NationStates Jolt Archive

The question really is self-explanatory. From the perspective of most Liberals, and a growing number of conservatives, Rep. DeLay has compromised the standing of the conservative Republican majority in the U.S. Congress as a result of his arguably clear ethics violations. What do you think he should do?

The question really is self-explanatory. From the perspective of most Liberals, and a growing number of conservatives, Rep. DeLay has compromised the standing of the conservative Republican majority in the U.S. Congress as a result of his arguably clear ethics violations. What do you think he should do?


I think he should stay on and damage the Republican partys image even more.

Not until there is decisive proof that he did something wrong. If he did (which is probably likely), then remove him from office. The attempts to change the ethics violations (which were a travesty commited by the Republicans and will probably hurt in 2006) only raise more suspicion. Still. I'll reserve judgement until I know for sure.

Hell, go one step furthur.

Make all conservatives resign, and make a constitutional amendment that bans conservatives from the government.

Hell, go one step furthur.

Make all conservatives resign, and make a constitutional amendment that bans conservatives from the government.
...anyone second that amendment?
*raises gnarled hand*

Who? What did he do?

I think he should quit right after Teddy Kennedy resigns. Allowing (http://www.ytedk.com/) Mary Jo Kopechne to die in the Chappaquiddick was a far worse crime that Tom Delay could ever even imagine. Liberals need to get their house in order before they start trying to shame Republicans out of office.

Not until there is decisive proof that he did something wrong. If he did (which is probably likely), then remove him from office. The attempts to change the ethics violations (which were a travesty commited by the Republicans and will probably hurt in 2006) only raise more suspicion. Still. I'll reserve judgement until I know for sure.

Will that solve the problem?

Every time a scandal comes up the government finds a fall guy and a few years later they are pardoned. ie. Nixon/ Watergate, Oliver North/ Iran-Contra, George Tenet / September 11 Hearings.

A bipartisan investigation should take place, and if there is substantial wrongdoing he should resign.

I think he should quit right after Teddy Kennedy resigns. Allowing (http://www.ytedk.com/) Mary Jo Kopechne to die in the Chappaquiddick was a far worse crime that Tom Delay could ever even imagine. Liberals need to get their house in order before they start trying to shame Republicans out of office.
Prove it. Go on, prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Teddy Kennedy let someone die. Prove that he's guilty of involuntary manslaughter.

I think he should stay on and damage the Republican partys image even more.
i agree with this 100%. delay is such an ass that he can only help those of us wanting to stop the republican agenda.

I think Delay should ooze back into the large pile of graft and greed his soul and body spontaneously combusted from.

Prove it. Go on, prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Teddy Kennedy let someone die. Prove that he's guilty of involuntary manslaughter.

Prove it. Go on, prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Nancy Pelosi's campaign didnt take the same perks from the same "group" that Delay did. The only differance being that this group changed their tax status 1 week before Delays trip and they did it 4 years before Pelosis(took place after Delays)

Edit: just out of curiousity, do you foam at the mouth when you make your arguments?

Prove it. Go on, prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Nancy Pelosi's campaign didnt take the same perks from the same "group" that Delay did. The only differance being that this group changed their tax status 1 week before Delays trip and they did it 4 years before Pelosis(took place after Delays)

Edit: just out of curiousity, do you foam at the mouth when you make your arguments?
I'm not accusing anyone of anything. You want to slander an upstanding congressmen with charges of murder, you prove it.


Edit: Just out of curiousity, do you foam at the mouth when you make your arguments?


And no, he shouldn't resign.

I think Delay should ooze back into the large pile of graft and greed his soul and body spontaneously combusted from.

I hope you dont intend on applying this rule to all the members in govt, who the hell is gonna run our country if they all devolve into the primordial sludge their souls so richly deserve

I hope you dont intend on applying this rule to all the members in govt, who the hell is gonna run our country if they all devolve into the primordial sludge their souls so richly deserve

if all the scum in the world did so then we wouldnt need anyone to run our country because everyone would be good to each other and we wouldnt need to efend ourselves from anyone

I'm not accusing anyone of anything. You want to slander an upstanding congressmen with charges of murder, you prove it.


Edit: Just out of curiousity, do you foam at the mouth when you make your arguments?


And no, he shouldn't resign.

There are plenty of upstanding legistlators(on both sides of the aisle). Do you really believe the Senator Kennedy is one of them? Honestly?

if all the scum in the world did so then we wouldnt need anyone to run our country because everyone would be good to each other and we wouldnt need to efend ourselves from anyone

True. Of course, the world would be so barren that we would all die of boredome and loneliness before we ran into another human being.

Seriously though. These people are our leaders for a reason. They are very good at some things(negotiating with our enemies/advesaries) on the other hand, they are pieces of shit when it comes to putting the peoples interests above their own. Its a tradeoff we have made throughout history. It has both its upsides and its downsides.

Otherwise, we would have just strangeled these people when we realized what they are.

Wow, I'm so glad the lefties so tolerant of other's ideas want to pass a constitutional amendment banning right wingers.

How hypocritical.

On the topic of amendments, I think there needs to be an amendment saying that if anyone tries to change the first ten amendments, and this amendment, the people's loyalty to the government is dissolved, and the government has no athourity.

Anyways....

DeLay should'nt resign, but I think for the betterment of the Republican Party, they pick a new Majority leader. Then again, that would show weakness on behalf on many of the spineless Republicans, and it would be yet another thing for the DNC to exploit.

Grow a pair, Senators!

Cant we just kill ALL Politicians and solve all issues by judicious use of a queega(sp) board?

Or how about a new version of vote or die, any politicians that proposes legistlation that sux has to either get shot in the face or kiss Rosie O'donnel..feminists can come up with the female punishment.

You know while we are bad mouthing senators. I think Ted Kennedy should come clean about riging several elections including JFK's. Not to say that Nixon's campaign did any better, the reason he got away with it.(mean he riged Ill. and Nixon riged another state) But come on he is not the cleanest of Dem's to mention on ethics. Also a side note his involvement with the Irish mob also kinda scares me.

You know while we are bad mouthing senators. I think Ted Kennedy should come clean about riging several elections including JFK's. Not to say that Nixon's campaign did any better, the reason he got away with it.(mean he riged Ill. and Nixon riged another state) But come on he is not the cleanest of Dem's to mention on ethics. Also a side note his involvement with the Irish mob also kinda scares me.


Come on, whats the big deal? So what if the DEAD rose up from their graves and voted? It was a show of solidarity after all.

BTW, those politics still go on. Look at chicago. Daley is famous for this.

So what exactly has Delay done that is so terrible?

You know while we are bad mouthing senators. I think Ted Kennedy should come clean about riging several elections including JFK's. Not to say that Nixon's campaign did any better, the reason he got away with it.(mean he riged Ill. and Nixon riged another state) But come on he is not the cleanest of Dem's to mention on ethics. Also a side note his involvement with the Irish mob also kinda scares me.
ted was 28 in 1960. do you really think he was in a position to rig a presidential election?

It can't be healthy to laugh this hard when I have a sore throat. Almost all of this thread has to be a joke.

Tom Delay should resign, apologize, receive a public flogging, and then shoot himself in the face.

I think he should quit right after Teddy Kennedy resigns. Allowing (http://www.ytedk.com/) Mary Jo Kopechne to die in the Chappaquiddick was a far worse crime that Tom Delay could ever even imagine. Liberals need to get their house in order before they start trying to shame Republicans out of office.

Pathetic.

Dredging up a 36-year-old incident in which Senator Kennedy pled guilty to the only crime he committed is a feeble attempt to divert attention from Delay's grubby ethics violations.

Have you no shame?

Pathetic.

Dredging up a 36-year-old incident in which Senator Kennedy pled guilty to the only crime he committed is a feeble attempt to divert attention from Delay's grubby ethics violations.

Have you no shame?

With all due respect, I think "dredging" was a poor choice of word there.

There are plenty of upstanding legistlators(on both sides of the aisle). Do you really believe the Senator Kennedy is one of them? Honestly?

Yes. Honestly.

And arch-conservative Orrin Hatch has said so. Repeatedly.

Prove it. Go on, prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Nancy Pelosi's campaign didnt take the same perks from the same "group" that Delay did. The only differance being that this group changed their tax status 1 week before Delays trip and they did it 4 years before Pelosis(took place after Delays)

Edit: just out of curiousity, do you foam at the mouth when you make your arguments?

You do realize the difference between a House ethics violation and a crime, right? So your question is deliberately misleading?

Why would the Republic controlled ethics committee unfairly target Delay for ethics violations that Nancy Pelosi committed?

Of couse, such left-wing bastions as the Wall Street Journal are behind the smear campaign. :rolleyes:

And what about Delay's other violations? Hmmm.

Wow, I'm so glad the lefties so tolerant of other's ideas want to pass a constitutional amendment banning right wingers.

Are you familiar with the concept of sarcasm and jokes?

How hypocritical.

Grow a pair, Senators!

Um.

Delay is majority leader of the House of Representatives. Not the Senate.

For those unfamiliar with the growing controvery:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32389-2005Mar13.html
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/04/29/ethics/
http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/1033/1/32/
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/politics/11499314.htm

I must agree with earlier posts which question the relationship between DeLay's alleged misdeeds and the events of Chappaquiddick involving Sen. Ted Kennedy.

http://www.ytedk.com/
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/tedkennedychappaquiddick.htm

Rather than implying (or outright stating) that a double-standard exists, why not simply address the merits of Rep. DeLay's situation on its own? To compare the two ignores the issue and, respectfully, smacks of "political relativism."

That is an old and tired game, candidly. Try simply answering the question directly, please; you will receive far more credit for the logic of your response if you do.

Bump

I think he should quit right after Teddy Kennedy resigns. Allowing (http://www.ytedk.com/) Mary Jo Kopechne to die in the Chappaquiddick was a far worse crime that Tom Delay could ever even imagine. Liberals need to get their house in order before they start trying to shame Republicans out of office.

You know, it occurs to me that 90% of the problems in this country could be solved in ten minutes or less if we no longer allowed people to use the "you-too" fallacy.

Seriously, M, what the hell does anything Ted Kennedy did or do have anything to do with the question at hand, that question being: A) Did Tom DeLay commit an ethics violation, and B) is that ethics violation serious enough to warrant his forcible resignation from the House. How does Mary Jo Kopechne in any way tie in with whether Tom DeLay did or did not do the right thing some 40 or so years after her untimely demise? If you're having problems answering, I'll give you a hint: it starts with n, ends with g, and has "othin" in the middle.

If he did commit an unjust act, then that act is unjust independent of the actions of Ted Kennedy, Orrin Hatch, Judas Iscariot, or any of the other 10+ billion people who have lived on the planet, and he should be punished as such. If it was just, then he should not be punished. Considering your support for the self-described party of morals and by extension I'm the dumbass relativist, I shouldn't have to explain this to you.

Are you familiar with the concept of sarcasm and jokes?

How hypocritical.

Yes, I tend to be sarcastic a lot myself. Problem is, I usually cannot tell if it is sarcasm or not on a forum without some sort of smiley, unless it is that outlandish.


Um.

Delay is majority leader of the House of Representatives. Not the Senate.

I realized that after I posted it -- I was just too lazy to edit. :D

Acutally, I'll claim credit for tossing out the Ted Kennedy resignation idea first...yeah me!

It has to do with hypocrisy. It's none of the Democrats business until they clean up their own house (or senate). If the Republican House members want him to step down, that's their business. If the voters in DeLay's district want him to step down or resign, that's their business. There are so many screwed up voters around in other districts -- I can't believe that Ted Kennedy gets re-elected by the idiots in Mass. But, they want him, so they got him. I can't believe that the idiots in New York elected Hillary. But, they wanted her, so they got her. As far as I'm concerned, it's none of my business (even though as a US citizen their actions do affect me).

Perhaps you don't understand the concepts of laws and rules. (You seem to share this with Rep. DeLay.)

The US has laws. Rep. DeLay appears to have broken some. That is not just his personal business or the business of Republicans.

The House of Representatives has rules. Rep. DeLay appears to have broken some. He was reprimanded in the past by the Republican-controlled House Ethics Committee. He appears to have nonetheless committed more violations. Again, this is not his personal business or just that of Republicans. It is the business of the entire House of Representatives and that of the entire country it represents.

Perhaps you are too young to remember House Speaker Jim Wright, who was the target of a smear campaign by Republicans to force him to step down.

What goes around comes around.

Personally, I hope you Republicans continue to clutch the slimy bastard to your bosom. We Democrats are delighted to see you insist on keeping the albatross around your necks.

Acutally, I'll claim credit for tossing out the Ted Kennedy resignation idea first...yeah me!

It has to do with hypocrisy. It's none of the Democrats business until they clean up their own house (or senate). If the Republican House members want him to step down, that's their business. If the voters in DeLay's district want him to step down or resign, that's their business. There are so many screwed up voters around in other districts -- I can't believe that Ted Kennedy gets re-elected by the idiots in Mass. But, they want him, so they got him. I can't believe that the idiots in New York elected Hillary. But, they wanted her, so they got her. As far as I'm concerned, it's none of my business (even though as a US citizen their actions do affect me).

. . .Which leads me right back to my original question: how do hypocrisy and justice connect? If Adolph Eichmann were to tell you that genocide is a bad thing, how does the truth of that statement in any way connect with the fact that Adolph Eichmann is guilty of genocide? Does that mean you shouldn't listen to Adolph's advice, or that because Adolph is being a hypocrite that you should do the opposite of what he's saying?

Give me a break. What is at stake here isn't partisan, and it isn't political. It's about right and wrong. If Tom DeLay gave his family hundreds of thousands of dollars and/or went on golfing trips in violation of campaign finance law and ethical statutes in this nation, and then lied about it, we should seriously debate whether or not that is a violation worthy of removing him from office. If we find that it is, then he should go. If we don't, then he should stay. In either case, what happened to Ted Kennedy on a bridge has absodamnlutely nothing to do with that decision.

I understand laws and rules well. I'm old enough to have voted in for AuH20.

Perhaps you're not wise enough to understand my political comment. I led it off by saying it was about hypocrisy. If you want to reil against DeLay, but you're not willing to rail against his predecessors in crime, then you're a hypocrite.

So, let's start the talk and clean out the oldest and most senior crooks first, then we'll go after DeLay.

That you were one of the sad few that voted for Goldwater is very special, but hardly relevant.

The "they did worse" excuse does not fly in almost any system of rules or laws, so apparently your understanding is flawed.

Your political comment is nothing more than spin designed to distract from DeLay's violations.

Senator Kennedy pled guilty and was punished for his only crime 36 years ago. It has been rehashed repeatedly. That you would further smear him for this ancient tragedy -- there are such things as accidents, you know -- shows a lack of decency as well as desperation.

you don't get it...it has to do with hypocrisy.

You want to go after DeLay, but you'll ignore the other crooks who did much worse things.

Give me a break. Just admit that Ted Kennedy killed that girl and shouldn't be in the Senate, and I'll jump on DeLay with you.

Except that Senator Kennedy did not commit murder, manslaughter, or any crime other than the one to which he pled guilty and for which he was punished.

So, no, I won't join you in bearing false witness and smearing a man for an accident that happened 36 years ago.

Perhaps DeLay should follow Senator Kennedy's example and plead guilty.

Except that Senator Kennedy did not commit murder, manslaughter, or any crime other than the one to which he pled guilty and for which he was punished.

So, no, I won't join you in bearing false witness and smearing a man for an accident that happened 36 years ago.

Perhaps DeLay should follow Senator Kennedy's example and plead guilty.

I am all in favor of getting rid of Delay. And Kennedy too.

You see how much easier it is when you don't like any politicians. :)

*grumbles something about term limits*

Edit: You have to admit that the whole bridge thing is sketchy though.

I never said I voted for Goldwater, I said I was old enough to have voted for him.

Kennedy committed manslaughter by driving drunk and having a wreck which caused the girls death. In every state inthe nation, that's at least voluntary manslaughter....

When did Kennedy plead "guilty" ...that's news.

Perhaps you should (a) check your definitions of voluntary manslaughter and (b) check your facts.

I guess it is not suprising that you feel free to accuse someone of serious crimes without knowing what you are talking about.

Kennedy pled guilty to a charge of leaving the scene of an accident after causing injury. He received a sentence of two months in jail, which was suspended.

This is found here, here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kennedy), here (http://www.nndb.com/people/623/000023554/), here (http://www.ytedk.com/epilogue.htm), here (http://www.answers.com/topic/edward-m-ted-kennedy), here (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/kennedys/sfeature/sf_tree_text.html) --- and scores of other places easily findable by a Google search.

I would note most of these are unfriendly to Senator Kennedy and one includes the smear site already cited in this thread.

So, it is news only to those with little knowledge of the events they allege constitute a greater crime.

oooooo , so Kennedy pleaded guilty of leaving the scene of the accident.....oooooo what an honorable man!

He was drunk, he drove the car, he wrecked the car, the passenger died as the direct result of the wreck = felony manslaughter!

His plea of guilty to a lesser offense doesn't negate the fact that he killed that girl.....

Being an apologist for Ted Kennedy doesn't mean that you are right.

The fact that Kennedy killed that girl is just as real as the fact that DeLay vilated ethics rules and may have violated some laws.

That's all I'm saying. THose that are going after DeLay without going after a killer are hypocrites.

Prove it. Go on, prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Teddy Kennedy let someone die. Prove that he's guilty of involuntary manslaughter.
Come on, it's true; everyone knows it. It was an accident, but he let someone die.

Liberals need to get their house in order before they start trying to shame Republicans out of office.
I wish people wouldn't say "Liberals" when they mean Democrats.

Wow, I'm so glad the lefties so tolerant of other's ideas want to pass a constitutional amendment banning right wingers.
That was one guy, and it was probably a joke.

That you were one of the sad few that voted for Goldwater is very special, but hardly relevant.
In retrospect, things may have been better if Goldwater had been elected in '64. He probably would have stayed out of Vietnam. But on the other hand he would have tried to stop federal intervention for blacks in the South. Hmm...

Hell, go one step furthur.

Make all conservatives resign, and make a constitutional amendment that bans conservatives from the government.

if you eliminate one opposing party, the existing party will then turn on them selves, so yeah go ahead, besides if you banned conservatives, its be easy cause we would have already left and declared war.

oooooo , so Kennedy pleaded guilty of leaving the scene of the accident.....oooooo what an honorable man!

He was drunk, he drove the car, he wrecked the car, the passenger died as the direct result of the wreck = felony manslaughter!

His plea of guilty to a lesser offense doesn't negate the fact that he killed that girl.....

Being an apologist for Ted Kennedy doesn't mean that you are right.

The fact that Kennedy killed that girl is just as real as the fact that DeLay vilated ethics rules and may have violated some laws.

That's all I'm saying. THose that are going after DeLay without going after a killer are hypocrites.

Your continued attempts to distract from the ethics violations of DeLay by making false accusations about a 36-year old event have nothing to do with principles or exposing hypocrisy.

Making up facts doesn't make you right. It makes you a liar or a spreader of lies.

Senator Kennedy was not drunk. It was an accident. It was not manslaughter.

Can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Senator Kennedy was drunk? If not, you are simply ranting.

Do you have a copy of the 1969 Massachusettes statute on involuntary manslaughter?

The "facts" you allege are not necessarily manslaughter under modern statutes that are much tougher on drunk driving.

In fact, what you describe would be at most vehicular homicide (http://www.mass.gov/da/norfolk/special_homicide.html#vehhom) under current Massachusetts' law. It is a misdemeanor. The sentence is a minimum of 30 days in jail to 2 1/2 years in jail.

So, Senator Kennedy pled to the only crime he was guilty of and received a greater sentence than he might have received if your false allegations were true.

There goes that little theory.

Come on, it's true; everyone knows it. It was an accident, but he let someone die.
*snip*

"Everyone knows" a lot of things that aren't true.

It was an accident and someone died. To say he "let someone die" is untrue.

Many people have been involved in fatal car accidents. That does not make them murderers.

To equate the two is ridiculous and shameless.

This is another one of those "We don't care that there's no evidence, it's the seriousness of the charge" things, except that the charges aren't that serious.

This is another one of those "We don't care that there's no evidence, it's the seriousness of the charge" things, except that the charges aren't that serious.

Yeah, right. :rolleyes:

Let's see:

The Westar Scandal:

In 2002, executives at Kansas energy company Westar wrote a memo outlining how they could purchase a "seat at the table" with $56,500 in contributions to political committees associated with Tom DeLay and the GOP. DeLay was later admonished by the GOP-controlled House Ethics Committee for creating the appearance of impropriety.

The Texas Redistricting Scandal

When DeLay and his fellow Republicans were redrawing the Congressional districts in Texas to push Democrats out of the House, he used the Federal Aviation Administration to try and track a plane containing Democratic state legislators. The GOP-controlled House Ethics Committee investigated DeLay's actions and once again admonished him.

The House Medicare Vote Bribery Scandal

Tom DeLay and the Republican leadership kept open the vote for the Medicare bill for three hours -- long past the 15 minutes specified in House procedures -- in order to pressure Republicans to vote for the bill. Rep. Nick Smith (R-MI) said GOP leaders offered "bribes and special deals," leading to an investigation by the GOP-controlled Ethics Committee, which admonished DeLay.

The K Street Scandal

Tom DeLay has pushed lobbying firms to deny jobs to Democrats, and hire only Republicans, resulting in another Ethics Committee admonishment for inappropriately pushing a lobbying firm to hire a former GOP congressman. DeLay has pressured GOP lobbyists to make contributions to Republican candidates and the RNC.

The Ethics Committee Scandal

Knowing that he faced investigation for a growing pile of scandals, Tom DeLay and the GOP House leadership purged the Ethics Committee of Republicans -- including Chairman Joel Hefley (R-CO) -- who weren't willing to overlook charges against DeLay, replacing them with members loyal to the leadership. They then changed the Committee rules to make it more difficult to begin investigations. Democrats on the Committee have refused to take any action in protest until the rules are restored.

The Travel Scandal

An investigation by the Bush Justice Department showed that Tom DeLay accepted a trip financed by the Korea-U.S. Exchange Council, breaking House rules that prohibit accepting travel expenses from "a registered lobbyist or agent of a foreign principal."

The TRMPAC Scandal

In Texas, it's illegal for corporations to make donations to fund political campaigns. So Tom DeLay's Texans for a Republican Majority political action committee (TRMPAC) took $190,000 in corporate contributions and funneled them to the RNC, which then donated exactly $190,000 to TRMPAC-supported candidates. DeLay and TRMPAC are currently under investigation by a grand jury.

The Family Payoff Scandal

Since 2001, Tom DeLay's political action committees and campaigns have funneled more than $500,000 to his wife and daughter since 2001.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/06/politics/06delay.html

The Travel Scandal II

Tom DeLay participated in a $70,000 expenses-paid trip to London and Scotland in 2000 that sources said was indirectly financed in part by an Indian tribe and gambling services company lobbying Congress.

Tom DeLay's airfaire for thetrip to England and Scotland was paid for by lobbyist Jack Abramoff's credit card, and other expenses, including food, phone calls, and golf was charged on another lobbyist's credit card. That's in direct violation of House ethics rules that prohibit registered lobbyists for paying for expenses for members.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12416-2005Apr23.html

The Travel Scandal III

Tom DeLay claims that a 1997 trip to Moscow (where he met with the Russian Prime Minister) was arranged and paid for by a nonprofit public policy organization. But people who knew about the arrangements claim that the trip was actually arranged by lobbyists and funded by a mysterious company registered in the Bahamas that may have served as a front for Russian companies with ties to Russian security forces.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28319-2005Apr5.html

The Skybox Scandal

Tom DeLay invited donors to share a skybox with him at a Three Tenors concert, a skybox paid for by super lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who is currently under investigation by the Senate. Just two months after the concert, DeLay voted against gambling legislation that Abramoff was lobbying against. The skybox tickets were worth thousands of dollars, and DeLay never reported the gift.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050420/ap_on_go_co/delay_skybox_3

"The time has come that the American people know exactly what their Representatives are doing here in Washington. Are they feeding at the public trough, taking lobbyist-paid vacations, getting wined and dined by special interest groups? Or are they working hard to represent their constituents? The people, the American people, have a right to know... I say the best disinfectant is full disclosure, not isolation."

-- Tom DeLay, 11/16/95

Further evidence:
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050428/NEWS06/504280465/1012
http://campaignmoney.org/delay/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/30/AR2005043000783.html
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-ethics29apr29,1,2140990.story?coll=la-headlines-politics&ctrack=2&cset=true
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/3159600
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/04/60minutes/main678234.shtml
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7670799/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7446492/site/newsweek/
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2004/11/10_403.html

I could go on and on and on ... but I think this proves the point.

That an GOP-controlled Ethics Committee with a majority hand-picked by DeLay -- several of whom have contributed to his defense fund and most of whom have received money from DeLay's PACs -- have repeatedly admonished him and have launched several investigations speaks eloquently about the substance of the charges against DeLay.

There is only a lack of evidence if you keep your eyes shut real tight and your ears well plugged.

We're not detracting from DeLay. What we're saying that yourefuse to understand is that those who do not live in DeLay's district and who are going after him for these ethics/law violations but who look the other way about much more serious crimes are hypocrites. If you live around Sugarland, Texas, then complain all you want to about DeLay. If you are a member of the House of Representatives, then complain all you want to about DeLay. If you're not either and you're unwilling to go after Kennedy, then ou have no right to go after about DeLay.

The statement is a False Analogy. Ted Kennedy has answered for his crimes, whereas Tom Delay has not.

It is also a Straw Man as Tom Delay's current ethics violations affect government much more directly than the Chappaquiddick incident had or ever will.

Finally it's also a False Dilemma when you suggest that Congress should either impeach Ted Kennedy along with Tom Delay, or not impeach Tom Delay altogether.

Well if your going to bring up people in power killing people in their car, don't forget ther first lady killing her boyfriend at age 17 due to speeding. Zing!

Sorry for going off topic, I don't know anything else useful to say :p

Ah, Tom Delay, showing true Republican values.

Ted Kennedy answered for the crime of leaving the scene of an accident.

He never has answered for the crime of killing that girl.

One fallacy after another. Here you try to present your belief that Ted Kennedy killed Mary Jo Kopechne with Malice Aforethought as a fact.

You didn't read well enough...I never made a comment aoubt Congress not "impeaching" Delay (or, otherwise punishing him).

Yet the point of your post was "If Congress wants to go after Tom Delay then they should start with Ted Kennedy before then."

In fact, you'll notice that what I said was: "If you are a member of the House of Representatives, then complain all you want to about DeLay."

Which is the fallacy of appealing to qualification. "If you are not a Member of the House of Representatives or a native of Sugarland, Texas then you have no right to complain about Tom Delay."

Well if your going to bring up people in power killing people in their car, don't forget ther first lady killing her boyfriend at age 17 due to speeding. Zing!

Sorry for going off topic, I don't know anything else useful to say :p

Given manslaughter laws posted earlier, shouldn't she be in jail then? 20 years wasn't it?

“A Special Kind Of Grief In Massachusettes.” Editorial. New York Times. 3 August, 1969.

“A Tragic Incident Imperils a Great Career.” Editorial. New York Times. 27 July, 1969.

“All Quiet On The Kennedy Front In Edgartown.” Editorial. New York Times. 11 January, 1970.

Clymer, Adam. Edward M. Kennedy: A Biography. New York: William Morrow, 1999.

“Comments By Papers On Kennedy Case.” Editorial. New York Times. 25 July, 1969.

Evans, Rowland., Novak, Robert. “Hopes For a Kennedy Explanation Fade Into Melancholy Foreboding”. Editorial. Washington Post, 24 July, 1969.

Kappel, Kenneth R. Chappaquiddick Revealed: What Really Happened. New York: Shapolsky, 1989.

“King Can Do No Wrong?” Editorial. The Oregonian. 25 July, 1969.

“Mr. Kennedy’s Response.” Editorial. New York Times. 31 July, 1969.

“New Kennedy Tragedy.” Editorial. The Oregonian. 22 July, 1969.

Olsen, Jack. The Bridge At Chappaquiddick. Boston: Little, Brown, 1970.

Reston, James. “Edgartown, Mass.: The Strange Case of Senator Kennedy”. Editorial. New York Times, 7 January, 1970.

Reston, James. “Senator Kennedy’s Impossible Question”. Editorial. New York Times, 27 July, 1969.

“Still A Tragedy And A Mystery.” Editorial. New York Times. 27 July, 1969.

Tedrow, Thomas L., Tedrow, Richard L. Death At Chappaquiddick. Gretna, La: Pelican, 1980.

“Tragedy And Mystery.” Editorial. New York Times. 25 July, 1969.

LOL.

Most of your so-called sources are Editorials!

And you've cited no actual evidence.

Your attempt to distract from the crimes and ethics violations of Tom DeLay is transparent and partisan. Give it up.

I "get it" perfectly.

For partisan reasons, you'd rather not look at the recent crimes and ethics violations of the majority leader of the House.

So, you've tried to equate them with a 36 year old incident for which the party in question admitted and was punished for the only crime he committed.

MASS.

CHAPTER 265. CRIMES AGAINST THE PERSON

Chapter 265: Section 13 Manslaughter; punishment

Section 13. Whoever commits manslaughter shall, except as hereinafter provided, be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than twenty years or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars and imprisonment in jail or a house of correction for not more than two and one half years. Whoever commits manslaughter while violating the provisions of sections one hundred and one to one hundred and two B, inclusive, of chapter two hundred and sixty-six shall be imprisoned in the state prison for life or for any term of years.

Perhaps you need to work on your reading comprehension.

If you think the above defines manslaughter, then it is no wonder you think Kennedy committed such a crime -- you are used to making up things that are not there.

And did you bother to read the Massachusetts statutes re vehicular homicide?

Driving under the influence and causing the death of another is misdemeanor vehicular homicide. Just as I stated.

Give it up, skippy.


We're not detracting from DeLay. What we're saying that yourefuse to understand is that those who do not live in DeLay's district and who are going after him for these ethics/law violations but who look the other way about much more serious crimes are hypocrites.

You seem to love the word hypocrite, but not understand it very well.

Violations of federal statutes and House ethics rules are matters of national concern. Subversion of the political process is a matter of concern to all citizens. Every US citizen has a right -- nigh unto a duty -- to be concerned about Tom DeLay's actions.

Imaginary misdemeanors under state law are not "more serious crimes" nor a matter of national concern. Moreoever, these 36-year old allegations have been thoroughly vetted and did receive much scrutiny.

That you wish to further smear Senator Kennedy while ignoring the true misconduct of Rep. DeLay makes you the hypocrite.

Remove the plank from thine own eye.

If you live around Sugarland, Texas, then complain all you want to about DeLay. If you are a member of the House of Representatives, then complain all you want to about DeLay. If you're not either and you're unwilling to go after Kennedy, then ou have no right to go after about DeLay.

LOL. I'm a citizen of the United States. I have every right to complain about the illegal actions of the majority leader of the House of Representatives. He has subverted the political process, committted crimes against the body politic, and violated the rules of the House.

The irony here is that, even if your smears were true, Senator Kennedy's alleged "crime" can only be prosecuted in Massachusetts. It is not a federal crime. It does not violate the rules of Congress. Nor did it harm the body politic. And it was the subject of great public scrutiny at the time and again in 1980. That it is purely hateful make-believe closes the question.

LOL. I'm a citizen of the United States. I have every right to complain about the illegal actions of the majority leader of the House of Representatives. He has subverted the political process, committted crimes against the body politic, and violated the rules of the House.

The irony here is that, even if your smears were true, Senator Kennedy's alleged "crime" can only be prosecuted in Massachusetts. It is not a federal crime. It does not violate the rules of Congress. Nor did it harm the body politic. And it was the subject of great public scrutiny at the time and again in 1980. That it is purely hateful make-believe closes the question.

While I believe De Lay should be investigated by the Ethics Committee, no one should resign until the Committee arrives at some sort of finding.

That would be like asking Clinton to resign during the Lewinsky thing without having a hearing and vote of some kind. Not that some Clinton-haters didn't demand it, but everyone gets a hearing, and there's a vote on what to do.

If they find he's done something, I'm sure they'll come up with a punishment - punishment by the Ethics Committee does not always involve resignation.

Of the Kennedy thing, I can only say that of the three brothers, we were left with the worst one. A real tragedy.

While I believe De Lay should be investigated by the Ethics Committee, no one should resign until the Committee arrives at some sort of finding.

That would be like asking Clinton to resign during the Lewinsky thing without having a hearing and vote of some kind. Not that some Clinton-haters didn't demand it, but everyone gets a hearing, and there's a vote on what to do.

If they find he's done something, I'm sure they'll come up with a punishment - punishment by the Ethics Committee does not always involve resignation.

I never asserted that DeLay should resign.

His resignation might be best for the Republican Party. It might be best for the country -- although that depends on a lot of factors.

But he is entitled to a hearing. I do not deny it.

Of course, he has already gotten several hearings and been reprimanded multiple times by the GOP-controlled Ethics Committee.

I do lack some confidence in the Ethics Committee's ability to get to the bottom of these charges -- given that DeLay has hand-picked the majority of its members, several of its members have donated to his defense fund, and several of its members have received money from DeLay's PACs (including some of the ones that are the subject of DeLay's violations). The GOP's various attempts to further alter the rules of the House and the Ethics Committee to protect DeLay are also cause for concern.

Of the Kennedy thing, I can only say that of the three brothers, we were left with the worst one. A real tragedy.

Agreed.

"If you have to write your ethics laws down, then you've already lost." -- Jack Ryan (POTUS in the novel Executive Orders by Tom Clancy)

Definately yes, the bastard.
Who is he?
He did what?
Ah get rid anyway.

"Everyone knows" a lot of things that aren't true.

It was an accident and someone died. To say he "let someone die" is untrue.

Many people have been involved in fatal car accidents. That does not make them murderers.

To equate the two is ridiculous and shameless.
I'm aware that "everyone knows" is an extremely weak argument. But I don't feel naive enough to ignore the coincidence that Ed Kennedy is a Democrat and so are you, and that you are defending him.

I don't think you're even trying to look at him objectively.

"If you have to write your ethics laws down, then you've already lost." -- Jack Ryan (POTUS in the novel Executive Orders by Tom Clancy)

Thanks!

Excellent evidence that Tom Clancy is an idiot.

I'm aware that "everyone knows" is an extremely weak argument. But I don't feel naive enough to ignore the coincidence that Ed Kennedy is a Democrat and so are you, and that you are defending him.

I don't think you're even trying to look at him objectively.

Excellent example of the argumentum ad hominem.

I don't think you or Underemployed Pirates are looking at Senator Kennedy objectively.

I've presented objective evidence that -- even if the smears against Kennedy are true -- is was guilty of no more than a misdemeanor. And that he pled guilty and was punished for a misdemeanor -- albiet a different one than he is alleged to have committed.

Also these allegations were thoroughly vetted at the time and again when Kennedy ran for President in 1980. Pray tell, why your "objective" analysis is superior to those that have actually looked into this and discovered no indictable offense?

As neither you nor Underemployed Pirates have cited anything substantive, I stand by my defence.

2 things:

a. if we started listing all the indictable offenses of the Kennedy clan, we'd never be able to have time to work;

b. your spelled "defence" like an English speaker not native to the Untied States. Are you an American?
Dodging the point are we?

Kindly start listing, and restrain them to Edward Kennedy.

Thanks!

Excellent evidence that Tom Clancy is an idiot.

Uh, not really. It just means that ethics should be common sense. If it has to be written down, that means that these ethics rules have to be placed upon the people, and not carried out by themselves. It's a true statement.

It isn't evidence of his idiocy, it's evidence of Congress' corrupt state.

dodging "the point" ?

What point?

Nothing one can say about the hypoocrisy of going after DeLay without also goig after the killers and other crooks in Congress makes any impression on an apologist for Kennedy.

My point from the beginning is that killers and crooks in Congress should be outed. Not outted "selectively".

The original question was basically "Should Delay Resign from Congress"?
I say: He can stay until the killers and crooks senior in time to him have resigned.

Cat-tribe basically is saying: "Hey, let's not get distracted in our hunt for DeLay's scalp!" "Let's get this guy. After all, nobody took a breathalyzer of Ted when he killed, err allegedly killed that girl...and he pleaded out to a misdemeanor for leaving the scene of an accident. So, he's ok by me. Oh, by the way, OJ was acquited, so that means he was innocent."
So, in short, you are dodging the fact that you can't prove that he has committed a crime above and beyond a misdemeanor. In short, you're committing libel. In short, you have no defense but "look over there, there's some unsubstantiated crap about Edward Kennedy, ignore Tom Delay".


Unless you have proof. Which is what Cat Tribe is asking for.

Wow, you're going after DeLay, but aren't a member of congress, don't live in his district, aren't a Republican, etc. etc. etc. but you'll ignore a killer in the Senate simply because he pleaded guilty to leaving the scene of an accident 36 years ago.

DeLay's alleged crimes and ethics violations should be investigated and he should be punished if found guilty by the appropriate authorities.

Senator Kennedy's alleged crimes were investigated more than once and he has been punished for the only crimes he committed.

DeLay's crimes are current and relate directly to his role as a Congressman.

Senator Kennedy's alleged crimes occurred 36 years ago and have nothing to do with his role as a Senator.

My views are consistent. Yours are hypocritical.

And what part of being a citizen of the US don't you understand? I have a right to expect all members of Congress to obey federal law and the rules of the Congress. Don't I?

And, btw, we have many "killers" in the Senate. Some of them are decorated war heros.

Being responsible for someone's death doesn't make you a criminal. Try reading the statutes.

What's you're fundamental problem with not wanting to admit that Kennedy killed that girl? If you don't like the sources I listed (apparently, because you thought some were editorials and therefore had no value, without apparently reading the other sources), why not look at the inquest testimony -- he killed that girl. On television, he even admitted driving that car into the drink. The only thing he didn't admit was that he was on a date with her and he was drunk.

"Killed that girl" is deliberately vague. You either do or should know that means nothing re whether he committed a crime.

Yes, he admitted he was in a car accident. Undisputed. Caused the death of the young woman (not a girl, thank you). Undisputed. NOT A CRIME!!!

Whether he was on a date with her is (a) your assertion and (b) irrelevant. Doesn't make it a crime.

Whether he was drunk is (a) your unproven assertion and (b) even if true only makes it vehicular homicide - a misdemeanor!

And, sure, I did not read the unlinked sources you listed or all the books you listed. I have read some books on the topic.

But if you are going to accuse someone of a crime -- particularly to repeat an accusation that has been investigated more than once -- you had better have some evidence that matches the elements of a crime. So far, even under your wildest accusations, Senator Kennedy is not guilty of a felony.

Get real...quit defending Kennedy like you're Don Quixote going after windmills, admit that he is as disqualified as deLay, and we can all move on.

I am being real.

You are the one that -- despite the statutes being presented to you -- keeps making ridiculous assertions.

I've explained -- and you have failed to even respond to -- the differences between the allegations against DeLay and Kennedy.

You are being a hypocrite. And you are trying to distract from DeLay's very real offenses with imaginary allegations against Kennedy.

Get a frickin' clue. You claim to be a grown-up. Start acting like one and stop using the "but mommy he did worse" excuse. It doesn't work on the playground and it doesn't work in a court of law.

Go ahead and try to start impeachment proceedings against her.

You've made it perfectly clear you have no better understanding of the term "impeachment" than you do the terms manslaughter or vehicular homicide.

2 things:

a. if we started listing all the indictable offenses of the Kennedy clan, we'd never be able to have time to work;

If you have any evidence of an indictable offense, please present it to a prosecutor or a grand jury.

As I am rather sure you have no such evidence, perhaps you should quit making unfounded allegations.

I presented multiple links describing the evidence of DeLays multiple offenses.

I suggest that DeLay's offenses should be investigated.

Other than the irrelevancy that you like to hurl mud at the Kennedy family, do you have any actual objection to DeLay being investigated.

Or are you the true hypocrite.


b. your spelled "defence" like an English speaker not native to the Untied States. Are you an American?

Perhaps you should work on your reading comprehension some more.

I've said that I am a U.S citizen more than once.

I was born, raised, educated, and received my multiple degrees in the US. Thank you very much.

Check your Webster's -- both defense and defence are acceptable spellings.

Uh, not really. It just means that ethics should be common sense. If it has to be written down, that means that these ethics rules have to be placed upon the people, and not carried out by themselves. It's a true statement.

It isn't evidence of his idiocy, it's evidence of Congress' corrupt state.

And apparently evidence of the corrupt state of practically every professional society in history.

Every heard of the Hippocratic oath?

It is an incredibly stupid statement.

But apparently those that have written on the subject of ethics throughout human history need not have bothered. It is all "common sense."

he is answerable to his constituents... his constituents are the people in his state.

i don't know enough about the allegations to comment (fairly certain that some of it's no big deal, but...), so i'll leave it at that.

Uh, not really. It just means that ethics should be common sense. If it has to be written down, that means that these ethics rules have to be placed upon the people, and not carried out by themselves.

spoken like someone who has never encountered an ethical dilemma. and certainly never been exposed to competing and contradictory ethical theories.

If you have any evidence of an indictable offense, please present it to a prosecutor or a grand jury.

As I am rather sure you have no such evidence, perhaps you should quit making unfounded allegations.

I presented multiple links describing the evidence of DeLays multiple offenses.

I suggest that DeLay's offenses should be investigated.

Other than the irrelevancy that you like to hurl mud at the Kennedy family, do you have any actual objection to DeLay being investigated.

Or are you the true hypocrite.




Perhaps you should work on your reading comprehension some more.

I've said that I am a U.S citizen more than once.

I was born, raised, educated, and received my multiple degrees in the US. Thank you very much.

Check your Webster's -- both defense and defence are acceptable spellings.

So are "maneuver" and "manoeuvre" but we Yanks choose the former. hehe

dodging "the point" ?

What point?

Nothing one can say about the hypoocrisy of going after DeLay without also goig after the killers and other crooks in Congress makes any impression on an apologist for Kennedy.

My point from the beginning is that killers and crooks in Congress should be outed. Not outted "selectively".

The original question was basically "Should Delay Resign from Congress"?
I say: He can stay until the killers and crooks senior in time to him have resigned.

Cat-tribe basically is saying: "Hey, let's not get distracted in our hunt for DeLay's scalp!" "Let's get this guy. After all, nobody took a breathalyzer of Ted when he killed, err allegedly killed that girl...and he pleaded out to a misdemeanor for leaving the scene of an accident. So, he's ok by me. Oh, by the way, OJ was acquited, so that means he was innocent."

Pray tell.

Why doesn't DeLay or Bill Frist or President Bush -- or any of the Republican majority in the House and Senate -- seek an investigation into all of these "crooks and killers" you shameless claim are in Congress? Hmmm?

I am saying DeLay's offenses should be investigated. Even the majority of the Ethics Committee that DeLay handpicked agrees.

I've presented explanations of the offenses he committed. With links to evidence.

Kennedy's alleged offenses have been investigated. Repeatedly. Your allegations have not been proven. In fact, you ignore that your allegations -- even if true -- amount to no more than a misdemeanor and would not disqualify Kennedy from the Senate.

You cannot articulate any reason why DeLay's offenses should not be investigated. Instead, you hurl mud. And you resort to name-calling against anyone that disagrees with logic and evidence.

It is childless.

Have you no shame? At long last, have you no shame whatsoever?

(If you recognize the last line, it is even more appropriately aimed at you.)

And, by the way, Ted Kennedy was kicked out of harvard for cheating --- he had someone else take a test for him (probably was a urine test he knew he'd fail).

Wow.

You don't even bother to check the mud before you throw it. Just scoop and hurl.

Pray tell, this disqualifies one from Congress under current laws or rules because ......

Or are you just trying to show how low you will stoop?

So are "maneuver" and "manoeuvre" but we Yanks choose the former. hehe

As a fellow Yank, I'll note that my copy of The Merriam-Webster Dictionary (Pocket Books, 1974) disagrees.

It list "manoeuvre" as a "chiefly British variant" of maneuver.

It lists defence and defense in the same entry. As alternative spellings of the same word.

I usually use defense. But either spelling is proper -- for us Yanks.

Your unceasing defense of Ted Kennedy is telling. You have no interest in fairness of justice -- you just want Delay. *snip*.

My "unceasing defense" has been to point out your lack of evidence and that, even if what you allege is true, it amounts to a misdemeanor under Massachusetts law. (You conveniently ignore that point.)

You've demonstrated your unwavering desire to change the subject and to ignore the law, evidence, and standards of decency.

Whether or not Kennedy is guilty of an offense in Massachusettes from 36 years ago is not relevant to whether Tom DeLay has violated the rules of the House of Representatives.

You make no defense of DeLay. You merely hurl mud at Kennedy.

That is no interest in justice. It is a childish temper-tantrum.

DeLay's offenses are public matters that go directly to his ability to be Majority Leader under the rules of the House.

I will no longer respond to your attempts to distract from these offenses.

Your unceasing defense of Ted Kennedy is telling. You have no interest in fairness of justice -- you just want Delay.

Your unceasing defense of Tom DeLay and demonization of Ted Kennedy has been telling. You have no interest in fairness of justice - you just want to distract everyone's attention from DeLay's ethics violations by bringing up Chappaquiddick over and over.

If you had any interest in the truth, you easily could read the inquest report, the police reports, and the testimony -- Ted Kennedy killed that girl.

If you had any interest in the truth, you easily could see that Chappaquiddick has absolutely no relevance to DeLay's ethics violations and that there is no proof that Ted Kennedy killed Mary Jo Kopechne.

By "killed that girl", I mean: "Ted Kennedy was drunk when he drove his car into a drainage ditch, resulting in the drowning death of May Jo Kopechne."

That's not slander -- that's truth. Pure and simple.

By that definition, Laura Bush ought to be indicted for killing her then boyfriend in the car crash. And it's not truth.

Slander is spoken. When it's printed it's Libel. Get your terms straight.

If you think Kennedy's guilty plea for leaving the scene of an accident absolves means that he did not kill that girl, then you're simply delusional.

If you keep insisting Kennedy deliberately murdered Mary Jo Kopechne with Malice Aforethought and not one conclusive evidence, then you're simply insincere. Then again the only reason you bring up Chappaquiddick is to shield Tom DeLay from a Congressional inquiry on his Ethics Violations.

You want DeLay? Then have the character to be willing to go after the Ted Kennedy's also.

Again with the False Dilemma Fallacy of "If you want to get DeLay, you must also go after Kennedy or do not go after DeLay at all."

Your continued hypocrisy is the problem here. Get real about Kennedy, and we can talk about DeLay.

Your continued disingenuity and partisanship is the problem here. Get real about the current problem (i.e. Tom DeLay's Ethics Violations) and stop bringing up irrelevant history like Chappaquiddick.

Japanese swordsmiths have cut down less Straw Men than you.

Wow?

The question was should Delay resign and we get an argument about Ted.

Whatever Ted did or didn't do is not valid to the question.

Did Delay accept those credit cards? He of all people should know the rules and if he did violate them then he should be punished.

The question about liberals and or democrats did or didn't do is not valid either.

If they did something wrong, charge them with something and the examine the claims.

Just because the Demos did something unethical doesn't excuse the actions of a Republican.

They tried everything to nail ol slick willy and now they cry foul when it's one of their own?

Delay is a useful tool for the 2006 elections. If he stays in his spot, many conservatives will disappear after the elections.

You know something? Its really interesting to see underemployed pirates talk all about Ted Kennedy and what not while crying hypocrisy. If he really wanted to avoid being labelled that, he would have taken an argument that would have pushed for highlighting the problems of both. So far, I've only seen one side of it.

“A Special Kind Of Grief In Massachusettes.” Editorial. New York Times. 3 August, 1969.

“A Tragic Incident Imperils a Great Career.” Editorial. New York Times. 27 July, 1969.

“All Quiet On The Kennedy Front In Edgartown.” Editorial. New York Times. 11 January, 1970.

Clymer, Adam. Edward M. Kennedy: A Biography. New York: William Morrow, 1999.

“Comments By Papers On Kennedy Case.” Editorial. New York Times. 25 July, 1969.

Evans, Rowland., Novak, Robert. “Hopes For a Kennedy Explanation Fade Into Melancholy Foreboding”. Editorial. Washington Post, 24 July, 1969.

Kappel, Kenneth R. Chappaquiddick Revealed: What Really Happened. New York: Shapolsky, 1989.

“King Can Do No Wrong?” Editorial. The Oregonian. 25 July, 1969.

“Mr. Kennedy’s Response.” Editorial. New York Times. 31 July, 1969.

“New Kennedy Tragedy.” Editorial. The Oregonian. 22 July, 1969.

Olsen, Jack. The Bridge At Chappaquiddick. Boston: Little, Brown, 1970.

Reston, James. “Edgartown, Mass.: The Strange Case of Senator Kennedy”. Editorial. New York Times, 7 January, 1970.

Reston, James. “Senator Kennedy’s Impossible Question”. Editorial. New York Times, 27 July, 1969.

“Still A Tragedy And A Mystery.” Editorial. New York Times. 27 July, 1969.

Tedrow, Thomas L., Tedrow, Richard L. Death At Chappaquiddick. Gretna, La: Pelican, 1980.

“Tragedy And Mystery.” Editorial. New York Times. 25 July, 1969.

I said I was going to walk away, but one more comment on "your sources."

Unless you are Chris Pratt and are the creator of the website www.saturatedpratt.com, you merely copied them from here (http://www.saturatedpratt.com/tedkennedy.html).

Which makes me doubt you have actually read these sources and you clearly haven't read the essay that used these sources -- or you'd know the essay and most of the sources don't back your allegations.

For example, according to the source you copied from Jack Olsen'sThe Bridge At Chappaquiddick hypothesized that Kennedy was not even driving -- that Mary Jo Kopechne drove of the bridge by herself. Doesn't quiet match your theories does it?

Methinks you bear false witness.

I said I was going to walk away, but one more comment on "your sources."

Unless you are Chris Pratt and are the creator of the website www.saturatedpratt.com, you merely copied them from here (http://www.saturatedpratt.com/tedkennedy.html).

Which makes me doubt you have actually read these sources and you clearly haven't read the essay that used these sources -- or you'd know the essay and most of the sources don't back your allegations.

For example, according to the source you copied from Jack Olsen'sThe Bridge At Chappaquiddick hypothesized that Kennedy was not even driving -- that Mary Jo Kopechne drove of the bridge by herself. Doesn't quiet match your theories does it?

Methinks you bear false witness.


Ewwwwwww

Nice shot! :)

If we jump ahead and hypothesize that DeLay does resign, what will the net effect be? The Democrats survived the Jim Wright and the Dan Rostenkowski scandals. The Republicans survived and prospered after Newt Gingrich was forced to resign and after Trent Lott was forced to yield his leadership position.

If history is any guide, this won't mean anything. The Democrats will have a hollow victory to parade around in 2006, but in DeLays district, where it matters, does anyone think that a Democrat will win his seat? Or any other seat because of this scandal?

As hard as they try to nationalize the House races, Tip O'Neill was right when he said "...All politics is local...". I don't see this commotion causing anything but temporary embarrassment to the House Republicans. With the passage of new ethics committee rules, they are well on the way to putting this mishap behind them..

Should he resign? Yes.

But, the real question is... Should he resign? Yes.

As hard as they try to nationalize the House races, Tip O'Neill was right when he said "...All politics is local...". I don't see this commotion causing anything but temporary embarrassment to the House Republicans. With the passage of new ethics committee rules, they are well on the way to putting this mishap behind them..

For the Delay sure!

However, could it not be argued that it would hurt the whole?

For example, I may not like my Democratic Rep. Then I read about Delay and the "justifications" and it might make me want to keep my rep with the logic of "The Devil you know versus what you could get."

For the Delay sure!

However, could it not be argued that it would hurt the whole?

For example, I may not like my Democratic Rep. Then I read about Delay and the "justifications" and it might make me want to keep my rep with the logic of "The Devil you know versus what you could get."
I'm just pointing out that ethical misconduct doesn't seem to hurt the party involved. I'm willing to bet that without Google, no one could tell me what Wright or Rostenkowski did that got them thrown out. Rosty went to jail. Then there's Trafficant from Ohio. What ever happened to him? He went to jail. What for? Who knows?

Memories are short and politicians count on that. Local politics, jobs for the district, walking around money on election day... Those are the things that win elections. Maybe the House Republicans will suffer for a few more weeks, but in the end, DeLay will resign and all will be forgotten.

So that the example you give doesn't come to pass, the party will cut DeLays legs out from under him. Quietly, but he won't be allowed to run in 2006.

"Should Rep. Tom DeLay Resign From the U.S. Congress?"

Why? Because a whole bunch of Democrats who have done the same identical things he has done say he should resign? Get real.

"Should Rep. Tom DeLay Resign From the U.S. Congress?"

Why? Because a whole bunch of Democrats who have done the same identical things he has done say he should resign? Get real.
Better watch out. The Debaters don't like that answer. I don't think real life has caught up with them, yet.

Better watch out. The Debaters don't like that answer. I don't think real life has caught up with them, yet.
Tsk! Real life has a way of interferring with so many things, don't it! Heh!

"Should Rep. Tom DeLay Resign From the U.S. Congress?"

Why? Because a whole bunch of Democrats who have done the same identical things he has done say he should resign? Get real.

Haven't actually been following the story too closely, have we?

Many, many Republicans and conservatives have been calling on DeLay to resign.

Many Democrats would like him to stay, but be disciplined. Keep that albatross around the GOP's neck.

And feel free to document these House Ethics violations out, but they won't excuse DeLay's violations.

Given that it the GOP-controlled House Ethics Committee that has already had to reprimand DeLay repeatedly, you might consider this is not just a partisan issue.

I don't deny money is ubiquitous in politics and many members of Congress violate the rules. But DeLay -- like some before him including Democrats -- got arrogant and careless. He stepped way, way over the line and he left a messy trail of evidence. So fall the mighty.

Better watch out. The Debaters don't like that answer. I don't think real life has caught up with them, yet.

Cute.

Patronizing. Based on erroneous assumptions, but cute.

Your mommy should have taught you that the "others have got away with it so it can't be wrong" defense doesn't work. Not in the playground. Not in the courtroom. Not in politics. That is real life.

I've had to explain that to more than a few clients. Selective prosecution is not a defense.

I think he should stay on and damage the Republican partys image even more.

Seconded for emphasis!

Nothing like a good albatross! :D

Cute.

Patronizing. Based on erroneous assumptions, but cute.

Your mommy should have taught you that the "others have got away with it so it can't be wrong" defense doesn't work. Not in the playground. Not in the courtroom. Not in politics. That is real life.

I've had to explain that to more than a few clients. Selective prosecution is not a defense.

"Others have got away with it so it can't be wrong defense" does work in politics though, it's just not a guaranteed win is all. As does the "how much money are we spending investigating a trivial infraction" defense.

And desuetude, or something.

As I said before, I want Delay out. And a whole bunch of others. You know what would be better for the country than partisan bickering about which "team" is better, is if we all sat down, and figured out a way to punish both sides for their sketchy behavior. Congress should be the best of us, not the inadeuqate middle.

Fair enough?

"Others have got away with it so it can't be wrong defense" does work in politics though, it's just not a guaranteed win is all. As does the "how much money are we spending investigating a trivial infraction" defense.

And desuetude, or something.

As I said before, I want Delay out. And a whole bunch of others. You know what would be better for the country than partisan bickering about which "team" is better, is if we all sat down, and figured out a way to punish both sides for their sketchy behavior. Congress should be the best of us, not the inadeuqate middle.

Fair enough?

I would like to see holding political office as unpleasant as serving on a jury. Low pay, lousy hours, hard work. Then you could be quite suspicious of anyone that wanted to serve.

The other improvement would be to make it a part-time job. If Congress were only allowed to meet for a short time every couple years in order to pass a budget, they would have a much harder time getting their noses into state's affairs.

"Others have got away with it so it can't be wrong defense" does work in politics though, it's just not a guaranteed win is all. As does the "how much money are we spending investigating a trivial infraction" defense.

And desuetude, or something.

As I said before, I want Delay out. And a whole bunch of others. You know what would be better for the country than partisan bickering about which "team" is better, is if we all sat down, and figured out a way to punish both sides for their sketchy behavior. Congress should be the best of us, not the inadeuqate middle.

Fair enough?
Indeed.

*grumbles something about term limits*

I believe that Andy Borowitz (The Borowitz Report (http://www.borowitzreport.com)) said it best:

"Elsewhere, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said that he is so confident he will win his ethics fight that he just doubled his family’s salary."

I would like to see holding political office as unpleasant as serving on a jury. Low pay, lousy hours, hard work. Then you could be quite suspicious of anyone that wanted to serve.

The other improvement would be to make it a part-time job. If Congress were only allowed to meet for a short time every couple years in order to pass a budget, they would have a much harder time getting their noses into state's affairs.

Since you are interested in realpolitik, you should be aware of the fact that the Nevada State Legislature works on just such a principle. It has proven unable in the past three legislative seasons to get all its work done on time and Nevada in general has been gyrating from one fiscal crisis to another. All in all, not a very effective system, seemingly.


Read my posts.

The question was "Shoudl Delay Resign?
My answer: Not until Ted Kennedy resigns.

Your basic problem is that you can't get past this truth: Many people well before DeLay have problems with ethical and legal problems greater than DeLays. If you're not willing to go after them and you just want to go after DeLay, then you are the "partisan" one.

I never said or implied that Ted Kennedy "intentionally murdered" Mary O Kopechne.

I've not said one word in "defense" of DeLay -- I have no interest in defending him. Clearly, I have not been partisan at all.

My singular point has been that attacking DeLay (or, anyone else for that matter) without being willing to attack the Ted Kennedys of the Congress is simply hypocritical. You guys don't like that truth, so you make make personal attacks against me over and over. You actually believe that making derogatory remarks about me solves your basic problem?

You want DeLay but you're not a member of Congress, not a Republican, don't live in his district, and you're not willing to go after Ted Kennedy? Well, that tells it all.

I have quite a few one-liner responses to this. Unfortunately, most would get me banned for trolling.

TCT has explained this quite clearly in my view, but I will try to explain exactly what the problem is. It's really quite simple:

Your
Argument
Is
A
Logical
Fallacy

Let's try it this way; suppose we break down your logical syllogism, which looks something like so:

1) Tom DeLy should only be punished for an ethics violation if Ted Kennedy is punished for murder.
2) Ted Kennedy has not been punished for murder.
3) Tom DeLay should not be punished for an ethics violation.

And then replace all the underlined components with something else, like so:

1) I should only be punished for stealing cookies out of the cookie jar if you are punished for breaking Thurgood's window.
2) You have not been punished for breaking Thurgood's window.
3) I should not be punished for stealing cookies out of the cookie jar.

Now, what is the problem with the argument I just made? Well, the main problem is that whether or not you broke Thurgood's window has absolutely nothing to do with whether I should get punished for stealing cookies out of the cookie jar; the only factors that do matter is whether I did steal cookies out of the cookie jar, and whether or not I was allowed to steal cookies out of the cookie jar. Your relationship to Thurgood's broken window in this instance makes absolutely no difference. We should be agreed on that point.

Why then, if you replace the terms and keep the same logical structure, is it somehow so different when the people in question are Tom Delay and Ted Kennedy instead of you an I? My only guess on this point is that you are blinded by ideology: you assume that the only reason why people would attack Tom DeLay and not Ted Kennedy is because of partisan bias. That is emphatically not the case: it could just be that Ted Kennedy has already paid for his crimes (and the Constitution prohibits double jeopardy, or going on trial twice for the same crime. Before you jump in with "He hasn't been tried for killing the young woman", let me respond by saying That's because they couldn't find enough evidence to charge him of that at the grand jury"), while Tom DeLay has not. Moreover, it might just be that TCT is trained as a philosopher, which means he knows what I've been trying to tell you: even supposing that we were hypocritical by targeting Tom DeLay and not Ted Kennedy, that still does not mean that it is therefore untrue that Tom DeLay is not guilty of a violation of campaign finance law and should not be prosecuted if in fact he is guilty.

The more I read this, the more I'm glad I jumped the Republican party back in '98. It's really quite a feat for a party to go from a "We will uphold the highest standards of conduct no matter how it might effect our ability to legislate" mantra that the Republicans brought in '94 to replace the corrupt Dems to "we will tolerate any behavior that those damn, dirty Dems allow their members because they just want to take away our ability to legislate" mantra they demonstrate now. Not a good feat, but quite a feat by any standard.

1) Tom DeLy should only be punished for an ethics violation if Ted Kennedy is punished for murder.
2) Ted Kennedy has not been punished for murder.
3) Tom DeLay should not be punished for an ethics violation.


that's not a syllogism.

that's not a syllogism.

Let's see. . .

A if B
not B
not A

I might be wrong on that, but I'm pretty sure that's a formally valid Modus Tollens argument. Modus Tollens have counted as syllogisms since Aristotle's time, IIRC.

Let's see. . .

A if B
not B
not A

I might be wrong on that, but I'm pretty sure that's a formally valid Modus Tollens argument. Modus Tollens have counted as syllogisms since Aristotle's time, IIRC.

Too many variables in the first premise. I can't diagram it.

Too many variables in the first premise. I can't diagram it.

*Smacks head*

Grr. Stupid me, the reason it doesn't work is because, as I said, it's a fallacious argument and it's not supposed to work. It's not a Modus Tollens, it's an Affirming the Consequent fallacy.

*Smacks head*

Grr. Stupid me, the reason it doesn't work is because, as I said, it's a fallacious argument and it's not supposed to work. It's not a Modus Tollens, it's an Affirming the Consequent fallacy.

yeah you got your a's and b's mixed up

*Smacks head*

Grr. Stupid me, the reason it doesn't work is because, as I said, it's a fallacious argument and it's not supposed to work. It's not a Modus Tollens, it's an Affirming the Consequent fallacy.

Yah,

I think he was trying to say:

1: All (elected officials/peoples representatives) are (should be removed for wrongdoing/misdeeds/unacceptable behavior)

2: Some (elected officials/peoples representatives) are not (should be removed for wrongdoing/misdeeds/unacceptable behavior)

therefore:

3: Some (elected officials/peoples representatives) are not (should be removed for wrongdoing/misdeeds/unacceptable behavior).

Given that 1 and 2 are indeterminate, 3 cannot be concluded. I think there is probably a fancy name for it, but I don't know what it is. (AOO-2 i think offhand, but I'm probably wrong, ).

Tom Delay should not resign no matter what.

Posted by the Satanic Priest, Lord Medivh

Why not go after Hillary? She has done similar things compared to Delay.

"Mrs. Clinton and her husband also took money from generous private Americans to finance and furnish her two luxury houses, which together cost about $5 million. She also ran up enormous tabs traveling the world as First Lady. In just one example of how Hillary used our tax dollars, she and Chelsea and an entourage of two dozen people went on spring break to North Africa in 1999. The airfare alone cost the American taxpayer a colossal $2.3 million. The Factor tried to find out just how much this entire junket cost but failed, because, by law, White House expenditures are sealed for twelve years after a president leaves office. We asked the Clintons to waive that policy so that we the people, who paid for the North African trip, could know the expense. Bill and Hillary, an insider told me, got a big kick out of that request."

"If you follow The Factor on TV and radio, you know that this kind of "spend American tax money so we can have a good time" approach is grounds for "pinhead" status. I am no fan of politicians and their wives who enrich themselfs at the public money fountain." --- Bill O'Reilly, from the book "Who Looking Out For You".

Posted by the Satanic Priest, Lord Medivh

What does 'pinhead' status actually mean?

What does 'pinhead' status actually mean?

That you were in the hellraiser movies.

Why not go after Hillary? She has done similar things compared to Delay.

"Mrs. Clinton and her husband also took money from generous private Americans to finance and furnish her two luxury houses, which together cost about $5 million. She also ran up enormous tabs traveling the world as First Lady. In just one example of how Hillary used our tax dollars, she and Chelsea and an entourage of two dozen people went on spring break to North Africa in 1999. The airfare alone cost the American taxpayer a colossal $2.3 million. The Factor tried to find out just how much this entire junket cost but failed, because, by law, White House expenditures are sealed for twelve years after a president leaves office. We asked the Clintons to waive that policy so that we the people, who paid for the North African trip, could know the expense. Bill and Hillary, an insider told me, got a big kick out of that request."

"If you follow The Factor on TV and radio, you know that this kind of "spend American tax money so we can have a good time" approach is grounds for "pinhead" status. I am no fan of politicians and their wives who enrich themselfs at the public money fountain." --- Bill O'Reilly, from the book "Who Looking Out For You".

Posted by the Satanic Priest, Lord Medivh
A) Using taxpayer money as an elected official to travel to foreign countries as an emissary of the US is not an ethics violation. Delay used money from lobbyists in an improper manner, one which is specifically forbidden.
B) The fact that the Clintons did something wrong in no wau exonerates anyone else. What he did is wrong in its own seperate way, and is in no way dependent on anyone else's punishment.
C) Bill O'Reilly, seriously? Come one now thats just a bad idea.

A) Using taxpayer money as an elected official to travel to foreign countries as an emissary of the US is not an ethics violation. Delay used money from lobbyists in an improper manner, one which is specifically forbidden.
B) The fact that the Clintons did something wrong in no wau exonerates anyone else. What he did is wrong in its own seperate way, and is in no way dependent on anyone else's punishment.
C) Bill O'Reilly, seriously? Come one now thats just a bad idea.

A)It wasn't an emissary, it was a personal vacation.
B)Agreed, but Hillary should be punished too, and besides other people are bringing up Ted Kennedy so I decided to bring up something a bit more recent. Just for kicks.
C) There's nothing wrong with Bill O'Reilly. He is independent, he gets to the heart of the matter, he uses only facts in his arguments, and he is rarely wrong and he admits it when he is wrong.

Posted by the Satanic Priest, Lord Medivh

The political bias on this thread against the right makes me sick.

The political bias on this thread against the right makes me sick.

There always seems to be bias against the right in every thread. That is why I must fight for the right!

Posted by the Satanic Priest, Lord Medivh

The political bias on this thread against the right makes me sick.

Yeah it is really naseuating to see out outclassed you are by the opposition. :p :D

Personally, I think it funny that no one has offered an actual defense of DeLay's actions or disputed the evidence.

The only thing I've seen from the right is a lot of fingerpointing at other politicians.

Yeah it is really naseuating to see out outclassed you are by the opposition. :p :D

Personally, I think it funny that no one has offered an actual defense of DeLay's actions or disputed the evidence.

The only thing I've seen from the right is a lot of fingerpointing at other politicians.


Erm? Intellectual honesty cat?

Yeah it is really naseuating to see out outclassed you are by the opposition. :p :D
"Omg, let's pass a constitutional admendment banning the right!" is what I meant. I have no opinion on Ted or DeLay as I have no facts or experience with either.

"Omg, let's pass a constitutional admendment banning the right!" is what I meant. I have no opinion on Ted or DeLay as I have no facts or experience with either.

That was a joke. Like my statement you quoted.

And I think it was actually a sacrastic joke.

I'm not sure The South Islands is Republican or right wing.

The South Islands has emphasized that he/she is pro-American, libertarian, and capitalist.

Delay is a slimeball. He should resign. This isn't the first time he's crawled around in the muck and gotten off on technicalities:

http://www.texasobserver.org/showArticle.asp?ArticleID=1743

http://www.salon.com/news/1999/02/04news.html

Erm? Intellectual honesty cat?

Intellectual honesty?

Never heard of it. My cat ate it. Errr .....

Actually, I'll back and check but I don't recall any defense of DeLay.

You and some others talked about Congress being corrupt in general ... grumble, grumble ... but I don't recall anyone rebutting the evidence or the actual allegations against DeLay.

Sweeping "He shouldn't resign" or "None of it is that serious" without explanation does not count.

Intellectual honesty?

Never heard of it. My cat ate it. Errr .....

Actually, I'll back and check but I don't recall any defense of DeLay.

You and some others talked about Congress being corrupt in general ... grumble, grumble ... but I don't recall anyone rebutting the evidence or the actual allegations against DeLay.

Sweeping "He shouldn't resign" or "None of it is that serious" without explanation does not count.


Yah, well I did point out that "well he did it too" tends to be a valid defense in the enlightened world of politics. Which it is, though it is question of fact, not law. (I am sure your appreciate the difference ;) )

I think the point is, most intellectually honest conservatives don't defend Delay, and are quite willing to toss him out. But in their fumbling way, they are asking you to explain Bob Byrd, or something.

To me, I don't really care, because term limits would have taken care of those clowns a long time ago. And think on this; I am a fairly right wing individual (well economically at least) in NYC, and I still support term limits.

Yah, well I did point out that "well he did it too" tends to be a valid defense in the enlightened world of politics. Which it is, though it is question of fact, not law. (I am sure your appreciate the difference ;) )

I think the point is, most intellectually honest conservatives don't defend Delay, and are quite willing to toss him out. But in their fumbling way, they are asking you to explain Bob Byrd, or something.

To me, I don't really care, because term limits would have taken care of those clowns a long time ago. And think on this; I am a fairly right wing individual (well economically at least) in NYC, and I still support term limits.

I get it.

I thought you were saying I was not being honest about whether anyone had defended DeLay.

You meant that some are too intellectually honest to defend DeLay. I am glad to see that is true.

Although .... many have seen fit to vote that DeLay committed no violations or the violations are not serious. They just won't explain or justify their vote.

That gets into messy things like rules and facts. :p

"well he did it too" sometimes works in the realm of politics -- if you can convince voters to buy it. That is hardly a defense of DeLay's actions.

Nor has anyone actually provided evidence of violations similar to DeLay's violations.

Many things to dislike about Bob Byrd and his past. Not aware of any Ethics violations.

And term limits are a horrible idea. They are a symptom of voter apathy and American anti-intellectualism. "Stop me before I vote again" is a rather silly concept. But that is for another thread ....

I get it.

I thought you were saying I was not being honest about whether anyone had defended DeLay.

You meant that some are too intellectually honest to defend DeLay. I am glad to see that is true.

Although .... many have seen fit to vote that DeLay committed no violations or the violations are not serious. They just won't explain or justify their vote.

That gets into messy things like rules and facts. :p

"well he did it too" sometimes works in the realm of politics -- if you can convince voters to buy it. That is hardly a defense of DeLay's actions.

Nor has anyone actually provided evidence of violations similar to DeLay's violations.

Many things to dislike about Bob Byrd and his past. Not aware of any Ethics violations.

And term limits are a horrible idea. They are a symptom of voter apathy and American anti-intellectualism. "Stop me before I vote again" is a rather silly concept. But that is for another thread ....


Actually, I do know a few things about Ed Schlossberg, if that helps. After all he did try to stiff the government for $5 million a decade ago, fortunately Senator Al, stepped in.

But I digress. Term limits are not horrible, and there are many good reasons for adopting them, not least of which is preventing permanent establishment of entrenched power. In any case, nbo-one should make a career of washington, but unfortunately they do.

I would imagine, if you and I sat down and cracked a few beers, we wouldn't actually disagree much about what the US should be like, we only disagree about how to get there..

Since you are interested in realpolitik, you should be aware of the fact that the Nevada State Legislature works on just such a principle. It has proven unable in the past three legislative seasons to get all its work done on time and Nevada in general has been gyrating from one fiscal crisis to another. All in all, not a very effective system, seemingly.

But Georgia does have a part-time system that does work. So does Montana. Obviously, there are good ways and bad ways to run a part-time legislature. I suspect it is tightly coupled with the amount of responsibility the legislature wants to delegate to the subordinate governments.

Although .... many have seen fit to vote that DeLay committed no violations or the violations are not serious. They just won't explain or justify their vote.

That gets into messy things like rules and facts. :p


Cat, when was the last time you did a jury trial?

I don't recall jurors having to explain or justify their votes, no matter how stupid I thought they were - or how many laws and facts that they felt fit to ignore.

If you don't like the idea of an Ethics Committee, I'm sure you have some other idea in your head that you believe would work better - and would somehow be immune to politics.

oooooo , so Kennedy pleaded guilty of leaving the scene of the accident.....oooooo what an honorable man!

He was drunk, he drove the car, he wrecked the car, the passenger died as the direct result of the wreck = felony manslaughter!

His plea of guilty to a lesser offense doesn't negate the fact that he killed that girl.....

Well, actually it was never proven he was drunk. People have speculated for years that is why he left the scene, but it's never been proven. Also back in those days drinking & driving wasn't exactly against the law. The drinking & driving laws as we know them today are fairly new in the grand scheme of things. The only thing he was ever proven guilty of was freaking out and leaving the scene and if I recall correctly, it was a long time ago, he chose to save his life instead of hers. Experts over the years have come to the conclusion that he might of been able to save her, but most likely it would of been at his own peril.

Now what happened over 35 years ago has nothing to do with what IS happening today. So the Kennedy issue is not relevant to this thread. Unless you'd like to bring up Trent Lott's thoughts on people of color or perhaps why Strom Thurmond never resigned. Or Bird for that matter. Just like Kennedy, times were different. Now an argument might be made for Trent Lott to resign because it's not old news, it only dates back to 2002. But all of these examples would be doing the same thing as the people bringing up Kennedy. Trying to distract or change the subject which is DeLay!

... But all of these examples would be doing the same thing as the people bringing up Kennedy. Trying to distract or change the subject which is DeLay!
It appears that a substantial number of people participating in the discussion don't like the question. DeLay is toast. I think anyone but Rush will admit that. Problem is that the Democrats seem to think they have cornered the market on ethical wisdom all of a sudden. The very first post sets that tone. I think the real issue is whether the Democrats have the standing to make charges about ethical violations.

This wouldn't be the first poll that lacked sufficent choices, either.

The question really is self-explanatory. From the perspective of most Liberals, and a growing number of conservatives, Rep. DeLay has compromised the standing of the conservative Republican majority in the U.S. Congress as a result of his arguably clear ethics violations. What do you think he should do?

All I have to say is where was this outrage from the other side of the isle during the Clinton years. I do believe Tom should probably step down particularly if there is any clear evidence, like a genetic sample on a blue dress.... I believe both parties should be held to the highest of ethical standards and in the face of clear ethical violations, like boss sleeping with intern, the offending party should definitely loss that position...

All I have to say is where was this outrage from the other side of the isle during the Clinton years.

I believe they tried to impeach him for lying about a blow job. I also believe the outrage showed when they lost the majority in the house in the 90's. But what do I know. ;)

I believe they tried to impeach him for lying about a blow job. I also believe the outrage showed when they lost the majority in the house in the 90's. But what do I know. ;)

The Dems, did no such thing. What I'm saying is, neither side is willing to deal with its own indiscretions, making both a bunch of inane hypocrits lacking any kind of moral or ethical credibility IMO.

Further, boss sleeping with intern is the kind of things that get people fired, tenure revoked, sexual harassment problems and the like. It wasn't just about him lying... If it had been someone who not in his employ, that would be different... He would only have been morally defecient rather than both morally and ethically deficient.

Cat, when was the last time you did a jury trial?

I don't recall jurors having to explain or justify their votes, no matter how stupid I thought they were - or how many laws and facts that they felt fit to ignore.

It has been a few months, as I am on a leave of absence.

But I was unaware we were conducting a jury trial.

If we were, at least a few people would be cooling their heels for contempt of court.

And jurors are obligated to discuss their votes during deliberation.

If you don't like the idea of an Ethics Committee, I'm sure you have some other idea in your head that you believe would work better - and would somehow be immune to politics.

I did not say I was against the idea of an Ethics Commitee.

The Ethics Comittee has always been influenced by politics. That is unavoidable.

But one of the things DeLay has tried to do has been to subvert the Ethics Committee in particularly blatant ways.

Nonetheless, DeLay is being investigated. When the people you hand-pick, give money to, and give you money are nonetheless saying you broke the rules, you've way, way crossed the line.

It has been a few months, as I am on a leave of absence.

But I was unaware we were conducting a jury trial.

If we were, at least a few people would be cooling their heels for contempt of court.

And jurors are obligated to discuss their votes during deliberation.

I did not say I was against the idea of an Ethics Commitee.

The Ethics Comittee has always been influenced by politics. That is unavoidable.

But one of the things DeLay has tried to do has been to subvert the Ethics Committee in particularly blatant ways.

Nonetheless, DeLay is being investigated. When the people you hand-pick, give money to, and give you money are nonetheless saying you broke the rules, you've way, way crossed the line.

I'm sure that the discussions of the Ethics Committee falls into the category of "caucusing in the halls".

I'm not sure that the Ethics Committee could investigate itself, let alone DeLay.

If I were to make a change to the Constitution, I would create an Ethics Panel similar to the Supreme Court, to hold sway over the other three branches in terms of investigating and enforcing ethics rules.

if you caused the accident which resulted in death, you are on the hook (regardless of whether you chose to swim away).

Small point: in Massachusetts, that's a misdemeanor.

Probably have better luck winning some money with a civil suit.

But, if you caused the accident which resulted in death, you are on the hook (regardless of whether you chose to swim away).

Note the word. People don't get charged for accidents You would have to suggest he was some how guilty of wrong doing and thus it wouldn't be an accident. They never proved he was drunk, never! Therefore the only thing he was guilty of was freaking out and leaving the scene of the accident.

Now, can we all stop hijacking this thread and get back on topic? You know, DeLay. :rolleyes:

It appears that a substantial number of people participating in the discussion don't like the question. DeLay is toast. I think anyone but Rush will admit that.

But many that voted and some that have argued here won't admit that.

Which is fine.

I think the man is pond scum and he has committed violations. I am not sure he "is toast."

Problem is that the Democrats seem to think they have cornered the market on ethical wisdom all of a sudden. The very first post sets that tone. I think the real issue is whether the Democrats have the standing to make charges about ethical violations.

Bullshit. Any member of the House can bring an Ethics allegation against any other member. They all have "standing." And any citizen has standing to complain about the Ethics violations of any Congressmen.

The GOP controls both the House and Senate. They overwhelmingly control the Ethics Committee. They could easily investigate any Ethical wrongdoing by a Democrat.

No one has claimed that Democrats have a monopoly on ethics. I have explicitly said I think Ethics violations occur on both sides. It does appear that House leadership tends to (a) get arrogant and powerful enough that they go way over the line and (b) be important enough to draw extra scrutiny. The power only deflects the scrutiny for so long.

The GOP controls both the House and Senate. They overwhelmingly control the Ethics Committee. They could easily investigate any Ethical wrongdoing by a Democrat.

No one has claimed that Democrats have a monopoly on ethics. I have explicitly said I think Ethics violations occur on both sides. It does appear that House leadership tends to (a) get arrogant and powerful enough that they go way over the line and (b) be important enough to draw extra scrutiny. The power only deflects the scrutiny for so long.

Then the problem is the Ethics Committee, or the mechanism itself - not DeLay in particular, or any party in particular (I still believe that power corrupts, so I don't care who's in power - they stink on ice).

The mechanism is obviously flawed.

I'm just pointing out that ethical misconduct doesn't seem to hurt the party involved. I'm willing to bet that without Google, no one could tell me what Wright or Rostenkowski did that got them thrown out. Rosty went to jail. Then there's Trafficant from Ohio. What ever happened to him? He went to jail. What for? Who knows?

Memories are short and politicians count on that. Local politics, jobs for the district, walking around money on election day... Those are the things that win elections. Maybe the House Republicans will suffer for a few more weeks, but in the end, DeLay will resign and all will be forgotten.

So that the example you give doesn't come to pass, the party will cut DeLays legs out from under him. Quietly, but he won't be allowed to run in 2006.

Some of us follow these issues. Some don't.

Of the top o' my head:

Jim Wright was Speaker of the House. Newt Gingrich (ironically) brought accused Wright of using bulk sales of his book to gain excess speaking fees. Wright was also accused of improperly giving his wife a job. Wright resigned as Speaker and, soon after, resigned from Congress.

Jim Trafficant is an utter nut-job. Democrat in name only. He was convicted of conspiracy counts, receipt of gratuities, obstruction of justice, etc. He was subsequently expelled from Congress.

Dan Rostenkowski was convicted of various counts of conspiracy, fraud, and misuse of funds. No action was taken on the Ethics charges because he was defeated for re-election prior to them being taken up.

You are correct that the average voter may not recall what exactly an individual politician did wrong.

That is a bit different from saying that the parties are not hurt by the scandals or that the voters do not remember various leaders did something seriously wrong.

Individual ethics violations by individual members are a bit different. They may hurt that politician and his/her party in his/her district.

Jim Trafficant was not a party leader. Likely most people have not even heard of him.

Same is true of George Hansen. (He was once my Congressman and I met the slimy bastard on several occasions so I remember him.)

Both parties have a history of members who have committed Ethics violations. Neither party has a monopoly on virture. Both parties also have a history of making allegations of Ethics violations against leaders of the other party. Some of these -- like those against Wright and Gingrich -- have merit. Some of these -- like those made against Dick Gephardt, Jim McDermott, David Bonior, Geraldine Ferraro, and Dick Armey -- had little or no merit.

I'm sure it is not partisanship that makes you list Democrats that have gotten into trouble and not Republicans.

Then the problem is the Ethics Committee, or the mechanism itself - not DeLay in particular, or any party in particular (I still believe that power corrupts, so I don't care who's in power - they stink on ice).

The mechanism is obviously flawed.

Gee. What happened to individual responsibility?

The Ethics Committee generally does a decent job.

I'll say for the umpteenth time this is not a problem of any party in particular -- and I think I have repeatedly said the power of House leadership has corrupted members of both parties.

But DeLay -- in particular -- has been found guilty of violations in the past and there is mounting, credible evidence of multiple further violations. They should be investigated. And, if he is found guilty, he should be punished.

My concern about the Ethics Committeee here is particular to DeLay. Several prominent Republicans and conservatives have expressed outrage over the degree to which DeLay has sought to limit and control the Ethics Committee. DeLay led his party to making several specific rule changes to protect DeLay. At the insistence of Speaker Hastert and others, some of these changes were repealed.

No doubt all House leaders have leaned on the Committee to protect themselves. But DeLay has gone well beyond the pale. It is particular to him.

DeLay should be held responsible for his misconduct. Period.

I think I pointed out Newt and Lott in a later post. About the only politician I would absolutely defend is my US Rep. John Linder has almost as uneventful a life as I do. Plus, he's a nice guy. And he sponsors the Fair Tax bill every session.

I still don't think you can point to a case where the ethical misconduct of a single House or Senate member caused any pain to the party involved. On a National scale, the Republicans actually profited by Newt's resignation. He was replaced in a special election by another Republican. People just don't think pols have ethics.

I think bad governing has more effect on the outcome of elections. Look at the gains for the Republicans after 1992. The Dems have been losing ground steadily since then. Really before then, but that seems to be the watershed.

There seems to be some progress here on the toning down of personal attacks against folks just for expressing their opinions, and on the idea that other folks besides DeLay need to be skewered...zowie!


And, golly, I even agree with much of what The Cat-Tribe has said in the last post or two, but with this modification:

"All public officials should be held responsible for their misconduct. Period."

In the case of Ted, it was not an accident.

1) Provide a link, source that claims by a legal branch of the judiciary that this was the case!

You are still missing the point. This isn't about hijacking a thread. This is in direct relationship to the thread: "Should DeLay Resign". The answer is "NO" because the hunt against him is simply a partisan attack. The folks who are haters of Republicans didn't go after Clinton at all because he was their darling. If you want "justice", you have to be willing to exercise "justice".. That's all I'm saying.

You guys want DeLay? Well, let's get them all, and be consistent and not be selective about it.

I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat. I think both suck. However, the Republicans went on a much bigger witch hunt on the Clintons than I have ever seen in all my years.

Note that the Democrats while in power also didn't try to change the rules so they could let Clinton off the hook. We need look no further then in recent Republican actions such as redistricting in Texas and trying to change the ethics rules and we won't even get into them trying to rid the checks & balances of the historic filibuster, that the Republicans used on many, many occasions themselves when they were not in power.

If your best argument is some thing Kennedy did over 35 years ago, you need to find a better argument.

Besides abusing his authority by having "sexual contact" with a subordinate in the White House, Clinton lied (ie: perjured himself) in the Paula Jones case....for which he was disbarred by the Supreme Court of Arkansas .. big deal...he should have been convicted after the impeachment.

I think in this thread we've finally gotten around to a general acknowledgment that all the scumbags should be held accountable....so, I'm not chasing it anymore (unless, of course, someone takes a personal shot at me or otherwise distorts or lies about something I've said).

So, in the interest of reconciliation, I offer this:

Paco and PePe are lost in the desert...hot, tired, thirsty, starving...

[you have to put a thick Mexican accent on this joke; otherwise, it's not so funny]

"Paco! You smell that?" PePe exclaims.

Paco replies: "No PePe, I don't smell nothing..."

"Paco..eees bacon...I smell bacon! Don't chu smell that?" says PePe.

"No, PePe , I don't smell nothing..I think eees a meerage." says Paco.

"OOh, Paco, you done smell no meerage weeth your nose. Eees bacon, for shooore." says PePe.

They go over a hill..and there they see it: A TREE WITH BACON HANGING AND DRIPPING ALL OVER IT...CANADIAN BACON...SMOKED BACON.

"Ooh Paco...we're saved!" exclaims PePe...he runs toward the tree..

BLAM KABANG BLAMM BLAMM ... machine guns blare out, cutting PePe down just when he reaches the tree

PePe cries out: "Paco..no..stay back...eees not a bacon tree.....eees a ham buush!"

Underemployed Pirates very cute. :D

I think both the Republicans & the Democrats are both corrupt. I do believe that the Republicans just happen to be a little more corrupt. Personally, I think we should all be libertarians. Then we could do as we please. That would be best!

Underemployed Pirates very cute. :D

I think both the Republicans & the Democrats are both corrupt. I do believe that the Republicans just happen to be a little more corrupt. Personally, I think we should all be libertarians. Then we could do as we please. That would be best!

Goodness knows the Libertarians are beyond corruption. :p

Anyway....rumor has it that DeLay has spoken with the White House and Republican congressional leaders about stepping down as Majority Leader during the ethics panel investigations. I ran across this in a chat conversation in ICQ, but the speaker did not quote a source. Anyone have a source for this rumor?

DeLay is like a diabetic, battling to stay alive while he's being whittled down piece by piece.

It will be interesting to see how the next two weeks shake out politically, particularly with the judicial nominee filibuster issue.

DeLay is not a bid enough card for the Republicans to give up in exchange for getting their judicial nominees through --- DeLay is going down, it's just a matter of time (short time).

DeLay is like a diabetic, battling to stay alive while he's being whittled down piece by piece.

It will be interesting to see how the next two weeks shake out politically, particularly with the judicial nominee filibuster issue.

DeLay is not a bid enough card for the Republicans to give up in exchange for getting their judicial nominees through --- DeLay is going down, it's just a matter of time (short time).

My feelings exactly. The interesting thing is that Pres. Bush's spokesman has given up attempting to split the "friendship" hair and has stated that the White House is not getting involved in the fracas.

Imagine that.