NationStates Jolt Archive

When the indictment looked imminent Tom Delay relied on running smear ads against Ronnie Earl, the prosecuter, rather than simply defending himself. It was, of course, the only option available to him, because his actions are indefensible, so defending himself would have been pointless. However, his attack ads were full of lies calling Earl a "partisan pitbull" even though he's prosecuted more Democrats than Republicans. Much more.

Now however, when the public has begun running entirly truthful ads describing his wrongdoing, does he respond by defending himself? Again, he is indefensible. So he responds the only way he knows how. By shitting on the Constitution. He did that to get Texas to redistrict 2 years after the census when their constitution demands 10, now he's doing it by threatening to sue any broadcaster who runs the ad.

TV isn't private enterprise like water, or oil. Cable is, but not the airwaves. That's why they're called "the public airwaves." The people own them, the stations merely license them. By threatening to sue the vehicle of free speech Delay is trying to silence the people. If he can run an ad that explains his behavior, then fine, let him run it. He has already established that he likes running ads.

Sorry Tommy. Live by the smear, die by the smear.

Washington Monthly (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_01/007978.php)

No one has liked Delay for a while now.

Why would I (a conservative) want to defend him? He's outta there anyway. It's not like he ever did anything important for conservatism, like, I don't know, cut spending or something.

I (very Conservative to say the least) don't really care for Delay either. Big deal.

In fact, I don't think I've met a Conservative that actually likes Delay.

How the shit did this guy get into politics in the first place?

Simonist']
How the shit did this guy get into politics in the first place?

Sugarland, TX.

Nothing more needs to be said.

As soon as you can defend all of the money various democrats have taken from the exact same types of lobbyists, in which case the answer is the same as yours. As to the whole suing thing, people threaten to sue others all the time, or did you miss the fact that Tom Cruise has threatened to sue South Park over the scientology episode. I've argued for limiting lawsuits like that before, so I don't exactly find it makes sense for him to sue, but this is america and he's allowed to.



While Earle has prosecuted more Dems than Repubs, a lot of his cases against repubs fell through because he never had near enough evidence. I haven't looked at his records against dems. It would be interesting to see if his fail rate was the same.


Ah, now I see. He's suing because the commercial says he took the money. Which is not the case at all. the PAC took the money. They use a highly edited and chopped quote from the Post story as well. Quite possible the lawsuit will go through.

Simonist']In fact, I don't think I've met a Conservative that actually likes Delay.

How the shit did this guy get into politics in the first place?
He has God on his side.

Ya, the Delay thing is hyped up alot, but still, I don't like him and would rather see someone like Shadegg take his place.

He has God on his side.
Hmm, well, it's all so clear now....you can't really argue against God.

Oooooh...waaaait.....

As soon as you can defend all of the money various democrats have taken from the exact same types of lobbyists, in which case the answer is the same as yours.


So that justifies his actions?


As to the whole suing thing, people threaten to sue others all the time, or did you miss the fact that Tom Cruise has threatened to sue South Park over the scientology episode.


Threatining and suing are two different things. He won't as it would only "prove" the never ending rumor of him being gay.

I've argued for limiting lawsuits like that before, so I don't exactly find it makes sense for him to sue, but this is america and he's allowed to.

I used to think limiting was a good idea. However, after working with executives in a couple companies; I am not sure that is a good idea. A law suit is what keeps this guys sort of in line. Many think they are above the laws and owe little or no responsibility. Many times I have heard the thinking of "It's not my problem; it's my succesors problem."

But eh. That's a nother topic for another thread.

As soon as you can defend all of the money various democrats have taken from the exact same types of lobbyists, in which case the answer is the same as yours. As to the whole suing thing, people threaten to sue others all the time, or did you miss the fact that Tom Cruise has threatened to sue South Park over the scientology episode. I've argued for limiting lawsuits like that before, so I don't exactly find it makes sense for him to sue, but this is america and he's allowed to.



While Earle has prosecuted more Dems than Repubs, a lot of his cases against repubs fell through because he never had near enough evidence. I haven't looked at his records against dems. It would be interesting to see if his fail rate was the same.
I assume I am not the only person not surprised at this "defense" or who authored it.

I assume I am not the only person not surprised at this "defense" or who authored it.
*Blinks* Did I defend the lobbying? No, rather I intimated that everyone does it. A natural consequence of that is that until lobbying in general is cleaned up, partisan hackery is the only major reason to concentrate on a specific individual. If on the other hand you agree that lobbying is despicable whoever does it, than the same applies to DeLay.

i don't think tom delay represents conservatives very well, so i don't know why i would have to.

When the indictment looked imminent Tom Delay relied on running smear ads against Ronnie Earl, the prosecuter, rather than simply defending himself. It was, of course, the only option available to him, because his actions are indefensible, so defending himself would have been pointless. However, his attack ads were full of lies calling Earl a "partisan pitbull" even though he's prosecuted more Democrats than Republicans. Much more.

Now however, when the public has begun running entirly truthful ads describing his wrongdoing, does he respond by defending himself?

This is so cute. To take a leftist/liberal op ed piece that mentions an ad paid for by political activists and call them, "the public" and then declare the advertisment as fact is just precious. Please visit my used car lot, I have a 50% off sale starting next week.

Please visit my used car lot, I have a 50% off sale starting next week.
Tell me where, I'll be there. Unless it's South Overland Park....I don't pass south of about 135th if I can help it.

I'm giddy. I just found proof of what comes off as a Conservative that supports Delay, and here he is within my own home county. I must meet you and shake your hand, friend.

TV isn't private enterprise like water, or oil. Cable is, but not the airwaves. That's why they're called "the public airwaves." The people own them, the stations merely license them.
'Course I can argue against this. The machinery that transmits and receives information as RF waves is certainly private property. One of the huge fallacies that exist is that the media that they are propagated in is somehow public property and thus subject to government regulation.

Let's look at ordinary speech. Information is modulated and transmitted from a transmitter to a receiver. Both instruments are assumed to be private property of the holders. Now, is this form of communications regulated? No, in fact, it is constitutionally protected.

The only difference with radio and television transmission and reception is that it takes place at a higher frequency and requires some additional equipment to accomplish the task. The government has latched on to the 'public' nonsense for the sole reason of income. Now they can regulate and tax the users, where we wouldn't stand for it in the case of ordinary speech.

Can any Conservatives defend this?
Well, you got Ravenshrike at least.

'Course I can argue against this. The machinery that transmits and receives information as RF waves is certainly private property. One of the huge fallacies that exist is that the media that they are propagated in is somehow public property and thus subject to government regulation.

The machinary may be private property, but the airwaves are not.

If you don't believe me, set up a transimission yourself and see how long you're allowed to run a radiostation out of your basement. It's called radio piracy, and you're not allowed to do it because if anyone who wanted to could just set up a station and broadcast then you'd end up with 3 or 4 broadcasters on every signal. i.e. a lot of static and no actual media.

That's why the networks are required to air a certain amount of educational and informational material in order to keep their licenses. As licensees of public property they are required to serve the public good.

Well, you got Ravenshrike at least.

Well, he hardly defended it. He just set up a strawman.

I wasn't complaining about the fact that Delay took money from lobbyists. I was complaining about him trying to set metaphorical lynchmobs after people trying to bring him to justice. Imagine if every criminal out there had the means to simply hire a public relations firm to slander the police cheif in their precinct to make it look like a case of malicious persecution.

I was also complaining about the hypocrisy of suing over other people doing exactly what he did, even though they didn't, because they were telling the truth and he was lying.

What I'm complaining about would be as if Bill Clinton called for a Republican's resignation because he found out that the Republican cheated on his wife. Oh, wait, that was what Newt Gingrich did.

There was another guy who argued that my source was an op-ed piece, but the story is so well documented that if he wanted to engage in serious debate he'd find his own sources. Instead, as conservatives are wont to do, he simply set up the means by which to preserve his own ignorance.

Everyone else is trying to disassociate Delay from the conservative movement by pretending that he is somehow irrelevant to it. It sort of reminds me of how some conservative on this board said "let the liberal disowning of Al Franken begin," when someone responded that he was a liberal who didn't think much of Al Franken. The difference is, Franken is a comedian. He isn't central to liberal politics, he's just famous for liberal politics.

Delay on the other hand was the House Majority Leader for the Republican party. He was central to conservative politics. The entire party (or near enough to it as makes no difference) owed some amount of their political lives to his corruption. You can't defend the Republicans by minimizing Tom Delay's relationship to it. If you were willing to throw credulity out the window you could make that argument with Abermoff, but not with Delay.

Simonist']Tell me where, I'll be there. Unless it's South Overland Park....I don't pass south of about 135th if I can help it.

I'm giddy. I just found proof of what comes off as a Conservative that supports Delay, and here he is within my own home county. I must meet you and shake your hand, friend.

No, it isn't south of 135th. I'm in the Fairway area by the golf course. No I don't support Delay or any other political hack. I hate politicians and I hate lawyers period. But what I hate more than them are people that are simply too stupid, to find out where their information is coming from and if they have an agenda before making complete fools of themselves by presenting it as the truth.
I am a firm believer that most people are fairly intelligent and it chaps my ass to no end when a dim bulb comes along and parrots for a PAC they know nothing about.
If by chance they do know what they are parroting for, then these folks make the top of my list because they assume you are dumber than a box of rocks and will not know the difference.

No, it isn't south of 135th. I'm in the Fairway area by the golf course. No I don't support Delay or any other political hack. I hate politicians and I hate lawyers period. But what I hate more than them are people that are simply too stupid, to find out where their information is coming from and if they have an agenda before making complete fools of themselves by presenting it as the truth.
I am a firm believer that most people are fairly intelligent and it chaps my ass to no end when a dim bulb comes along and parrots for a PAC they know nothing about.
If by chance they do know what they are parroting for, then these folks make the top of my list because they assume you are dumber than a box of rocks and will not know the difference.
Oh, I see. You'd go off on any unimaginable stupidity and misleading of the public? Admirable. Ruins the excitement I had about you, 'cause you're no longer a commodity....but.....it happens.

*Blinks* Did I defend the lobbying? No, rather I intimated that everyone does it. A natural consequence of that is that until lobbying in general is cleaned up, partisan hackery is the only major reason to concentrate on a specific individual. If on the other hand you agree that lobbying is despicable whoever does it, than the same applies to DeLay.
The thread had nothing to do with that.

http://www.saulmoran.com/strawman.jpg

Well, he hardly defended it. He just set up a strawman.

I wasn't complaining about the fact that Delay took money from lobbyists. I was complaining about him trying to set metaphorical lynchmobs after people trying to bring him to justice. Imagine if every criminal out there had the means to simply hire a public relations firm to slander the police cheif in their precinct to make it look like a case of malicious persecution.

Out of three grand juries Earle managed to snag two indictments. An indictment does not a conviction make, and the fact that Earle brought the same charge up to two different grand juries in order to get an indictment suggests to me that the evidence is damned thin. Especially as given the nature of the charges being charges to conspire, a prosecuter who is halfway competent will not bring them up unless he has a major piece of damning evidence. A quite possible look at this from DeLay's view is that he brought the charges up specifically to get DeLay kicked out as majority leader. So far, nothing seen supports that he has any piece of majorly damning evidence, and DeLay does not seem like the type, even if he is guilty, to leave a paper trail on something like this which is quite within his control, unlike anything dealing with the Abramoff bit. And as I said, given the what has to be intentional misquoting of the washington post piece in the commercial DeLay could quite possibly win the lawsuit.

The thread had nothing to do with that.

Actually, given the Washington Monthly's article, this thread was quite connected to the issue.

*Blinks* Did I defend the lobbying? No, rather I intimated that everyone does it. A natural consequence of that is that until lobbying in general is cleaned up, partisan hackery is the only major reason to concentrate on a specific individual. If on the other hand you agree that lobbying is despicable whoever does it, than the same applies to DeLay.

Nice job of ignoring the difference between legal lobbying activity and criminal behavior.

EDIT: You don't really believe in a ban on lobbying do you? What about the First Amendment? Your rhetoric trips over itself.

Out of three grand juries Earle managed to snag two indictments. An indictment does not a conviction make, and the fact that Earle brought the same charge up to two different grand juries in order to get an indictment suggests to me that the evidence is damned thin. Especially as given the nature of the charges being charges to conspire, a prosecuter who is halfway competent will not bring them up unless he has a major piece of damning evidence. A quite possible look at this from DeLay's view is that he brought the charges up specifically to get DeLay kicked out as majority leader. So far, nothing seen supports that he has any piece of majorly damning evidence, and DeLay does not seem like the type, even if he is guilty, to leave a paper trail on something like this which is quite within his control, unlike anything dealing with the Abramoff bit. And as I said, given the what has to be intentional misquoting of the washington post piece in the commercial DeLay could quite possibly win the lawsuit.

I wonder, like Dakini, if you defend every accused criminal so vehemently. They are all presumed innocent.

Actually, given the Washington Monthly's article, this thread was quite connected to the issue.
But this thread had nothing to do with lobbying. Thanks for playing Partisan Hackery, we have terrible parting gifts for you.

I wonder, like Dakini, if you defend every accused criminal so vehemently. They are all presumed innocent.
How many people each year get charged with conspiracy? How many convictions? Without someone wearing a wire or someone turning states evidence and supplying some form of proof that what they're saying is true conspiracy charges are extremely hard to convict on.

How many people each year get charged with conspiracy? How many convictions? Without someone wearing a wire or someone turning states evidence and supplying some form of proof that what they're saying is true conspiracy charges are extremely hard to convict on.

And the strawman continues......

How many people each year get charged with conspiracy? How many convictions? Without someone wearing a wire or someone turning states evidence and supplying some form of proof that what they're saying is true conspiracy charges are extremely hard to convict on.

Um. You are still blowing smokescreens, but do you have some stats?

In my experience, conspiracy is a common charge and not any more difficult to prove than any other crime.

And the strawman continues......
I already pointed out that the newest ads were quite deceiving concerning the russian money. Which he probably could at the least get them to remove that part of it, if not the entire ad. And then I pointed out why DeLay might assume Earle was gunning for him, especially given the charges in question. I completely and utterly fail to see how this is a strawman.

I already pointed out that the newest ads were quite deceiving concerning the russian money. Which he probably could at the least get them to remove that part of it, if not the entire ad. And then I pointed out why DeLay might assume Earle was gunning for him, especially given the charges in question. I completely and utterly fail to see how this is a strawman.

So if one makes one or two theoretically valid assertions, then that excuses any fallacies and off-topic arguments?

No wonder you defend DeLay. You're as slippery as he is.

Um. You are still blowing smokescreens, but do you have some stats?

In my experience, conspiracy is a common charge and not any more difficult to prove than any other crime.
Conspiracy essentially requires some sort of record of events, either in the form of orders on paper, or a record of a conversation to prove that he conspired. I already noted that even if DeLay is guilty, he probably didn't leave a paper trail. That leaves either a recording of a conversation or a reliable witness. Doubtful that he recorded any of the conversations of it either. That leaves a reliable witness. So far I haven't heard anything about one. Without the witness Earle just has a series of events and someone he thinks ordered it, but no real proof that DeLay was involved.


For that matter, if his witness is one of the people involved in manipulating the actual money then he probably wouldn't be considered that relaible without, again, some sort of paper trail.

Conspiracy essentially requires some sort of record of events, either in the form of orders on paper, or a record of a conversation to prove that he conspired. I already noted that even if DeLay is guilty, he probably didn't leave a paper trail. That leaves either a recording of a conversation or a reliable witness. Doubtful that he recorded any of the conversations of it either. That leaves a reliable witness. So far I haven't heard anything about one. Without the witness Earle just has a series of events and someone he thinks ordered it, but no real proof that DeLay was involved.


For that matter, if his witness is one of the people involved in manipulating the actual money then he probably wouldn't be considered that relaible without, again, some sort of paper trail.

Um. No. Conspiracy can be proven by circumstantial evidence just liake anything else.

You can be put on death row based solely on circumstantial evidence, so it is good enough against the likes of DeLay.

(And you are merely making wild assumptions about what evidence does or does not exist. I sincerely doubt you have any idea what evidence the prosecutor has.)

As soon as you can defend all of the money various democrats have taken from the exact same types of lobbyists, in which case the answer is the same as yours.
You, and MANY like you, got your arse handed to you last time you argued about who took what from Abramoff. A normal person would be too humiliated and embarassed to bring up that situation again, from that perspective, but i gotta say you gots that special kinda moxie.

And since we're on DeLay ...

*ahem*

DeLay tied to Abramoff casino battle
In letter to AG, Texan pushed for its closure
By Suzanne Gamboa, Associated Press | January 11, 2006

WASHINGTON -- The former House majority leader, Tom DeLay, tried to pressure
the Bush administration into shutting down an Indian-owned casino that Jack
Abramoff, the now-discredited lobbyist, had wanted closed. This was shortly
after a tribal client of Abramoff's donated to a DeLay political action
committee, according to a letter received by the Associated Press.
DeLay, a Texas Republican, demanded closure of the casino, which is owned by
the Alabama-Coushatta tribe of Texas, in a Dec. 11, 2001, letter to the
attorney general at the time, John D. Ashcroft. The source who released the
letter did not want to be identified because of a federal investigation of
Abramoff and of several members of Congress.

''We feel that the Department of Justice needs to step in and investigate
the inappropriate and illegal actions by the tribe, its financial backers,
if any, and the casino equipment vendors," said the letter, which was also
signed by three Texas Republicans, Representatives Pete Sessions, John
Culberson, and Kevin Brady.

Sessions's committee received $6,500 from Abramoff's clients within three
months after signing the letter. An aide to Sessions said he considered
gaming to be a state issue. She said that the tribe had circumvented state
law and that Sessions signed the letter in defense of laws.

Ashcroft did not take action on the request. The Texas casino was closed the
following year by a federal court ruling in a 1999 lawsuit filed by the
state's attorney general, John Cornyn, now a US senator.

Kevin Madden, a DeLay spokesman, said DeLay's actions had been ''based on
policy considerations and their effect on his constituents." ''Mr. DeLay
always makes decisions with the best interests of his constituents in mind,"
Madden said.

The letter was sent at least two weeks after the Mississippi Band of Choctaw
Indians, clients of Abramoff's, contributed $1,000 to Texans for a
Republican Majority. That committee is at the center of the campaign finance
investigation that yielded money-laundering charges against DeLay and that
forced him temporarily out of the majority leader's job.

The letter also was sent to Interior Secretary Gale Norton, among other
officials, including Governor Rick Perry of Texas.

Its author appears to have been unfamiliar with the Alabama-Coushatta.

It said the tribe was based in ''Livingstone" and had opened a casino
''against the wishes of the citizens of Alabama." The tribe's reservation is
in Livingston, Texas.

At the time of the letter, Abramoff was working for the Louisiana Coushatta
and had portrayed the Alabama-Coushatta's Houston-area casino as a threat to
his client's casino.

The disclosure is occurring after DeLay said he has given up trying to
regain the post of majority leader. DeLay had said until Saturday that he
would reclaim the job after clearing his name in the campaign finance
investigation.

DeLay is awaiting trial on charges he funneled corporate contributions,
largely banned in Texas elections, through Texans for a Republican Majority
and the Republican National Committee to the campaigns of several GOP state
legislative candidates.

On Monday, an appeals court denied his request that the charges be
dismissed.

The Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians made the contribution to Texans for
a Republican Majority on Nov. 28, 2001, according to court documents. A
lawyer for the Choctaw declined comment.

Abramoff pleaded guilty to federal charges and is cooperating with
investigators whose bribery probe is now focusing on members of Congress and
aides.

Abramoff's former business partner, Michael Scanlon, DeLay's onetime press
aide, also has pleaded guilty in the case.

The contributions are not necessarily illegal, but DeLay's association with
Abramoff is under scrutiny. DeLay has taken trips paid for in part by
Abramoff, and his national political action committee used skybox seats
leased by Abramoff.

The Alabama-Coushatta were never clients of Abramoff or Scanlon, but
Abramoff targeted the tribe in his work for the Louisiana Coushatta: first
trying to shut down their casino, then trying to become a lobbyist for the
Alabama-Coushatta.

According to court documents, Abramoff used the Alabama-Coushatta to carry
out a bribery scheme.

Federal investigators have alleged that a man later identified as
Representative Bob Ney, Republican of Ohio, agreed in June 2002 to introduce
and pass a provision that would eliminate a ban against gaming for the
Alabama-Coushatta ''at Abramoff's request." Abramoff pleaded guilty to
telling Ney in June 2002 that the Tigua tribe of Texas was raising money for
a Ney trip. The Tigua had turned down Abramoff's request for the money.
---

I already pointed out that the newest ads were quite deceiving concerning the russian money. Which he probably could at the least get them to remove that part of it, if not the entire ad. And then I pointed out why DeLay might assume Earle was gunning for him, especially given the charges in question. I completely and utterly fail to see how this is a strawman.

Because the post was asking if you could defend Delay's actions. You can't. Delay can't. All you can do is attack others. If McCain had to put up with the lying push polls of the Bush campaign, and Kerry had to put up with the lying attack ads of the "Swift Boat Vetrans" then Delay should have to put up with the ads that attack him, that you still have given little reason to beleive were lies. Even if they were, it doesn't matter. He made the trial a political matter by lying about the DA. Once you do that, trying to silence political ads against you by muscling them off the air is blatant thuggery. What would you say if Kerry had threatned to sue any TV station that aired a Bush ad during the last election?

When accused of wrongdoing, he knew he couldn't defend himself, so he attacked the DA. This is unheard of, and he only did it because he can't defend himself in any legitimate way. Note, his attack ads didn't actually present any mitigating evidence in his defense, or any real evidence against Earl, other than that Earl is a registered Democrat. This says that Earls case is pretty damn strong, because Delay is clearly scared.

Well, three pages, and no one can give a valid defense of the leader of the house Republicans.

I suppose I shouldn't have been surprised at the number of Republicans who were willing to pretend that Delay simply isn't that important in conservative politics. They're just responding to the Republican hive mind that seems to be ejecting Delay from the higher circles. I must say, whatever else is to be said about Republicans, they've got the discipline of an ant colony. No member, no matter how superior a specimen it is, is ever worth the effort of the colony to save it. Face off against a caterpillar and you're all alone in the wilderness with nothing but your venom to protect you.

Well, three pages, and no one can give a valid defense of the leader of the house Republicans.

I suppose I shouldn't have been surprised at the number of Republicans who were willing to pretend that Delay simply isn't that important in conservative politics. They're just responding to the Republican hive mind that seems to be ejecting Delay from the higher circles. I must say, whatever else is to be said about Republicans, they've got the discipline of an ant colony. No member, no matter how superior a specimen it is, is ever worth the effort of the colony to save it. Face off against a caterpillar and you're all alone in the wilderness with nothing but your venom to protect you.
I'm *BUMP*ing this one for the sheer biting integrity of this post.

I already pointed out that the newest ads were quite deceiving concerning the russian money. Which he probably could at the least get them to remove that part of it, if not the entire ad. And then I pointed out why DeLay might assume Earle was gunning for him, especially given the charges in question. I completely and utterly fail to see how this is a strawman.
You wouldn't because you still don't realize this thread isn't about that.