April 20, 2005
Tom Delay's Dying Words?
Tom Delay that bastion of un-questionable morals and ethics, is once again speaking out of the side of his ill-informed mouth, once again attacking the third and co-equal branch of government for its failure to-gasp-rule the way he wanted them to in the Terri Schiavo case.
Speaking on Fox radio (where else?), Delay stated, "[W]e have the opportunity to set up courts; we can also dismantle courts and reorganize them." Huh? Do we now live in a Third World dictatorship where the Judiciary serves as a rubber-stamp for the power hungry, or worse yet, does not serve at all? This irresponsible statement from a man, a representative of the people, only proves that Delay is out of touch and out of step with the world.
Delay went on to attack Reagan appointee Associate Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy for having the audacity to look, in part, to International Law in formulating opinions, and for using the Internet to do legal research. Delay stated,
[W]e've got Justice Kennedy writing decisions based upon international law, not the Constitution of the United States. That's just outrageous. And not only that, but he said in session that he does his own research on the Internet? That is just incredibly outrageous.
Say Tom, isn't that ignorance dripping from the corners of your mouth? The foundation for American Black Letter Laws finds its beginnings in the federal and the many constitutions, but the courts also rely heavily on precedent established under Common Law. And our Common Law tradition springs not from the constitution, but from Great Britain, which has a long history of Common Law practice. Early Supreme Court cases were festooned with references to British Common Law cases, and indeed these cases formed the foundation of our own Common Law jurisprudence.
And America should not be an intellectual island where International Law is ignored because we arrogantly believe that our laws and our constitution are superior to all others, and that we have nothing to learn from other societies. That sort of hubris would never escape the lips of one more informed, more cultured, and more nuanced about the world at large.
As for Justice Kennedy using the Internet to research cases, ever heard of Lexis-Nexus, or Westlaw representative Delay? They are after all widely utilized legal references; V. Edward to Tom: here is a quarter, buy a clue! Delay's political demise cannot come soon enough for me.
“[W]e have the opportunity to set up courts; we can also dismantle courts and reorganize them.”
Yikes! That’s crazy talk.
Posted by: American Pundit at April 20, 2005 11:10 AMA tripod is the most fragile system in politics. Every branch is constantly seeking to extend it’s own power. That a congressman is speaking out against another branch is not unusual, it’s politics. It is wiser to worry about what someone is going to do, not what they say they will do.
Be more worried about what is happening behind locked doors, as the front is often a distraction.
Posted by: Tim at April 20, 2005 11:55 AMDo we now live in a Third World dictatorship where the Judiciary serves as a rubber-stamp for the power hungry, or worse yet, does not serve at all? This irresponsible statement from a man, a representative of the people, only proves that Delay is out of touch and out of step with the world.
I agree, crazy! I also thought it was crazy when FDR did the same thing, yet for some reason people revere him to this day. Glad to know that you were against his actions he took then as well!
That pesky Constitution… I wonder if the Republicans will try the same tactics that FDR tried?
Oh well!
Posted by: Rhinehold at April 20, 2005 11:59 AMGood article.
>”[W]e have the opportunity to set up courts; we can also
>dismantle courts and reorganize them.”
AP:
“Yikes! That’s crazy talk.”
Yeah. The Crazy-talkers have completely hi-jacked the GOP.
“I wonder if the Republicans will try the same tactics that FDR tried?”
I’m almost certain they they will — but for all the wrong reasons.
See, FDR wasn’t a Liar and a Crook — instead, he was one of the greatest president’s America ever had.
The good Lord said:
“When your eye causes you to sin, tear it out. When your hand causes you to sin, cut if off.”
I think we can safely apply the ‘gangrene principle’ to Tom DeLay: he’s gone from being a leader to being a disease. It’s only a matter of time now before enough legislators decide they don’t want to run for reelection next November with that albatross around their necks.
Help them decide by writing your Republican congressman!
Posted by: Chops at April 20, 2005 12:25 PMAdrienne,
So, you’re saying it’s OK to dismantle the power structure between the three branches of government as long as you agree with the end result but it’s a travesty if you disagree…
Sounds very ‘Democratic’ to me, you’re doing your party proud by following their great history of hypocrisy.
Keep up the good work! You’re helping destroy the power held by the two major parties and eventually will allow real ideals and solutions to be presented in Washington. It’ll cost us a lot but any good internal revolution does…
Posted by: Rhinehold at April 20, 2005 02:40 PMRhinehold:
“So, you’re saying it’s OK to dismantle the power structure between the three branches of government as long as you agree with the end result but it’s a travesty if you disagree…”
I’m saying it’s not okay to stack the judiciary in order to tear down the wall of separation between church and state. And yes, that is a travesty — because it is completely Unconstitutional.
And Tom Delay is just a travesty because for all his talk of morality, it is obvious, indeed quite embarrassingly so, that he possesses none.
“Sounds very ‘Democratic’ to me, you’re doing your party proud by following their great history of hypocrisy.”
I suspect you need to brush up on the history of a truly great president during the darkest days of this nation. Perhaps I can help:
Fireside Chat on Reorganization of the Judiciary, March 9, 1937
I think that FDR’s bid to pack the courts was nipped in the bud. Not only that, but he accepted that outcome and did not try again. The GOP, though, has decided to bash their heads against the wall on this one until they get what they want.
Bush is doing the same on Social Security. I don’t know how many times the public has let him know that they don’t want this kind of social security reform, but it doesn’t seem to stick with him.
The Republicans may allege that we are out of touch with the American people by virtue of our politics, but they seem to be placing themselves in such dissonance by choice, hoping they can browbeat us into accepting it as conventional wisdom. Which is worse, people out of touch because they think for themselves, or folks out of touch because they want Americans to go along with policies they don’t honestly like?
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 20, 2005 03:18 PM“GOP, though, has decided to bash their heads against the wall on this one until they get what they want”
Could be because they know what the future holds for them Stephen.
Posted by: kctim at April 20, 2005 03:33 PMInteresting suggestion, Stephen, that the public doesn’t want his type of reform.
However, when we look at some more investigative poll numbers, I see a different story.
When asked if they want the Bush plan, people overwhelmingly said ‘NO’.
BUT, when given his plan without his name on it, with all of the same details and provisions, they said ‘YES’.
So, what that leads me to believe is that people are against Bush, not his plan, and have misconceptions about it that are not valid.
People like the AARP who are against the plan but the members, the rank and file, when presented with the appropriate information as an alternative plan, approved of it.
Very telling indeed.
The link.
The impact of these misconceptions is enormous. When we initially ask survey respondents about the President’s plan for personal retirement accounts, just 38% favor the plan and 46% are opposed. Those results have been mirrored by many other pubic opinion polls.When we ask about a plan for personal accounts that would give workers a choice and fully protect those over 55, the numbers shift dramatically—51% in favor and just 27% opposed. That represents a net change of 32 percentage points (from minus 8 to plus 24).
This change takes place among all age groups, but is most dramatic among America’s senior citizens. Among those over 65, just 23% say they support the President’s call for personal retirement accounts and 62% are opposed. However, when asked about the proposal that gives workers a choice and fully protects those over 55, a plurality of seniors (42%) support the plan. Just 31% remain opposed.
Those figures reflect a net change of 50 percentage points among senior citizens (from minus 39 to plus 11). The change is even more dramatic among seniors who initially thought the Bush plan required younger workers to leave the current program.
Posted by: Rhinehold at April 20, 2005 03:37 PM
So Arienne,
Let’s look at it again. NOW you are saying that it’s ok to try and dismantle the power structure between the 3 branches of government, but if you fail the first time you should stop. That’s acceptable and helps identify you as ‘the greatest president of all time’ (you words, not mine).
BUT, if you fail and keep trying, that makes you a liar, crook, evil scumbag.
OR, is there any further defining of your position on this? Like, I don’t know, ADMITTING that FDR was just as wrong as the republicans are now in trying to make these changes, perhaps even more so because he wasn’t content with trying to appoint a juror that helped his cause (novel idea!) but that he was actually going to ADD MEMBERS to the supreme court and get to pick them that way!
And yes, Arienne, I’ve studied FDR for quite a number of years, I am pretty well versed on what he tried to do and how it impacted future dealings with the Supreme Court. I think we both agree on the facts, you just are unwilling to admit he was wrong in his attempt. Because in your mind, for some reason, you can’t. Which tells me about your loyalty to your party ‘at all costs’. So I can now safely identify that in all of your future opinions, which can be taken with a grain of salt.
And the funny thing is, I agree with you that using the courts to enforce ‘Christian Law’ is asinine and should be countered. It’s just that your characterization of it being a Republican only motive is completely off-base.
Posted by: Rhinehold at April 20, 2005 03:44 PM“[W]e have the opportunity to set up courts; we can also dismantle courts and reorganize them.”
HOLY #($*!!
Posted by: Paul D at April 20, 2005 03:56 PMRhinehold,
You obviously didn’t even read what I wrote. Whatever.
Here was our initial exchange:
You:
“I wonder if the Republicans will try the same tactics that FDR tried?”
Me:
I’m almost certain they they will — but for all the wrong reasons.
See, FDR wasn’t a Liar and a Crook — instead, he was one of the greatest president’s America ever had.”
Then you come back with:
“you just are unwilling to admit he was wrong in his attempt.”
See, I never said I he was right in that attempt. I was saying I could understand why he would make such an attempt — which was because fully one third of the nation was in dire straits at the time and he wanted his New Deal to go through for them. That attempt wasn’t successful, but thankfully Social Security and the Wagner Act (National Labor Relations Act) was upheld as constitutional anyway — for these were the reasons he’d been willing to proprose such a radical measure regarding the Supreme Court.
Tom Delay and his ilk, on the other hand, wish to stack the judiciary not for any altruistic motives, but purely for religious and selfish ones. They are totally wacked.
BTW, I like how you purposely misspelled my name — twice.
Posted by: Adrienne at April 20, 2005 04:21 PMRhinehold,
When asked if they want the Bush plan, people overwhelmingly said ‘NO’.
BUT, when given his plan without his name on it, with all of the same details and provisions, they said ‘YES’.
Please provide a link about this investigative poll you mention. The link you posted doesn’t say anything about presenting the same plan to people with or without putting Bush’s name on it—it just claims that people are misinformed about parts of the plan.
Posted by: Charles Wager at April 20, 2005 04:22 PMAdrienne,
I did not purposefully mispell your name, I am also working on some documentation and did not doublecheck my typing, my fault and I apologize.
However, you’re not seeing that the Republicans feel that they are doing what they are doing for ‘the good of the people’ in just the same way that FDR did. They were both wrong. There is arguement to be made in FDR’s case that his tactics, which lasted about 6 months I believe, not just trial balloon he threw out and then gave up, ended up shifting the court enough in his direction that they ‘caved’ into giving him what he wanted, creating a constitutionality that didn’t exist to expand the federal powers way beyond anything the founders of the constitution envisioned. After all, they were humans as well as judges and were caught up in a very turbulent time. Popular opinion was being brought to bear (much as it is now, especially in the gay marriage arena) and one can only help but wonder what was going through their minds. It can also be argued that these programs prevented the recovery from the depression happening as quickly as they may have without them and if it had not been for WWII large pockets of the US may still be in dire straights today.
The Depression is an intriguing and much more involved time to learn from besides what many are taught, that ‘too many people trusted in the stock market and a ton of people were devestated, thankfully FDR got on his white steed and saved us all’. It’s akin to saying that President Reagan singlehandedly brought abour the end of communism in the world or Nixon did nothing positive, or Carter and Ford were inept bumblers. It sounds so good on paper and in the history books but it’s rarely the reality.
Posted by: Rhinehold at April 20, 2005 04:51 PMRhinehold:
“Popular opinion was being brought to bear (much as it is now, especially in the gay marriage arena) and one can only help but wonder what was going through their minds.”
Well, if you read that fireside chat, you’ll see that Roosevelt spoke of those judges as being rich, ancient old men who were far removed, and therefore completely out of touch with the suffering that was going on in the country at that time.
“It can also be argued that these programs prevented the recovery from the depression happening as quickly as they may have without them and if it had not been for WWII large pockets of the US may still be in dire straights today.”
I won’t argue that WWII pulled us completely out of the depression, because that is definitely a fact. But FDR was elected by an overwhelming majority of the people to two more terms of office after that attempt to fool with the judiciary. So I think it’s pretty safe to say that the people thought he was doing a damn good job as their president.
Also, I would have to argue that he’d helped the country recover psychologically from the Great Depression long before it was actually over — that had to be no small feat, yes?
I think this was because our people felt they had a man in office (Eleanor’s character was probably important, too) who actually cared about their situations, and who wanted to do everything in his power to bring America out of those times with our families and our futures intact.
I also think FDR had an amazing intellect and should be viewed as one of our truly great presidents. When one considers how he guided this country during our bleakest days from a wheelchair, and with his brave assurances coming through our radio’s during the Depression and WWII, we might be even more in awe of everything he managed to accomplish.
Adrienne,
“When one considers how he guided this country during our bleakest days from a wheelchair”
I believe for his first two terms FDR was able to walk with assitance (and without a wheelchair).
Posted by: Zeek at April 20, 2005 06:32 PM“I believe for his first two terms FDR was able to walk with assitance (and without a wheelchair).”
I think you’re right about that Zeek. FDR appeared to “walk” during his first two terms when he had to make public speeches, though from what I understand, he did a lot more leaning on people than walking because he was pretty severely disabled from his polio — which happened years before his presidency.
From what I remember reading, he totally hated for people to see him in his chair or with his braces, so he “walked” with the aid of secret service people, and was super strict about when he’d allow his picture to be taken (there are an awful lot of pictures and newsreels of him where he’s sitting in a car).
I think a good part of the time, when he wasn’t in public anyway, he basically spent in a chair.
Rhinehold,
When asked if they want the Bush plan, people overwhelmingly said ‘NO’.
BUT, when given his plan without his name on it, with all of the same details and provisions, they said ‘YES’.
That would mean something if
a plan for personal accounts that would give workers a choice and fully protect those over 55was a good description of the Bush plan. That description emphasises every positive and leaves out every negative, like the fact that the plan does nothing to save social security. Maybe, instead of a vast anti-Bush conspiracy, people have just heard the negatives to his plan and disagree with it.
Also, the study makes a big deal about how people not knowing that the plan will be voluntary is dragging down support. Don’t you think that if people were so behind the “actual” plan, they wouldn’t care if social security would still be available?
Posted by: brian poole at April 21, 2005 01:45 AMRhinehold, that link about Social Security has nothing to do with whether the respondent knows it’s the Bush plan or not. Did you really think no one here would check?
Posted by: American Pundit at April 21, 2005 02:53 AMAmerican Pundit:
I think you do Rhinehold a disservice by implying he intended to deceive us. Most likely Rhinehold never read the Link himself and simply copied it from a Conservative Website.
Posted by: Aldous at April 21, 2005 03:05 AMRhinehold-
I’ve seen numbers like that. The trouble isn’t merely with Bush. What the numbers I’ve seen say is that when people are asked whether they favor the plan with its real consequences set before them, they are against it.
Nobody’s against making a little extra money, but Americans are a pragmatic people. They don’t like reforms that work on the drawing-board, but do nothing to solve the real problem.
Bush chides the Democrats for not putting forward any real options for reforming social security. People may be right in criticizing our apparent lack of a plan, but not from the position of having no workable plan themselves that satisfies the demands that the American people put on it
The American people are sick of nasty surprises. The GOP had better stop handing them that kind of crap.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 21, 2005 03:18 AMHas anyone heard that Tom “the hammer” Delay attended the annual convention of the NRA this past weekend? In a keynote speech there he said:
“When a man is in trouble or in a good fight, you want to have your friends around, preferably armed. So I feel really good.”
No doubt he feels so great about escaping the long (or in this case, the really short) arm of justice it just makes him want to fire off a few shots in the air.
But I can’t help wondering if this means certain judges should be rather worried? After all, he also recently said:
“the time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior.”
Hmmm, maybe Delay isn’t as bad as I was beginning to think.
Posted by: kctim at April 21, 2005 05:07 PMGeez kctim, you should move to Florida!
You can’t make this kind of stuff up
Posted by: Taylor at April 21, 2005 06:36 PMYou guys do know Drunks in Bars with Guns equals Death, right?
Posted by: Aldous at April 21, 2005 11:56 PMI actually don’t have a big problem with that Florida bill as long as there’s a waiting period, background checks, and licensing. And a law against carrying while under the influence.
I have little problem with responsible people carrying personal firearms. But they’re going to have to prove it. The NRA needs to put up or shut up about responsibility.
Crap, I just helped derail this thread, didn’t I. Um… Tom DeLay is evil.
Posted by: American Pundit at April 22, 2005 12:26 AMkctim:
“Hmmm, maybe Delay isn’t as bad as I was beginning to think.”
You forgot to make a smiley, right?
You don’t really think:
Crook without a gun — bad.
Crook with a gun — better?
Taylor:
“Geez kctim, you should move to Florida!
You can’t make this kind of stuff up”
Ah, I see dueling will be making a comeback. Maybe the spent casings might later be worked into fashionable beach gear.
Aldous:
“You guys do know Drunks in Bars with Guns equals Death, right?”
I’ve heard of that.
Live a rough neighborhood, eh?
AP:
“Um… Tom DeLay is evil.”
I’ll second that.
Posted by: Adrienne at April 22, 2005 12:42 AMYes, I agree. All senators/congressmen who abuse their position, break the law and misuse funds should at least be investigated and if found guilty be put in jail.
I wonder when Hillary’s investigation is going to begin?
Posted by: Rhinehold at April 22, 2005 12:42 AMRhinehold, you missed a crucial element in your quote,
When we ask about a plan for personal accounts that would give workers a choice and fully protect those over 55, the numbers shift dramatically—51% in favor and just 27% opposed. That represents a net change of 32 percentage points (from minus 8 to plus 24).
It does not specify whether they would choose such a plan as a replacement for the current Soc. Sec. system. If asked if they prefer private savings in place of SS, the result would be quite contradictory to that posted above. And that is specifically why when you attach Bush’s name to it, the people don’t trust it. They know Bush is seeking to end the program, and the American people do NOT want SS replaced. They want it adjusted to be solvent, and they would like to have private savings vehicles in addition to SS.
We all have to watch very closely how these polls are worded. When we do, often the conclusions about the poll are very misleading, and sometimes, as in this case, even contradictory to what reality is.
Posted by: David R. Remer at April 22, 2005 01:22 AMDavid, it sounds like Rhinehold is just going to pretend he never made that post.
I wonder when Hillary’s investigation is going to begin?
Didn’t you guys already spend $50 million in taxpayer dollars investigating her for eight years? And found nothing. And never apologised.
Hey! Let’s set it up so the accusing party, if they find nothing, has to pay back the taxpayers.
Taylor
Name one place that has turned into the wild wild west because of bills like this?
“Crook without a gun — bad.
Crook with a gun — better?”
Of course I dont think that. Everybody already knows that crooks can get a gun no matter what the laws are.
But I do KNOW that:
Person without a means to protect themselves — no chance, a victim.
Person with the means — a chance to survive.
Rhinehold
“I wonder when Hillary’s investigation is going to begin?”
They are working on stopping anything like that NOW.
http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/302149p-258543c.html
AP:
“Didn’t you guys already spend $50 million in taxpayer dollars investigating her for eight years? And found nothing. And never apologised.”
:^) Funny, isn’t it? They’d love to be able to say that she’s as big a crook as Delay, little realizing that few people can claim a list of crimes so blatant, so long or so deeply disturbing.
“Hey! Let’s set it up so the accusing party, if they find nothing, has to pay back the taxpayers.”
Actually, might be a little cheaper on us taxpayers this time. See, they’re already pre-emptively Swiftboating Hillary, so perhaps they won’t actually feel the need to do another full scale witch-hunt.
Name one place that has turned into the wild wild west because of bills like this?
Maybe not wild wild west, sure will make Disneyworld trips more interesting. Next time Goofy grabs a little booty during that hug someone can put a cap in his behind… LOL. Maybe this also will result in less disenfranchisement of minorities at the Florida polls in 2006. If it’s a success in Florida, maybe DC will adopt similar legislation. Let’s see then if Cheney will reconsider next time he wants to tell someone to “Go F%$K yourself”?
Posted by: Taylor at April 22, 2005 12:20 PMLet’s compare, shall we?
“House ethics rules require lawmakers to avoid the appearance of any conflict of interest. “
Tom Delay
* Accused of not reimbursing Jack Abramoff for the May 2000 use of a skybox, instead treating it like a donation that didn’t have to be discosed (value ~$5,000)
* Accused of accepting a trip to Eurpope including golf with Abramoff at St Andrews (value ~ $70,000)
* Two months after the concert and trip voted against gambling legislation opposed by Abramoff’s clients.
* Through TRMPAC, Mr. DeLay is accused to have used corporate money to secure Republican majority control of the Texas Legislature in the 2002 election in order to gerrymander Texas congressional districts to create more Republican districts.
—-
Hillary Clinton
* Clinton’s Chief Financial Director of her 2000 campaign is charged wiht 3 counts of filing ficticious reports (value to campaign ~ $500,000 in soft money)
* Received 4 bags as gifts while as first lady that were not disclosed as federal law requires (value ~ $9,000)
* Documents revealing that Peter Franklin Paul provided in-kind contributions in excess of $1.7 million to Clinton’s campaign that never has been properly accounted for in her Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings.
(leaving out many other reports of scandals that are not recent, we all know about them already…)
—-
There is similar evidence against both congressmen involving the misuse of their office, documentation that needs to be looked into and investigations to perform. If either one is guilty, they should be removed from office. I would not think that we should be removing either until such a time as more detail has been aquired.
Yet, the partisan politics continue. Republicans call for the head of Hillary Clinton but try to defend Delay at all costs. Similarly, just bringing up the name of Hillary Clinton in regards to a scandal is considered ‘republican dirty trick’ by Democrats (a phrased first used by Hillary regarding the Lewinsky accusations that turned out to be true), but they believe that DeLay should already be on his way out the door without a complete investigation being performed.
*shrug*
Personally, I think that if you want to hold all congressmen accountable, hold them all, not just members of the ‘other’ party. But I guess that’s not a politically viable thing to do these days.
Posted by: Rhinehold at April 22, 2005 02:00 PMIt does not specify whether they would choose such a plan as a replacement for the current Soc. Sec. system. If asked if they prefer private savings in place of SS, the result would be quite contradictory to that posted above.
It sure does, it specifies that no one is forced to change from the current SS program to the new one being presented. It’s a ‘misconception’, one you buy into, that Bush is proposing to completely do away with the current SS program. The poll spells out that with that misconception in place the majority of people are opposed to it.
I posted the link to the poll, posted a quote from the poll and then told you want I got out of the poll. Oddly enough, the two most staunch liberal partisans accused me of misrepresenting the poll and ‘getting the link from a republican website’ (and odd accusal since I’m not a republican…) and the most staunch opposer to the plan reiterates one of the misconceptions.
All nice tries, but I’ve read the poll more than once (including the day it was released, I visit Rassmusen, as well as FactCheck daily) and I get a completely different take out of it. But then, I try not to read such things with preconceived notions in the first place…
And, for the record, Bush has called on anyone with a better proposal or alternative plan to improve upon (or fix, or save, etc) the current program to present them and get the dialog on the best options out in the arena. He has stated several times that he is willing to put everything on the table. The Democrats, for all of their blustering, have failed to do so and have stated, through Ted Kennedy, that any attempt to implement personal saving accounts is a non-starter.
Political spin and partisan hatred aside, who is being more willing to actually work on a solution?
Posted by: Rhinehold at April 22, 2005 02:14 PMRhinehold,
My list is a little longer for Delay:
Tax dodger.
1979, 1980 & 1983:
The IRS filed liens against DeLay and Albo Pest Control for failing to pay payroll and income taxes. (Dubose/Reid 48 & Washington Post, 5/13/01)
Crime according to the Christian Right, an opinion which he supposedly now shares:
1988:
DeLay’s father, Charlie DeLay, was taken off life support. According to DeLay’s mother, Tom did not raise an objection. (Los Angeles Times, 2/27/05)
Feathering his brother’s nest.
mid-1990s:
DeLay’s younger brother, Randy DeLay, made over $700,000 from clients who benefited from legislation Tom DeLay pushed. (Dubose/Reid 110 & Houston Press, 5/22/97)
Lying on the witness stand.
1994:
DeLay made questionable statements to a Houston grand jury in the matter of Robert Blankenship vs. Thomas D. DeLay. When asked, “”Are you presently still an officer or director” of Albo?” DeLay responded, “I don’t think so. No.” DeLay’s statement contradicted congressional financial disclosure forms that listed him as a financial officer of Albo Pest Control through 1993. Blankenship received a cash settlement from DeLay. (Dubose/Reid 75-76 & Washington Post, 5/13/01)
Circumventing the law.
1996:
DeLay allegedly told Republican fundraiser Peter Cloeren that his campaign manager, Bob Mills, would follow up with him on the details of how to funnel additional monies to the Brian Babin for Congress campaign. Cloeren went on to funnel money to Babin. (Dubose/Reid 119) Cloeren later plead guilty to violations of federal campaign finance law, and he and his company paid a total of $400,000 in fines. (Dubose/Reid 122-123, U.S. News & World Report, 3/28/05)
More Recent Crimes:
A Foreign Agent Paid for a Luxury Trip to South Korea for DeLay and his wife. The trip was paid for by the Korea-US Exchange Council. The group registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act and was created with help from a lobbying firm headed by DeLay’s former chief of staff. The cost to send DeLay, his wife and other lawmakers for three days was $106,921. (Washington Post, 3/10/05)
DeLay Received Campaign Contributions from Executives at Westar Energy, to Give the Company “a Seat at the Table” at Energy Bill Negotiations. The House Ethics Committee admonished DeLay for his dealings with top officers of Westar Energy. Some of the officers wrote memos citing their belief that $56,500 in campaign contributions to political committees associated with DeLay and other Republicans would get them “a seat at the table” where key legislation was being drafted. (Washington Post, 10/7/04)
DeLay Allegedly Offered $100,000 in Campaign Contributions to a Fellow Congressman’s Son in Exchange for a Vote in favor of the Medicare Prescription Drug Bill. The House ethics committee found that DeLay offered to help former Congressman Nick Smith’s son Brad, who was running for Congress at the time, in exchange for Smith’s vote on the Medicare prescription drug bill. The House Ethics Committee gave DeLay a public admonishment. Smith originally claimed that DeLay mentioned $100,000 in contributions, but later stated that no specific figure was mentioned. (Roll Call, 11/22/04)
DeLay Used a Federal Agency for Partisan Politics, an action prohibited by House Standards of Official Conduct. On May 12, 2003 DeLay’s office asked the FAA for assistance in locating an aircraft carrying Texas state legislators. (Summary of Complaint Against Rep. Tom DeLay Filed By Chris Bell, 6/8/04) The House Ethics Committee admonished DeLay, stating “Your intervention in a partisan conflict in the Texas House of Representatives…raises serious concerns under House standards…that preclude use of government resources for a political undertaking.” (National Journal Congress Daily, 10/7/04)
DeLay Associates Charged with Illegal Money Laundering. Three of DeLay’s top political associates were indicted by a Texas grand jury on charges of illegally raising money from corporations and funneling the funds into the campaigns of GOP candidates for the Texas Legislature (CQ Today, 3/11/05).
DeLay Allegedly Used $190,000 in Illegal Corporate Contributions to Influence Elections. According to a complaint filed by former Congressman Chris Bell (D-Tex.), a state PAC managed by DeLay aide Jim Ellis, contributed $190,000 in illegal corporate funds to the RNC. (Summary of Complaint Against Rep. Tom DeLay Filed By Chris Bell, 6/8/04).
The GOP Leadership Stacked the House Ethics Committee with Members Sympathetic to DeLay. Ethics committee Chairman, Rep. Joel Hefley (R-Colo.), was replaced by Rep. Richard Hastings (R-Wash.), a trusted ally of House Speaker Dennis Hastert. The other new Republicans on the panel, Reps. Lamar Smith (R–Tex.) and Tom Cole (R–Okla.), each gave DeLay $5,000 for his legal defense fund. These new committee members can be trusted to view DeLay’s behavior in a more charitable light. (Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 2/7/05; Houston Chronicle, 2/7/05)
Two months after Gambling Interests Paid for DeLay’s Luxury Trip to Europe, He Helped Kill a Bill that the Funders of his London Junket Opposed. The cost of the trip totaled $4,285.35. The payment was funneled through lobbyist Jack Abramoff. (Washington Post, 3/1/05) Abramoff suggested the trip and then arranged for checks to be sent by two of his clients, the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians and eLottery Inc. Two months after the trip, DeLay helped kill the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act, which would have made it a federal crime to place certain bets over the Internet and was opposed by eLottery and the Choctaws. (Washington Post, 3/12/05)
To serve his own self interest, DeLay Muscled House Republicans into Abandoning a Rule that “Required Leaders to Step Aside Temporarily if Indicted.” The rule required GOP leaders and committee chairmen charged with a felony to relinquish their positions. (Associated Press, 11/18/04) This rule was later overturned.
Posted by: Adrienne at April 22, 2005 02:57 PMAdrienne,
I was attempting to do a short ‘today’s issues’ comparison.
If you want to get out such a list, fine, but you should also do the same for Hillary.
I think we all know that Hillary’s list, whem compared to Delay’s, is a little bit larger…
BUT, it doesn’t for a single bit change the original argument, if you are for Delay being ‘ousted’ you should also be for Hillary, if you are for keepinb Delay, you should also be for keeping Hillary.
Do you agree with this assertion?
Posted by: Rhinehold at April 22, 2005 03:05 PMBtw, being a hypocrite (taking your father off of life support while trying to prevent Shivo from being removed) isn’t a reason for someone to be ‘removed’ from office. Voted out, yes. Removed, no.
And, politically blocking a section of an ethics law is not illegal. You can disagree with his view, but illegal it is not.
The others I agree should be investigated. I don’t think I ever mentioned that I didn’t think such a thing should happen.
Rhinehold:
“I think we all know that Hillary’s list, whem compared to Delay’s, is a little bit larger…”
No, I don’t think so. Like AP mentioned, they spent millions in taxpayer dollars trying to prove that she was a crook, and I think if they’d found something they could have pinned on her they would have done so, pronto.
“BUT, it doesn’t for a single bit change the original argument, if you are for Delay being ‘ousted’ you should also be for Hillary, if you are for keepinb Delay, you should also be for keeping Hillary.
Do you agree with this assertion?”
From your list:
“* Received 4 bags as gifts while as first lady that were not disclosed as federal law requires (value ~ $9,000)”
I’m afraid I can’t take this one very seriously. So she forgot 4 bags of gifts out of the many thousands she probably received. Have you ever looked at the pricetags on designer threads? A couple of items can cost $9000, easy. I just think this is peanuts when we’re talking about the political super-rich — all of them.
The other two, if the evidence is there, should definitely be looked carefully into and charges accordingly filed where necessary.
Still, as bad as those two things are, they don’t show a pattern of behavior or come even close to be as egregious as what Delay has done. He is obviously a crook of the highest order, and certainly this is why he’s lost so much support from members of his own party.
Honestly, I think if you scratch the surface of ANY politician you’re going to find some crud — but when the crud is dripping off of them in whacking great clods, and they’re trying to act like We the People aren’t supposed to notice that fact, it is totally ridiculous. Delay should be immediately jettisoned because the number, the pattern, and the obviousness of his crimes reached that level of ridiculousness long ago.
Rhinehold-
If our political hands lead us to corruption, we should cut them off. A price needs to be paid. It might hurt but graft and bribery hurts worse.
I liked the way DeLay made trouble for the Native Americans until they gave him money.
I also liked that his wife made $500,000 campaigning.
It takes skill to do this.
Posted by: Aldous at April 23, 2005 02:47 AMI love this picture of Tom Delay:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1050320,00.html
Not only does he look like a greasy corrupt pol, it looks like the cigar is his, err, domestic partner. (Not that there’s anything wrong with that…)
Posted by: Woody Mena at April 23, 2005 09:40 AM“…and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” This gives Congress oversight of the judiciary. It’s called Article 3 of the Constitition. The judges shouldn’t use international law when deciding cases. You can find a law somewhere to back up how you want to rule in the case. When this is established, the judges become more political than ever. When this happens, the populace will feel powerless because the judges are nearly impossible to remove. The court system is the last place that liberals can win. Liberals have been summarily rejected at the ballot box. The only way to get the left agenda implemented is through the courts. If the Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade, and said it was up to the individual states to decide once and for all their own abortion policies, the left would go crazy. The left doesn’t trust voters. They think the voters are stupid dolts, who cannot be trusted for such important decisions.
Posted by: jeff at April 23, 2005 04:56 PMJeff—
I suppose this is one way to interpret Article three, but notice it says nothing about de-establishing a court, though certainly Congress may re-align the lower federal courts whenever it deems it necessary. The Jurisdiction and authority of the Supreme Court is set by the Constitution, see Article three. Allowing Congress to second-guess the Courts (have oversight) would serious dilute the power of the institution and gain, our system of jurisprudence no better then that of most third world nations. Is that what you are advocating?
And please explain to me how using International Law trusts the Courts into the realm of politics? And I reject you assertion that the only place Liberals can win is in the Courts. And the reason so-called Liberal keep losing at the ballot box is because the American populace is becoming increasingly ignorant and complacent about the proper functioning of their government, and no understand the true meaning of freedom.
jeff:
“They think the voters are stupid dolts, who cannot be trusted for such important decisions.”
That’s right — we think it is stupid to think that “the majority” would ever have any right to make such important personal decisions for us. When it comes to a woman’s body and whether or not she will be a mother, we don’t anyone but ourselves and our partners to have any say that matter — because it is no one elses business but OURS.
Only a dimwitted or emotionally immature adult would find nothing wrong with allowing someone elses authority to rule over them — especially their governments — when it comes to that sort of important decision. Mature adults, on the other hand, feel they can be trusted to either make correct decisions for themselves after careful consideration, or, make incorrect decisions that they’ll be able to learn lessons from, for this is how we become wise in our later years.
The fact is, the government may indeed try to make abortion illegal — but women will always find a way to have abortions anyway. And now, after thirty years of abortions being safe, there will be other woman who will be there to help them come hell or high water. We want back alley abortion deaths to be a thing of the past — whether they are legal in the governments eyes, or not.
Of course, these days, it’s not just American women this administration feels they may stick their opinions between the legs of — but women around the entire world.
Posted by: Adrienne at April 23, 2005 08:22 PMAdrienne,
I suppose we could use that argument for all kinds of behavior, so I can count on your agreed to ensure the legality of the following?
* Ownership of guns
* Use of drugs, including marijuana and cocaine
* Gambling
* Prostitution
* Smoking
* Eating fatty foods
* Speeding
* No Seat Belt Usage
* No Helmet Usage (motorcycles)
I also will be glad to welcome you in the ranks of us libertarians.
If, as I suspect, there are things on this list that you are for the government making or keeping illegal, then I’m afraid I have to call into question your using the above argument in the abortion issue.
Posted by: Rhinehold at April 23, 2005 08:34 PMRhinehold:
“so I can count on your agreed to ensure the legality of the following?”
“* Ownership of guns”
Yes.
It’s our second amendment right. I do however, feel that people should be able to pass a psychological test and a written safety test like people do to get a drivers license, or boating license.
”* Use of drugs, including marijuana and cocaine”
Yes to marijuana and other non-addictive drugs, yes.
Addictive drugs destroy society, so no to them.
”* Gambling”
Yes. But not just anywhere. People should be allowed to vote whether gambling will be allowed in their districts.
”* Prostitution”
Yes. But a vote should again take place like with gambling.
”* Smoking”
Yes.
”* Eating fatty foods”
Yes.
”* Speeding”
No. Because this will often kill other people.
”* No Seat Belt Usage”
Yes.
”* No Helmet Usage (motorcycles)”
Yes.
Posted by: Adrienne at April 23, 2005 08:54 PMTom Delay is corrupt…like most politicians.
But, there is an easy way to improve the transparency and accountability of government.
But, too many people are too fond of the petty bickering and partisan politics to
see how to create a more honest, transparent,
and accountable government.
One Simple Idea,
And some people like to feel ‘superior’ and say that others are petty and partisan while THEY are the only one with a solution and then hold it to themselves and not share it (either because they don’t have one that will hold up to scrutiny or they are just making the whole thing up).
Posted by: Rhinehold at April 24, 2005 12:54 AMAdrienne,
I actually agree about the speeding, I shouldn’t have added that one in. Not sure why I did.
However, when you say that people should be able to vote on if it is allowed in their districts, why wouldn’t we do the same thing with abortion?
(remember, I agree that abortion should be legal, but I’m curious about the reasoning behind that view)
Posted by: Rhinehold at April 24, 2005 12:55 AMRhinehold,
If you’d followed the link, you would see that
I have gone to great length to share
One Simple Idea. Please read it and
try to shoot it full of holes before condemning it. Who’s making up anything? If you look at the least corrupt governments around the world, you’ll see that the least corrupt have more transparency and accountability.
Rhinehold,
And yes, as demonstrated, some people like to feel superior.
The “One Simple Idea” is that you have to address
the core problem, before you can ever hope to
fix it. You have to first identify the problem,
devise a simple solution, and then implement the
solution.
But, as I’ve been discovering, some people
are too fond of the petty bickering and partisan
politics…like a drug addict, they can’t stop
succumbing to it…and all the while, the
politicians love it.
Rhinehold:
“However, when you say that people should be able to vote on if it is allowed in their districts, why wouldn’t we do the same thing with abortion?”
Because abortion is a personal decision that doesn’t affect the other people living near them in any way.
Gambling and Prostitution on the other hand, might change the tone and the character of their districts in very significant ways. These things might change the value of their property, impact their children in a negative way, and cause many other problems.
If you’ll notice, it is only in those situations where people may negatively impact other people that I feel laws must be applied.
OSI,
The “one simple idea” model is very similar to the idea of synergy (or win-win as some like to call it). However, the problem with this is incorporating it into American politics. Perhaps a Senator here and there might subscribe to such a philosophy, but by and large you will find that politicians don’t operate that way. Afterall, if every politician will benefit everyone, it no longer becomes a popularity contest and instead becomes a matter of who is most competent. And we haven’t used THAT system since the age of the founding fathers.
Posted by: Zeek at April 24, 2005 03:58 PMZeek,
Yes, you are absolutely correct in that most politicians don’t operate that way.
Ofcourse, most of them don’t care about competence.
It’s all about money, power, and control. Most politicians are parasites, and
they’re not about to stop voluntarily.
The OSI model is theoretically possible, and it offers change through peaceful means
(more peaceful than another revolution).
OSI offers a way to peacefully force politicians to police their own ranks…otherwise,
none of them will serve long enough to draw a pension. The voters can create a strong incentive
for politicians to be accountable.
Tom Delay, Dan Rostinkowski, Jim Wright, etc., outrageous pork-barrel spending,
and tax dollars going to grease the entire corrupt process (just to name a few)
are perfect examples of the rampant corruption in government and politics today.
History repeats itself over and over.
It would be nice, for once, to not repeat the failures history has shown us time and time again.
But, until the core problem is addressed (lack of transparency and accountability), the most
common-sense reforms have little chance of success. It’s almost a waste of time to debate
and bicker over all of the other issues, when
government seems, most of the time, incapable
of doing the most simple things correctly.
The OSI model is a simple way, through a democratic vote, to peacefully force
government to reform. Most people should flock to this idea. Only those in power and
determined to continue to be parasites would be opposed to such an idea.
And, Zeek, you are probably correct that it would
be impossible to incorporate such a simple thing
into American politics.
It’s probably safe to say that there’s probably nothing for the politicians to worry
about, since most people (i.e. sheep) will never
organize to do such a simple thing, the one
thing politicians are hoping people will never figure out to do that would make the politicians be accountable.
In fact, voters encourage their politicians to bring home the pork, and they’re proud and
happy to brag about all the pork they’ve brought home.
This encourages pandering, promises, and more corruption.
It doesn’t seem like what we’re doing these days is working.
Perhaps it’s an unavoidable human fallacy.
So, perhaps, we all deserve each other.
OSI
“So, perhaps, we all deserve each other. “
That’s what I’v been trying to tell you! :)
Posted by: Zeek at April 24, 2005 10:25 PMZeek,
It seems futile, and it may be futile, but it’s hard to give up.
Resistance is futile.
We will be assimilated.
Or we will evolve into something more civilized.
However, it’s hard to see many improvements
over the last 40 centuries.
Actually, in regard to politics, I would say we have gone down hill quite a ways since the founding fathers (pre-political parties). Of course, we have made many notable advances in civil rights, but that has little to do with the political discourse (Ok, it does, but it’s not the point of discussion here).
Posted by: Zeek at April 24, 2005 11:03 PMYes, things have deteriorated a lot since our brave founding fathers revolted to
fight an oppressive government.
As for the point of discussion, it appears it’s
about Tom Delay, and other corrupt politicians
were mentioned (e.g. Teddy Kennedy … who should be in jail for man-slaughter).
So, corruption in politics is still within the topic. That is, it’s time for Tom Delay to go,
and many others like him …
“The time has come that the American people know exactly what their representatives are doing here in Washington. Are they feeding at the public trough, taking lobbyist-paid vacations, getting wined and dined by special-interest groups? Or are they working hard to represent their constituents? The people, the American people, have a right to know. I say the best disinfectant is full disclosure.”
— Tom DeLay, November 1995
Maybe he should also add, “Do as I say, not as I do.”
Yet another example of a hypocritical conservative moralist. How many Swaggerts, Falwells and DeLays will it take to make people understand that the most vociferous “Christians” in this country aren’t?
Goodbye (and good riddance) Tom.
Hey Rhinehold,
It’s been a busy few days for me, but I meant to give you this yesterday — it’s yet another new crime to add to Delay’s long list:
DeLay Airfare Was Charged To Lobbyist’s Credit Card
Actually, when you read the article, you’ll see his trip was actually charged to two lobbyist’s.
Is that illegal? Uh yeah, it sure is…
I think if scum bag politicians like
Dan Rostinkowski (who went to jail),
and Tom Delay, and other such ilk are convicted
of such crimes, they should lose their cu$hy
multi-million dollar pensions too.
Tom Delay is starting to make Dan Rostinkowski
look practically ethical and law abiding.
And, Dan Rostinkowski gets to keep his pen$ion.
Something ain’t right with this picture.
Posted by: One Simple Idea . . . at April 26, 2005 06:03 PMDoes anyone really believe SS will be around when they retire?
Old people like SS because they’ve already poured hard earned money into the program. Of course they want the benefits promised to them. That’s the problem with SS, it’s just a promise.
Real property is the only guarantee.
Just ask yourself these questions: Is $250K in my very own personal account better than SS for my unique retirement needs? Where is the account number and balance for all the money I’ve been forced to “invest” in SS?
SS is a payroll tax, nothing more. If some congress in the future can vote that I no longer have any SS benefits where is my guarantee?
Anyone who thinks I’m dead wrong, send me $200 per month and I promise to give some back when you retire. In the meantime I’ll use the money for whatever I want and hope someone else is around later to pay you back.
Posted by: Pat at May 5, 2005 10:30 PMIf government proves (which remains to be seen) that it can not be trusted to properly
manage Social Security, then:
(1) S.S. should be phased out as painlessly as possible
(2) and/or government should be fixed so that it is trustworthy.
If (2) isn’t possible (i.e. government can not be trusted),
then what’s the point of allowing government to control anything ?
Obviously, government is best suited to do some things better (e.g. National Defense). Either, we, the voters, who are the only ones that can change it, and are ultimately responsible, make government trustworthy, or let it dissintegrate.
Posted by: One Simple Idea for Transparency and Accountability . . . at May 8, 2005 01:14 PM
