Yes, that very one. Apparently the Republican majority was only kidding about exempting DeLay but then realized that they hadn’t bothered to let anyone else in on the joke.
“Oh, c’mon, we were only fooling…honestly. Cant’ you people take a joke?”
I wonder if Bricker would be willing to weigh in on the ease or difficulty of getting a conviction on the conspiracy charge?
“Meet Republican Singles?” (Google ad)
That’s how I ended up as a TeenAged Republican. :eek:
Just goes to show you: there’s a web site for anything, no matter how twisted and depraved.
Have you seen [thread=336504]this[/thread] thread? Goat ads!!
I am shocked, sir, shocked. You appear to be presuming guilt even before the trial has commenced. We should, nay, must, let the wheels of justice turn, and give Mr. Delay his day in court. Until such time as a jury of his peers (snicker) sees fit to (snerk) render judgment (choke) based on the evidence presented (chuckle), we must assume the man’s innocence— (BWA HA HA HA)
Sorry, couldn’t hold it together any longer.
Five bucks says Jon Stewart will be fondling his nipples tonight.
What, DeLay’s? Make it ten bucks and you’re on! 
I would love to see DeLay go to prison. I would also love to see Frist locked up, followed by Rove. But, my cynical side says it will never happen for any of them. It will be a little noisy for a while, and then be delayed to death and swept under the rug.
Shall we do a full rendition of the Hallelujah Chorus?
And a rule that, btw, the Democrats do not have. You’re aware of that, right?
After watching Hardball, which devoted most its time today to this story, I give this about a 10% chance of handing down a conviction. This really does look like typical partisan Texas politics, and the conspiracy charges look thin as ice on a Texas pond in mid-summer. If you actually read what the conspiracy was about, it involves arcane Texas campaign financing laws that were suposedly violated (with a big emphasis on supposedly) by a PAC which DeLay supposedly (again with a big emphasis) was influencing in its actions.
You don’t need a DeLay rule unless you’ve got a DeLay.
Whether there’s a conviction or not, DeLay is finished. This might even portend the end of the interregnum at the house ethics committee. The GOP has got to get out in front of this “party of corruption” meme somehow, if they plan to survive Bush.
So, a Democratic Speaker of the House could hold his/her position despite being under indictment? Or is there a House rule (as distinct from a caucus rule) that would stop that?
It’s not a House Rule, but I don’t know if “caucus rule” is the right term. It may be, I’m just familiar with calling it that.
BTW, this whole situation is looking eerily familiar: the Republicans are now being attacked just like the Democrats were in the early 90s with ethics charges and indictments. That was a major part of how the Pubs took over Congress. It worked well for the Pubs, and might work for the Dems as well-- especially if Bush continues to bumble as he seems apt to do.
So far. The key is gong to be how much pressure can the DA put on the little fish (John Colyandro and James Ellie) to flip on DeLay and spill all the details that may be far damaging than what we know now. Unless the Republican machine is willing to go out on a limb for them as well as DeLay, the whole house of cards may come tumbling down when they sing.
Assuming that there is a house of cards to begin with. My take on this thing is that these charges are trumped up as a political manuever to bring DeLay down. He may indeed deserve to be brought down, but these particular charges are BS. Still, it puts him as “indicted” and makes him less appealing for re-election next year. This si the same stuff the Republicans did to the Democrats 12 years or so ago to gain control of Congress. And if the Republicans hadn’t gotten so drunk on power, they wouldn’t be so vulnerable.
This will sound immature (it is after all), but what’s good for the goose is good for tha gander. They are being hit by the same tactics they themselves used in the past. There’s something amusing in that.
It was a rule introduced by those brave corruption-fighters – and Delay was one of them – the '92 GOP congressional delegation. In other words, it was something of an election gimmick that came back to bite them.
John, I didn’t see that Hardball, but ignoring the strength or weakness of the charges against Delay, what evidence is there that this is “typical partisan politics”? All I’ve seen to back that up is:
a) Ronnie Earle is a Dem. Who usually prosecutes Dems.
b) Well, damn, it’s partisan!
And that’s it. Did Hardball add a missing piece, other than a) and b) repeated earnestly by several people?
The “partisan hack” meme is a product of Earl’s failed indictment of Sen. Kay Hutchison. That is, as far as I can tell, the sole blot on a record otherwise distinguished largely by going after big fish, be they Dem. or Pub. His ratio for investigation is 4:1 Dem.-to-Pub., and it would appear some of the folks he’s gotten convictions on have even been his erstwhile Democrat friends.
I might believe “prosecutorial showboat”, but “partisan hack”? I dunno. The common theme in his career appears to be “high-profile case”, not “politically-motivated cases”.
I agree. It’s just that some people automatically assume that the Democrats have a simlilar rule which they left alone, which incorrect.
Matthews had several guys on from Texas, and they’re the ones who said it. One guy from a major Texas newspaper noted that local Texas politics had been dominated by Democtrats (Texas democrats, not Kennedy Democrats), with the fighting mainly between conservative Dems and liberal Dems. Earle had gone after mostly conservative Dems. Since DeLay engineered he take-over the Texas legislature by the Pubs, the fighting has become more Dems vs Pubs.