What was the suggestion? Look, I don’t see why it’s so hard to understand that DeLay would have been demoted, but not completely ostracized. He no longer has enough political capital to be Majority Leader, but still has enough to get himself a juicy committee assignement. Whether that’s good or bad, I really don’t know. Politics is a funny business. But, until the guy is proven guilty of something, I’m not going to say he should be tossed into the gutter. Between now and then it makes perfect political sense that he’s going to lose some clout.
John speaks with fairness not partisanship here. DeLay is presumed innocent until found guilty as far as the actual criminal charge is concerned. We need to extend him the same propriety as any other accused individual, without regard for who or what he may have been.
Personally, I think he’s a sanctimonious hypocrite who is quite likely guilty of influence peddling while proclaiming himself spokesman for “values.” But John has spoken quite cogently of the political realities and of the legal propriety involved.
That would be fine if we were in a criminal court, and not the court of public opinion. Image matters, appearance matters, maintaining citizens’ confidence in their government matters. A lawyer’s narrow, “you gotta prove it”, “the only standards are legal ones” defense is inappropriate, and the use of it implies concession of the broader governance issues. We get enough of that shit from the real lawyers in political threads here.
Did you coin that term - ‘outrage fatigue’ ? I like that.
:dubious:
Maybe you missed elelle’s post. Here, let me re-post the part that sort of makes you look like you’re walking along with your eyes squinched shut and your fingers in your ears.
I’m certainly no lawyer, but wouldn’t this be considered a conflict of interest? A BIG conflict of interest?
I’m really gonna have to start using more smileys. I was just having petty puerile fun with the idea that the Republicans wouldn’t have anybody left.
Daniel
It goes along with the current RNC approach of dismissing all Democratic challengers as “angry”.
But how did Fox misrepresent the facts in this particular story?
Well, at least you said “sort of”. 
I guess I should’ve put a smiley after the part I did reply to-- I just thought it was kind of funny to think of the Republicans staffing all the committess with only House members that had no ties to Abramoff. I’m no fan of DeLay, so if you think I’ve come in here to blindly defend him, you’re wrong. But, you don’t have all your facts straight, so when you’re wrong I’m going to call you on it.
Yeah, that one is pretty fishy, but think about it a little deeper. The article you cited is a bit sloppy in saying that subcommittee “oversees” the Justice Dept. It oversees the money allocated to that department, but I’d be very surprised if it could defund a particular investigation. Also, you need to note that the subcommittee in question is the Subcommittee on Science, the Departments of State, Justice and Commerce, and Related Agencies so there’s a lot going on there. The article you cited pointed out (and Elle conveniently left this out of her quote) that this subcommittee funds NASA. DeLay’s district includes Houston, and I’m sure he’s happy to take an interst in that agency. This is a problem in Congress, in that it’s a great to dish out pork, but it’s hardly unique to DeLay. You could just as easily Pit the whole Congress over this little beauty.
I’d actually be more concerned if he landed on the committee overseeing Indian Affairs-- this committee is closer to the Abramoff investigation, although it seems like it’s the Senate Committee that is most actively involved.
Polycarp: Thanks! BTW, I pretty much agree with your second paragraph, too, although I’m less sure than you that he’s actually guilty. He may not have stepped over the line, but it sure looks like he at least walked right up to it.
Not quite, but they’re both forms of corruption. If DeLay is guilty, Cunningham’s crime is no worse than his, and he has no more business than Cunningham sitting on the Appropriations Committee, or any Congressional committee at all.
They didn’t. But as I said in the OP, I was asking for verification, as I take any story I see there with a grain of salt til it’s picked up by the AP wire. I saw it Wednesday afternoon and couldn’t find a corroborating story anywhere. I asked if anyone else had seen it, since I can’t really see something like this happening without getting picked up by the mainstream media. I thought that was the clearest part of the OP…