Being new to this blogging thing, I always want to tread carefully when throwing around accusations and possible libelous statements. So it’s so much easier when someone else throws around the words that I can simply quote. “He’s a liar” is a great one.
This was said by Anthony Gemma in reference to Congressman David Cicilline, one of Cicilline’s primary opponents in 2010 and possibly a primary opponent again in 2012. Gemma was referring to the recent flap about the Congressional redistricting in Rhode Island.
According to GoLocalProv,

Cicilline’s campaign fired back, making it clear they never suggested that they didn’t have a hand in the process.

Gemma added:

“He was a liar then and he is still a liar now,”

Gemma isn’t the only one having a hard time believing the explanation from the Cicilline camp. Yesterday, even Congressman Jim Langevin, wasn’t buying it. His spokesman called Cicilline’s response “blatantly disingenuous.” Which is a really nice way of saying “liar.” When you have all sides of your own party, the very guys who are supposed to be supportive of you, doubting your honesty and sincerity, you have big problems with public trust.
It’s not just the Democrats who are up in arms with these tactics. Yesterday on his WRNI Politics Blog, Ian Donnis quoted John Loughlin’s campaign spokesman.

“Most of the Congressional redistricting maps that have been proposed appear to be a blatant attempt to save Congressman David Cicilline.”

Napolitano is referring to blatant gerrymandering, a practice as old as politics, but a term that goes back to Massachusetts in the early 1800s.

The word was created in reaction to a redrawing of Massachusetts state senate election districts under the then-governor Elbridge Gerry. In 1812, Governor Gerry signed a bill that redistricted Massachusetts to benefit his Democratic-Republican Party. When mapped, one of the contorted districts in the Boston area was said to resemble the shape of a salamander.

Has Cicilline somehow engaged in gerrymandering? Remember what I said above? I can’t say for sure, but here are some facts.
Congressional redistricting occurs after the national census is done every ten years. The result of the census was that approximately 7,200 voters need to be moved from the Second Congressional District to the First. One of the most recent maps rolled out revealed more than 120,000 voters changing districts in order to make the numbers work.
How does that make any sense? If you need to move 7200, I can see moving a few more to make it work, by sticking to boundaries, maybe even going as high as 10,000. But to move seventeen times the necessary number of people? I don’t know about you, but if it walks like a duck…