Tom DeLay beats three primary challengers for his House seat

Great Debates
101

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.

102

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.

103

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?

104

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.

105

This is probably the best and most complete answer posted so far.

106

:stuck_out_tongue: :stuck_out_tongue: :stuck_out_tongue: :eek: :frowning: Yeah, I guess they do . . .

107

I understand that DeLay is introducing a bill to deny funding to universities that have Colleges of Liberal Arts. :wink:

108

Tom DeLay Says He Will Give Up His Seat

Of course, the announcement couldn’t have anything to do with this:
Probe into corruption reaches DeLay’s inner circle, sources say

Tom DeLay is not going to jail! :wink:

109

I applaud Delay’s move. It was most definitely the right decision. The average ethics of the House is bound to increase.