True.
But how is that statement relevant? The thread begins by asking how it was possible for Delay to win a sweeping victory in the primary: “Is there no morality in Houston?!”
I can certainly see choosing to vote against Delay, even though you have less than a certain belief in his guilt. But the OP suggests that to vote for Delay is unambiguously an act of a person utterly unconcerned with morality.
A trial is a rigorous technical process by which acts of which the defendant is accused might or might not be found to be a violation of the specific statutes charged by the prosecuting attorney. The court of public opinion is, and should be, a different matter. IMO, the evidence against DeLay is sufficient to convict him of being a scumbag-in-general-terms by any reasonable voter/juror in the latter court, irrespective of whether the criminal charges stick.
Only in the sense that the Republican leader in either house of Congress should be presumed guilty until proven innocent on general principles. Before these scandals broke, I knew relatively little of DeLay’s personal history.
And the OP would be wrong to suggest such a thing - nothing is certain, and even if it was 100% obvious to all that he was guilty then a vote for him may still not be due to a lack of morality, but many other reasons; a lack of knowledge of the facts, stupidity, blind partisanship, etc.
However, you too posed such a black-and-white scenario -
…so I find it suprising that you would choose to raise the issue of the OP making a sweeping statement with only one option, when you did exactly the same thing.
So no matter what evidence is adduced at trial, you’re convinced? If his accused is found to have conspired to frame him, that won’t matter? If the defense produces a video tape of the meeting in which the scheme to frame Delay is agreed upon, that’s meaningless?
Indeed?
Please re-read post #10. In fact, I’ll save you the trouble:
Do you still stand by the claim that I did exactly the same thing? That I made a sweeping statement with only one option?
I don’t have any voice in the matter, DeLay doesn’t represent me.
If he did I would put him on hold as far as being a member of Congress goes. Rather that presuming someone is fit to hold public office I make them prove it. DeLay is questionable in that regard.
That’s certainly fair.
But do you believe that anyone reaching the opposite conclusion is devoid of morality?
Bricker:
Well, I did…based not on his politics, but on what I knew about his actions. I hope you see the distinction.
No, I don’t stand by that claim. :smack: Apologies for not reading your post properly.
Just to try and make sure what you’re saying here, is it your position that to not vote for DeLay is acceptable and understandable, but what you have a problem with is the suggestion that anyone voting for him is devoid of morality? If so, I agree.
If the court please, I object. The witness neither made or implied any such claim and should not be accused, even by implication, of having done so.
Let’s be realistic, Bricker. He’s not being prosecuted by Karl Rove.
Correct. Naturally, anyone may, for any reason, choose not to vote for a particular candidate. What I object to was raised in my very first post in this thread – “How is it immoral to vote for Tom Delay?” The OP suggests that voting for him is certainly either immoral or amoral. I disagree.
I have to agree with Bricker, here, and this is a perfect example of why it’s such a bad idea to poison the well of a debate. BrainGlutton: How about restating the debate in neutral terms, or just ask that this thread be moved to the Pit? Here’s a suggestion:
DeLay just won in the Republican Primary. Why didn’t his recent legal problems prevent that victory? Should they have? What chance does he have against his Democratic challenger in November?
True, DeLay has yet to be convicted of anything. He might join the ranks of Lizzy Borden, O.J. Simpson and Robert Blake with an acquittal. He hasn’t even been charged (yet) in connection with the Abramoff scandal.
The thing is the Republicans of his district had the chance to pick another Republican who isn’t under indictment and who isn’t tied at the waist to Abromoff and who didn’t put together an unprecedented mid-term gerrymander even though he isn’t a member of the Texas legislature. They could have picked someone who didn’t imply that the teaching of evolution in schools caused the Columbine shootings and that the tsunami was God’s vengeance against non-Christians.
They could have, but they didn’t. They heartily endorsed the Huey Long of our generation for another term. But hey, it’s their party and they can pick whomever they like. Democrats nationwide will invoke his name on a regular basis in their races.
Now DeLay will be in the odd position of hoping the Supreme Court throws out the gerrymanders he created because if they don’t he stands a good chance of losing his seat to a (gasp) Democrat. DeLay only got 55% of the vote in his district last time around and he faces a much more serious challenge this time. If his gerrymander is wiped out he will be in a much more conservative district and his opponent will not even live there. Many other districts will move in favor of the Democrats, however, so it’s lose-lose for DeLay.
I’m not following this . . . you mean, DeLay’s district, as gerrymandered in 2003, is less conservative than it was before?
I think that’s the case. I heard on MSNBC last night that during the redistricting DeLay was so confident of his district that he gave some safe areas in it in order to make neighboring districts safer for Republicans in them. He assumes that his remainder although less safe for him was still plenty safe. And he might very well have calculated correctly.
Damn straight. In strengthening the conservative nature of surrounding districts, DeLay let go of some of his solidly Republican voters. He left himself with just enough to be confident of victory every two years, but not enough to win landslides all the time. The ploy worked well as Democrats suffered huge losses in Texas House races after the gerrymandering. But now that he’s under all kinds of pressure his district is up for grabs. There is the very real chance the gerrymanders will get the boot from the S.C., however, which could cause huge losses for the Republicans this time around. If DeLay wins his seat back under such circumstances he could well return to a Democratically controlled House and be seen by his fellow Republicans as a big reason why they lost control. He won’t be much the “Hammer” then.
Indeed not.
There is a similarly likely possibility that the defense will successfully argue that DeLay was not responsible for his actions, due to brain damage induced by years of pesticide exposure in the course of running his exterminating business.
We should not rush to judgment.
Of course. A successful gerrymander is one in which you spread out your power to win many districts, say, 55-45, but concentrate the other party’ strengths (say, 80-20) in a smaller number of districts. Then you win a lot more districts.
Man, if we Dems don’t even understand how they cheat, we’re never going to get anywhere.
When arguing against an absolute, it’s appropriate to explore the most extreme ends of the spectrum to falsify the absolute claim. Of course none of the outcomes I mention are likely. But if even those unlikely events won’t sway a view, there’s little purpose in asking about MORE likely events.