It’s certainly not the best example of the technique out there, but it’s at least plausible of you to feel that it’s being employed here. As you already mentioned, that’s a big part of the beauty of the tactic. The deniability feature works to destroy everyone’s credibility, which of course affects voter attitudes too.
Yup. Right on the money.
No, that’s not what the editorial is about. The editorial seeks to demonize Delay, whose “noncriminal” misdeeds are the bulk of the discussion. An editorial truly written to take Congress as a whole to task would mention currently-serving representatives at least as often as Delay, and don’t for a moment try to claim there’s a paucity of examples in the current Congressional crop.
I’m not sure that’s a necessarily supportable idea. The editorial writer might well feel that bringing in currently serving representatives could further politicize the subject, given that they have more to protect. An editorial written to take Congress as a whole to task would probably best be done mentioning past-serving representatives. As far as equal page-time, if Delay is the spark for the piece, or a used example (or both), i’m not so sure we should necessarily expect exact equivalence.
So he was. My mistake.
I thought it was about Delay because the decision not to prosecute him was recent news. Whenever there is an allegation about ethical violations by Democrats there is usually an opinion peace about it.
Except, first, as was said, Delay’s in the news now because of the decision by the Justice Department and because of Delay’s public statement that he was “found innocent”, and second, they’re not demonizing Tom Delay. They’re reminding everyone exactly what he did that’s not illegal. And third, there aren’t any paucity of examples of corruption in the current congress, but can you really say there’s anyone there now who’s 1/10 as bad as he was? The man is scum and you know it.
Wow.
There are thick rose-Democrat colored glasses on you.
No, Delay is not “scum,” and no, I don’t know it, and no, I don’t agree he’s ten times worse than any of the current crop. You can’t point to anything that he’s done that warrants that sort of outrageous claim. Yes, Delay has paid family members out of campaign funds. So have many others, including the current Speaker. How does that make him worse?
Yes, Delay went on trips that were funded by people with legislation desires. That’s exactly what Charles Rangel did. How does that make him worse? In fact, it’s Rangel that’s worse, because Delay’s actions took place when the ethics rules didn’t require disclosure of such things; Rangel not only did it but flouted specfic rules against it.
So what is it that Delay did that was ten times worse than sitting members? Be specific.
Tom Delay, scum that he is as a human being etc. is innocent of any criminal wrongdoing until such a time as a jury says otherwise.
The long time period between the initial charge and the lack of a trial in this instance seems to be due to the motions and appeals of the parties, but has a foul odor nonetheless.
Delay’s defense is that the activities he is charged with are not in violation of the criminal code in his jurisdiction. If that is the case, I would have expected a dismissal long ago and appellate decisions upholding that decision.
In the meantime, it looks like it might be a witch hunt.
As far as the New York Times is concerned, they are a bunch of lying, libeling bastards. Just as Richard Jewel (can’t, he’s dead) or Wen Ho Lee.
Problem being you can’t demand an “investigation” be dismissed. And while you can quash an indictment if it’s somehow legally flawed, Delay’s indictment is not. He’s been demanding a trial since he was indicted in 2005.
It seems to me that he has a right to a speedy trial, unless he waived that. In California I have heard that you can pull your waiver of a right to a speedy trial. Now if what is up on appeal is a dismissal, then he can crow about being legally and factually innocent as long as the appeal is favorable to him. I haven’t followed the case, but prosecution of simple corruption cases in this country seem to have gone horribly wrong. Delay hasn’t had his trial yet, Barry Bonds hasn’t had his trial yet and it has been years and years. They’ve either got the goods or not. I don’t like Delay politically at all, but if there isn’t a good case, they have destroyed this man’s life through abuse of the judicial process and we all ought to be very damn frightened about that. It happens and it is dead wrong.
Where do I start?
The man organized and oversaw an unprecedented special redistricting plan in 2003, in spite of the fact that redistricting had just been passed in 2001, and that, in Texas, redistricting always happens the year after the federal census, for nothing other than blatant political advantage (the Republicans had won control of the Texas House of Reps in the 2002 election), and, after Democratic state legislators fled the state to prevent the bill from happening by denying a quorum, he used his influence with federal agencies (the FAA, and he tried to recruit the FBI) to get them involved in what was fundamentally a state matter, and more than that, a partisan state matter.
A year later, Delay again decided he would get involved in a state matter for partisan political advantage, working to get a federal law passed to stop Michael Schiavo from removing his wife’s (who was in a persistent vegetative state) feeding tube, in spite of the fact that most of her brain was destroyed and she was incapable of higher thought, that under the law, Schiavo had legal power of attorney over his wife’s medical decisions, and that Tom Delay had, himself, about 6 years prior, chosen not to use extraordinary measures to prolong his father’s life after he was seriously injured.
He was also one of the people responsible for the K Street Project, which I find extraordinarily distasteful.
But the thing he’s done that offends me the most, I think, and the real reason I think he’s scum (and this is an Abramoff thing) is the Northern Mariana Islands bill incident. If you don’t recall, the Northern Mariana Islands is a United States territory/commonwealth. It’s a popular site for garment factories, because manufacturers can claim that their goods are “Made in the USA”, but it’s exempt from most US labor laws. In 2000, Frank Murkowski, Republican senator from Alaska, held hearings on working conditions in the Northern Marianas. What he uncovered was evil, which is not a term I use lightly. He found that almost all of the workers, especially in the garment shops, were immigrants that had signed one sided labor contracts that made them little better than peons. They were paid less than minimum wage, of course, and kept in locked barracks or shacks with no plumbing surrounded by barbed wire. Workers were forced to work long hours (84 hour weeks) in substandard conditions, and subject to beatings. Rape and prostitution of female workers was common, as were forced abortions, and the government of the CNMI turned a blind eye to it. What Murkowski found was so shocking, he introduced a bill to extend US labor protections to the Commonwealth, and it passed the Senate by unanimous vote.
Delay singlehandedly blocked it from coming to a vote in the House, because he was in debt to Abramoff, who was the lobbyist of the CNMI. He not only blocked the bill, he came out and endorsed working conditions in the CNMI, calling it “a perfect petrie dish of capitalism”, his own “Galapagos Island”, and saying to garment industry leaders there, “You are a shining light for what is happening to the Republican Party, and you represent everything that is good about what we are trying to do in America and leading the world in the free-market system.”
That is what the man did that is ten times worse than sitting members, and that is why the man is scum.
You really don’t want to do this with Bricker. Shoulda warned you. He will drag you over every jot and tittle, you’ll feel like you went to Hell and they made you recreate all the old Perry Mason shows, but you always gotta be Hamilton Burger.
Rumor has it he’s a lawyer. Not saying that, mind, just reporting what people say.
This is not remotely unethical. As you yourself concede, it’s a partisan state matter.
The right of the legislature to “arrest” members via action of its Sergeant-at-Arms is a long-standing one, and exists precisely to prevent the sorts of tactics the Democrats engaged in. A minority political party cannot seek to frustrate bill passage by absenting themselves in order to deny a quorum without risking the very process you complain of. The law gave Delay the right to do what he did. Your complaint is not that his actions were illegal – your complaint is that he was pushing a legislative agenda that you didn’t like.
Again, you don’t like the political position he took. Had his actions been to support abortion rights in a state by overriding a harsh state law forbidding abortion, I have no doubt you’d be a fan of his work. You don’t object to the feds trying to pass a law to preempt state law… I’d have to check what particular positions you’ve taken on the Arizona immigration situation, but I seem to recall no particular ire from you for the feds trying to stop Arizona law from taking effect.
So again, Delay is “scum” because he disagrees with you about the proper role of government – not because he did anything wrong.
You do not. You find it distasteful that Republicans did it, but you don’t (apparently) have any distaste for the fact that lobbying firms were top-heavy with former Democratic staffers and politicians. And it’s no surprise: the Democrats had roughly thirty years of control of the House and much of it had them in control of the Senate too. Who better to lobby Congress than former staffers and Congressman? Delay’s actions were an admittedly heavy-handed way of attempting to reverse that trend.
I don’t like minimum wage laws either, sparky. I would have voted against that bill. Does that make me scum as well?
It seems clear that it’s difficult to simply disagree with you politically. Your side is that of the angels. Those in opposition don’t simply disagree – they are scum. Should the US extend minimum wage of OSHA-type protections to the Northern Mariana Islands? I say no, but I recognize that someone saying yes is not a fool or a poltroon or a socialist. They simply have a different idea of what the proper role of government is. And for the record: Jack Abramhoff has never paid for a single trip for me. Yet STILL I take the position that the bill should not have been passed. How is this possible?!? I must be in thrall to some other evil influence, yes?
Or perhaps I simply have a different idea than you about what government should do.
Really? What you took from the bolded part is that this was all about minimum wage laws?
Actually, it was about immigration laws.
We are talking about S.1052, which passed the Senate in 2000 by unanimous consent, yes?
That bill sought to apply US immigration law to the UNMI. But it also gave a back door to permanent residency for existing resident aliens.
Can you point to the sections in the bill that would have stopped “…locked barracks or shacks with no plumbing surrounded by barbed wire. Workers were forced to work long hours (84 hour weeks) in substandard conditions, and subject to beatings. Rape and prostitution of female workers…?”
I am not an expert on immigration law but presumably the immigration reforms would have the effect of helping exploited workers. Seems to me to be absurd the Senate would have passed (unanimously no less) a bill prompted by the terrible conditions in the CNMI for its workers that did absolutely nothing to address that problem. I can only suppose the reforms contained therein would achieve some of those goals.
(bolding mine)
And…
You could start here, lots of linky-dinkys, and stuff
Favorite quote: "“When one of my closest and dearest friends, Jack Abramoff, your most able representative in Washington, D.C., invited me to the islands, I wanted to see firsthand the free-market success and the progress and reform you have made.”
He was talking about the wondrous situation in Saipan/Mariannas. That situation was also described thusly:
Bit of a disconnect, wouldn’t you say? Now, we can take the generous interpretation, that poor ol’ Marse Tom was gulled and conned by his “dear friend” Mr. Abramoff, and made his conclusions based on only the most cursory of investigations. Rather slipshod, in my estimation. But I suppose the “stupid, but not evil” defense is available, if one is willing to stoop low enough.
And this:
Does rather suggest that Mr Delay was firmly opposed to any change in the status quo, does it not? A status quo somewhere between “appalling” and “puke yer guts out.”
Not quite so relevant but still utterly adorable, this mailer from Ralph “Baby Face” Reed to conservatives in Alabama:
And not about minimum wage, then, either, as you implied.
First I had a reasonable interpretation of the editorial, while you admit that yours was colored by DeLay demonization seen elsewhere (and since then in this thread).
But now I’m just a dishonest partisan hack…
How quickly we fall, I suppose.
Gotta watch out for that undertone. Suck you right down.