*Excuse me, but I’m heartbroken over the exit of one of the finest congressman I’ve ever seen. And in each glowing endorsement of Blunt, this fine man’s name is nowhere mentioned like it’s poison now. They’ve managed to erase Delay’s power, integrity, and legacy all in one fell swoop although the latter two are still there. They’re just covered up. *
Stopped laughing yet? Neither have I. Dayum.
She’s almost as good as Jesus’ General, only she really means it. That’s the crazy part.
I don’t really see what you’re pitting. She thinks that the prosecution of Tom Delay was mallicious, with the intent of removing him as majority leader, and she thinks he was a good majority leader and good man, and sorry she’s gone. She might be wrong that it was just a malicious prosecution, and it’s a matter of opinion whether he was a good man and good majority leader, but, I mean, what do you want her to say? She’s just backing her side.
I’m generally a lefty, but a scumbag is a scumbag no matter which end of the spectrum he’s on. If the determination of someone’s worth is whether they had a ® or (D) after their name don’t you think that’s a problem? Isn’t it pit-worthy?
Her side would be conservative republicans, one would assume. If the determination of someone’s worth is based on whether they have an (R) or (D) after their name, that can be a problem, yes. But I think it’s natural to “cut your side more slack” than you do your opponents, and along with that, there’s a kind of schadenfreude when one of your opponents makes a mistake. Not to get into the whole Whitewater/Monica/Clinton thing, but I don’t think it’s a coincidence that most of Clinton’s supporters during the whole thing were Democrats and generally to the left, while most of his detractors were Republicans and generally to the right.
Equally, during the whole 2000 election fiasco, most people who thought that Bush had won “fraudulently” were on the left, and most people who thought that his election was legitimate were on the right. This partisanship exists, and both sides are equally guilty of it. And I don’t think it’s just a simple matter of “IOKIYAR/D”. Somebody like that blogger really believes, based on the evidence she has, and her understanding of the evidence, that Delay is being prosecuted maliciously and unjustly. On the other hand, somebody like RTFirefly really believes, based on the evidence he has and his understanding of the evidence, that Delay is corrupt and it’s a fair prosecution. What’s more, I don’t think you’re ever going to convince either one of them that the other side is correct.
There just seems to be this tendency in the Pit these days whereupon some poster says, “Famous person/famous group/anonymous blogger says something stupid that I don’t agree with (ie. Sharon has been smote by God, Gene Shallit is a homophobe, Tom Delay is the victim of a Democratic conspiracy). Let’s make fun of how stupid they are.” In this case, why do you care what some random person with a blog on the internet who you disagree with in general thinks?
What do I want her to say? Exactly what she did! Man, it was a hoot.
Now if she was a principled conservative, as opposed to a paid blogger whose hackitude had gone to amusing extremes, I’d expect her to recognize the possibility that DeLay might be just a little corrupt, given that lobbyists and business interests have enabled DeLay to live like a king on a Congressional salary. And that’s without even getting into the Abramoff connection and the K Street Project, which are really the heart of DeLay’s troubles. (The Texas indictments, which are really a sideshow, have been upheld by the courts, I see. And there was no reason whatsoever to believe that the indictments were partisan, other than “Ooh, Ronnie Earle is a Democrat.”)
At this point, if one was paying serious attention to American politics, one would have to be blind to not realize that DeLay had more than a few ethical problems. Pamela eats, sleeps, and breathes politics. Her hackitude is impressive. And it doesn’t bother me in the least, because partisans like her demonstrate how ridiculous the GOP is.
And one side has evidence, and the other doesn’t. What’s complicated about that? Your ‘evenhandedness’ is a classic example of Krugman’s “Shape of Earth: Views Differ” line about the media. Richard Cohen could take lessons from you.
Well hell, I’m not trying to convince Pamela of anything; she’s posting from somewhere off in the far reaches of the galaxy. I’m posting in this forum because the Pit seems to be the appropriate forum to post ridicule about someone who’s in the news, or trying to be. And I’m doing so because it’s much more fun to laugh at Pubbies who’ve checked their brains at the door, than to rail at them.
I’m not gonna pick on random bloggers; everybody knows that the world is full of stupid people, and half of them have blogs. But this isn’t some random person with a blog; this is one of the Pajamas Media bloggers - someone who’s climbed high enough up the ranks in Right Blogistan so that they’re getting paid to share their views with the world. There are a limited number of people out there who are being paid to opine, and they’re all fair game, ISTM, both as individuals and as representatives of whatever cause is shelling out money to support them in their endeavors.
I’ll pit her if she posts that after a conviction, but I don’t have a problem with her posting it now. Each side has a spin on this, and she seems to have taken the DeLay spin to heart. Sure, more and more happens each day to make the average person have some doubts about DeLay, but that isn’t really the type of person you’ll find posting with pajama.
And to gloat now might just backfire as well. The whole innocent until proven guilty thing and all that.
I’ll cheerfully Pit anyone in her position - paid commentator - who’s simply buying someone else’s spin, regardless of whose spin they’re buying. Isn’t that part of the ignorance that this place is about fighting??
Why? Is she a hack, or is she a hack? I’m ridiculing GOP hackitude. And as far as DeLay is concerned, whether or not DeLay’s actually committed crimes, he’s obviously well past the line of what any reasonable person would consider ethical - as a legislator, he’s receiving lavish goodies from people with an interest in legislation before him. Even if it’s legal, it’s sleazy as hell.
My recollection was that money was part of the deal. For the featured PJ bloggers, that is - just being linked to on the blogroll doesn’t get you a dime.
If RTFirefly is sitting on DeLay’s jury, then by all means, he should reserve judgement. The rest of us, who have no power to incarcerate him, are free make decisions based on ex-parte evidence. The evidence suggests that DeLay is crooked. More crooked than Jim Wright ever dreamed of being. Even though she will not be convinced, it is still true. The truth does not lie somewhere in the middle.
As saoirse said, if one is judge or jury in a court proceeding, one must observe the presumption of innocence.
That’s the only place where observation of that presumption is required. The rest of us are free to make judgments based on the evidence in front of us.
As saoirse said, if one is judge or jury in a criminal proceeding, one must observe the presumption of innocence.
That’s the only instance where observation of that presumption is required. As for those of us who aren’t judges, and aren’t currently serving on juries, we don’t have to check our ability to make rational judgments at the door just because someone is accused of a crime.
DeLay, et.al. have caused this Republican much angst of late. Unfortunately, it’s their ilk which has turned the GOP over the last 10 years into the same sort of party machine which they decried when the Dems were holding the reins.
They are efficient, though. It took the Dems almost three times as long to get their fingers in as far. :rolleyes:
Hell, they never did. They got nailed by the GOP and excoriated in the press over a handful of exceptional instances of stuff that’s now routine under the GOP management of Congress.
I don’t know if we’ve never seen anything quite like the present GOP machine before, but certainly not at the Federal level during the post-WWII era.