This was a primary, not a trial. “We the people” don’t need a judge and jury to not vote for someone. As was proved by the Swiftboater’s success, guilt or innocense is irrelevant anyway (gratuitous tu quoque). If the suspicion or appearance of guilt is there, it is enough. Or does that work only one way??
That’s called “packing and cracking.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering#Methods:_.22Packing_and_cracking.22
Somehow I think the Texas Democrats will be be able to conjure up the necessary gerrymandering skills when their turn comes around again. It’s like riding a bike. 
It is enough for what? To decide not to vote for him? Of course.
To characterize everyone that DID vote for him as immoral or amoral? No.
Parhaps not. But it would be perfectly fair to characterize them as lacking in moral judgment.
There’s nothing “most extreme” in noting the risk of brain damage associated with pesticide exposure.
It would be ill-advised for DeLay defenders to toss out potential defenses prematurely. :dubious:
No, it would not. A reasonable voter could conclude that the charges haven’t been sufficiently proven, and vote for Delay without compromising any moral standards. A reasonable voter could certainly also conclude the reverse is true.
But you’re saying that, to a certainty, a voter that chose Delay is lacking in moral judgement. I don’t agree.
And, as previously mentioned, a reasonable voter could conclude that Delay himself is a/immoral without reference to the charges.
Wow. Is this really what you wanted to debate in this thread? Resolved, anyone who votes for Delay is lacking in moral judgement. Do you honestly think that any but the most partisan posters are going to agree with that?
Well, lay out your case! All you’ve done so far is make statements, without giving a supporting argument.
Bricker, do you think that you’re avoiding the main question posed by the OP? I suggest that the OP’s question primary question, given the bolding is, “how did he do that?!” Instead of answering that question, it seems that you’ve chosen to focus on the (poorly-chosen) throwaway rhetorical about morality. Thus, you’ve moved the debate entirely away from the intent of the OP and into an indictment of the OP’s stance on morality. Would it be possible for you to address the other issue? Or will you insist on using interrogatories to distract from the intent of the OP?
You must be joking. We’re well into no-brainer territory here. DeLay has been indicted for a deliberate and egregious attempt to circumvent Texas’ campaign-finance laws – IOW, Cheating at the Game. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Delay#Accusations_of_misconduct_in_Texas_fundraising_and_indictments One thing which, up to now, we have had an undisputed consensus never to tolerate in politics. Nixon was not nailed for his war crimes. He should have been, but he wasn’t. He was nailed for Cheating at the Game.
The favors he’s dones for Abramoff (shutting down the casinos of the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe, who were competing with Abramoff’s clients, the Choctaws; and blocking legislation banning, or even investigation of, sex-shops and sweatshops in the Northern Marianas Islands), in exchange for gifts and favors, rise to the same level. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Delay#Jack_Abramoff
And that’s just the inarguably sleazy and/or evil stuff. Don’t get me started on the Terri Schiavo case or the K Street Project – for either of which you might make a (weak) case as being just barely within the acceptable limits of ordinary partisan combat.
I repeat: No marginally-sophisticated voter with any moral judgment would have voted for Tom DeLay in this primary. Even if, as appears to have been the case from news reports I heard, his leading opponent had nothing to say about himself but “Integrity!” (IOW, “I’m not Tom DeLay!”).
Maybe he’ll accept a downgrade to “the Hummer.”* 
*'Cause he’s gonna have to go on his knees get anything out of committee!
To which list I would add, his misuse of federal investigative agencies to round up Dems absent from the Texas state legistlature during the 2003 gerrymandering session. For which he was unanimously admonished by the House Ethics Committee, BTW. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Delay#Accusations_of_misuse_of_federal_investigative_agencies
Well, I did, and that does make him more likley to be guilty; after all, amoral scum is more likely to commit crimes.
I was suprised to see his name in a votable place again, also. He ran plenty of ads reminding his voters of all the construction money and jobs he secured for their district. He has a very loyal following. They are surprisingly dedicated to him for some reason.
Indicted does not equal proven, even by the generous standard of preponderance of the evidence that you proposed earlier. Indicted merely means that one side’s evidence has risen to the level of probable cause. Delay has not had a meaningful opportunity to rebut those charges.
So the 64% of primary voters have no moral judgement?
This is why the Left is doomed to a role of ever-decreasing influence and relevance. “If you don’t agree with me, you’re black-hearted, selfish, or amoral!”
You cannot accept the fact that reasonable people may disgagree. No, no. It’s a given: a vote for Delay means no moral judgement.
Nice. Utterly wrong, but at least blessedly honest about how you view the people that disagree with Political Doctrine.
Not so. The OP has affirmed in post #51 that he meant precisely what he said. He doesn’t agree that it was a “(poorly-chosen) throwaway rhetorical about morality.” He is defending his claim as a “no-brainer.”
I respectfully suggest it’s YOU that has missed the boat on the OP’s meaning.
The Left hardly has any monopoly on this mindset - for example, it’s the underpinning for much anti-abortion rights rhetoric on the Right.
Maybe you should stick with Political Doctrine as it applies to Tom DeLay and leave off the Broad Brush.
Let’s see…BrainGlutton rose to take your red herring again. Color me surprised by neither of you.
No, only of the Pubs in DeLay’s district!
Errmm . . . No, Bricker, that would be the Right.
“Political Doctrine” is irrelevant. I’m criticizing a choice made by Republican voters among competing Republicans in a Republican primary – all of whom have more or less the same politics AFAIK.