I’ve always seen Senators and Presidents as the ones we elect for the overall national stuff. Defense, roads, etc. The Reps are there to look out for the individual concerns of a region/state. You have to keep in mind that even a Democrat in North Dakota is still pretty conservative most of the time,
Plus he brings a lot of that Northeast money home, which really pisses them off. And that’s always good. 
And of course I didn’t even answer the question. :smack:
I voted for him because he’s doing a pretty fair job. I wanted to vote for the Republican, I really did, but when it came down to political clout and the fact he hasn’t really fucked anything up, I couldn’t justify trying to take his job away. (Hope that made sense, I’m really tired)
That’s the same reason I voted for Ted Stevens (R) when I lived in Alaska. That, and the fact that his opponent, Theresa Obermeyer (D) is a certifiable loon.
Ah! In that case, since Earl didn’t vote for DeLay, I don’t hold you responsible for DeLay’s actions. My apologies.
Daniel
I think you people’s irony and sarcasm detectors need an overhaul.
It’s pretty obvious that Delay was being sarcastic, and his comment seemed to be a rare nonpartisan observation.
He’s talking about pork, and making the point that nobody seems willing to cut or admit that any of their programs are wasteful or inneficient. This be whether they are Dem or Pub.
Since everybody’s programs are necessary and efficient and nobody has anything to cut therefore (and here’s the sarcasm) the Repbublicans can declare victory as it was under their leadership that Government became perfectly efficient.
He’s actually slamming Republicans here more than Democrats, arguing against their self-congratulatory nature and pointing out what they’ve failed to accomplish with their majority.
So, my liberal friends, this may be the one time that you find yourself in agreement with De Lay.
Then he’s calling upon them to change their failed leadership, is he?
Better think about that theory just a *leetle * bit more.
Mine’s working just fine–and it thanks you for the workout!
Daniel
Obvious to whom? The only other person I can find that shares this opinion is Rush Limbaugh (subscription required). Even other Republicans are taking it seriously:
Since he made that remark, Delay hasn’t said anything to confirm or deny the seriousness of his statement. Until I hear it from him, I see no reason not to take him at his word.
Bah, Delay was not being sarcastic. If he’s seriously displeased about the truckloads of pork that the Republican Congress dishes out on an almost monthly basis, then why isn’t he actually willing to speak up and, oh, I don’t know, say that there’s something going wrong in the Republican Party. Outside of McCain and his very small band of non-republican Republicans, nobody in the party has ever even suggested that there’s anything even mildly displeasing about the record-shattering spending binge of the last five years. So to try weaseling out of this latest nonsense on the grounds that it’s meant as sarcasm is absurd. Sarcasm only works in cases where the real conclusion being referenced is one that the speaker is already known to accept.
The only argument going for it is that Delay must have intended sarcasm because no sane person could possibly assert that our current federal budget is efficient. But Delay is a Republican. Regardless of whether the issue is the War in Iraq, Terry Schiavo, gay marriage, or anything else, the Republican Party’s stance only makes sense if you believe that up is down, black is white, left is right and day is night. So there’s absolutely nothing unusual about hearing one of the party’s three most powerful leaders declaring that the current budget is a model of fiscal restraint. To believe that the current budget is acceptable, you would have to believe that gargantuan pork barrel spending is a good idea, that the government exists to make rich people richer and all others poorer, and that we can send the deficit into the ionosphere without any ill effects. You would, in short, have to be a Republican. Business as usual. Wake me when the next moronic quote comes down the line.
Hmm. The only way Scylla’s comment makes any sense is if he was being sarcastic. It’s not like the lad has a history of sly humor or anything, so I don’t think that’s a possibility.
Daniel
No. To cut pork.
He just did. He probably won’t do it again, though. Dry humor, sarcasm, and truth are a bad mix for any politician.
That’s not true.
That 's just dopey. I should bitchslap you with a banana for trying to pawn that shit. In what fucking tome is that rule written? Maybe kindergarten sarcasm is like that, but as a level 50 sarcasm-user, licensed to practice the art in all 50 states, I tell you that the best sarcasm is just barely plausible.
By definition, it’s good stuff when you whoosh the morons.
Which of course procludes the possibility of sanity. I concede the point.
Yes, this is true as well. Clearly you are a fucking brilliant individual to have penetrated all the nuance with such clarity.
I am defeated. I sought to build an august structure of logic, only to have it revealed as a house of cards. You’re logic:
All Republicans are morons. Morons always say stupid things. De Lay said a stupid thing. Therefore he must have meant it.
Is impervious to attack.
You just wrote it.
Does that include the Republicans in Congress that took it seriously? Can you cite one who did not?
Yes it would and no I won’t be bothered. How many who heard it took it seriously?
I have no way of knowing how many, since few have weighed in; I would imagine most are too embarassed to comment. However, at least one took it seriously:
It may be only one, but that’s one more cite than you provided for your excuse for DeLay.
That would be one if you could show me what exactly was the question Flake responded to. Was he shown the full quote of what Delay said or was he merely told that Delay thought the budget had no fat?
Did he receive the full context?
BTW. I am not excusing. There is nothing for me to excuse as I beleive you’ve innacurately characterized his statement.
So you are accusing the Washington Times of deliberately misquoting Flake for the purposes of contriving discord within the GOP? How is that not a bigger stretch than attributing sarcasm to DeLay with no evidence whatsoever? Honestly, Scylla, if all your arguments are based on simple denial of any cites presented, I don’t know why you bother to post at all.
Out of curiosity, do we have any proof that DeLay was being sarcastic other than the desperate hope that noone could be stupid enough to think that the budget is running as tight as possible? I just want to make sure that I haven’t missed anything here.
The only other person besides Scylla with this ridiculous view is Rush Limbaugh. I invite you to draw your own conclusions.