November 23, 2004
Democrats Playing The Moral Values Card
Tom DeLay may be handing Democrats a moral values inroad on a silver platter.
Ronnie Earle, district attorney for Travis County, Tex., has indicted three associates of DeLay (the U.S. House Majority Leader) on charges of illegal political fundraising activities. With DeLay possibly also in Earle's crosshairs, Republicans in Congress last week voted to torpedo a 1993 House rule that would require the majority leader to give up his position if he were indicted. (This Houston Chronicle article provides a good overview.)
Left-wing weblog Daily Kos warns Earle is under pre-emptive attack from the right. Earle today spoke out on the op-ed page of The New York Times, with this eloquent explanation of how Republicans are showing a lack of moral values when it comes to this case:
Hypocrisy at the highest levels of government is toxic to the moral fiber that holds our communities together.The open contempt for moral values by our elected officials has a corrosive effect. It is a sad day for law enforcement when Congress offers such poor leadership on moral values and ethical behavior. We are a moral people, and the first lesson of democracy is not to hold the public in contempt.
It's a savvy position in what promises to be a drawn-out national battle. No doubt that if Earle's office indicts DeLay, the DA also will be put on trial in the media by the Republican Party. That could explode into one of the defining issues of the 2008 presidential race, presenting Democrats with a strong opportunity to take some ownership of the "moral values" issue.
Posted by Joe Territo at November 23, 2004 01:21 PM“presenting Democrats with a strong opportunity to take some ownership of the “moral values” issue.”
So, the liberals who defended clinton at all costs now have the moral highground? He abused his power, lied to the American people, committed perjury and did everything he could to impede the investigation, but yet they still supported him.
DeLay may now be guilty of illegal political fundraising activities and the Republicans will defend him at all costs.
While DeLay’s “crimes” seem petty to what clinton did, this situation only proves one thing:
The party before The People!
The house changing this rule is both hypocritical and embarrassing to me personally as a conservative. It should come as no shock to anyone that politicians lie and cheat and break or change rules. To do so after running on a moral platform is utterly disgraceful. I want Delay out for this and this alone. If he were a leader he would not have allowed this to come to a vote.
Posted by: a guy in st. louis you probably know at November 23, 2004 02:37 PM True, a savvy position, but probably fruitless. Given how early it is in the election cycle and the short attention span of the American public, this issue will be long forgotten by 2006.
What I find most reprehensible about this issue, isn’t the changing of the rules, but the spin. DeLay and his cohorts are taking every public opportunity to claim their rule change is in response to “frivolous” indictments.
These same people, if the roles were reversed and a Democrat was threatened with a felony indictment, would be talking about “moral values” which was the reason for the rule in the first place (Newt and the Contract on America).
Instead, they cast a shadow over the entire legal system by bandying about the term ?frivolous?. The American people now have a Pavlovian response to this word after enduring years of Republican campaigns to limit damages awarded in class-action lawsuits (don?t get me started on that one).
I find it dangerous and irresponsible to carry this term over to a felony grand jury indictment. The grand jury is an integral part of our legal system. As a safeguard against unwarranted prosecution, the grand jury insures indictments are not filed without sufficient evidence.
A Texas grand jury, made up of at least twelve citizens, has found sufficient evidence that three of Tom DeLay?s associates and eight companies have broken the law. This is not ?frivolous? nor is it ?politics of personal destruction?. These are serious allegations of money laundering and the channeling of corporate money into Texas elections.
This is not a partisan issue. The attempt to classify it as such is despicable. The use of terms like ?politics of personal destruction? and ?frivolous indictments? should be exposed for what they really are, Tom DeLay?s attempt to evade responsibility for his actions. If he truly were innocent of any criminal wrongdoing, DeLay would be better served by embracing the criminal justice system in his home state instead of slandering it in the national media.
On a side note, I noticed my congressman, Elton Gallegly (R. California 24th District) recently donated $5,ooo to the Tom Delay Legal Expense Trust. The money came out of his campaign fund not his personal finances. Is that legal, or ethical?
St. Louis guy:
I’m not in favor of slapping politicians on the wrist when they break the law. I’m in favor of stringing them up and throwing the book at them. That having been said, DeLay has only been accused of illegal fundraising. Doesnt it make sense to follow our Constitution and use the “innocent until proven guilty” thought process?
Seems to me that Dems are looking to be judge jury and executioner with no trial whatsoever……now that its not THEIR guy on the hot seat. If DeLay is found guilty, tar and feather him for all I care. Toss the bum out….IFFF he is guilty. But lets have the trial first.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at November 23, 2004 03:20 PMJoe, The democrats haven’t done anything. They aren’t the ones saying that DeLay needs to be thrown out. That was a Republican rule designed to highlight the differences between “moral” republicans and “corrupt” democrats. This whole thing is not about punishing DeLay (as fun as that may be), it’s about the blatant hypocrisy of the republicans to continue billing themselves as the party of “moral values” while changing their own rules to protect their potentially corrupt leaders. If they wanted to “follow our Constitution and use the “innocent until proven guilty” thought process”, they shouldn’t have gotten up on a morally superior high horse and made a rule negating it. Now they can no longer claim to be morally superior and they’re hypocrites, to boot.
Joe:
I agree. Tom DeLay is innocent until proven guilty.
He has not yet even been indicted for any criminal activity.
Why, given his assertion of innocence, has he sought to change his party’s rules and slandered the Texas criminal justice system?
Hardly the actions of a man in possesion of a clear conscience.
I wonder how Republicans feel about the use of language though. Regardless of the outcome of this current scandal, doesn’t it bother you that DeLay is using the term “frivolous indictment” in his defense?
Brian:
yknow, I dont know if this thing with DeLay is a partisan thing or not. Dems have done a pretty good job of demonizing Republican leaders over the years (see Gingrich, Newt and Livingston, Bob)
But I’d have to agree with you about the hypocrisy issue. I’d rather see the Republicans take the high road, remove DeLay from his leadership role, and then fight the fight.
Nothing says that a guy can’t be a de facto leader anyway….kinda like a basketball coach who gets tossed, but ends up kinda coaching from the locker room.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at November 23, 2004 03:58 PMI think the Republicans give a loaded revolver to each leader in their party to shoot themselves in the foot with, a tradition which the Democrats appropriately take advantage of.
Your politicians invite controversy almost by habit, a tendency that years of emotional appeals and anti-intellectual traditions have not done much to temper. They make racist, sexist, vile comments and then expect people to react as mildly as conservative audienced do.
I say toss DeLay, if he’s indicted. Don’t waste your political capital defending a known scumbag like him. save it for a genuinely likeable guy who gets into trouble. Oh, wait, Bush has already tried too many people’s patience himself- well, there are limits, and it’s not the Democrat’s fault if Republicans don’t seem to know them.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 23, 2004 04:12 PMStephen:
Your politicians invite controversy almost by habit, a tendency that years of emotional appeals and anti-intellectual traditions have not done much to temper. They make racist, sexist, vile comments and then expect people to react as mildly as conservative audienced do.
Do you recall a certain president who had a flair for controversy, from questionable pardons (totally legal) to investment scams, from oral sex with girls his daughter’s age to alleged harassment etc. FYI: he was a Democrat.
How about the lovely Corinne Brown of Florida, who accused a Mexican American administration official a “white man”, and then declared, “Well, you all look the same” when he corrected her. FYI: She too was a Democrat.
How about the Senator who introduced a quote by Mahatma Gandhi by saying, “”He ran a gas station down in St. Louis”, a comment that was called “stereotypical and racially insensitive” by a Gandhi center director. Or the Senator who praise former KKK member Robert Byrd in words echoing the sentiment that Trent Lott was savaged for. FYI Hillary Clinton and Christopher Dodd….yes you guessed it…are Democrats.
Stephen, seriously, your words are taking you down a path that you havent gone before. You are looking desperately for someone to blame. I’ve just very easily shown you that precisely what you accuse the Republicans of is true of Democrats, yet you seek to claim that only Republicans are bad for it. Will you stand up now and support the four Democrats I just mentioned, and support their comments and actions? I look forward to a simple up or down vote from you on this, though I won’t be at all surprised to not get it.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at November 23, 2004 04:58 PMOk Joe,
Now that I’ve gotten my R&R lets address some of your comments, shall we?
Corinne Brown of Florida, who accused a Mexican American administration official a “white man”, and then declared, “Well, you all look the same” when he corrected her.
You are right! Those were racially incensitive words coming from a BLACK woman (not insinuating anything, take it as you will). However, lets look at some context here:
Brown sat directly across the table from Noriega and yelled into a microphone. Her comments sent a hush over the hourlong meeting, which was attended by about 30 people, including several members of Congress and Bush administration officials.
So this comment was delivered at a meeting to discuss issues about Haiti, something she is very passionate and emotional about. This is also a subject that the Bush Administration has, for the most part, ignored. While I can not condone her comments, I should point out that they were delivered at a time where she was probably flustered, emotionally distressed, and likely feeling on the defensive adressing officials she did not expect to be adressing. Lets also not forget that the next day she appologized for her comments.
How about the Senator who introduced a quote by Mahatma Gandhi by saying, “”He ran a gas station down in St. Louis”Its humorous that you would try to throw this in our face as evidence of hypocracy. This was not a racist comment, simply a very bad joke. If you want to blame Clinton for not being funny, I will concede that to you. Don’t, again, take actions out of context:
Her suggestion that Gandhi was a pump jockey drew snickers from the crowd of 200, and she tried to soften some of the bite, interjecting, “No, Mahatma Gandhi was a great leader of the 20th century.”Liberals may have bad senses of humor (and our politicians reflect it), but it seems to me that this was clearly meant to be a joke. I guess not everyone got it. Lets, again, note that Hillary immediately appologized for her comments.
Or the Senator who praise former KKK member Robert Byrd in words echoing the sentiment that Trent Lott was savaged forHere I must confess that Dodd made a boo boo. His tributes to Byrd were poorly worded, but AGAIN his comments were followed immediately by appologies (for some reason Fox no longer lists this article on its website, so you will have to look at the google cache of it). Lotts comments (which you can read in the above article) expressed his own racially derogatory views:
Lott specifically endorsed Thurmond’s candidacy for president in 1948 on a segregationist platform, saying “we wouldn’t have had all these problems over all these years” if the country had voted for Thurmond.Dodd never expressed any racial comments. He simply showed adulation towards a man who has REPEATEDLY appologized for his involvement in the KKK and has referred to his vote against civil rights as “one of only two votes he regrets”. How long does he have to publicly regret his actions before you will forgive him?
Joe, do you notice a trend here? Democrats may, from time to time, put their foots in their mouths, but in each case they have immediately appologized for it. People make mistakes, they do stupid things, but chastizing them after they have apologized for their comments and continuously taking their remarks out of context shows an inability for you to approach issues with an open and impartial mind.
But, of course, you are using these talking points to argue against Stephen saying that only conservatives invite controversy. So let me refer here to an old adage:
“actions speak louder than words.”
All you have given me as arguments is stupid stuff that democrats have said. However you fail to see that we are not arguing over the stupid things conservatives say, but the absurd actions they take. Lott’s apologies weren’t accepted because he has shown precedence in his views. Lets also note here that the pressure to step down didn’t come heaviest from Democrats (although they certainly contributed their fare share) but from his fellow law makers and the WHITE HOUSE. Our issue, pertaining to this blog, is in the hypocritical ACTIONS your Republican lawmakers take.
However that wasn’t the only “wood for the fire” you used, now was it?
“Morally” speaking (in the religious sense), what Bill Clinton did is reprehensible. Bill Clinton essentially SMACKED the religious institutions in the face with his actions. What he did was inimical to his wife and his daughter and spoke volumes about the American culture, which he, to some degree, represented. However, besides showing the world a dark side of America that the world was already fully aware of (thanks to sensationalist primetime television), his actions did not affect us. I WILL CONTINUE to stand for the notion that what he did (while morally bad) is between HIM AND HIS FAMILY (which was the main argument made by Democrats). America’s voracious need to meddle in everyone else’s personnal business (which I term the “Springer Effect”) is something I see as being a HUGE problem with our society. Had people just “butted out”, Clinton would never have been put into a position where he felt he needed to lie. Of course I do not condone the fact that he lied. He would have done himself a tremendious service had he simply told the truth, but the fact that he felt he had to lie is more of a reflection on the unfair standards we place on our “celebrities” to strive to purity. The only thing Clinton’s actions did was prove he is a scum bag. I refuse to debate his actions on any other terms than that. He may have been a jerk in his personnal life, but he was a very effective president.
I cannot believe that I’m saying this, but I’ve been so very impressed lately by Conservatives like that guy in St. Louis I’d like to get to know and Red Column Editor Chomps, on this DeLay issue.
In my mind, you’ve separated yourselves from the an incredulous partisan defense of a man doing serious damage to your party. Let me paint you a picture.
Since winning the Illinois Governor’s seat in 1998, Republican George Ryan had been dogged his entire first (and only) term by the ‘License For Bribe’ scandal, stemming from his previous position as Secretary Of State. It has been alleged that bribes for truck licenses were used in part by his employees (under pressure from management), to contribute to his Governor campaign.
By 2002, many in his former office, several aides and his Chief Of Staff were all indicted, plead and co-operated with State Attorneys. Ryan knew he had done severe damage to his party and polls showed he would not be re-elected. Even as he steadfastly maintained his innocence, Illinois voters did not believe him.
Unfortunately, there are those in the Republican Party who will arrogantly defy their President, the 9/11 Commission and further weaken our security, choosing rather to hang onto power. There are those in the Republican Party who will viciously and shamelessly attack and threaten an American reporter for exposing a possible war crime, signaling in effect we condone such abhorrent behavior.
Your party won the election, meaning us Democrats are no longer conveniently available to play the conspiratorial foil.
Most of America does not know presently, the specifics of the allegations surrounding Tom DeLay. But when (not if), he is indicted they will know as much as they did about the Peterson trial.
And, the House Republicans just took away the last protection they had, against what happened to the party in Illinois.
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at November 24, 2004 12:49 AMGood one, Nick.
Dems have done a pretty good job of demonizing Republican leaders over the years (see Gingrich, Newt and Livingston, Bob)
It was the Republican Party, not the Democrats, that threw out Gingrich (and Lott), and Livingston threw himself out. What ever happened to that party of morals?
…Oh, I guess it never existed.
Nick:
I understand your viewpoint, and my point was not to demonize someone like Hillary for her comment. It WAS intended as a joke, and wasnt very funny. We all say things that come out wrong, and we should apologize for them. But remember that the “left” was not assuaged by the repeated apologies from Trent Lott and others. They are easily assuaged by apologies from Democrats though.
Lets look, though, at the rationalizations you used for these Democrats. Corinne Brown was passionate and excited, Hillary was joking, Dodd was in adulation mode, and Clinton was doing things in private. In each situation, you find a reason to let the person off the hook a bit. Where is the same compassion for Republicans? Answer: its NOT there.
We’ve definitely gotten too PC in this country, where people call for resignations and firings over one comment made in an entire career. I remember Howard Cosell being pilloried for calling a quick little Washington reciever a “monkey”. Alvin Garrett happened to be black, and people TOOK Cosell’s comment as racist, even though Cosell’s history showed he had nary a racist bone in his body.
I’m not suggesting that someone like Hillary should have faced consequences for her words—hell, I even thinkn they are a bit funny, myself. But I find the hypocrisy of allowing the left to say whatever they wish, while holding the right to closer standards pure hypocrisy.
Can anyone imagine the fury of the NOW organization if a Republican president had done the things Clinton did? Yet they were largely silent BECAUSE it was Clinton. One cannot say that his history showed it to be an aberration—-his history showed it to be more of the norm.
As far as Clinton, and lets not divert on to this bunny trail, my contention is that his actions were NOT private ones. When a President gets a blow job from a co-worker while on the phone conducting important business (he was discussing troop allocations to the Balkan region with Alabama Rep. Sonny Callahan) with a member of Congress, that is PUBLIC. But Democrats did a great job of obscuring that.
Nick, I ask that both Dems and Reps be treated equally. You’ve shown a willingness to rationalize the poor actions of Democrats in each of the situations I provided. Its true that you did not excuse them, which I commend you for. However, you provided a “Well, they were wrong, BUT…” scenario for each one.
Would that the left in general treat those on the other side of the fence with that same equanimity.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at November 24, 2004 08:53 AMNick and Joe:
Good points, both of you, but why not stop the partisan bickering and address the issue at hand.
Money dominates politics on both sides of the aisle. Over ninety percent of the victorious candidates in this past election raised and spent more money than their opponents. Laws have been enacted to limit financial influence over matters of public policy, such as the law in Texas forbidding corporations and labor unions from contributing to legislative campaigns.
The indictments handed down thus far have to do with the Texans for a Republican Majority Political Action Committee attempting to circumvent this law. Money was donated to TRMPAC by eight different corporations, TRMPAC then transferred funds to the RNC, who in turn channeled it back to Texas republican candidates. In 2002, Republicans won the majority in the Texas legislature, and subsequently redrew the congressional districts in such a way as to favor Republican candidates.
Tom DeLay was at the forefront of the fundraising activities of TRMPAC, though he now claims he had no knowlege of the committee’s finances. Fair enough, he’s innocent until proven guilty.
DeLay and his associates are claiming that these fundraising activities were not illegal, and plan to split hairs by asserting the money did not go straight to the candidates, therefore no law was broken.
Regardless of party affiliation, can’t we all agree that this kind of chicanery is unacceptable?
Posted by: J S at November 24, 2004 02:00 PM
Everyone,
I thank you for the fairly positive feedback I have gotten on my post. I made a very concerted effort to organize and substantiate my arguments (I think to good effect).
Joe:
But remember that the “left” was not assuaged by the repeated apologies from Trent Lott and others
Joe, I think you may have missed something I brought up in my post to this effect:
Lott’s apologies weren’t accepted because he has shown precedence in his views.
Lott’s apologies would mean more if it didn’t have precedence. He had said clearly racist remarks in the past, and his comments clearly expressed his views (he basically advocated that a segregationalist society would have been better then the psuedo-tolerance we have today; please correct me if my implications are incorrect). I know Dodd said some things that can be construed similarly (like saying that Byrd would be a great leader at ANY point in his career), but at least (and this is probably the best argument I can make here) there wasn’t precedence to substantiate his remarks (which makes it more feasible to write off his comments as a simple slight of tongue).
Again, while Democrats did complain (and I may be willing to agree with you that they may have over-reacted), it wasn’t them who provided the most pressure for Lott to step down; it was the Republicans and the White House.
But I find the hypocrisy of allowing the left to say whatever they wish, while holding the right to closer standards pure hypocrisy.All I can say here is that “you get what you pay for”. Democrats, for the most part, have not centered their politics around being the “moral superior”. Like Britney Spears, if you are going to prentend to be pristine, then you need to hold yourself to that standard. If Republicans sell themselves as “the moral party” fighting for the common man against the “liberal heathens”, they need to practice what they preach. That is what Stephen means when he says that Republicans seem to open themselves up to controversy. Democrats tend to have much less sympathy for conservatives for that exact reason.
btw, equanimity:
The quality of being calm and even-tempered; composure.
Joe, I’d love to give you an example of where I felt Democrats had seriously over-reacted, but I’m having trouble finding them (not that I don’t think they exist). I thought at first I could use the example of David Howard (the “niggardly” fiasco), considering I felt that the backlash to that circumstance was WAY blown out of proportion. I was hoping he was a Republican (simply for arguments sake, not in a vindictive sense), but he is a Democrat. However, let me say that even when I THOUGHT he was a Republican, I was more than willing to chastize the overly PC people of NAACP or NOW for over-reacting.
My liberal mother (who was very involved in the feminist movement) and I have both confided to eachother that we tend to agree that the “champions” of some of these causes have gone a little overboard. I (and probably most level minded liberals) see the abuse of our causes that some of the special interests have done. We realize that some of the things we champion have been hijacked by the liberal elite that really just don’t “get it”. We continue, however, to defend them because they are the only thing we have right now to defend our causes. I, personally, would like to see the Democrats change their ways of approaching these things. It is something we “activists” have been saying continuously on these blogs. Please don’t misconstrue the notion that everyone on the left like the people who lead the Democratic Party. I wasn’t particualarly enamored with Kerry, and I certainly oppose the post-election slide to the right the Democrats have just taken, but I am realistic enough to understand the system we live in and am aware that as much as I’d like to be fancifully idealistic, I must be vigilant enough to know my ideals will probably never be fully realized by our society.
J.S:
Good points, both of you, but why not stop the partisan bickering and address the issue at hand.
I don’t consider this to be “partisan bickering”. I actually find it to be one of the first truely insightful debates I have had on this blog to date.
Money dominates politics on both sides of the aisle
You are right, but lets not be blindly idealistic here. The reality is that money dominates EVERYTHING, and that is not likely to change. It would better for us to discuss how better to use it than to attack it as being the problem. Posted by: Nick at November 24, 2004 04:31 PM
Nick:
First of all, I’ll extend my compliments to you on a very well written and well thought out post. While I disagree with some of your comments, I like your style.
Regarding Trent Lott, I dont agree with your implication—I’m not sure that’s what Lott had in mind at all. But to suggest that Democrats did not bring the most pressure to bear is not accurate. Al Gore called for censure, while John Kerry, Russ Feingold and Jesse Jackson all called for Lott’s resignation:
On Thursday, the Congressional Black Caucus — comprised of black Democratic lawmakers — released a statement calling for a “formal censure of Sen. Lott’s racist remarks.”
Two Democratic senators — John Kerry of Massachusetts and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin — have called on Lott to resign his leadership post, but there has been no such call from any GOP senator. Several, in fact, have risen to Lott’s defense, saying his apology should put the matter to rest.
Knowing that part of politics is action/reaction based, I think its safe to suggest that Republicans removed Lott before the perception of the issue could damage the party, but certainly in response to Democratic pressure, whether in Congress or in the media.
I agree that there are many overreactions. The “niggardly” issue should go down in PC history as one of the most ignorant issues of all time. For those unfamiliar with it, David Howard used the word niggardly, meaning cheap, and someone else took it for a racist comment.
I think we have many areas of agreement, and I look forward to further discussion on both areas of agreement and disagreement. Though we’ll come at things from a fundamentally different viewpoint, I think we can discuss themselves rationally.
By the way, sorry for the incorrect usage of equanimity. I think perhaps I was looking for equitable, or perhaps was just being pretentious by using a big word…..
Posted by: joebagodonuts at November 24, 2004 05:46 PMJoe:
Regarding Trent Lott, I dont agree with your implication—I’m not sure that’s what Lott had in mind at all. But to suggest that Democrats did not bring the most pressure to bear is not accurate. Al Gore called for censure, while John Kerry, Russ Feingold and Jesse Jackson all called for Lott’s resignation:
Your points are duely noted. However, I never implied that pressure from Democrats did not exist (in fact I conceded that to you). Obvious there was a level of action/reaction associated with Lott being removed as the Republican leader, but lets not dismiss the notion that the Republicans, to an extent, removed him on their own merit (I mean common, who in their right mind would want a person who makes such felonious statements to act as their representative, regardless of if he was sorry or not). Regardless, that still doesn’t mean I like the man (which has absolutely nothing to do with anything whatsoever).
By the way, sorry for the incorrect usage of equanimity. I think perhaps I was looking for equitable, or perhaps was just being pretentious by using a big word…..Don’t worry, I’m the vocab Nazi…remember? Part of my studying for the GREs is to try to use as many neologisms ( :-) ) as possible. I also find it useful if I correct people when they use words incorrectly. While I never mean it in derogatory terms, I feel people deserve to know when they have used a word incorrectly. I would hope that people would be willing to extend me that same favor.
Also, I would appreciate any input on my writing (gramatical, structural, etc.). I am thinking very seriously about going into journalism as a career, and feedback will only help improve my writing skills (it’ll also help tell me if my stuff sucks or not).
Posted by: Nick at November 24, 2004 07:34 PMNick:
Your stuff don’t suck!! It be good writin, and fer the most part, the spelin is gud two, and if’n it aint gud, theirs allus spelchek.
I’ve been told to be careful of the overuse of parentheses. Sometimes its better to just have those comments as another sentence.
What you say is good, and for the most part fair to both sides. That is not to say that you take a middle ground position (what some might call a “Kerry”), but instead that you see points on both sides.
I think its important to understand the argument, when assessing the “other” side, whomever that might be. Many in these blogs seem capable of only spewing their own side’s most repeatable ideas, or of seeing ideas contrary to their own as plainly wrong with no merit to them at all.
You’ve done a good job of explaining your thoughts, and opening the door for honest discussion on an issue. Let me know when you get your first column…I’ll be ready to write the first letter to the editor disagreeing with you. :)
Finally got rid of Daschle. Need to get rid of DeLay. Saw his mentality when he refused a lobbyist to come to his office because the lobbyist’s organization elected a Democrat to head it. The redistricting in Texas was shameful though I am a Republican. Yes, I know that everything bad about Republicans was learned from watching the Democrats. As a group, I am disgusted with both parties and their hypocrisy.
Posted by: D.L.Monroe at November 25, 2004 12:01 PMNow yer talkin’. Though, I’m not sure why you’d want to get rid of Daschle. He’s not in danger of bein’ thrown in the hoosgow for fraud or any other impropriety.
For the record, I’m glad Daschle’s gone because he was ineffective as a Democratic leader. :)
