Millhouse whose New Liberal Movement merged into the Democrats in 1977, and who was resigning to take up a senior judicial appointment. Southcott was defeated later that year at the 1982 state election. Mitcham was the only single-member lower-house seat anywhere in Australia to be won by the Democrats.

Don Chipp resigned from the Senate on 18 August 1986, being succeeded as party leader by Janine Haines and replaced as a senator for Victoria by Janet Powell.

At the 1987 election following a double dissolution, the reduced quota of 7.7% necessary to win a seat assisted the election of three new senators. 6-year terms were won by Paul McLean (NSW) and incumbents Janine Haines (South Australia) and Janet Powell (Victoria). In South Australia, a second senator, John Coulter, was elected for a 3-year term, as were incumbent Michael Macklin (Queensland) and Jean Jenkins (Western Australia).

1990 saw the voluntary departure from the Senate of Janine Haines (a step with which not all Democrats agreed) and the failure of her strategic goal of winning the House of Representatives seat of Kingston.

The casual vacancy was filled by Meg Lees several months before the election of Cheryl Kernot in place of retired deputy leader Michael Macklin. The ambitious Kernot immediately contested the party's national parliamentary deputy leadership. Being unemployed at the time, she requested and obtained party funds to pay for her travel to address members in all seven divisions.[9] In the event, Victorian Janet Powell was elected as leader and John Coulter was chosen as deputy leader.

Despite the loss of Haines and the WA Senate seat (through an inconsistent national preference agreement with the ALP), the 1990 federal election heralded something of a rebirth for the party, with a dramatic rise in primary vote. This was at the same time as an economic recession was building, and events such as the Gulf War in Kuwait were beginning to shepherd issues of globalisation and transnational trade on to national government agendas.

Virtually alone on the Australian political landscape, Janet Powell consistently attacked both the government and opposition which had closed ranks in support of the Gulf War. Whereas the House of Representatives was thus able to avoid any debate about the war and Australia's participation,[n 3][10] the Democrats took full advantage of the opportunity to move for a debate in the Senate.[11]

Possibly because of the party's opposition to the Gulf War, there was mass-media antipathy and negative publicity which some construed as poor media performance by Janet Powell, the party's standing having stalled at about 10%. Before 12 months of her leadership had passed, the South Australian and Queensland divisions were circulating the party's first-ever petition to criticise and oust the parliamentary leader. The explicit grounds related to Powell's alleged responsibility for poor AD ratings in Gallup and other media surveys of potential voting support. When this charge was deemed insufficient, interested party officers and senators reinforced it with negative media 'leaks' concerning her openly established relationship with Sid Spindler[12] and exposure of administrative failings resulting in excessive overtime to a staff member. With National Executive blessing, the party room pre-empted the ballot by replacing the leader with deputy John Coulter. In the process, severe internal divisions were generated. One major collateral casualty was the party whip Paul McLean who resigned and quit the Senate in disgust at what he perceived as in-fighting between close friends. The casual NSW vacancy created by his resignation was filled by Karin Sowada. Powell duly left the party, along with many leading figures of the Victorian branch of the party, and unsuccessfully stood as an Independent candidate when her term expired. In later years, she campaigned for the Australian Greens.

Because of their numbers on the cross benches during the Hawke and Keating governments, the Democrats were sometimes regarded as exercising a balance of powerwhich attracted electoral support from a significant sector of the electorate which had been alienated by both Labor and Coalition policies and practices. The party's parliamentary influence was weakened in 1996 after the Howard Government was elected, and a Labor senator, Mal Colston, resigned from the Labor Party. Since the Democrats now shared the parliamentary balance of power with two Independent senators, the Coalition government was able on occasion to pass legislation by negotiating with Colston and Brian Harradine. Following the 1998 election the Australian Democrats again held the balance of power, until the Coalition gained a Senate majority at the 2004 election.

The party's integrity as a neutral third party suffered a serious blow from the resignation and defection of leader Cheryl Kernot in October 1997,[13] with revelations of her sexual relationship with Gareth Evans and her aspirations to a ministerial position in a Labor government.[14]

Under Lees' leadership, in the 1998 federal election, the Democrats' candidate John Schumann came within 2 per cent of taking Liberal Foreign Minister Alexander Downer's seat of Mayo in the Adelaide Hills under Australia's preferential voting system. The party's representation increased to nine senators.

Internal conflict and leadership tensions from 2000 to 2002, blamed on the party's support for the Government's Goods and Services Tax (GST), was damaging to the Democrats. Opposed by the Labor Party, the Australian Greens and independent Senator Harradine, the GST required Democrat support to pass. In an election fought on tax, the Democrats publicly stated that they liked neither the Liberal (GST) tax package nor the Labor package, but pledged to work with whichever party was elected to make their tax package better. They campaigned with the slogan "No GST on food".[15][not in citation given][16]

In 1999, after negotiations with Prime Minister Howard, Meg Lees, Andrew Murray and the party room Senators agreed to support the A New Tax System (ANTS) legislation[17] with exemptions from GST for most food and some medicines, as well as many environmental and social concessions.[18][19] Five Australian Democrats senators voted in favour.[20] However, two dissident senators on the party's left Natasha Stott Despoja and Andrew Bartlett voted against the GST.[21][22]

In 2001, a leadership spill saw Meg Lees replaced as leader[23] by Natasha Stott Despoja after a very public and bitter leadership battle.[24] Despite criticism of Stott Despoja's youth and lack of experience, the 2001 election saw the Democrats receive similar media coverage to the previous election.[25] Despite the internal divisions, the Australian Democrats' election result in 2001 was quite good. However, it was not enough to prevent the loss of Vicki Bourne's Senate seat in NSW.

The 2002 South Australian state election was the last time an Australian Democrat would be elected to an Australian parliament. Sandra Kanck was re-elected to a second eight-year term from an upper house primary vote of 7.3 percent.

Resulting tensions between Stott Despoja and Lees led to Meg Lees leaving the party in 2002, becoming an independent and forming the Australian Progressive Alliance. Stott Despoja stood down from the leadership following a loss of confidence by her party room colleagues.[26] It led to a protracted leadership battle in 2002, which eventually led to the election of Senator Andrew Bartlett as leader. While the public fighting stopped, the public support for the party remained at record lows.

On 6 December 2003, Bartlett stepped aside temporarily as leader of the party, after an incident in which he swore at Liberal Senator Jeannie Ferris on the floor of Parliament while intoxicated.[27] The party issued a statement stating that deputy leader Lyn Allison would serve as the acting leader of the party. Bartlett apologised to the Democrats, Jeannie Ferris and the Australian public for his behaviour and assured all concerned that it would never happen again. On 29 January 2004, after seeking medical treatment, Bartlett returned to the Australian Democrats leadership, vowing to abstain from alcohol.

Support for the Australian Democrats fell significantly at the 2004 federal election in which they achieved only 2.4 per cent of the national vote. Nowhere was this more noticeable than in their key support base of suburban Adelaide in South Australia, where they received between 7 and 31 per cent of the Lower House vote in 2001, and between 1 and 4 per cent in 2004. Three incumbent senators were defeatedAden Ridgeway (NSW), Brian Greig (WA) and John Cherry (Qld). Following the loss, the customary post-election leadership ballot installed Lyn Allison as leader and Andrew Bartlett as her deputy.

From 1 July 2005 the Australian Democrats lost official parliamentary party status, being represented by only four senators while the governing Liberal-National Coalition gained a majority and potential control of the Senatethe first time this advantage had been enjoyed by any government since 1980.

On 5 January 2006, the ABC reported that the Tasmanian Electoral Commission had de-registered that division of the party for failing to provide a list containing the required number of members to be registered for Tasmanian state and local elections.[28]

On 18 March 2006, at the 2006 South Australian state election, the Australian Democrats were reduced to 1.7 per cent of the Legislative Council (upper house) vote. Their sole councillor up for re-election, Kate Reynolds, was defeated.

After the election, South Australian senator Natasha Stott Despoja denied rumours that she was considering quitting the party.[29]

In early July, Richard Pascoe, national and South Australian party president, resigned, citing slumping opinion polls and the poor result in the 2006 South Australian election as well as South Australian parliamentary leader Sandra Kanck's comments regarding the drug MDMA which he saw as damaging to the party.[30][31][32]

On 5 July 2006, Australian Democrats senator for Western Australia Andrew Murray announced his intention not to contest the 2007 federal election, citing frustration arising from the Howard Government's control of both houses and his unwillingness to serve another six-year term.[33] His term ended on 30 June 2008.

On 28 August 2006, the founder of the Australian Democrats, Don Chipp, died. Former prime minister Bob Hawke said: "... there is a coincidental timing almost between the passing of Don Chipp and what I think is the death throes of the Democrats.[34] "

On 22 October 2006, Australian Democrats Senator Natasha Stott Despoja announced her intention not to seek re-election at the 2007 federal election due to health concerns.[35] Her term ended on 30 June 2008.

In November 2006, the Australian Democrats fared very poorly in the Victorian state election, receiving a Legislative Council vote tally of only 0.83%,[36] less than half of the party's result in 2002 (1.79 per cent).[37]

In the New South Wales state election of March 2007, the Australian Democrats lost their last remaining NSW Upper House representative, Arthur Chesterfield-Evans. The party fared poorly, gaining only 1.8 per cent of the Legislative Council vote. A higher vote was achieved in some of the Legislative Assembly seats selectively contested as compared to 2003. However, the statewide vote share fell because the party was unable to field as many candidates as in 2003.

In the Victorian state by-election in Albert Park District[38] the Australian Democrats stood candidate Paul Kavanagh, who polled 5.75 per cent of the primary vote, despite a large number of candidates, and all[citation needed] media attention focusing on the battle between Labor and Greens candidates.

On 13 September 2007, the ACT Democrats (Australian Capital Territory Division of the party) was deregistered[39] by the ACT Electoral Commissioner, being unable to demonstrate a minimum membership of 100 electors.

The Democrats had no success at the 2007 federal election. Two incumbent senators, Lyn Allison (Victoria) and Andrew Bartlett (Queensland), were defeated, their seats both reverting to major parties. Their two remaining colleagues, Andrew Murray (WA) and Natasha Stott Despoja (SA), did not run for new terms. All four senators' terms expired on 30 June 2008leaving the Australian Democrats with no federal representation for the first time since its founding in 1977. An ABC report noted that "on the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) website the party is now referred to just as 'other'".[40]

The last of the party's state upper-house members, David Winderlich, resigned from the party in October 2009[41] and was defeated as an independent at the 2010 election.

In March 2012, the Australian Electoral Commission queried a Democrats submission of 550 names of purported members and proposed deregistering the party for having fewer than 500 members, the threshold needed for registration.[42] The Commission later satisfied itself that the party had sufficient membership to continue its registration.

The Democrats did not nominate a single candidate in the 2014 South Australian election, in the party's state of origin.

On 16 April 2015, the Australian Electoral Commission deregistered the Australian Democrats as a political party for failure to demonstrate the requisite 500 members to maintain registration.[3]

The Australian Democrats have said they will appeal the AEC decision, which under the legislation is reviewable.[43][44][45]

The party's original support base consisted of voters alienated by perceived unproductive adversarial conflict between the two mainstream parties and an emerging new constituency of people with a desire to participate more effectively in government and to promote concerns for environmental protection and social justice. The party aimed to combine liberal social policies with centrist, particularly neo-Keynesian economics and a progressive environmental platform.

The original agenda included interventionist economic policies, commitment to environmental causes, support for reconciliation with Australia's indigenous population through such mechanisms as formal treaties, pacifist approaches to international relations, open government, constitutional reform, progressive approaches to social issues such as sexuality and drugs, and strong support for human rights and civil liberties. Its membership largely comprised tertiary-educated and middle-class constituents. The party also appealed to voters opposed to untrammeled government power and wishing to have alternative views aired in parliaments and media.

The party has a platform of participatory democracy, with policies supporting proportional representation and citizen-initiated referenda. Many important internal issues (such as electoral preselection and leadership) are decided by direct postal ballot of the membership. Although policies are theoretically set in a similar fashion, Australian Democrats parliamentarians generally had extensive freedom in interpreting them.

However, by 1980, the Australian Democrats had employed the postal-ballot method at both national at state levels to develop an extensive body of written policy covering not only the political agendas of the day but also innovative and far-sighted policies for environmental and economic sustainability, water and energy conservation, e.g., through development of alternative energy sources, expanded public transport, etc. To the community's growing concerns about human rights, the Australian Democrats added finely detailed policies on animal welfare and species preservation. The material is available in election manifestos and copies of the party's journals, obtainable in major public libraries.

In a 2009 "rebuild" process, the party announced creation of a new policy process, attempts to improve internal communication, and envisaged development of a new party constitution.[46]

Prior to the 2013 federal election, the party, though factionally divided into two separate organisations,[47] was able to publish a comprehensive package of member-balloted policies.[48]

Support for the Democrats historically tended to fluctuate between about 5 and 10 per cent of the population and was geographically concentrated around the wealthy dense CBD and inner-suburban neighbourhoods of the capital cities (especially Adelaide). Therefore, they never managed to win a House of Representatives seat. During the 1980s, 1990s and early 2000s they typically held one or two Senate seats in each state, as well as having some representatives in state parliaments.[49]

Following the internal conflict over GST (19982001) and resultant leadership changes, a dramatic decline occurred in the Democrats' membership and voting support in all states. Simultaneously, an increase was recorded in support for the Australian Greens who, by 2004, were supplanting the Democrats as a substantial third party. The trend was noted that year by political scientists Dean Jaensch et al.[50] Elsewhere, Jaensch later suggested it was possible the Democrats could make a political comeback in the federal arena.[51]

Following Tony Abbott's displacement of Malcolm Turnbull as federal leader of the Liberal Party in 2009, the Democrats sought to attract the support of "those Liberals who no longer feel they can support their party".[52]

Of the party's nine elected federal parliamentary leaders, six were women. Aboriginal senator Aden Ridgeway was deputy leader under Natasha Stott Despoja. Ridgeway was technically leader between Stott Despoja's resignation and the appointment of Brian Greig as interim leader.

More:
Australian Democrats - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For approximately 100 years, from the end of Reconstruction until the 1990s, the Democratic Party was dominant in Texas politics. After renewed competition from the Populist Party in the late 19th century and loss of a Congressional seat in 1896 and 1898 to a Republican elected by a plurality, the Democratic Party ensured its control by disfranchising most blacks, and many poor whites and Latinos, through imposition of the poll tax and white primaries in the early 20th century, as did other former Confederate states. These exclusions lasted until after passage of civil rights legislation in the mid-1960s.

In a reversal of alignments, since the late 1960s the Republican Party has grown more prominent within the state. By the mid-1990s, it became the state's dominant political party. This trend mirrors a national political realignment that has seen the once solidly Democratic South, initially dependent on disfranchisement of minorities, become increasingly dominated by Republicans. But growth among the Hispanic or Latino population in Texas, which favors the Democratic Party, may shift party alignments in the long term.

The traditional culture of the state was heavily influenced by the plantation culture of the Old South, dependent on African-American slave labor, as well as the patron system once prevalent (and still somewhat present) in northern Mexico and South Texas. In these societies the government's primary role was seen as being the preservation of social order. Solving of individual problems in society was seen as a local problem with the expectation that the individual should resolve his or her own issues.[1] These influences continue to affect Texas today. In their book, Texas Politics Today 2009-2010, authors Maxwell, Crain, and Santos attribute Texas' traditionally low voter turnout to these influences.[1] In addition, beginning in the early 20th century, voter turnout was dramatically reduced by disfranchisement of most blacks, and many poor whites and Latinos.[2]

From 1848 until Richard M. Nixon's victory in 1972, Texas voted for the Democratic candidate for president in every election except 1928, when it did not support Catholic Al Smith; and 1952 and 1956, when it joined the landslide for Dwight D. Eisenhower. (Texas did not vote in 1864 and 1868 due to the Civil War and Reconstruction).[3] From 1902 through 1965, Texas had virtually disfranchised most blacks and many Latinos and poor whites through the poll tax and white primaries.

Two of the most important Republican figures of the post-Civil War era were African Americans George T. Ruby and Norris Wright Cuney. Ruby was a black community organizer, director in the federal Freedmen's Bureau, and leader of the Galveston Union League. His protg Cuney was a mulatto whose wealthy, white planter father freed him and his siblings before the Civil War and arranged his education in Pennsylvania. Cuney returned and settled in Galveston, where he became active in the Union League and the Republican party; he rose to the leadership of the party. He became influential in Galveston and Texas politics, and is widely regarded as one of the most influential black leaders in the South during the 19th century.

In the post-Reconstruction era, by the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the Republican Party became non-competitive in the South, due to Democratic-dominated legislatures' disfranchisement of blacks and many poor whites and Latinos. In Texas, the legislature excluded them through passage of a poll tax and white primary. As can be seen on the graph at the following link, voter turnout in Texas declined dramatically following these disfranchisement measures, and Southern voting was far below the national average.[4] This resulted in their nearly total exclusion from formal politics, when blacks made up 20 percent of the state population.[5] Republican support in Texas had been based almost exclusively in the free black communities, particularly in Galveston, and the so-called "German counties" the rural Texas Hill Country inhabited by German Americans, who had opposed slavery in the antebellum period. Republican Harry M. Wurzbach was elected from the 14th district from 1920 to 1926, contesting and finally winning the election of 1928, and being re-elected in 1930.

Some of the most important American political figures of the 20th century, such as President Lyndon B. Johnson, Vice-President John Nance Garner, Speaker of the House Sam Rayburn, and Senator Ralph Yarborough were Texas Democrats. But, the Texas Democrats were rarely united, being divided into conservative, moderate and liberal factions that vied with one another for power.

The rebirth of the Republican Party in Texas can be traced back to 1952, when Democratic Governor Allan Shivers clashed with the Truman Administration over the claim on the Tidelands. He worked to help Dwight D. Eisenhower, who was born in Texas, carry the state. Beginning in the late 1960s, Republican strength increased in Texas, particularly in the growing "country club suburbs" around Dallas and Houston. The election of Republicans such as John Tower and George H. W. Bush to Congress in 1960 and 1966, respectively, reflected this trend. Nationally, Democrats supported the civil rights movement and achieved important passage of federal legislation in the mid-1960s. Following passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964, southern Democrats began to leave the party and join the Republicans.

Unlike the rest of the South, however, Texas was never especially supportive of the various third-party candidacies of Southern Democrats. It was the only state in the former Confederacy to back Democrat Hubert Humphrey in the 1968 presidential election. The 1980s saw a number of defections by conservative Democrats to the GOP, including Senator Phil Gramm, Congressman Kent Hance, and GOP Governor Rick Perry, who was a Democrat during his time as a state lawmaker.

John Tower's 1961 election to the U.S. Senate made him the first statewide GOP officeholder since Reconstruction. Governor Bill Clements and Senator Phil Gramm (also a former Democrat) followed. Republicans became increasingly dominant in national elections in Texas. The last Democratic presidential candidate to win the state was Jimmy Carter in 1976. Previously, a Democrat had to win Texas to win the White House, but in the 1992 election, Bill Clinton won the Oval Office while losing Texas electoral votes. This significantly reduced the power of Texas Democrats at the national level, as party leaders believed the state had become unwinnable.

Despite increasing Republican strength in national elections, after the 1990 census, Texas Democrats still controlled both houses of the State Legislature and most statewide offices. As a result, they were able to direct the redistricting process. Although Congressional Texas Democrats received an average of 40 percent of the votes, Democrats consistently had a majority in the state delegation, as they had in every election since at least the end of Reconstruction.

In 1994, Democratic Governor Ann Richards lost her bid for re-election against Republican George W. Bush, ending an era in which Democrats controlled the governorship all but eight of the past 120 years. Republicans have held the governorship ever since. In 1998, Bush won re-election in a landslide victory, with Republicans sweeping to victory in all the statewide races.

After the 2000 census, the Republican-controlled state Senate sought to draw a congressional district map that would guarantee a Republican majority in the state's delegation. The Democratic-controlled state House desired to retain a plan similar to the existing lines. There was an impasse. With the Legislature unable to reach a compromise, the matter was settled by a panel of federal court judges, who ruled in favor of a district map that largely retained the status quo.

But, Republicans dominated the Legislative Redistricting Board, which draws the lines for the state legislative districts, by a majority of four to one. The Republicans on this board used their voting strength to adopt a map for the state Senate that was even more favorable to the Republicans and a map for the state House that also strongly favored them as Democrats had before.

In 2002, Texas Republicans gained control of the Texas House of Representatives for the first time since Reconstruction. The newly elected Republican legislature engaged in an unprecedented mid-decade redistricting plan. Democrats said that the redistricting was a blatant partisan gerrymander, while Republicans argued that it was a much-needed correction of the partisan lines drawn after the 1990 census. The result was a gain of six seats by the Republicans in the 2004 elections, giving them a majority of the state's delegation for the first time since Reconstruction.

In December 2005, the US Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal that challenged the legality of this redistricting plan. While largely upholding the map, it ruled the El Paso-to-San Antonio 23rd District, which had been a protected majority-Latino district until the 2003 redistricting, was unconstitutionally drawn. The ruling forced nearly every district in the El Paso-San Antonio corridor to be reconfigured. Partly due to this, Democrats picked up two seats in the state in the 2006 elections. The 23rd's Republican incumbent was defeated in this electionthe first time a Democratic House challenger unseated a Texas Republican incumbent in 10 years.

Republicans control all statewide Texas offices, both houses of the state legislature and have a majority in the Texas congressional delegation. This makes Texas one of the most Republican states in the U.S.[citation needed]

Despite overall Republican dominance, Austin, the state capital, is primarily Democratic, as are El Paso and the Rio Grande Valley. However, the suburbs of these cities remain heavily Republican.[citation needed]

Texas, like California, is now a minority-majority state. This means that non-Hispanic whites no longer make up a majority of the population. This is predominantly due to the booming Hispanic population, which accounted for 38.1% of the state's population as of 2011[update] (compared to 44.8% for non-Hispanic whites).[6]

The state's changing demographics may well result in a change in its overall political alignment. As most Hispanic and Latino voters support the Democratic Party, Texas may eventually become a tossup state in presidential elections and turn blue for the first time since 1976.[7] Mark Yzaguirre questioned this assumption through highlighting Governor Rick Perry's courting of 39% of Hispanics in his victory in the 2010 Texas Gubernatorial.[8] However many contend that it is low turnout among Texas Hispanics that are keeping the state Red.[9]

Texas has a reputation for strict "law and order" sentencing. According to the Prison Policy Initiative, of the 21 counties in the United States where more than a fifth of residents are prison inmates, 10 are in Texas. Texas leads the nation in executions, with 464 executions from 1974 to 2011.[10] The second-highest ranking state is Virginia, with 108. A 2002 Houston Chronicle poll of Texans found that when asked "Do you support the death penalty?" 69.1% responded that they did, 21.9% did not support and 9.1% were not sure or gave no answer.

Texas has a long history with secession. It was originally a Spanish province, which in 1821 seceded from Spain and helped form the First Mexican Empire. In 1824 Texas became a state in the new Mexican republic. In 1835 Antonio Lpez de Santa Anna assumed dictatorial control over the state and several states openly rebelled against the changes: Coahuila y Tejas (the northern part of which would become the Republic of Texas), San Luis Potos, Quertaro, Durango, Guanajuato, Michoacn, Yucatn, Jalisco, Nuevo Len, Tamaulipas, and Zacatecas. Several of these states formed their own governments: the Republic of the Rio Grande, the Republic of Yucatan, and the Republic of Texas. Only the Texans defeated Santa Anna and retained their independence.

Some Texans believe that because it joined the United States as a country, the Texas state constitution include the right to secede.[11] However, neither the ordinance of The Texas Annexation of 1845[12] nor The Annexation of Texas Joint Resolution of Congress March 1, 1845[13] included provisions giving Texas the right to secede. Texas did originally retain the right to divide into as many as five independent States,[14] and as part of the Compromise of 1850 continues to retain that right while ceding former claims westward and northward along the full length of the Rio Grande in exchange for $10 million from the federal government.[15]

The United States Supreme Court's primary ruling on the legality of secession involved a case brought by Texas involving a Civil War era bonds transfer.[16] In deciding the 1869 Texas v. White case, the Supreme Court first addressed the issue of whether Texas had in fact seceded when it joined the Confederacy. In a 5-3 vote the Court "held that as a matter of constitutional law, no state could leave the Union, explicitly repudiating the position of the Confederate States that the United States was a voluntary compact between sovereign states."[17] In writing the majority opinion Chief Justice Salmon Chase opined that:

When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.[18]

However, as the issue of secession per se was not the one before the court, it has been debated as to whether this reasoning is merely dicta or a binding ruling on the question.[19] It is also worth noting that Salmon Chase was nominated by Abraham Lincoln and was a staunch anti-secessionist. It is unlikely that he or his Republican appointed court would have approved of the Confederacy and Texas' choice to join it.

While the state's organized secessionist movement is relatively small, a notable minority of Texans hold secessionist sentiments.[20] A 2009 poll found that 31% of Texans believe that Texas has the legal right to secede and form an independent country and 18% believe it should do so.[21]

Until 2010, Texas had weathered the Great Recession fairly well, buffered by its vast oil and gas industries. It avoided the housing industry meltdown and its unemployment rate continues to be below the national level. It benefited from having a two-year budget cycle, allowing officials create budget plans with more time to focus on issues of importance. However, Texas was impacted by the economic downturn just like many other states, and by 2011 was suffering from tens of billions of dollars in budget deficits. In order to deal with this deficit, a supermajority of Republicans led to a massive cost cutting spree.[22] In order to draw new businesses to the state, Texas has developed a program of tax incentives to corporations willing to move there.[23] These efforts, along with Texas focusing on developing their natural energy resources, has led to a surplus as Texas begins its next two year budget cycle.[24][25]

For FY 2011, the top Texas revenue sources by category were approximately:[26] Federal Income: $42,159,665,863.56 Sales Tax: $21,523,984,733.17 Investments: $10,406,151,499.48 Other Revenue: $8,569,805,443.66 Licenses, Fees, Fines and Penalties: $7,741,880,095.57

As of 2008, Texas residents paid a total of $88,794 million dollars in income taxes.[27] This does not include Federal taxes paid by Texas businesses.

Besides sales tax, other taxes include franchise, insurance, natural gas, alcohol, cigarettee and tobacco taxes. Texas has no personal state income tax.

For FY 2011, the top Texas State Agency spending categories were approximately:[28] Public Assistance Payments: $26,501,123,478.54 Intergovernmental Payments: $21,014,819,852.52 Interfund Transfers/Other: $12,319,487,032.40 Salaries and Wages: $8,595,912,992.82 Employee Benefits: $5,743,905,057.61

More:
Politics of Texas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mount Laurel is a township in Burlington County, New Jersey, United States, and is an edge city suburb of Philadelphia. As of the 2010 United States Census, the township's population was 41,864,[9][10][11] reflecting an increase of 1,643 (+4.1%) from the 40,221 counted in the 2000 Census, which had in turn increased by 9,951 (+32.9%) from the 30,270 counted in the 1990 Census.[20] It is the home of NFL Films.

Mount Laurel was incorporated as a township by an act of the New Jersey Legislature on March 7, 1872, from portions of Evesham Township.[21] The township was named for a hill covered with laurel trees.[22]

There are several historical landmarks, including General Clinton's headquarters, Paulsdale, Evesham Friends Meeting House, Jacob's Chapel, Hattie Britt School and Farmer's Hall.[23]

The Mount Laurel Decision is a judicial interpretation of the New Jersey State Constitution that requires municipalities to use their zoning powers in an affirmative manner to provide a realistic opportunity for the production of housing affordable to low and moderate income households. The decision was a result of a lawsuit brought against the town by the N.A.A.C.P. that was decided by the New Jersey Supreme Court in 1975 and reaffirmed in a subsequent decision in 1983.[24]

The history behind this, and the story leading to the Decision was highlighted in a book by David L. Kirp called Our Town.[25]

Mount Laurel was a small, poor rural farming community until it was hit with massive suburban growth from Philadelphia in the later 1900s. Poor families, whose history had resided there for centuries, were suddenly priced out of buying additional property. In 1970, at a meeting about a proposal for affordable housing, held at an all black church in Mount Laurel, Mayor Bill Haines summed up the newcomers perspectives by saying "If you people can't afford to live in our town, then you'll just have to leave."[25]

Even though the poor black families in Mount Laurel were not from urban ghettos, and were not involved in gang activity, the new suburban influx thought otherwise, and significantly delayed the creation of affordable housing, citing concerns of gang activity and an influx of inner city criminals. Exampled comments from town meetings against being forced to build housing projects in their town included "we need this like Custer needed more Indians"; "it's reverse discrimination"; "we lived in this in South Philly and Newark" they said, and that the housing would be a "breeding ground for violent crime and drug abuse".[25]

Resident advocates of the housing were treated with abuse and threats. Leading advocate Ethel Lawrence, a poor black resident who lived her life in Mount Laurel, had her house repeatedly vandalized, and once her bedroom window was shot at.[26][27] Longtime white residents also turned to try to force the poor blacks out of town. Although the court ruled in favor of creating affordable housing, residents did manage to delay the process for decades.[25]

According to the United States Census Bureau, the township had a total area of 21.971 square miles (56.903km2), including 21.692 square miles (56.181km2) of land and 0.279 square miles (0.722km2) of water (1.27%).[1][2]

Ramblewood (with a 2010 Census population of 5,907) is an unincorporated community and census designated place (CDP) located within Mount Laurel.[28]

Other unincorporated communities, localities and place names located partially or completely within the township include Birchfield,[citation needed]Bougher, Centerton, Colemantown, Coxs Corner, Fellowship, Hartford, Heulings Hill, Masonville, Petersburg, Pine Grove, Rancocas Woods and Texas.[29]

At the 2010 United States Census, there were 41,864 people, 17,538 households, and 11,294 families residing in the township. The population density was 1,930.0 per square mile (745.2/km2). There were 18,249 housing units at an average density of 841.3 per square mile (324.8/km2). The racial makeup of the township was 79.42% (33,249) White, 9.70% (4,061) Black or African American, 0.16% (67) Native American, 7.26% (3,040) Asian, 0.04% (17) Pacific Islander, 1.00% (418) from other races, and 2.42% (1,012) from two or more races. Hispanics or Latinos of any race were 4.56% (1,907) of the population.[9]

There were 17,538 households, of which 28.9% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 51.0% were married couples living together, 10.5% had a female householder with no husband present, and 35.6% were non-families. 30.4% of all households were made up of individuals, and 11.8% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.38 and the average family size was 3.00.[9]

In the township, 22.3% of the population were under the age of 18, 6.3% from 18 to 24, 26.2% from 25 to 44, 29.2% from 45 to 64, and 16.1% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 41.8 years. For every 100 females there were 87.4 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 83.5 males.[9]

The Census Bureau's 2006-2010 American Community Survey showed that (in 2010 inflation-adjusted dollars) median household income was $84,632 (with a margin of error of +/- $5,366) and the median family income was $100,189 (+/- $4,065). Males had a median income of $75,870 (+/- $3,130) versus $54,215 (+/- $2,830) for females. The per capita income for the borough was $41,573 (+/- $1,416). About 3.0% of families and 3.6% of the population were below the poverty line, including 4.6% of those under age 18 and 3.8% of those age 65 or over.[39]

As of the 2000 United States Census[17] there were 40,221 people, 16,570 households, and 11,068 families residing in the township. The population density was 1,844.3 people per square mile (712.0/km). There were 17,163 housing units at an average density of 787.0 per square mile (303.8/km). The racial makeup of the township was 87.10% White, 6.92% African American, 0.09% Native American, 3.80% Asian, 0.03% Pacific Islander, 0.64% from other races, and 1.41% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 2.24% of the population.[37][38]

There were 16,570 households out of which 30.4% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 55.7% were married couples living together, 8.5% had a female householder with no husband present, and 33.2% were non-families. 27.9% of all households were made up of individuals and 8.9% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.41 and the average family size was 2.98.[37][38]

In the township the population was spread out with 23.1% under the age of 18, 5.4% from 18 to 24, 32.7% from 25 to 44, 24.2% from 45 to 64, and 14.7% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 39 years. For every 100 females there were 89.4 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 85.8 males.[37][38][38]

The median income for a household in the township was $63,750, and the median income for a family was $76,288. Males had a median income of $55,597 versus $37,198 for females. The per capita income for the township was $32,245. About 2.5% of families and 3.1% of the population were below the poverty line, including 3.9% of those under age 18 and 2.9% of those age 65 or over.[37][38]

Laurel Acres Park is known for its Veterans Memorial, fishing lake, playground, and huge grassy hill used for concerts and sledding in the winter. Laurel Acres Park is right between Church Street at Union Mill Road. The Mount Laurel Baseball League and the Mount Laurel United Soccer Club play in the park's sports fields, and since 2008, the Mount Laurel Premiership.[40]

Mount Laurel voted to change its form of government in 1970 from a Township Council form to a Faulkner Act system using the Council-Manager (Plan E), enacted based on the recommendations of a Charter Study Commission as of January 1, 1972.[41] In this form of government, the Township Manager oversees the daily functions of the Township. Township government consists of a Township Council made up of five members elected at-large in partisan elections to serve four-year terms on a staggered basis, with either two or three seats coming up for election in odd-numbered years as part of the November general election.[7] At an annual reorganization meeting held in January, the council selects one of its members to serve as mayor and another to serve as deputy mayor, each for a one-year term.[3]

As of 2016[update], members of the Mount Laurel Township Council are Mayor Linda Bobo (R, term ends December 31, 2016), Deputy Mayor Irwin Edelson (R, term on council ends 2016), Dennis Riley (R, 2018), Jim Keenan (R, 2016) and Richard Van Noord (R, 2018).[3][42][43][44][45]

Mount Laurel Township is located in the 3rd Congressional District[46] and is part of New Jersey's 7th state legislative district.[10][47][48] Prior to the 2011 reapportionment following the 2010 Census, Mount Laurel Township had been in the 8th state legislative district.[49]

New Jersey's 3rd Congressional District is represented by Tom MacArthur (R, Toms River).[50] New Jersey is represented in the United States Senate by Cory Booker (D, Newark, term ends 2021)[51] and Bob Menendez (D, Paramus, 2019).[52][53]

For the 20162017 session (Senate, General Assembly), the 7th Legislative District of the New Jersey Legislature is represented in the State Senate by Diane Allen (R, Edgewater Park Township) and in the General Assembly by Herb Conaway (D, Moorestown) and Troy Singleton (D, Palmyra).[54] The Governor of New Jersey is Chris Christie (R, Mendham Township).[55] The Lieutenant Governor of New Jersey is Kim Guadagno (R, Monmouth Beach).[56]

Burlington County is governed by a Board of chosen freeholders, whose five members are elected at-large in partisan elections to three-year terms of office on a staggered basis, with either one or two seats coming up for election each year.[57] The board chooses a director and deputy director from among its members at an annual reorganization meeting held in January.[57] As of 2015[update], Burlington County's Freeholders are Director Mary Ann O'Brien (R, Medford Township, 2017; Director of Administration and Human Services),[58] Deputy Director Bruce Garganio (R, Florence Township, 2017; Director of Public Works and Health),[59]Aimee Belgard (D, Edgewater Park Township, 2015; Director of Hospital, Medical Services and Education)[60] Joseph Donnelly (R, Cinnaminson Township, 2016; Director of Public Safety, Natural Resources, and Education)[61] and Joanne Schwartz (D, Southampton Township, 2015; Director of Health and Corrections).[62][57] Constitutional officers are County Clerk Tim Tyler,[63] Sheriff Jean E. Stanfield[64] and Surrogate George T. Kotch.[65]

As of March 23, 2011, there were a total of 28,317 registered voters in Mount Laurel Township, of which 9,089 (32.1% vs. 33.3% countywide) were registered as Democrats, 6,880 (24.3% vs. 23.9%) were registered as Republicans and 12,328 (43.5% vs. 42.8%) were registered as Unaffiliated. There were 20 voters registered to other parties.[66] Among the township's 2010 Census population, 67.6% (vs. 61.7% in Burlington County) were registered to vote, including 87.0% of those ages 18 and over (vs. 80.3% countywide).[66][67]

In the 2012 presidential election, Democrat Barack Obama received 12,634 votes (55.5% vs. 58.1% countywide), ahead of Republican Mitt Romney with 9,797 votes (43.0% vs. 40.2%) and other candidates with 194 votes (0.9% vs. 1.0%), among the 22,762 ballots cast by the township's 29,792 registered voters, for a turnout of 76.4% (vs. 74.5% in Burlington County).[68][69] In the 2008 presidential election, Democrat Barack Obama received 13,420 votes (57.2% vs. 58.4% countywide), ahead of Republican John McCain with 9,657 votes (41.2% vs. 39.9%) and other candidates with 220 votes (0.9% vs. 1.0%), among the 23,443 ballots cast by the township's 28,847 registered voters, for a turnout of 81.3% (vs. 80.0% in Burlington County).[70] In the 2004 presidential election, Democrat John Kerry received 11,618 votes (52.3% vs. 52.9% countywide), ahead of Republican George W. Bush with 10,382 votes (46.7% vs. 46.0%) and other candidates with 146 votes (0.7% vs. 0.8%), among the 22,231 ballots cast by the township's 27,385 registered voters, for a turnout of 81.2% (vs. 78.8% in the whole county).[71]

In the 2013 gubernatorial election, Republican Chris Christie received 8,696 votes (65.1% vs. 61.4% countywide), ahead of Democrat Barbara Buono with 4,341 votes (32.5% vs. 35.8%) and other candidates with 148 votes (1.1% vs. 1.2%), among the 13,354 ballots cast by the township's 29,635 registered voters, yielding a 45.1% turnout (vs. 44.5% in the county).[72][73] In the 2009 gubernatorial election, Republican Chris Christie received 7,082 votes (50.4% vs. 47.7% countywide), ahead of Democrat Jon Corzine with 6,149 votes (43.8% vs. 44.5%), Independent Chris Daggett with 617 votes (4.4% vs. 4.8%) and other candidates with 108 votes (0.8% vs. 1.2%), among the 14,047 ballots cast by the township's 29,086 registered voters, yielding a 48.3% turnout (vs. 44.9% in the county).[74]

The Mount Laurel Schools serve public school students in pre-Kindergarten through eighth grade. As of the 2011-12 school year, the district's eight schools had an enrollment of 4,201 students and 329.0 classroom teachers (on an FTE basis), for a studentteacher ratio of 12.77:1.[75] Schools in the district (with 2011-12 enrollment data from the National Center for Education Statistics)[76] are Countryside Elementary School[77] (grades PreK-4; 315 students), Fleetwood Elementary School[78] (PreK-4; 362), Hillside Elementary School[79] (K-4; 407), Larchmont Elementary School[80] (PreK-4; 359), Parkway Elementary School[81] (PreK-4; 410), Springville Elementary School[82] (PreK-4; 466), Mount Laurel Hartford School[83] for grades 5 & 6 (908 students) and Thomas E. Harrington Middle School[84] for grades 7 & 8 (974).[85][86] Parkway Elementary School was one of four schools in New Jersey recognized by the National Blue Ribbon Schools Program, awarded by the United States Department of Education, for the 200506 school year.[87]

Public school students from Mount Laurel in ninth through twelfth grades attend Lenape High School, located in Medford Township.[88][89] Shawnee is part of the Lenape Regional High School District, a regional secondary school district in Burlington County that also serves the eight municipalities of Evesham Township, Medford Lakes, Medford Township, Shamong Township, Southampton Township, Tabernacle Township and Woodland Township at its four high schools.[90][91]

Students from Mount Laurel Township, and from all of Burlington County, are eligible to attend the Burlington County Institute of Technology, a countywide public school district that serves the vocational and technical education needs of students at the high school and post-secondary level at its campuses in Medford and Westampton Township.[92]

As of May 2010[update], the township had a total of 170.19 miles (273.89km) of roadways, of which 115.86 miles (186.46km) were maintained by the municipality, 33.26 miles (53.53km) by Burlington County and 13.55 miles (21.81km) by the New Jersey Department of Transportation and 7.52 miles (12.10km) by the New Jersey Turnpike Authority.[93]

The New Jersey Turnpike passes through Mount Laurel Township, entering from Cherry Hill Township in the township's southwest corner and continuing for about 7.5 miles (12.1km) to Westampton Township at Mount Laurel's northern edge.[94] The Turnpike's James Fenimore Cooper rest area is located between Interchanges 4 and 5 northbound at milepost 39.4.[95] Mount Laurel also hosts the toll gate for Exit 4 of the Turnpike, which provides access to Route 73.[96]

Interstate 295 passes through the township, with three exits (Exit 36: Berlin/Tacony Bridge/Route 73, Exit 40: Moorestown/Mount Holly/Route 38, Exit 43: Delran/Rancocas Woods).[97] Other major thoroughfares through Mount Laurel are Route 38, Route 73 and County Route 537.

New Jersey Transit provides bus service to and from Philadelphia on routes 317 (from Asbury Park), the 413 route between Camden and Burlington and the 457 route between Moorestown Mall and Camden.[98][99]

The Greyhound Lines bus station at 538 Fellowship Road 395555N 745727.0W / 39.93194N 74.957500W / 39.93194; -74.957500 provides service to Philadelphia, New York City, Atlantic City and other points.[100]

People who were born in, residents of, or otherwise closely associated with Mount Laurel Township include:

Continued here:
Mount Laurel, New Jersey - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Port Angeles High School 304 E Park Ave, Port Angeles, WA 98362

Saturday, May 21

6th Congressional District Caucus*

Suquamish, WA

June 17-10

WA State Democratic Convention

Tacoma, WA

July 25-28

Democratic National Convention

Philadelphia, PA

* There is no Legislative District caucus

* * * *

Supreme Court Nominees Consdered During Election Years

The Senate hasnever taken more than 125 daysto vote on a successor from the time of nomination. On average, a nominee has been confirmed, rejected or withdrawn within 25 days. When Justice Antonin Scalia died, 342 days remained in President Obamas term.

--New York Times(2/15/2016) * * * * * * * * * *

Following are charts that illustrate just how huge and regressive these proposed cuts are, at least twice as big as George W. Bush's tax cuts relative to the size of the economy.

How GOP Tax Cut Plans Compare (Increasing the national debt over a 10-year windowas % of GDP)

Each of the top three GOP presidential contenders have proposed a huge tax cut plan, increasing the federal debt byover28 percent of GDPover the next decade.

Average Tax Cuts

Source: Tax Policy Center

Even worse, Cruz wouldraise taxes an average of $67 on taxpayers making $10,000 or less a year by enacting a 19 percent sales tax.

Source: Tax Policy Center

* * * * * * * * * *

President Obama's Record - A Record to be Proud Of

America is finally recovering from the Bush era's Great Recession. "Unemployment is now 4.9%, the lowest since February 2008, and even wages are finally rising again."

Government spendingincreased by 88%under President Bush. Which is the party of big spenders?!

The National Record...

These 47 Republican Senators sent Iran a letter in an unprecedented effort to sabotage historic nuclear negotiations:

Deficit at 6-Year Low!

WASHINGTON The deficit for the just completed 2014 budget year was $483 billion [It was $680 billion in 2013]... It's the lowest since 2008 and, when measured against the size of the economy, is below the average deficits of the past 40 years.

Peninsula Daily News October 16, 2014

Robert Reich The Limits of Corporate Citizenship Source: http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/24642-the-limits-of-corporate-citizenship

What did the GOP do?

Click here to view the President's full remarks.

FACT CHECK: President Obama has used executive orders less frequently than nine of his predecessors beginning with President Eisenhower. Eisenhower issued 484 executive orders compared to Obama's 168. Republican Presidents Reagan, Nixon, Ford, G.W. Bush ALL issued more executive orders than President Obama.

The Democrats of Clallam County are committed to promoting wise environmental stewardship, social justice, economic prosperity for working families, and vital social programs for those in need by electing principled public servants who will pursue these goals at the county, state, and federal level.

Follow this link:
Clallam County Democrats

Compendium

From 2000 until Election Day 2004, Democrats.com published the leading daily news service for America's 100 million Democrats, giving voice to Democratic activists whose views were - and continue to be - systematically excluded from the Republican-controlled, corporate-owned media. Our daily news was produced by a small team of committed patriots who believe in Truth, Justice, and the American Way.

Democrats.com was the only news site that covered the Stolen Election of 2000 in Florida. Despite the media's insistence that we "get over it," Democrats.com organized grassroots protests to "count every vote." When a partisan 5-4 Republican majority of the Supreme Court threw out 175,000 uncounted ballots to appoint Bush, Democrats.com worked with the Congressional Black Caucus to challenge Florida's electors in Congress - a scene made famous at the beginning of Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9-11. Democrats.com helped organize protests at Bush's 2000 inaugural, and at every public appearance by Bush, Cheney, and the Supreme Court Justices who appointed them - until September 11, 2001.

After September 11, Democrats.com sought the truth about Bush's failure to defend the country against 19 men with boxcutters. We supported the family members who fought for a Commission to investigate those failures, and we exposed the Commission's ultimate cover-up. And we opposed Bush's war in Iraq, which was based on lies connecting Iraq to 9-11 - lies which we exposed daily even as they were "reported" on the front pages of the New York Times and Washington Post.

Throughout the first term of the Bush administration, we exposed all of the lies they told, the crimes they committed, the policies that failed, and the core American values they betrayed. We posted thousands of links, making our archive a truly unique resource for these four years.

On Election Day 2004, Democrats.com unveiled a brand new web site, and switched from a news format to an interactive blog and discussion forum. Our .compendium archive provides a complete set of links to all of the stories covered in Democrats.com News from 2000 to 2004, organized into subject categories.

Please note: selecting a single category for each story is difficult, so you may need to try more than one category. For example, the "Bush Dictatorship" category overlaps with "Privacy/Surveillance" and "Bush Doctrine" and "Homeland Security."

You can also search our site using the .compass search box on the left side, where you can enter words, phrases, URL's, or any string of letters or numbers. This will display exact matches only, so you may need to try multiple searches to find the exact results. For example, "Al Qaeda" and "Al-Qaida" would require separate searches. A search for "qa" would cover both at once, although it might find other matches. The searches are case insensitive (capital letters are ignored). For URL searches, start with the text after "http://www."

Originally posted here:
Democrats.com - The first online community for the Democratic ...