Tom DeLay

[newbie]

Tom DeLay was finally indicted by a Texas Grand Jury for money laundering. This is a major republican leader who was admonisted by the House ethics committee for taking 3 trips funded by lobbyists. He was also admonished for bribing a fellow republican, accepting bribes, and for illegally using the Federal Avation Administation for his own warped purposes. On top of all this, his wife and kid are on the payroll (to the sum of $500,000.00) to some political parties he controls. An oh, there is some allegation that he runs a nonprofit foundation for orphans that he receives unregulated donations.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2116392/?nav=navoa

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi had this to say:

"The criminal indictment of Majority Leader Tom Delay is the latest example that Republicans in Congress are plagued by a culture of corruption at the expense of the American people."

[B. Max]

Tom DeLay was finally indicted by a Texas Grand Jury for money laundering. This is a major republican leader who was admonisted by the House ethics committee for taking 3 trips funded by lobbyists. He was also admonished for bribing a fellow republican, accepting bribes, and for illegally using the Federal Avation Administation for his own warped purposes. On top of all this, his wife and kid are on the payroll (to the sum of $500,000.00) to some political parties he controls. An oh, there is some allegation that he runs a nonprofit foundation for orphans that he receives unregulated donations.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2116392/?nav=navoa

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi had this to say:

"The criminal indictment of Majority Leader Tom Delay is the latest example that Republicans in Congress are plagued by a culture of corruption at the expense of the American people."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Leave it to the corrupt demons to go running off at the mouth before anyone has been found guilty of anything.

[newbie]

Leave it to the corrupt demons to go running off at the mouth before anyone has been found guilty of anything.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Kind of like Harper and the conservatives re Gomery.

[BHS]

I watched (or rather listened, as I was busy with something else) to Tom being interviewed by Bret Hume tonight. I think between the two of them they were trying to perpetrate some Rovian mischief. The picture I got was that they're completely sure that the charges are going nowhere, but they were painting it like he was hiding something to keep Nancy Pelosi going. The more she runs at the mouth, the wackier and more ravingly partisan the whole Democratic party looks.

The fact is that, like the Plame "scandal" this is a total crock that will end with the Democrats having won nothing but a little egg for their faces. (Though, the look suits them.)

[Shady]

Kind of like Harper and the conservatives re Gomery

It's not like it at all.

[Argus]

I watched (or rather listened, as I was busy with something else) to Tom being interviewed by Bret Hume tonight. I think between the two of them they were trying to perpetrate some Rovian mischief. The picture I got was that they're completely sure that the charges are going nowhere, but they were painting it like he was hiding something to keep Nancy Pelosi going. The more she runs at the mouth, the wackier and more ravingly partisan the whole Democratic party looks.

The fact is that, like the Plame "scandal" this is a total crock that will end with the Democrats having won nothing but a little egg for their faces. (Though, the look suits them.)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think Tom Delay is a perfect example of the moral vacuum surrounding senior Republicans and those who are most zealous in their devotion to the Republican Party. It's as if normal rules of human behaviour, to say nothing of laws, don't apply to them. To the Republicans like Delay, anything they do which they see as being in their interests is perfectly legitimate. To the shrill self-described "conservatives" who support men like Delay, their guys walk on water, and nothing they do, no transgression, no illegality or immorality, no act of stupidity, avarice, corruption or hypocrisy can dent that shining image of the perfect conservative warrior, fighting on their behalf against the evil liberal hordes.

If it weren't so pathetic it'd be laughable.

Tom Delay is a grasping, ammoral man who has never shown a care for anything in his life but his own advancement. Hiring his own family members at exorbitant salaries? So what? Illegal fund raising and money laundering? Not important. Illegal holidays at the hands of registered foreign lobbyists? Not his fault. And his unconstitutional efforts at interfering with Terry Schiavo's family? Just a noble effort to save a human life - never mind that he pulled the plug on his own father when the cameras weren't watching. And hey, what's wrong with the House Majority Leader threatening the judiciary cause he doesn't like their decisions, eh?

But never mind that. Nothing better illustrates the kind of man Delay is better than the following little story pitting him against an arch-conservative Alaskan senator who, unlike Delay, had some sense of morality.

The real Delay

Fact is, Delay is dead meat. Even though the Republicans changed the House ethics rules after he was censured three times they won't be able to protect him from the growing mountain of evidence demonstrating all-too clearly just what kind of creature he is.

[BHS]

I think Tom Delay is a perfect example of the moral vacuum surrounding senior Republicans and those who are most zealous in their devotion to the Republican Party. It's as if normal rules of human behaviour, to say nothing of laws, don't apply to them. To the Republicans like Delay, anything they do which they see as being in their interests is perfectly legitimate. To the shrill self-described "conservatives" who support men like Delay, their guys walk on water, and nothing they do, no transgression, no illegality or immorality, no act of stupidity, avarice, corruption or hypocrisy can dent that shining image of the perfect conservative warrior, fighting on their behalf against the evil liberal hordes.

If it weren't so pathetic it'd be laughable.

Tom Delay is a grasping, ammoral man who has never shown a care for anything in his life but his own advancement. Hiring his own family members at exorbitant salaries? So what? Illegal fund raising and money laundering? Not important. Illegal holidays at the hands of registered foreign lobbyists? Not his fault. And his unconstitutional efforts at interfering with Terry Schiavo's family? Just a noble effort to save a human life - never mind that he pulled the plug on his own father when the cameras weren't watching. And hey, what's wrong with the House Majority Leader threatening the judiciary cause he doesn't like their decisions, eh?

But never mind that. Nothing better illustrates the kind of man Delay is better than the following little story pitting him against an arch-conservative Alaskan senator who, unlike Delay, had some sense of morality.

The real Delay

Fact is, Delay is dead meat. Even though the Republicans changed the House ethics rules after he was censured three times they won't be able to protect him from the growing mountain of evidence demonstrating all-too clearly just what kind of creature he is.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I gather that I'm meant to be thought of as one of the people who thinks DeLay walks on water. Not true. I don't actually know very much about the man, outside of what you've printed here, which paints him as positively Clintonesque. Not a coveted sobriquet for any self-respecting Republican, to be sure.

I thought my post had an air of amused detachment, and I'm disappointed if I came across as shrill. I'd think that description would more suitably describe your response. You seem to have some sort of personal vendetta against the Republicans, which is fine with me. Have at 'em. But at least pick your battles with a little more care. This court case is a clear loser, no matter how detestable DeLay is. (Sorry Greg.)

I know my disapproval of your take on Bush's response to Katrina irked you, but I hadn't gathered how much. I apologize.

[Toro]

DeLay is complaining that this is bare nuckle politics, which is ironic considering that's pretty much all he played in the House.

DeLay was the guy who, after the Columnbine shootings, said that this is what happens when you don't allow the 10 Commandments to be posted in public schools.

[Guest eureka]

"The Mills of God grind slowly,,,,,"

This has been known for a very long time now and it has taken this long to get through the ethics wall. I posted some time ago about the $1000,000 salary paid to his wife and daughter for helping in his last election campaign.

[Argus]

I gather that I'm meant to be thought of as one of the people who thinks DeLay walks on water. Not true. I don't actually know very much about the man, outside of what you've printed here, which paints him as positively Clintonesque. Not a coveted sobriquet for any self-respecting Republican, to be sure.

I thought my post had an air of amused detachment, and I'm disappointed if I came across as shrill.

I was not responding to you specifically, although I responded to your post. I could as easily have responded to B-max or Shady, as all three of you were basically snickering and dismissing any and all allegations against the heroic Tom Delay. Apparently, at least in your case, without even knowing anything about him.

I'd think that description would more suitably describe your response.

Well I'm sorry if you thought it shrill. I was aiming at contempt.

You seem to have some sort of personal vendetta against the Republicans, which is fine with me.

I have a personal dislike for corrupt, self-righteous, two-faced political weasels, be they Republicans or Democrats, Liberal or Conservative or NDP. I am an equal opportunity critic when it comes to politics. I rather like John McCain. It's too bad so much of the party now is more like Bush, Cheney, Delay and Robertson.

Possibly a reflection of its rather mindless and undemanding cheerleaders, American or Canadian.

[newbie]

Kind of like Harper and the conservatives re Gomery

It's not like it at all.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is the same. Harper and his croonies were shooting off their mouths, branding all the Liberals as corrupt long before anyone was found guilty of anything. And they still tar all members of that party with the same brush.

[kimmy]

I'm not exactly sure what the specifics of these charges are, but based on his role in the Terry Schiavo nonsense, I think it's fairly clear that DeLay is a jerk and a hypocrite.

-k

[newbie]

The specific charges against Tom DeLay:

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2005/images/09/28/d....indictment.pdf

[BHS]

I'm not exactly sure what the specifics of these charges are, but based on his role in the Terry Schiavo nonsense, I think it's fairly clear that DeLay is a jerk and a hypocrite.

-k

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Are you saying he's a hypocrite because he "pulled the plug" on his own father? That's the superficial charge I've seen levelled against him elsewhere. What's ignored is the very large difference between taking someone off of life support (in otherwords, ceasing to use mechanical intervention to prolong life) and intentionally starving someone (who doesn't require extraordinary medical intervention) to death.

[Black Dog]

Are you saying he's a hypocrite because he "pulled the plug" on his own father? That's the superficial charge I've seen levelled against him elsewhere. What's ignored is the very large difference between taking someone off of life support (in otherwords, ceasing to use mechanical intervention to prolong life) and intentionally starving someone (who doesn't require extraordinary medical intervention) to death.

Um...if sopmeone's brain is reduced to Jello, to the point where the only way they can survive is through external feeding tube simplanted in their stomach, I'd say that's a case of using mechanical intervention to prolong life. In other words: same difference.

As for the Bug Man, well, I'm with Argus. (I know. I know.)

[BHS]

Are you saying he's a hypocrite because he "pulled the plug" on his own father? That's the superficial charge I've seen levelled against him elsewhere. What's ignored is the very large difference between taking someone off of life support (in otherwords, ceasing to use mechanical intervention to prolong life) and intentionally starving someone (who doesn't require extraordinary medical intervention) to death.

Um...if sopmeone's brain is reduced to Jello, to the point where the only way they can survive is through external feeding tube simplanted in their stomach, I'd say that's a case of using mechanical intervention to prolong life. In other words: same difference.

As for the Bug Man, well, I'm with Argus. (I know. I know.)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The tube was inserted to facilitate feeding. It's a common practice for people with injuries that prevent them from swallowing. Terri Schiavo was capable of swallowing when prompted, but the tube was easier for her and her caretakers. A feeding tube is a long, long way removed from a ventilator. Only an ignorant crank would equate the two.

[Black Dog]

The tube was inserted to facilitate feeding. It's a common practice for people with injuries that prevent them from swallowing. Terri Schiavo was capable of swallowing when prompted, but the tube was easier for her and her caretakers. A feeding tube is a long, long way removed from a ventilator. Only an ignorant crank would equate the two.

Schiavo couldn't swallow on her own (I read that one Dr. Hammesfahr claimed she could, but this was the same chap who also claimed that Schiavo was not in a P.V.S, a claim later debunked by the autopsy), therefore the tube was what could be called a form of mechanical intervention to prolong life.

Nor could she be "prompted" because her brain was jello.

Whther you can face it or not, there are a numbe rof similarities between the Schiavo and DeLay cases: both patients were severely brain damaged. Both were incapable of surviving without continuing medical assistance. Both were said to have expressed a desire to be spared life sustained by machine, and neither left a living will.

In any case, this is just one example of DeLay's hypocrisy, corruption, immorality and avarice. There are more.

[Montgomery Burns]

Personally, I'm not a huge fan of Tom DeLay, because of the expansion of entitlement spending under his watch. But having said that, this indictment seems to be a sham. The money swap was a perfectly legal move, and the Democrats did the exact same thing. On Oct. 31, 2002, the Texas Democratic Party did the same thing when it sent $75,000 to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and received $75,000 back from the DNC the very same day.

Even people who aren't fans of Tom DeLay should show some intellectual honesty and admit that this is an out-of-control prosecutor and a phony charge.

[Black Dog]

The money swap was a perfectly legal move, and the Democrats did the exact same thing. On Oct. 31, 2002, the Texas Democratic Party did the same thing when it sent $75,000 to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and received $75,000 back from the DNC the very same day

The charge concerns the activities of Texans for a Republican Majority (TRMPAC), a political action committee created by Mr. DeLay and his aides to orchestrate the GOP's takeover of the Texas legislature in 2002. The issue is whether Mr. DeLay and his political aides illegally used the group to evade the state's ban on corporate contributions to candidates. The indictment alleges that TRMPAC took $155,000 in corporate contributions and then sent a check for $190,000 to the national Republican Party's "soft money" arm. The national committee then wrote $190,000 in checks from its noncorporate accounts to seven Texas candidates. Perhaps most damning, TRMPAC dictated the precise amount and recipients of those donations.

This was an obvious end run around the corporate contribution rule. The more difficult question is whether it was an illegal end run -- or, to be more precise, one so blatantly illegal that it amounts to a criminal felony rather than a civil violation. For Mr. DeLay to be convicted, prosecutors will have to show not only that he took part in the dodge but also that he knew it amounted to a violation of state law -- rather than the kind of clever money-trade that election lawyers engineer all the time.

WaPo

I read about Ronnie Earl's campaign against DeLay almost two years ago. He's been relentless. I doubt they would have got this far if the case against DeLay wasn't soild.

[newbie]

In case you missed it the first time around, indictment #2 for DeLay:

http://www.webcpa.com/article.cfm?articleid=15762

[Montgomery Burns]

Just to put this $190,000 deal into perspective and demonstrate the petty, vindictive nature of this partisan investigation, the study also reveals that Democrats transferred a total of approximately $11 million dollars in soft money from its national parties to fund Texas campaigns in 2002, compared to $5.2 million transferred by Republicans. But none of those national Democrat committees received money from corporations, of course. Certainly not from Enron.

National Review

Rather odd that the "rightwing-controlled MSM" hasn't provided this context.

[BHS]

The tube was inserted to facilitate feeding. It's a common practice for people with injuries that prevent them from swallowing. Terri Schiavo was capable of swallowing when prompted, but the tube was easier for her and her caretakers. A feeding tube is a long, long way removed from a ventilator. Only an ignorant crank would equate the two.

Schiavo couldn't swallow on her own (I read that one Dr. Hammesfahr claimed she could, but this was the same chap who also claimed that Schiavo was not in a P.V.S, a claim later debunked by the autopsy), therefore the tube was what could be called a form of mechanical intervention to prolong life.

Nor could she be "prompted" because her brain was jello.

Whther you can face it or not, there are a numbe rof similarities between the Schiavo and DeLay cases: both patients were severely brain damaged. Both were incapable of surviving without continuing medical assistance. Both were said to have expressed a desire to be spared life sustained by machine, and neither left a living will.

In any case, this is just one example of DeLay's hypocrisy, corruption, immorality and avarice. There are more.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Another difference: Tom DeLay followed his father's request when the full extent of the injuries were known. Teri Schiavo was in a vegetative state for eight years before her husband first made clear his intention to have her executed by court order, only then revealing his remembrance of her desire to be spared the "indignity" of living with brain damage.

The fact is simple: there exists, in the State of Florida, a set of circumstances wherein a husband can have his wife executed by the state for the crime of having become an incovenience.

Take a moment to consider the ramifications, not for Teri Schiavo personally, but for all people with brain damage: they are one step closer to having their lives terminated based on a third party's arbitrary evaluation of the quality of their life.

Fifty years ago it would have been unthinkable to kill someone who could be maintained on life support. The dictum "Do no harm" meant, ultimately, that doctor's had no choice but keep a person alive by any means necessary, because death was the ultimate harm. But medicine progressed, and it was realized that a hearbeat could be maintained long past the point where any other semblance of life remained. The practice of "pulling the plug" gained acceptability, in cases where the patient was no more alive than the machine that maintained them. Concurrently, the practice of overdosing terminal cancer patients to end their suffering also gained an underground acceptability.

Schiavo is a new step down the road to manditory euthanization. Here we have a patient who, while techinically braindead did not require what is normally termed "extraordinary measures" to be kept alive. Breathing and heartbeat occurred autonymously. Only feeding and hygiene maintance were required. Schiavo was for all medical intents and purposes no different than an infant suffering from an inability to swallow.

So "pulling the plug" to end Teri's "indignity" was not an option, as there was no plug to pull. Overdosing was likewise not an option, as she was suffering no pain and didn't require medication. So the only option left to the state was to order her starved to death.

During the protracted period of time that marked her death I saw a short snippet of Larry King's show on CNN. He was taking callers, and the woman who called in was clearly brain damaged. The terror in her voice was palpable. She wanted to know if she was in danger too. That really sunk in. This wasn't just about a single jello-brained unfortunate in Florida. This was about how we, as a society, view a whole unfortunate demographic.

Fifty years ago, abortion and starving brain-damaged people to death were illegal and morally repugnant. Today they are both legal, precedented and accepted by a large swath of society.

Fifty years from now will the state be mandating euthenasia for the sick and injured, young and old? Who knows?

[Black Dog]

Another difference: Tom DeLay followed his father's request when the full extent of the injuries were known. Teri Schiavo was in a vegetative state for eight years before her husband first made clear his intention to have her executed by court order, only then revealing his remembrance of her desire to be spared the "indignity" of living with brain damage.

The courts ruled again and again that Terri Schiavowould not have wanted to live in such a state.

Schiavo is a new step down the road to manditory euthanization. Here we have a patient who, while techinically braindead did not require what is normally termed "extraordinary measures" to be kept alive. Breathing and heartbeat occurred autonymously. Only feeding and hygiene maintance were required. Schiavo was for all medical intents and purposes no different than an infant suffering from an inability to swallow.

Nonsense. Schiavo was beyond "technically braindead": her brain was gone. What's more is that feeding tubes are, according to the law, extraordinary medical treatments just like respirators, heart-lung machines, dialysis and antibiotics.

During the protracted period of time that marked her death I saw a short snippet of Larry King's show on CNN. He was taking callers, and the woman who called in was clearly brain damaged. The terror in her voice was palpable. She wanted to know if she was in danger too. That really sunk in. This wasn't just about a single jello-brained unfortunate in Florida. This was about how we, as a society, view a whole unfortunate demographic.

There's a difference between having brain damage and having no brain to speak of whatsoever, as in Schiavo's case. Schiavo was dead 15 years before before her body ceased to function.

Fifty years from now will the state be mandating euthenasia for the sick and injured, young and old? Who knows?

Hyestrical hyperbole. The fact is, the state did not mandate Terri Schiavo's demise. The decision to continue or cease life-prolonging medical care is, as it always was, the decision of the individual and their families. Eleven applications to the Florida Court of Appeal, four applications to the Florida Supreme Court, three lawsuits in federal district court, three applications to the U.S. Supreme Court and nearly untold motions in the trial court resulted in the consensus view that Micheal Schiavo was carrying out his wife's wishes.

[BHS]

Nonsense. Schiavo was beyond "technically braindead": her brain was gone. What's more is that feeding tubes are, according to the law, extraordinary medical treatments just like respirators, heart-lung machines, dialysis and antibiotics.

You are incorrect. Autonomous breathing and heartbeat can't be sustained without some degree of brain function.

There's a difference between having brain damage and having no brain to speak of whatsoever, as in Schiavo's case. Schiavo was dead 15 years before before her body ceased to function.

Schiavo's body did not merely "cease to function". She was intentionally starved to death, plain and simple.

Hyestrical hyperbole. The fact is, the state did not mandate Terri Schiavo's demise. The decision to continue or cease life-prolonging medical care is, as it always was, the decision of the individual and their families. Eleven applications to the Florida Court of Appeal, four applications to the Florida Supreme Court, three lawsuits in federal district court, three applications to the U.S. Supreme Court and nearly untold motions in the trial court resulted in the consensus view that Micheal Schiavo was carrying out his wife's wishes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not hysterical. The law in Florida states that a spouse's right to make decisions for the incapacitated outweighs the rights of other family members, even if the spouse is a bigamist. This spousal authority is derived directly from state law. Courts' interpretations of this law led to Schiavo's death. It couldn't have happened in many other locales.

Besides which, your response doesn't address the statement you quoted at all, except for the name-calling.

[Black Dog]

You are incorrect. Autonomous breathing and heartbeat can't be sustained without some degree of brain function.

Schiavo had massive and irreversible brain damage. Her brain was about half the size of that of a normal adult. While the brain could regulate some functions, the fact is the feeding tube was all that was keeping her alive, given the fact she could not get nourishment through her mouth.

Schiavo's body did not merely "cease to function". She was intentionally starved to death, plain and simple.

First she didn't starve to death. Her cause of death was dehydration. Secondly, the person Terri Schaivo was died in 1990, no matter if her body continued to function at radicaly diminished capacity and with external assistance.

The law in Florida states that a spouse's right to make decisions for the incapacitated outweighs the rights of other family members, even if the spouse is a bigamist. This spousal authority is derived directly from state law. Courts' interpretations of this law led to Schiavo's death. It couldn't have happened in many other locales.

Well, Michael Schivo was not remarried, so your allegation that he is a bigamist is nothing more than a slur. As for state law: so?

Besides which, your response doesn't address the statement you quoted at all, except for the name-calling.

Sure it did. Terri Schivowanted to die. The state did not force the removal of Shiavo's tube against her wishes and those of her family, but enforced her wishes. So to suggest that this case is a precursor to Nazi-style, state-sponsored euthanasia is hyperbole.

BTW, referring to your hysterical hyperoble as such is not "name calling". Certainly less so than something like, oh, "ignorant crank". So quit whining.