Problems for DeLay's Buddies

“As usual Violink completely misses the point. Democrats have done the exact same thing, to a greater extent, but the media is not reporting it.”

“I know.

As usual the liberal media (Fox News, Washington Times, Wall Street Journal, talk radio, etc.) is turning its back on misdeeds by Democrats.”

“From mediamatters

So far, DeLay's critics include:

• Former Republican Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich.
  
• Republican congressman Christopher Shays (R-CT).
  
• Republican congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO).
  
• The Wall Street Journal editorial page.
  
• At least eight newspapers that endorsed George Bush for president in 2004, and yet another that didn't endorse any 2004 presidential candidate, but had endorsed every other Republican presidential candidate since 1968.
  
• Judicial Watch, the ultra-conservative, Richard Mellon Scaife-funded organization best known for repeatedly suing the Clinton administration.
  

last edited: 4/16/05 8:19:42 AM”

“Hey, I am not a big Delay fan. I just think it is unfair and unethical for the media orchestrate a witch hunt for Delay and to ignore the Democrats.”

“Don't ask, don't tell......baby!”

“What laws has Delay broken?
None.
His 'crime' is being a Repub and a very effective one.
The Dims really really HATE that.
LOL”

“Let the indictments fall where they may.”

“Yeah, he's a great example! All politicians should threaten another branch of the government! Now, that's teamwork.”

“He has been reprimanded three times by the Ethics Committee. I'd argue that the one for offering to support Rep. Smith's son is bribery - a federal offense. He's in up to his neck in the Indian casino scandal.

But by all means cling tightly to the guy. Circle the wagons and keep him in power as long as possible. He's a poster boy for Republican corruption and a gift to Democrats with Congressional aspirations.
last edited: 4/18/05 9:58:03 AM”

“Yes -- the Republicans did a great job removing the former chair of the ethics committee for following the rules... then changeing the rules to lessen the chances of DeLay being brought before them again...

How transparently corrupt can they be?”

“When you people get your panties in a wad over the Dems doing the same things (ie: Nancy P, ect.), I'll listen. Until then, you have no credibility.”

“Until you can find some source for your accusation against Nancy Pelosi, you not only lack credibility, you are risking libel action (if anyone cared what you have to say).”

“Don't mess with Saint Nancy”

“As usual, Delay's backers can't defend anything he's done, they can only attempt to misdirect and obscure.

Again... simply transparent.”

“LOL@vile&tilt”

“Kinda nice to see some repubs in denial over this. Guess too much power will give that false sense of invincibility....”

“DeLay is a "Gift from God" for the Democrats.”

“There were four rule changes proposed:

1. If you were being investigated, you had to be told that you were being investigated
(sounds reasonable to me).

2. If called to testified you could have your own attorney present to represent you (again, sounds pretty reasonable to me).

3. If an investigation goes on beyond a certain time (I've heard two different times, here) it requires a majority vote (sounds right to me).

4. The other rule change was dropped a long time ago. It was that if a leader was just indicted, they didn't have to resign their leadership position. As I say this one was dropped a long time ago.

Which of the first three do you have a problem with?”

“The rules used to be that a deadlock on the ethics committee along party lines automatically resulted in an investigation. The new rules let either party block an invetigation - not exactly a confidence building measure.

The Republican chair and three other Repub. members that voted for DeLay's admonishment were removed from the committee and replaced with cronies, two of whom had donated to DeLay's legal defense fund. You can't defend that with a straight face.

The Bugman is as slimy as they get.
last edited: 4/18/05 3:38:23 PM”

“to back the House slimeweasel!

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/04/18/rove.delay/index.html
last edited: 4/19/05 3:01:58 PM”

“DeLay Calls Justice Kennedy 'Outrageous'
Wednesday, April 20, 2005


WASHINGTON — House Majority Leader Tom DeLay says Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy's work from the bench has been "incredibly outrageous," his latest salvo at the federal judiciary in the weeks following the courts' refusal to stop Terri Schiavo's death.

DeLay also labeled a lot of the courts' Republican appointees as "judicial activists," a term applied by conservatives to judges they dislike for not following what they call strict interpretations of the Constitution.

The No. 2 Republican in the House has been openly critical of the federal courts since they refused to order the reinsertion of Schiavo's feeding tube. And he pointed to Kennedy as an example of Republican members of the Supreme Court who were activist and isolated.

"Absolutely. We've got Justice Kennedy writing decisions based upon international law, not the Constitution of the United States? That's just outrageous," DeLay told Fox News Radio on Tuesday. "And not only that, but he said in session that he does his own research on the Internet? That is just incredibly outrageous."


A spokeswoman for the court, Kathy Arberg, said Kennedy could not be reached for comment.

Although Kennedy was appointed to the Supreme Court by President Reagan, a conservative icon, he has aroused conservatives' ire by sometimes agreeing with the court's more liberal members. Nevertheless, it is unusual for a congressional leader to single out a Supreme Court justice for criticism.

Dan Allen, a DeLay spokesman, declined comment on the interview.

DeLay himself has been criticized for his comments following Schiavo's death, which came despite Congress' passage of a law giving the federal courts jurisdiction to review her case. They declined to intervene.

"The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior," DeLay said in a statement.

He apologized last week, saying he had spoken in an "inartful" way.

Conservatives have been pushing to get the Senate to confirm President Bush's most conservative judicial nominees, which Senate Democrats are blocking. The House has no power over which judges are given lifetime appointments to the federal bench.

However, DeLay has called repeatedly for the House to find a way to hold the federal judiciary accountable for its decisions. "The judiciary has become so activist and so isolated from the American people that it's our job to do that," he said.

One way would be for the House Judiciary Committee to investigate the clause in the Constitution that says "judges can serve as long as they serve with good behavior," he said. "We want to define what good behavior means. And that's where you have to start."”

“Why is it ok Harry Reed to criticize Clarence Thomas but not ok for Tom Delay to criticize Anthony Kennedy?

Once again, we see that freedom of speech is good as long as your speech is agreeable to the liberals.”

“DeLay changed the rules when he got down and dirty with his BS rhetoric after the Schiavo affair. That whole thing backfired on him and the rest of the idiots who tried to circumvent the law. He's a petty little c_cksucker who doesn't can't stand the thought of coming out with egg on his face. He threatened the judiciary! Did Reed do that? How can you possibly compare the two?
last edited: 4/20/05 2:54:08 PM”

“I'm glad he did.

It only proves that the whole 'judicial activism' business is so much baloney.

They are not against judicial activism as long as they rule the way they want them to.”

“Much ado about nothing.
The general public sees right thru the double standand the libs use. LOL”

“How can I compare it? Well Reed blasts a conservative judge that all liberals love to hate, and it just fine, you don't see a problem. Delay blasts one of your liberal judges, and you liberals go nuts. The only difference I see is whose ox is getting gored.

V, your right, judical activism is only acceptable when it furthers the liberal cause.”

“The general public is not too thrilled with this guy.”

“NoProb, you seem to ignore the extremism of this man's actions. Choose to turn a blind eye and resort to that tired old rhetoric that festers on here:

libs, libs, libs! Same old BS!
last edited: 4/20/05 3:57:03 PM”

“If the "genral public" is people in New York, you are probably right. If the "general public" is the folks in fly-over country, I'd say you are probably wrong.


"NoProb, you seem to ignore the extremism of this man's actions." No, I'm well aware of Reed's extremism. I've heard nothing else from him since he replaced that extremist from South Dakota (I forget his name). I'm tired of turning a blind eye to the extremist on the left.”

“No, I wasn't referring to New York solely. No, I wasn't referring to Reed and you know it, smartass! If I want unintelligent debate, I'll take Oryx off ignore. Over and out. Enjoy your evening...”

“Sure, I knew you weren't refering to Reed. But the description certainly fit him. And several other prominent democratic leaders as a matter of fact.”

“I've made it easy for you NoProb. Here's the transcript: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6646457/

This is what Reid (not Reed) said:

MR. RUSSERT: Why couldn't you accept Clarence Thomas? [for chief justice]

SEN. REID: I think that he has been an embarrassment to the Supreme Court. I think that his opinions are poorly written. I don't--I just don't think that he's done a good job as a Supreme Court justice.




Explain how this equals 'extremism'.

Do you really think voting not to confirm someone as chief justice is the same as threatening to remove them from the bench?”

“You ought to read the entire interview that V provided, NoProb. I don't agree with every view Reid has, but he comes off as a very level-headed individual, not the extremist you painted him as. It seems you didn't look any deeper than a surface notion you had about him on that Clarence Thomas thing. The context was about succession to Renquist and he simply stated that he thought Thomas didn't warrant it. Nowhere near extremism there. Maybe you have a point hidden in here that you can substantiate...

And,how you went from DeLay to that and equated the two is beyond me!
last edited: 4/21/05 8:26:33 AM”

“"Extremism on the left"....that would be Marxism, no?”

“Roll Call is reporting that the Senate Indian Affairs Committee have subpoenaed Ralph Reed's 'Century Strategies' and Grover Norquist's 'Americans for Tax Reform' in connection with the Abramoff investigation.

Norquist and Reed have a long term association with Abramoff and both are implicated in DeLay's possible crimes. See: http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/3131825



My guess is the noose is tightening. How does the name "The Bugman of Alcatraz" sound?
last edited: 4/21/05 9:28:14 AM”

“Ha!

It looks to be copyrighted though.”

“Too bad! That would eliminate Dale from 'King of The Hill', too, I guess...”

“and the Hammer falls...



GOP to Reverse Ethics Rule Blocking New DeLay Probe

House Republican leaders, acknowledging that ethics disputes are taking a heavy toll on the party's image, decided yesterday to rescind a controversial rule change that led to the three-month shutdown of the ethics committee, according to officials who participated in the talks.

Republicans touched off a political uproar in January by changing a rule that had required the ethics committee to continue considering a complaint against a House member if there was a deadlock between the committee's five Republicans and five Democrats. The January change reversed this, calling for automatic dismissal of an ethics complaint when a deadlock occurs.

Democrats rebelled against that and other changes -- saying Republicans were trying to protect House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) from further ethics investigations -- and blocked the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, as the ethics panel is officially known, from organizing for the new Congress.

Republicans on the committee say they will launch an investigation of DeLay's handling of overseas trips and gifts as soon as the impasse over the rules is broken. The Washington Post reported last weekend that Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff charged DeLay's airfare to London and Scotland to his American Express card in 2000.

House ethics rules bar lawmakers from accepting travel and related expenses from registered lobbyists. DeLay said that he will meet with the committee chairman and the ranking Democrat, and that his staff is assembling documents to turn over to the committee. The panel admonished DeLay three times last year for what it deemed inappropriate official behavior.
[...]
A House Republican leadership aide said that the automatic-dismissal rule is "the rule that is most commonly believed to be designed to protect Tom DeLay" and that it was "impossible to win the communications battle" on it.
[...]”

“Now Nancy Pelosi doesn't want the rule changed back. I guess that figures.”

“I think Tom's problems go a lot deeper than the "Nancy Pelosi" defense will take you...”

“I just thought it was interesting that first they go nuts about the rule change, now when the Speaker of the House offers to roll them back, she says that would be two steps in the wrong direction.

How did you read that as a defense of Mr. DeLay? Actually I don't see that he needs any defense. If you apply the same standards to the rest of congress as you do to him, half the Democratic party will be going down. Come to think of it, maybe that's why she doesn't like the rule role back. Hmmm.”

“What are you talking about, NoProb? Do you have a source?”

“Where did Nancy Pelosi say she didn't want the rules changed back?”

“One of them there capitol news conferences. I don't remember whether I saw it on C-span or CNN.”

“hey hey hey... goodbye...



59.5% Nationwide Call for Tom Delay's Resignation

FAIRFIELD, Conn., May 3 /PRNewswire/ -- According to a national poll by
the Sacred Heart University Polling Institute, a majority of Americans
surveyed, 59.5%, suggest that Congressman Tom DeLay should resign from his
position as House Majority Leader.

"The poll numbers regarding Congressman DeLay have serious political
consequences for Republicans in the forthcoming 2006 congressional elections,
and suggest that pressure for resignation will most likely be forthcoming from
fellow Republican Congressmen who see DeLay as a serious political liability,"
stated Dr. Gary L. Rose, professor and chair of Sacred Heart University's
Department of History and Political Science.
[...]
last edited: 5/05/05 12:05:22 PM”