« Social Security | Main | Tortured Reasoning »

January 05, 2005

Comments

If I were a Republican, I'd be a bit more than a little disappointed.

nah. odds are, if you were a Republican, you'd think this was necessary to protect a fine upstanding member of Congress from the petty sniping of the demonRATs.

DeLay doesn't continue hold power because of the power of some magic ring he found one day in a crawlspace somewhere; he continues to hold power because Republicans allow him to.

Darn, they had me fooled -- I thought they had genuinely realized that protecting DeLay was going to be more costly than it was worth.

cleek, I'd suggest you ease up on those blanket accusations, unless you can point to a poll that backs it up. Most Republican voters have no say in whether DeLay holds power in Congress, and I'd be very surprised to find that a majority of them support him even knowing about his ethical lapses.

kenB,
I think in the context of Edward's post, it's obvious (at least to me) that in this case, Republicans mean Republican leadership.

Yes, do ease up on the mind-reading, cleek. Your telepathic skills are nearly as bad as mine are.

in this case, Republicans mean Republican leadership.

Cool. Guess this means I can whang away on Democrats, seeing as it's that unambiguous.

I mean that those who voted DeLay and his Republican colleagues into office, believing they adhered to a higher standard, are surely to be disappointed.

Those remarks were directed at cleek, Edward. Your comments were unambiguous.

And yes, I am disappointed.

What is so good about DeLay that Republicans would care about protecting him. Much like protecting Trent Lott, I don't see what is so good about him that would even suggest tarring yourself with scandal. I at least understood why Democrats wanted to protect Clinton at all costs--he was one of the most dramatically successful Democrats in decades. What is so 'good' about DeLay?

My comments were directed at cleek, Edward. I believe you were pretty clear about who you were talking about.

"What's so good about DeLay" is his fundraising and enforcement tactics.

I remember, back in 1997 or thereabouts, when DeLay walked down the aisles of the House, while Congress was in session, handing out campaign contributions from tobacco companies. (I think this was shortly before a vote important to the tobacco industry, possibly having to do with FDA oversight of tobacco. Or mayne it was about the multi-billion dollar lawsuit.)

DeLay's playing Santa Claus got some wee attention at the time, not only for the brazenness of the payouts, but also for DeLay's positioning himself as the person who decides who gets the money. He has only solidified his status as the Money Man since then.

DeLay is also adept at using intimidation to threaten wayward House members. I'm not precisely sure what he uses to intimidate House members, whether it's mundane stuff like office space assignments and committee chairmanships, or truly horrifying stuff like blackmail. I suspect the latter: DeLay is the fellow who alluded to a secret room of evidence showing what a rotter Clinton was, and invited select Republicans to go have a gander.

DeLay is also a tactical innovator: he's the one who drew up the Texas redistricting plan, and then sent federal marshals out to round up Democratic legislators to drag 'em back for the vote on the redistricting.

He's not called The Hammer because he runs around dressed up like Thor, y'know?

Anyway, DeLay is too power a GOP leader, and too useful to the GOP generally, for the Party to let something trivial like ethics deprive them of his talents.

Sebastian asks What is so good about DeLay that Republicans would care about protecting him?

His power. Delay and his PAC have given money to almost every Republican member, just for starters. His history of punishing those who cross him (where did you think his nickname "The Hammer" came from? He is an intimate, ideological member of the little circle around Bush and Rove at the top of the Republican Party.

Are you really so naive, Sebastian?

I at least understood why Democrats wanted to protect Clinton at all costs...

Uh, no we/they didn't. Some costs, yes; all costs, not even close. Had Clinton done any of the things that DeLay had done (or, to be frankly partisan about it, most of the things Bush has done), he'd've been run out of town on a rail and rightly so.

sebastian: What's so 'good' about DeLay?
Might have something to do with the fact that DeLay (and ARMPAC) has raised more money for more candidates than any other other Republican House member (including Hastert, his boss). DeLay's ARMPAC is not just an engine for his own campaign, but a significant donor to many house republicans' campaigns - including 4 out of 5 of the Republican members of the Ethics committee. Might have something to do with that.

Or maybe I'm just cynical, and these people are all genuinely concerned about the actions of rogue state prosecutors. Bleah.

Jeez, that was quite a feverish little lefty dogpile, all of us frantically typing away at once. Guess you just struck a nerve, Sebastian. Not surprising - DeLay is a cancer on American politics, and a major-league scumbag, and he's one of the most powerful, ascendent, and favored Republicans in the Party. He is, in short, one of the reasons I like conservatives so much more than I like Republicans. Conservatives can defend what they believe, even if I disagree with it. So much of modern Republicanism is just indefensible.

Not that you were defending DeLay at all, Sebastian - quite the opposite. But many, many in your party do.

cleek, I'd suggest you ease up on those blanket accusations, unless you can point to a poll that backs it up

if DeLay's actions were repugnant to even a large minority of Republican House members, he'd be out of power. yet he has the solid backing of his party, even in passing rules that shield him from punishment or even admonishment, and in punishing party members who speak unkindly of his actions. that's all the poll we need.

Cleek: 'S Okay. Our friends on the right just don't like being reminded how sausage is made.

I find it curious, though, how many conservatives on ObWi--who vote GOP--seem to distance themselves from so many issues (and personalities) representing the bedrock of today's GOP.

Makes one wonder..

"Makes one wonder.."

Show me a good party, and I'll vote for it.

I'm not at all sure I know what you consider to be a "good" party, considering what you consider to be a "good enough" party.

if DeLay's actions were repugnant to even a large minority of Republican House members, he'd be out of power.

Sure, but the text you quoted was referring to rank-and-file Republicans, not House members, thus your comments seemed to be directed at Republicans in general.

...thus your comments seemed to be directed at Republicans in general.

well, it was, because i believe people are responsible for the people they vote into office. but, you're right; many people don't know who DeLay is or what he does.

though i don't think that negates this: he continues to hold power because Republicans allow him to.

considering what you consider to be a "good enough" party.

Careful. This might lead you to what he considers to be a "not good enough" party.

though i don't think that negates this: he continues to hold power because Republicans allow him to.

Oh, I voted against him. Didn't count, though, because I don't live in Texas.

Did you vote for someone that voted for him as Majority Leader?

Show me a good party, and I'll vote for it.

Well, if you ask me, that's a lot of the problem: voting for parties instead of candidates. The Dems are maybe going to figure that out one day. Or disappear.

Did you vote for someone that voted for him as Majority Leader?

I have no idea. Is the vote on record, anywhere?

I think sidereal's question can be simplified: Did you vote for someone whose election would help ensure that DeLay would be *Majority* Leader?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad