# Tom DeLay beats three primary challengers for his House seat **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 8, 2006, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tom-delay-beats-three-primary-challengers-for-his-house-seat/347574 "2006-03-08T20:07:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Happy\_Clam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3bc359/32.png) [@Happy\_Clam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Clam)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2006, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tom-delay-beats-three-primary-challengers-for-his-house-seat/347574/101 "2006-03-09T23:34:31Z")
Well, I think the question is whether his alleged illegal (and almost certainly immoral) conduct would prejudice his ability as a legislator. And in this case, it would seem that, given the nature of his offences, they would (as opposed to Clinton, whose behaviour, while it may have been immoral, was neither illegal nor affected his ability to do his job honestly). Given this, its a little like voting for Herod as head of a childcare centre. Do crimes (possibly) committed bar a man from political office? No. But when those crimes were intimately linked with the abuse of said political office? Hell yes. Given this, voting for Tom DeLay is arguably both sanctioning his alleged illegal activities, and putting an (hell, I’m gonna drop the pretense at NPOV) immoral individual who has been known to abuse power in a position of power. This is therefore sponsoring future illegal activity, equivalent in moral terms to aiding and abeting a crime. Is it immoral to vote for Tom DeLay. I say yes. ---
**Author:** ![dalej42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@dalej42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dalej42)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2006, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tom-delay-beats-three-primary-challengers-for-his-house-seat/347574/102 "2006-03-09T23:57:49Z")
Still, this was a primary in an off year without any competition at the Governor level. I’m quite interested in politics and I didn’t vote in the Texas primary. I’m a Dem and I was just too tired after work to vote for the lambs to be lead to the slaughter in November. I can easily see the \*\*primary \*\*voters in Delay’s districts as older and perhaps talk radio listeners who are still convinved that the liberals are conspiring against Delay. Also, stay at home moms who may likely be a bit more religious than the average folk who still see Delay as a moral crusader. For the average person, there wasn’t much incentive to vote in the primary. Life is too short for me to care about circuit court judges. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2006, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tom-delay-beats-three-primary-challengers-for-his-house-seat/347574/103 "2006-03-10T01:38:51Z")
> [@Happy Clam](#): > > Well, I think the question is whether his alleged illegal (and almost certainly immoral) conduct would prejudice his ability as a legislator. And in this case, it would seem that, given the nature of his offences, they would (as opposed to Clinton, whose behaviour, while it may have been immoral, was neither illegal nor affected his ability to do his job honestly). Given this, its a little like voting for Herod as head of a childcare centre. Do crimes (possibly) committed bar a man from political office? No. > > But when those crimes were intimately linked with the abuse of said political office? Hell yes. > > Given this, voting for Tom DeLay is arguably both sanctioning his alleged illegal activities, and putting an (hell, I’m gonna drop the pretense at NPOV) immoral individual who has been known to abuse power in a position of power. This is therefore sponsoring future illegal activity, equivalent in moral terms to aiding and abeting a crime. > > Is it immoral to vote for Tom DeLay. > > I say yes. But this post seems to assume that it’s a given that Delay is actually, factually guilty of those crimes. The only evidence you have for this is one side’s story – Delay has not had a chance to confront the evidence against him and respond. I understand how you, personally, might feel that the mere accusation is enough reason to choose someone else… but must everyone also share that view? Couldn’t a reasonable voter regard the charges as sufficiently unproven as yet? Why not? ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Clam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3bc359/32.png) [@Happy\_Clam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Clam)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2006, 7:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tom-delay-beats-three-primary-challengers-for-his-house-seat/347574/104 "2006-03-10T07:46:29Z")
Agreed, **Bricker** , but the evidence against him a) seems strong from my viewpoint (admittedly trans-Atlantic, so I’ve seen relatively little of this case compared to you) and b) is, I think, sufficient to show that he acted in a shady manner even if not doing anything overtly illegal. There is, as someone pointed out above, a difference in the degree of trust someone should put in an elected official and an accused criminal. In the latter, we put the burden of proof on the prosecution, but in the former, it would seem logical to require a lower quantity of evidence to bar someone from running (in a court-of-opinion-and-morality way, not a legal way). Sort of “Caeaser’s wife must be above suspicion”. Essentially, it seems to me that unless he really is the victim of a frame-up (admittedly, I don’ know how likely that is), the evidence against him suggests that he associated with unpleasent individuals in a manner that gave him ample opportunities to commit crime. That suggests a questionable moral compass at the least. I look forward to hearing how his trial goes. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2006, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tom-delay-beats-three-primary-challengers-for-his-house-seat/347574/105 "2006-03-10T18:35:37Z")
> [@JRDelirious](#): > > If I may step in in the middle of your lovely Argument Clinic, a comment: > > Having worked in primary and general campaigns, elections and recounts, both succesfully and not, I must say that I recognize it annoys many that “moral judgement” is not, except in extraordinary cases, the determinant component in how people vote. It cost me dearly in a recent campaign, but it is what happens. Now, we may question the soundness of _political_ judgement, as in, why would that district’s GOP voters not do the politically expedient thing and relieve the guy that draws fire. And that’s where things get sticky. > > Under normal circumstances, an ordinary-joe officeholder that were in as much public-perception hot water as Delay would be an ideal candidate for the Party machine to ease him out with some sort of golden parachute and replace him with a fresh, clean “Go-GOP!” up-n-comer. BUT Delay is no regular officeholder. He looms HUGE over the Texas Republican landscape, and not only consistently delivers the goods in the hometown, but to use an old phrase, “knows where all the bodies are buried”. AND he’s the engineer of the Texas redistribution. > > So in that district, Delay IS the Party Machine. And this should not be news to anyone, that in midterm primaries the voter sample is even more ridiculously skewed towards the hardest partisan hardcore han usual. Delay had what counts: an organization that reliably delivered twice as many people to show up and vote for him as did the other three candidates combined. Any longtime, powerful incumbent in such a race in such a district has a GOTV advantage of orders of magnitude over the challenger. I would not be surprised if incumbents the length and breadth of the nation swept their primaries by comfortable margins. It would be intersting to see what the turnout % was in this race, and how it compares with his priors. > > Although it’s true that the decisions of the “court of public opinion” are _political_ decisions – or, if you’d rather, that elected office is “employment at will”, you can be canned for any reason, for the wrong reasons or for no reason – and it would be equally a valid decision of the voters to throw his ass out just on accusations, there’s a certain notion of “maners” in partisan politics, that you don’t shoot your wounded unless it’s clear that their injury is fatal anyway or they pose an \*immediate danger \* to your other candidates. From a practical partisan politics POV, he’s valuable even as damaged goods. Even a weakened Delay delivers more as a Congressman, both for his district and for the delegation, than a raw freshman. Not only that, by drawing fire on himself, the weakened Delay draws it away from other assets of the party. And of course he buys time to be possibly cleared of the accusations. Also, to the chagrin of “culture of corruption” strategists, voters have traditionally shown a tendency to not punish their local pol for what some dude two districts over did, and often to not punish the hometown favorite son no matter what. > > In brief, this was possible because, on the day of the primary, Tom Delay’s organization _was still_ (and today is still) by far the most powerful in the GOP in his district, on the basis of prolonged incumbency and succesful past partisan accomplishment. “Moral outrage” single-issue voters would have been facing an unfair fight from the start anyway. For all I know, in absence of his troubles he would have won the primary by 80%+ against a total no-name, or even ran unopposed as many powerful incumbents are used to. In that case the actual outcome would at least be progress, and something for the Dem candidate to work upon. This is probably the best and most complete answer posted so far. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2006, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tom-delay-beats-three-primary-challengers-for-his-house-seat/347574/106 "2006-03-10T18:46:41Z")
> [@dalej42](#): > > I can easily see the \*\*primary \*\*voters in Delay’s districts as older and perhaps talk radio listeners who are still convinved that the liberals are conspiring against Delay. Also, stay at home moms who may likely be a bit more religious than the average folk **who still see Delay as a moral crusader.** 😛😛😛 :eek: ☹ Yeah, I guess they do . . . ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2006, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tom-delay-beats-three-primary-challengers-for-his-house-seat/347574/107 "2006-03-10T19:01:51Z")
> [@dalej42](#): > > I can easily see the primary voters in Delay’s districts as older and perhaps talk radio listeners who are still convinved that the liberals are conspiring against Delay. I understand that DeLay is introducing a bill to deny funding to universities that have Colleges of Liberal Arts. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2006, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tom-delay-beats-three-primary-challengers-for-his-house-seat/347574/108 "2006-04-04T02:42:00Z")
[Tom DeLay Says He Will Give Up His Seat](http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1179853,00.html) > [@](#): > > Rep. Tom DeLay, whose iron hold on the House Republicans melted as a lobbying corruption scandal engulfed the Capitol, told TIME that he will not seek reelection and will leave Congress within months. Taking defiant swipes at “the left” and the press, he said he feels “liberated” and vowed to pursue an aggressive speaking and organizing campaign aimed at promoting foster care, Republican candidates and a closer connection between religion and government. > > “I’m going to announce tomorrow that I’m not running for reelection and that I’m going to leave Congress,” DeLay, who turns 59 on Saturday, said during a 90-minute interview on Monday. Of course, the announcement _couldn’t_ have anything to do with this: [Probe into corruption reaches DeLay’s inner circle, sources say](http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/14250359.htm) Tom DeLay is **not** going to jail! 😉 ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2006, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tom-delay-beats-three-primary-challengers-for-his-house-seat/347574/109 "2006-04-04T03:05:21Z")
I applaud Delay’s move. It was most definitely the right decision. The average ethics of the House is bound to increase. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tom-delay-beats-three-primary-challengers-for-his-house-seat/347574.md?page=5)