The undertone I’m getting from this post is that you like long walks on the beach and reading poetry, but dislike selfishness and rudeness. And something about a goat.?
So we see that your summary of the Senate bill isn’t exactly on point.
Suppose I come along and say, “I disagree that the best way to address these abuses is to change immigration policy.”
Does that make me scum?
I mean, look at you – you’ve gone from asserting that the Senate bill would have stopped these horrible abuses to quoting lines like, “Some U.S. legislators argue that tightening control of who can enter and work in the CNMI would create a group of workers with stronger rights and with the ability to better protect themselves in the workplace.” Maybe they would have, but it’s by no means a forgone conclusion.
And to argue otherwise hardly makes one “scum,” does it?
First of all, my claim has never been that Tom Delay’s actions were illegal. They clearly were not. My claim is that Tom Delay is “scum”, as I put it. The Texas legislature redistricting a year after they had already done so was undoubtedly legal. Calling the FDA to get them involved in what, as we both agree, is a state legal matter…well, I don’t know the legality of that. And is my complaint that he was pushing a legislative agenda that I didn’t like? Maybe, but I think that’s too pithy a summary. My objection isn’t that the district boundaries were redrawn to favor the Republicans. Obviously, I didn’t like that, and there’s a whole other debate about redistricting and partisanship, but I think that, in general, the state legislature has the right to draw the legislative boundaries the way they like, and that’s probably going to favor the majority party, and that’s the way the game is played. But there are certain rules that are understood, and one of those rules is that after the Census is released, the legislature drafts the district boundaries, and then they leave it alone until the new census, even if, in between that time, the legislature changes hands and one party can gain a short term partisan advantage by a mid-census redistricting. You just shouldn’t do that. You’re changing the rules in the middle of the game, and it’s just not right. You may be able to find cases where Democratic legislatures have done the same thing, and I preemptively condemn them too. It’s a scummy thing to do.
First of all, you have no idea what my position on abortion is, or on abortion law is.To be fair, not even I know what my position on abortion is. It’s one of those issues that haunts me because I see real merit in both sides’ positions. As for the immigration issue, my position is that immigration is a federal matter and that Arizona is overstepping in passing that law, and so the federal gov’t should step it and try to stop Arizona law from taking effect (I also have concerns about it leading to profiling, but that’s a different issue.) But I think those two issues can be distinguished. In the immigration law case, Arizona passed a new law that the federal government believes may be unconstitutional, and the federal government is attempting to block implementation. In the Schiavo case, there was a long established law giving the spouse charge of medical decisions. The federal law didn’t even seek to change that. It wasn’t even a question if the state law was wrong. It just sought to not apply it in this case.
[quote]
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.
[quote]
You’re misunderstanding the nature of my objection. I have no objection to Republicans joining lobbying firms. They gotta eat too. So that there are lobbying firms with Republicans in them, or even lobbying firms top heavy with Republicans doesn’t bother me. What I find distasteful is saying explicitly, “If you hire Democrats forget about even coming in to talk to us.” They weren’t just trying to get Republicans in, they were trying to force Democrats out, and they were trying to put the firms under the control of their party rather than under the control of their clients.
Listen, “sparky”, my mom’s cousins, who I love, are all conservative Republicans. My best friend’s personal hero is Bob Taft, and I’m probably going to see him next month when he takes his mom down to DC for a tea party protest. I interned for a Republican Congressman, who I liked a great deal. And there are plenty of people I’m on the same side as politically who I can’t stand. I voted against Bill Clinton in 1996, even though I agree with most of his positions, because of the Lewinsky thing. I can’t stand my Congressman (Jim Moran), even though he usually votes the way I want, because some of the stuff he’s done and said. If I judged somebody’s moral worth on a strictly political issue based scale, it would come off pretty differently than it has.
Here is an update on the Delay case
Did I say the Senate bill would stop horrible abuses? Did I say I think the Senate bill was the best or only means to curb the abuses?
I seem to recall you challenging us to show how the bill would stop the abuses. I did that (or at least showed that the bill was trying achieve a better result for the workers there via immigration reform).
Is it the best effort to achieve the desired goal? Doesn’t look like it to me but that isn’t what you asked.
Is it better than nothing? Almost certainly yes (unless it somehow precludes any future fixes).
I don’t know that I would call you scum but I am certainly not happy that you think one guy, just one, blocking legislation is fine.
If it is legal then it is ok is what you seem to be saying. For example it used to be legal to own slaves so I guess you’d shrug your shoulders and say it’s fine (if you lived back then). I would argue that despite being legal (once upon a time) it was unethical to do.
Here what Delay did was apparently “legal” but that does not make it a fine thing to do.
Be honest: if you had seen the text of the Senate bill first, would you really have described it as Captain Amazing did:
You can now see, I hope, that the bill does no such thing. It introduces immigration reform, which may have some trickle-down effect on worker conditions, but doe a bunch of other stuff besides. And I hope you will concede that it’s very possible to oppose this bill on principled reasons – not because you took a bribe.
Finally, I hope you’ll concede this: after reading Captain Amazing’s description of the bill… when you saw the actual text, you were surprised.
Weren’t you?
I’ll take this one …Yes, it does. Case closed.
No, it’s probably just you.
And I’m not surprised.
I think you have bad ideas.
You think I’m a bad person.
Ah! At last we can get away from the irrelevant questions of Mr Delay’s conduct and concentrate with laser-like intensity of the all important, crucial issues of liberal intolerance for your views, and, of course, the hypocrisy inherent in that intolerance.
Once again.
Have we ever gotten into how it is possible that a person with so consistently bad ideas, and who clings to them even when that is shown to them, can still want to be considered a good person? Or what it is that constitutes being a good or bad person, if it is something other than his/her thoughts and actions based on those thoughts?
I already said I think the bill was insufficient for the cited problems.
What does that matter though for this debate?
Whether or not the bill was the most awesome piece of legislation ever written or whether it was the worst misses the point.
Delay accepted a trip that dodged restrictions on such things via clerical sleight of hand. Abramaoff could not pay for it directly but Abramaoff got the Saipan government, who was his client, to pay for it which is ok. To me that is akin to a rule that says I cannot give you money so I hand $20 to the guy standing next to you and tell him to give it to you thus abiding by the letter of the law but certainly not the spirit.
Then we have the quote from Delay to some guy on Saipan promising to bury any bill that would affect them. Presumably this was before any legislation was even written (note he said “if they elect me majority whip” so he didn’t even have the job yet necessary to bury the bill). Delay could not say if the legislation was good or bad. It didn’t exist yet or at least not in any final form.
Finally we have one guy burying legislation because he alone doesn’t want to see it. Apparently this is fine by congressional rules but you are ok with that? One guy thwarted the will of a unanimous senate (although even if it were a 51% vote it amounts to the same thing). Delay doesn’t like it tough…it dies. Who cares if the combined representatives of the people passed a bill right? One guy doesn’t like it that is the end of it.
Note I make no comment on whether the bill was good or bad. I am merely noting that any bill should be brought to an up or down vote when the Senate hands the House a bill or vice versa (or refined by the House/Senate and kicked back but eventually it should get a vote). Our government should not be so beholden to one person (and before you tell me I would like it if it were a liberal doing this I wouldn’t).
Bottom line is it is apparent Delay was bought and paid for. You seem ok with that because technically he did not break a law.
It’s not apparent to me.
And you don’t seem to realize that the House Speaker has always had this power. Your indignation over this exercise of it is amazing. You say you wouldn’t like it if it were a liberal doing this… but when the House was pondering “deem and pass” healthcare – the Speaker making a unilateral decision of similar import – I seem to recall you being cautiously in favor of it. You didn’t mind our government being beholden to one person then, because that one person was Pelosi, voting the way you liked.
Wait a minute, the goal posts are in the next county, now?
It was always about the thing being done or not done, the thing being worthy of doing, since it was about freeing a whole bunch of people from a perfectly wretched state of captivity. Did you miss that part, perhaps we didn’t stress it enough?
The rules that enabled his behavior were all perfectly legal, of this we are assured. Rather the point, actually. No one should have been doing what he was doing, no matter how legal it is.
Again with the liberal hypocrisy aria? Maybe if you could sing “Liberal Hypocrisy” to the tune of “Don’t Cry for Me, Argentina”, we could get up a balcony scene?
Tom DeLay's trial will be in Travis County, Texas - CNN.com He will be tried . He will have his day or week in court .
Not apparent to you?
He takes a trip to Saipan on New Years Eve because he was just that dedicated a public servant to go see what was happening half-way around the world on a holiday? A trip that was kindly paid for by others who had an interesat in stopping legislation that would give their workers rights. The money spent to get him there just barely a step removed from being an illegal acceptance of a gift (or against House ethics rules…whichever it is)? He told people there he’d stop legislation before the legislation was even written to know whether it should be stopped? He single-handedly shitcanned a bill passed unanimously by the US Senate? He allowed rape and forced abortions (among other things) to continue because the pure capitalism it represented was the more noble goal?
What part is not apparent to you? Which parts are you ok with?
As for deem-and-pass I was cautiously in support of it and do not have much problem with it. Congress has lots of rules, some I am fine with.
Know what else? You will not find me having ever gotten in a fuss when Republicans used it either. What I did notice was Republicans never having gotten up-in-arms about it when Republicans used it but then whining like babies when the same rules were used by the other side. Go figure. :rolleyes:
Because that was part of his job, and …
Because that was an accepted lobbying practice. “Here, come see just why we need/don’t need this legislation!”
Nothing inherently wrong with it. In later years Congress made a decision to avoid even the appearance of impropriety by outlawing such practices. That doesn’t make them wrong.
Again. A lobbying firm could legally spend money to make a movie highlighting their cause, buy a DVD player and a portable TV, wheel it into a Congressman’s office and play it for him - right?
Or they could buy him a plane ticket and say, “Come see for yourself.”
Is there anything INHERENTLY wrong with the latter? No. One could argue that the movie gives more chance to slant the story, and the personal trip is better. But obviously there’s potential for abuse on the personal trip, too. So Congress, AFTER THESE EVENTS, decided to forbid the practice. Doesn’t make anyone “scum” for accepting such trips before that watershed event.
A moment’s thought will make the absurdity of your complaint clear.
Obviously the trip’s sponsors didn’t want an immigration reform or minimum wage bill. That’s what they were afraid of. That’s what they told him the islands didn’t need. He agreed. That’s what the bill was. And so he worked to kill it.
Now, your statement suggests that there’s something insidious about that. Why? That’s the purpose of lobbying. “Congressman, we don’t need such-and-so-law, and here’s why!”
You don’t care about that. Stop claiming you do.
You may care that he shitcanned THIS bill, but when a single person in power does something unilaterally you like, you’re for it.
You know, if the bill really was about that, then why wasn’t there a section that said, “Rape is hereby a federal crime and will be punished thus and so…” and “Abortion procured against the free consent of the mother is a federal crime…”
This bill wasn’t about that. You may search in vain for the words “rape” or “forced abortion” in that bill. They don’t exist. That bill was intended to grandfather in a whole bunch of temp workers so they’d have claim to US nationality. And you know how I know that?
BECAUSE THAT’S WHAT THE FUCKING BILL SAYS.
You claim the bill was about ending rape and forced abortions, but when i ask where it says that, you can only shrug weakly and mewl something about how you assume that would have been the effect of the immigration reforms at some point in the future.
Let’s at least be honest about that: the bill didn’t have a goddamned thing to do with ending forced rape.
Wow, what happened to your utter disgust at one person sabotaging the will of an entire legislative body?
Yes, you did. Fair point against Republicans. And against Democrats.
But not against ME, because I didn’t do that.
Lets start with simple stuff. Bricker, is it your contention that these awful things weren’t happening? That all these reports, articles, investigations… they were all a bunch of liberal hypocrisy and lies?
I suppose if thats true, you pretty much win the argument, because if there’s nothing to fix, well, then there’s nothing wrong with not fixing it. But you haven’t made that perfectly good argument, you’re reduced to thrashing about and singing your tired old song about liberal hypocrisy. Again.
From this I deduce that you accept that such things were, in fact, happening. But you claim that it doesn’t matter, because this bill would have done nothing about that. Well, did Mr Delay support any other action that might have done something? Or was he simply the clueless doofus gulled and conned by his “best and dearest friend”, Mr Abramoff?
That would certainly explain it! He’s was innocent because he didn’t know anything about it, despite several trips and all that good stuff. Did he not read any of those reports? Did he do no investigating on his own? How did he manage to maintain such a state of perfect and pristine ignorance?
As to the effect of the law, well, yes, indeed, there is no actual mention of “rape” and “appalling conditions” in the bill, you’re right about that. But that doesn’t mean the bill might have no affect on such conditions. Frankly, I’m a bit surprised you don’t know that.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/09/real.delay/
(emphasis mine)
With such laws, unions could be formed. Gee, I wonder what would be first on such a unions agenda? Got any guesses, Bricker? I’m thinking it might very well have been working conditions, and like that. What do you think, Bricker?
And yet, he didn’t know anything about all the bad stuff? Really? Nobody told him, he didn’t see all those reports?
And if he knew, but moved mightily to prevent reform, isn’t that pretty close to the definition of “scum”? Or is that title reserved exclusively for purveyors of liberal hypocrisy?
Interesting dodge counselor (on that and the stuff before/after is snipped here for brevity).
Unfortunately in the past you have taught us here that circumstantial evidence counts and that we need to look at the evidence in totality.
Say some guy has been shot to death. The police note that I made statements of how much I hated that guy, bought a gun of the same caliber a few days earlier, traveled to the dead person’s city 500 miles away on the same day as the crime, have evidence I got into an argument in public with the person just prior to his death and I tested positive for gun powder residue on my hands.
Any of those things alone are not illegal or indication of guilt. I can buy a gun legally. I can travel where I like. I can express my intense dislike for someone if I want. Having an argument with someone is not illegal. Gun powder residue could get there from target practice.
Is all that enough to convict someone of murder? I don’t know but I’ll bet dollars to dimes the police would consider that suggestive enough to make me a person of interest and I am willing to bet you’d agree.
So why peel out Delay’s actions individually and note that each one is not, in and of itself, a big deal and wholly ignore the context and actions as a whole? Only reason I can guess is you are dancing around trying to support an insupportable position and trying to obfuscate the issue.
Hell of a thing to say. Are you in my head? I may like a given bill not getting passed if I disagree with it but I will not say I am ok with a bullshit process to see that happen. I know this because I realize that the same tactic can be used when I like a bill and it is being blocked by the other side. Down that road lies a mess.
I admit I am cautiously tolerant a filibuster, which to an extent does this, but not as it currently stands today which is far too easy. At least with a filibuster someone (once upon a time anyway) had to get up there and hold the floor and be very public about the effort. To keep a bill at bay they had to stay there. What Delay did was silently assassinate the bill and it quietly goes bye-bye.
I said the bill did not look like enough to me. That said do you KNOW that the bill would have no effect at helping the workers there? That the bill may as well have been about traffic laws for all the effect it’d have on the workers? Or is it possible that the Senate felt this was a reasonable and not overly intrusive way of gaining better results for the workers via immigration reform (considering 90% or more of the workforce there were immigrants)? This would result in rapes and forced abortions going down by giving immigrants more ability to control their fate?
How is deem-and-pass a single person thwarting the will of the whole legislative body? Seems to me the bill ends up for a vote at which point you can vote it up or down. Not seeing it.
Great.
Only one problem with your trenchant analysis. The bill didn’t do that, either.
You said it did, but you slothfully quoted a reporter’s summary of the bill.
Here is the actual text of the law.
Where does it “extend the protection of U.S. labor and minimum-wage laws,” exactly?
Look how your house of cards crumbles:
YOU: Delay is scum! (Or at least, I’ll defend that statement which someone else said!)
ME: How so?
YOU: He stopped a bill which would prevent rape and forced abortions!
ME: The bill didn’t do any of that.
YOU: Uh… well… it gave immigrants more ability to control their fate!
That’s a debatable proposition. Your argument now looks like:
YOU: Delay is scum!
ME: How so?
YOU: He stopped a bill which might have given immigrants more opportunity to control their own fate!
ME: Oh.
Kinda lessens the scumminess a bit, doesn’t it?
Delay may have been against extending citizenship to immigrants. That doesn’t make him indifferent to the plight of rape victims and forced abortion victims, does it?
By casting the bill as intended to end rapacious conduct, and saying Delay killed it, you paint a grim picture.
But the bill was about making it easier for immigrants to become citizens and legal residents. I assume you agree a politician may oppose that goal without being scum - yes?
How is deem-and-pass a single person thwarting the will of the whole legislative body? Seems to me the bill ends up for a vote at which point you can vote it up or down. Not seeing it.
[/QUOTE]
No. Deem-and-pass says that House passes Version A, Senate passes Version B, and House doesn’t revote on Senate changes. That was the whole objection to it.
And that’s entirely within the power of the Speaker to execute. One person. An evil outcome, if the “one person” is Delay; a just outcome, if it’s Pelosi.