Wednesday, September 28, 2005

One down, so many others to go

DeLay indicted, steps down.

Put a fork in him. Next?

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

Don't pop the champagne corks yet. An indictment is a long way from conviction.

Thomas More said...

Well all the commenters on both sides of the aisle say it doesn't matter if he's convicted or not - he's damaged goods now. Good riddance to bad rubbish. And he adds some major fuel to the "Party of Corruption" meme: Frist, Abramoff, Rove. And Rove could be next, sometime in October.

I'm not popping champagne. I'm putting marshmallows on sticks.

Anonymous said...

Yes, the man's actual guilt is a minor detail. He's an asshole, so if we can fuck with his reputation and put his loved ones through hell, all the better. The court time and tax payer money wasted is well worth sticking it to him and the GOP. We don't like them or their politics, so it's okay to do whatever. It may seem wrong to some, but we're liberals and we think Tom DeLay is a crap-weasle, so what more needs to be said. True or not, it just adds to the "Party of Corruption" meme we've been working on for so long. Fuck ya. Let's throw another log on the fire cause we're the party standing on the moral high ground.

Thomas More said...

DeLay has been known for years to be a supremely corrupt politician. The man launders campaign contributions through foundations for abused children, for god's sake. But no one's had the balls to go after him, until now. So like Capone, whatever they can get him on, I support it.

"Okay to do whatever"? You mean investigate people who launder campaign money and then cover it up? People who reveal the identities of covert agents as political payback? People who appoint unqualified cronies to defend the nation? That kind of "whatever"?

But no. Instead, let's investigate whether Bill "Satan" Clinton got a blowjob in the Oval Office. Sheesh.

Anonymous said...

I'm all for investigating wrong-doings. Prosecute and convict. So if Tom Delay is exonerated on this charge, are we going to see a post saying I guess we were wrong about this particular crime? Or have you already made up your mind he's guilty regardless of the verdict. Is it that you're sure he must be guilty of something, so who cares if he's guilty this time? It said so in the paper and on John Stewart, so it must be true. Good riddance to bad rubbish, right? Thank God the judicial system doesn't usually work that way. There generally has to be evidence presented in a court of law before we decide someone's guilt, presumed innocence and all that.

I thought it was ridiculous to go after Clinton for getting a blow job. I also think he's a piece of crap for lying under oath and to his wife. I think he was guilty of perjury, but not getting a blow job. I was responding to your post about Tom DeLay, not every other stupid thing either party has done in the past. That's a mighty long list.

Thomas More said...

The man has been dodging ethics charges throughout his career - he was even trumpeting on Fox News how many racketeering etc. charges he's been subject to. A career to be proud of! People in Washington basically accept that he's a modern-day Boss Tweed. He's weaseled out of many charges in the past, and who knows, maybe he'll do it again. But with the climate the way it is, maybe not. Even Republican operatives are starting to admit that the house of cards is falling down, and I won't apologize for my glee at that, considering the damage they've done to this county.

As for Clinton, I just couldn't let the "wasting court time and taxpayer money" thing slide. That's just patently ridiculous, and I'm sick and tired of conservatives crying about the politics of personal destruction.

Anonymous said...

Clinton is so shrouded in scandal it's shocking, least of which is getting a blow job at work. People like you were outraged that republicans were going after him. Tell me again how democrats are superior to republicans. Tell me how your mindset is any different to what was going on then. The only difference is that it's your turn now, and that makes it okay.

We should all be crying about the politics of personal destruction.

Thomas More said...

"Shrouded in scandal," huh? You mean Whitewater? Filegate? (Even the name is trivial.) Or maybe killing Vince Foster is what you're referring to? Or how the Clintons were drug dealers? Yeah. Michael Savage, call your office.

If you don't see the difference between lying (yes, "under oath") about a consensual affair, and laundering campaign money through foundations for abused children, then we don't have a whole heck of a lot to discuss.

The Republicans swept into power in 1994 saying the entrenched Dem structure was fundamentally corrupt. It's not my fault that they fell into their own trap. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, as they say.

Either you want DeLay investigated or you don't. Either you think there's merit to the charges or you don't. Either you think investigating widespread corruption at the highest levels of government is worth looking into, or it's a waste of taxpayers' money and an unfair intrusion into the life of a fine public servant, as you said earlier. The thing I like about the politics today is people are forced to pick a side. I've picked mine.

Your President said it best - with us or against us. Wise words, as it turns out.

Anonymous said...

I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S MERIT TO THE CHARGES OR NOT! THAT'S MY POINT! And, yeah, I mean everything Clinton was accused of and never convicted of, including rape. You just make my point perfectly. I know the difference between perjury and laundering money. I don't see a difference in accepting rumors and information that's "well known in Washington" as fact. It's naive. I didn't say Tom DeLay shouldn't be indicted. I said we shouldn't be prejudging based in innuendo, ever, for anybody, including Clinton, who you brought up. And I was disgusted by your attitude of who cares if he's guilty, we've fucked him and the republicans up.

I'm glad you picked a side. It's much simpler to identify the good guys and the bad guys that way. I'm hoping to keep my mind open to the realities of both parties.

Thomas More said...

Tom DeLay's career of corruption is far from just "rumor" and "innuendo" as you say. I'd link you to some Salon stories on him, but I'm sure I'd just be laughed off the stage for using such America-hating Commie propaganda as proof that DeLay is dirty. Still, a little Googling will turn up lots more than "rumor." So forgive me if anguished pleas of what this investigation will do to his "loved ones" fall on deaf ears.

I don't have an attitude of "who cares if he's guilty." Far from it. I just happen to think he is, based on his (very public) career. That's my prerogative as an American citizen.

Fake charges don't have to be made on these guys. There's plenty of truth to go around. If I had evidence that someone was being framed, even someone as awful as DeLay, of course I wouldn't support it just because he's a Republican. I didn't fuck with Tom DeLay's reputation - he did.

I also didn't create the political reality that when someone is indicted, even if they're later found not guilty, their effectiveness is basically over, especially at the highest levels.

Jim Wright, former Speaker, is a great example on the other side of the aisle. His crime, as quoted from Wikipedia, was as follows:

"The House Ethics Committee's report in early 1989 implied that he had used bulk purchases of his vanity book Reflections of a Public Man to earn speaking fees in excess of the allowed maximum."

Not exactly a barn-burner, but enough to get him ousted.

Of course there's corruption throughout the Congress. And I want to see it rooted out wherever it is. I didn't think that needed to be said, but there it is.

Again, if I get some pleasure out of seeing what I believe are a group of corrupt thugs who care more about power and corporations than their constituents, men who have done incalculable damage to this society, get what they deserve, then I'm OK with that.