Jury convicts DeLay in money-laundering case

[sangha]

I'm against it in principle, because I believe political speech rights should be reserved for natural individuals and not legally created fictitious ones, be they corporations OR unions - both of which were addressed in the decision.

But fair warning about getting me on that soapbox. I had a couple hundred incredulous posts or so in the Citizens United threads at the time the decision came out.

The other side of the coin is your Right as a Person to have relevant information available to you, not conditionally, not censored. The focus should be on verifiable information being available, not obstruction by the powers that be because it conflicts with their interest.

You're assuming political advertising is relevant, verifiable information.

The biggest problem I see with it is the lack of accountability. As a legal fiction, corporations can and are dissolved, reformed, their ownership buried or veiled, and each entity is a new individual and identity. Not to mention in the case of this type of political participation any AQ member or other nutjob anywhere in the world with an axe to grind who has a couple hundred bucks and an American PO Box can set up a sub-S and be able to participate fully in the process - with unlimited funds from any number of questionable and unknown sources. It's not a brilliant move pragmatically.

Actually, the assumption is that people can't acquire the "relevant information" about a candidate without viewing corporate funded propoganda

 

[sangha]

I'm specifically thinking about book banning and Radio Censorship.

Neither of which fall under Citizens United, unless the content is political speech related to an election cycle and paid for by a corporation or other fictitious "person" under the law. The film that was the actual subject of the case was an anti-Hillary campaign commercial billed as a "documentary". And the Court acknowledged it as such.

C.U. Has nothing to do with things like the idiocy of a fairness doctrine or of book banning. What it does do is open participation in the political process to any individual from anywhere in the world with the patience to rent a PO Box and fill out some papers and propaganda they want to spread. And for more legitimate corporate entities to eliminate the middle man and open what amounts to their own in-house PACS to do the same.

Either the Law applies uniformly or it doesn't. Every exception of the rule, at the least, is deserving of the question "Why?"

Propaganda should be torn apart publicly. Expose it. Humiliate the source, shame it. There is no substitute for a well informed Public.

P.S. The Supreme Court Case did involve Book Censorship in the argument. The Documentary was no different than what Gore or Moore put out in nature.

If you want someone to explain "every exception of the rule", you'll have to identify the exception

As always, you claim something is wrong, but won't say what it is.

The law DOES apply to all uniformly. You are not telling the truth when you say otherwise

 

[sangha]

Either the Law applies uniformly or it doesn't. Every exception of the rule, at the least, is deserving of the question "Why?"

Propaganda should be torn apart publicly. Expose it. Humiliate the source, shame it. There is no substitute for a well informed Public.

And allowing foreign influence on the political process behind the veil of the American corporate entity, which protects from both civil and criminal liability, is the best way to inform the public and expose the source? Which if revealed can then simply dissolve and reform under a new name with a new PO Box and a new corporate filing to start all over again as a new being with no record and no history. Good luck keeping up.

I'm sorry, Intense. I couldn't swallow that argument when the decision came out and I can't accept it now. Individuals are both accountable and traceable, corporations are not. There's your difference. Rights without responsibility and accountability are anathema.

The Unions and PAC's are not exactly traceable either, or accountable, or controlable. Try tracing ACORN, good luck with that one. How much did China contribute to Clinton, Gore, Kerry. Do you want to continue to fight the tide or work towards making the entities more Transparent and accountable?

If wingnuts didn't lie, they'd have nothing to say

All contributions to and from unions and PAC's are reported.

 

[sangha]

C.U. covers unions as well, and I'm equally concerned abut them and for very similar reasons, although it would be much more difficult for a single foreign national to start one using a false identity.

The problem with making the entities more transparent and accountable is it will weaken the commercial benefits of the corporate entity. The vast majority of corporations are small, family owned or otherwise closely held sub-S corps. The owners incorporate to receive the benefits of incorporation, one of the biggest being the limited liability aspect. The entity itself is liable, the owners with a few exceptions are not. In the commercial transactions for which they were created and designed, improving accountability means compromising one of the big reasons why corporations work.

And it's another reason why I can't stand the ruling - the corporate entity itself is a good thing in its proper context. It encourages innovation and allows for capitalization in ways other business forms do not. But it was not designed to be a political entity, and this ruling could actually end up hurting corporations more than it helps them. The law had always understood this and maintained a careful balance between granting corps the rights they needed to do business effectively and keeping them separate from the individual rights that would jeopardize their commercial purpose - until C.U.

EDIT: And don't get me started on PACs. It's amazing how we survived almost 200 years without them, and now they dominate so much of our political process.

The law had always understood this and maintained a careful balance between granting corps the rights they needed to do business effectively and keeping them separate from the individual rights that would jeopardize their commercial purpose - until C.U.

A choice they should individually be able to make, knowing that Rules will apply, to that choice. Disclosure should be one of them, unless you are worried about offending G.E? Only kidding.

The problem is, you have one set of rules for the corporate entity across the board with a few different classifications for the different types of corporations, such as closely held v. publicly held, and a few minor variations across States. Should corporations then have to register as a specific type of entity with a different set of rules in order to opt in or out of political speech protections? That's not how C.U. reads, and I'm not sure it's within the scope of Federal law to require. The law of corporations, their formation, existence and dissolution belongs to the States.

The Court could have easily reached the same conclusion on McCain-Feingold on much, much narrower grounds. As far as McCain-Feingold goes they were right, but this whole corporations are entitled to full individual rights hooey is a can of worms.

For G.E. and everybody else.

Intense thinks the law should treat all uniformly.....except when it's CU decision, which treats corps different than individuals

 

[Dr.Traveler]

I guessing you based your suspicions on "He's a Republican!!"...and chose to convict him for that.

As a gauge of your "objectivity" lol, tell me -- is Rangel innocent?

Rangel is a crook, and should get jail time for what he did.

DeLay was incredibly corrupt in just about every sense of the word. Read up on the K-Street shennanigans and tell me if that wasn't corrupt. A lot of DeLay's decisions cross right up into the gray area of things that are almost certainly unethical, even if they may technically be "legal."

It just happens that this time he got too close to that line and got burnt. And good riddance.

Thanks. Are you pinch-hitting for TM?

Eh. TM can fight their own battles. I'm generally against the culture of corruption, and DeLay did a lot to advance that culture. K-Street, the Prescription Drug Plan, etc. DeLay liked to skirt the line on what was legal, and had no problem at all doing things that were clearly unethical.

For the record, I feel the same way about Reid as Senate Majority Leader. Some pretty shady and unethical stuff was done in the name of passing the Healthcare bill. That stuff needs to stop.

That's why I can't bring myself to feel bad for DeLay here. He's being convicted of breaking a 100 year old law most folks didn't even know existed. That's just too F'ing bad for DeLay. Maybe next time act in a more ethical manner instead of testing the limits of what's legal and you won't have that problem.

 

[Intense]

Rangel is a crook, and should get jail time for what he did.

DeLay was incredibly corrupt in just about every sense of the word. Read up on the K-Street shennanigans and tell me if that wasn't corrupt. A lot of DeLay's decisions cross right up into the gray area of things that are almost certainly unethical, even if they may technically be "legal."

It just happens that this time he got too close to that line and got burnt. And good riddance.

Thanks. Are you pinch-hitting for TM?

Eh. TM can fight their own battles. I'm generally against the culture of corruption, and DeLay did a lot to advance that culture. K-Street, the Prescription Drug Plan, etc. DeLay liked to skirt the line on what was legal, and had no problem at all doing things that were clearly unethical.

For the record, I feel the same way about Reid as Senate Majority Leader. Some pretty shady and unethical stuff was done in the name of passing the Healthcare bill. That stuff needs to stop.

That's why I can't bring myself to feel bad for DeLay here. He's being convicted of breaking a 100 year old law most folks didn't even know existed. That's just too F'ing bad for DeLay. Maybe next time act in a more ethical manner instead of testing the limits of what's legal and you won't have that problem.

Healthy perspective. I did find it interesting how little support he had in the Republican ranks from when this first surfaced. Do you have any input on that? Was the distancing a political survival thing, or was there something else to it?

 

[Intense]

The other side of the coin is your Right as a Person to have relevant information available to you, not conditionally, not censored. The focus should be on verifiable information being available, not obstruction by the powers that be because it conflicts with their interest.

You're assuming political advertising is relevant, verifiable information.

The biggest problem I see with it is the lack of accountability. As a legal fiction, corporations can and are dissolved, reformed, their ownership buried or veiled, and each entity is a new individual and identity. Not to mention in the case of this type of political participation any AQ member or other nutjob anywhere in the world with an axe to grind who has a couple hundred bucks and an American PO Box can set up a sub-S and be able to participate fully in the process - with unlimited funds from any number of questionable and unknown sources. It's not a brilliant move pragmatically.

Actually, the assumption is that people can't acquire the "relevant information" about a candidate without viewing corporate funded propoganda

I really want to thank Sangha here for all of the great analysis. I just don't know where I'd be without Sangha to misquote, mis characterize and misrepresent everything I post. I'm just so touched. I feel .... Blessed... yeah that it... Blessed. No matter the Thread, the Post, I am pretty much guaranteed Sangha will give it new meaning through Translation, from English to Stalking Jackass Sangha Speak.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Thanks. Are you pinch-hitting for TM?

Eh. TM can fight their own battles. I'm generally against the culture of corruption, and DeLay did a lot to advance that culture. K-Street, the Prescription Drug Plan, etc. DeLay liked to skirt the line on what was legal, and had no problem at all doing things that were clearly unethical.

For the record, I feel the same way about Reid as Senate Majority Leader. Some pretty shady and unethical stuff was done in the name of passing the Healthcare bill. That stuff needs to stop.

That's why I can't bring myself to feel bad for DeLay here. He's being convicted of breaking a 100 year old law most folks didn't even know existed. That's just too F'ing bad for DeLay. Maybe next time act in a more ethical manner instead of testing the limits of what's legal and you won't have that problem.

Healthy perspective. I did find it interesting how little support he had in the Republican ranks from when this first surfaced. Do you have any input on that? Was the distancing a political survival thing, or was there something else to it?

DeLay's nickname of "The Hammer" came from his ability to keep the GOP House members in line. It was given to him by the Right, not the Left. I'd imagine that when the Hammer started to fall on him, there were plenty of GOP folks cheering, if not actively helping bring the Hammer down.

DeLay's popularity only lasted as long as he was successful. Lots of folks on the Right and the Left detested what he did to keep people in line, detested the K-Street boondoogle, were infuriated at the Abramoff scandal, and thought that the other tricks and games he was running were borderline legal at best. Once he fell, there wasn't anyone really left to defend him. You rarely even see DeLay on the Right Wing talk circuits anymore. IIRC, many of DeLay's ethics charges in the House came from his treatment of other GOP House members. In short, I'm sure they weren't sad to see him go.

On the Left, I know that the opinion of Reid isn't that far off, only where DeLay was seen as "strong," Reid is seen as dissapointingly weak. Reid actively has to engage in quasi-legal/corrupt practices to keep his job, and even then he can't bring the kind of order that DeLay could. A lot of folks were actively hoping Reid would lose his bid for re-election, if not at least lose the leadership position.

 

[goldcatt]

You're assuming political advertising is relevant, verifiable information.

The biggest problem I see with it is the lack of accountability. As a legal fiction, corporations can and are dissolved, reformed, their ownership buried or veiled, and each entity is a new individual and identity. Not to mention in the case of this type of political participation any AQ member or other nutjob anywhere in the world with an axe to grind who has a couple hundred bucks and an American PO Box can set up a sub-S and be able to participate fully in the process - with unlimited funds from any number of questionable and unknown sources. It's not a brilliant move pragmatically.

Actually, the assumption is that people can't acquire the "relevant information" about a candidate without viewing corporate funded propoganda

I really want to thank Sangha here for all of the great analysis. I just don't know where I'd be without Sangha to misquote, mis characterize and misrepresent everything I post. I'm just so touched. I feel .... Blessed... yeah that it... Blessed. No matter the Thread, the Post, I am pretty much guaranteed Sangha will give it new meaning through Translation, from English to Stalking Jackass Sangha Speak.

You actually read it? I'm so sorry. I just assumed it was completely worthless and skipped over it. Life's so much easier that way.

On the plus side, everybody needs a stalker. I'm just not sure I'd pick that one.

 

[Intense]

Eh. TM can fight their own battles. I'm generally against the culture of corruption, and DeLay did a lot to advance that culture. K-Street, the Prescription Drug Plan, etc. DeLay liked to skirt the line on what was legal, and had no problem at all doing things that were clearly unethical.

For the record, I feel the same way about Reid as Senate Majority Leader. Some pretty shady and unethical stuff was done in the name of passing the Healthcare bill. That stuff needs to stop.

That's why I can't bring myself to feel bad for DeLay here. He's being convicted of breaking a 100 year old law most folks didn't even know existed. That's just too F'ing bad for DeLay. Maybe next time act in a more ethical manner instead of testing the limits of what's legal and you won't have that problem.

Healthy perspective. I did find it interesting how little support he had in the Republican ranks from when this first surfaced. Do you have any input on that? Was the distancing a political survival thing, or was there something else to it?

DeLay's nickname of "The Hammer" came from his ability to keep the GOP House members in line. It was given to him by the Right, not the Left. I'd imagine that when the Hammer started to fall on him, there were plenty of GOP folks cheering, if not actively helping bring the Hammer down.

DeLay's popularity only lasted as long as he was successful. Lots of folks on the Right and the Left detested what he did to keep people in line, detested the K-Street boondoogle, were infuriated at the Abramoff scandal, and thought that the other tricks and games he was running were borderline legal at best. Once he fell, there wasn't anyone really left to defend him. You rarely even see DeLay on the Right Wing talk circuits anymore. IIRC, many of DeLay's ethics charges in the House came from his treatment of other GOP House members. In short, I'm sure they weren't sad to see him go.

On the Left, I know that the opinion of Reid isn't that far off, only where DeLay was seen as "strong," Reid is seen as dissapointingly weak. Reid actively has to engage in quasi-legal/corrupt practices to keep his job, and even then he can't bring the kind of order that DeLay could. A lot of folks were actively hoping Reid would lose his bid for re-election, if not at least lose the leadership position.

You give me much to think about there, you and GC. Up until now I thought he was targeted as a perspective Presidential Candidate, that was merely shot down, to keep him out of the running. His lack of support from the start, does suggest it was much deeper than that. Who really stepped up to the plate for him? Had he been a Democrat, his ass would have been totally covered, even if he had been caught robbing a 7/11 at gunpoint on tape or a Dunkin Donut's with 50 Cop Eye witnesses. Thanks for the assessment, it is helpful and sincere.

 

[daveman]

Rangel is a crook, and should get jail time for what he did.

DeLay was incredibly corrupt in just about every sense of the word. Read up on the K-Street shennanigans and tell me if that wasn't corrupt. A lot of DeLay's decisions cross right up into the gray area of things that are almost certainly unethical, even if they may technically be "legal."

It just happens that this time he got too close to that line and got burnt. And good riddance.

Thanks. Are you pinch-hitting for TM?

Eh. TM can fight their own battles. I'm generally against the culture of corruption, and DeLay did a lot to advance that culture. K-Street, the Prescription Drug Plan, etc. DeLay liked to skirt the line on what was legal, and had no problem at all doing things that were clearly unethical.

For the record, I feel the same way about Reid as Senate Majority Leader. Some pretty shady and unethical stuff was done in the name of passing the Healthcare bill. That stuff needs to stop.

That's why I can't bring myself to feel bad for DeLay here. He's being convicted of breaking a 100 year old law most folks didn't even know existed. That's just too F'ing bad for DeLay. Maybe next time act in a more ethical manner instead of testing the limits of what's legal and you won't have that problem.

I agree. I'd love for the Ethics Committees to never have to meet. But I doubt that'll ever happen.

 

[goldcatt]

Healthy perspective. I did find it interesting how little support he had in the Republican ranks from when this first surfaced. Do you have any input on that? Was the distancing a political survival thing, or was there something else to it?

DeLay's nickname of "The Hammer" came from his ability to keep the GOP House members in line. It was given to him by the Right, not the Left. I'd imagine that when the Hammer started to fall on him, there were plenty of GOP folks cheering, if not actively helping bring the Hammer down.

DeLay's popularity only lasted as long as he was successful. Lots of folks on the Right and the Left detested what he did to keep people in line, detested the K-Street boondoogle, were infuriated at the Abramoff scandal, and thought that the other tricks and games he was running were borderline legal at best. Once he fell, there wasn't anyone really left to defend him. You rarely even see DeLay on the Right Wing talk circuits anymore. IIRC, many of DeLay's ethics charges in the House came from his treatment of other GOP House members. In short, I'm sure they weren't sad to see him go.

On the Left, I know that the opinion of Reid isn't that far off, only where DeLay was seen as "strong," Reid is seen as dissapointingly weak. Reid actively has to engage in quasi-legal/corrupt practices to keep his job, and even then he can't bring the kind of order that DeLay could. A lot of folks were actively hoping Reid would lose his bid for re-election, if not at least lose the leadership position.

You give me much to think about there, you and GC. Up until now I thought he was targeted as a perspective Presidential Candidate, that was merely shot down, to keep him out of the running. His lack of support from the start, does suggest it was much deeper than that. Who really stepped up to the plate for him? Had he been a Democrat, his ass would have been totally covered, even if he had been caught robbing a 7/11 at gunpoint on tape or a Dunkin Donut's with 50 Cop Eye witnesses. Thanks for the assessment, it is helpful and sincere.

DeLay would be better off knocking over a Dunkin' Donuts than trying to run for President. He stepped on too many toes in his own Party to even try to run the primary gauntlet. Not to mention his previous ethics problems irrespective of this conviction. Who's going to back him for early traction, financially or on the ground?

Nah, his political career was long over no matter what happened with this trial. It will be interesting to see if he can keep out of jail now. While the law he was convicted under was obscure, you don't sign your name to the letterhead of a PAC without taking responsibility for even the most complex and obscure campaign finance laws. I agree with Traveler, I'm interested to see what happens next but I certainly won't lose any sleep over it.

 

[Intense]

DeLay's nickname of "The Hammer" came from his ability to keep the GOP House members in line. It was given to him by the Right, not the Left. I'd imagine that when the Hammer started to fall on him, there were plenty of GOP folks cheering, if not actively helping bring the Hammer down.

DeLay's popularity only lasted as long as he was successful. Lots of folks on the Right and the Left detested what he did to keep people in line, detested the K-Street boondoogle, were infuriated at the Abramoff scandal, and thought that the other tricks and games he was running were borderline legal at best. Once he fell, there wasn't anyone really left to defend him. You rarely even see DeLay on the Right Wing talk circuits anymore. IIRC, many of DeLay's ethics charges in the House came from his treatment of other GOP House members. In short, I'm sure they weren't sad to see him go.

On the Left, I know that the opinion of Reid isn't that far off, only where DeLay was seen as "strong," Reid is seen as dissapointingly weak. Reid actively has to engage in quasi-legal/corrupt practices to keep his job, and even then he can't bring the kind of order that DeLay could. A lot of folks were actively hoping Reid would lose his bid for re-election, if not at least lose the leadership position.

You give me much to think about there, you and GC. Up until now I thought he was targeted as a perspective Presidential Candidate, that was merely shot down, to keep him out of the running. His lack of support from the start, does suggest it was much deeper than that. Who really stepped up to the plate for him? Had he been a Democrat, his ass would have been totally covered, even if he had been caught robbing a 7/11 at gunpoint on tape or a Dunkin Donut's with 50 Cop Eye witnesses. Thanks for the assessment, it is helpful and sincere.

DeLay would be better off knocking over a Dunkin' Donuts than trying to run for President. He stepped on too many toes in his own Party to even try to run the primary gauntlet. Not to mention his previous ethics problems irrespective of this conviction. Who's going to back him for early traction, financially or on the ground?

Nah, his political career was long over no matter what happened with this trial. It will be interesting to see if he can keep out of jail now. While the law he was convicted under was obscure, you don't sign your name to the letterhead of a PAC without taking responsibility for even the most complex and obscure campaign finance laws. I agree with Traveler, I'm interested to see what happens next but I certainly won't lose any sleep over it.

I was reffering to the 2008 Election. He got nailed even before Primary Season started. I guess I'll probably be supporting Romney again.

 

[goldcatt]

You give me much to think about there, you and GC. Up until now I thought he was targeted as a perspective Presidential Candidate, that was merely shot down, to keep him out of the running. His lack of support from the start, does suggest it was much deeper than that. Who really stepped up to the plate for him? Had he been a Democrat, his ass would have been totally covered, even if he had been caught robbing a 7/11 at gunpoint on tape or a Dunkin Donut's with 50 Cop Eye witnesses. Thanks for the assessment, it is helpful and sincere.

DeLay would be better off knocking over a Dunkin' Donuts than trying to run for President. He stepped on too many toes in his own Party to even try to run the primary gauntlet. Not to mention his previous ethics problems irrespective of this conviction. Who's going to back him for early traction, financially or on the ground?

Nah, his political career was long over no matter what happened with this trial. It will be interesting to see if he can keep out of jail now. While the law he was convicted under was obscure, you don't sign your name to the letterhead of a PAC without taking responsibility for even the most complex and obscure campaign finance laws. I agree with Traveler, I'm interested to see what happens next but I certainly won't lose any sleep over it.

I was reffering to the 2008 Election. He got nailed even before Primary Season started. I guess I'll probably be supporting Romney again.

He was tossed from the House Majority Leader position in 2005 (well, resigned under pressure - same deal), and has been under either Federal or State investigation since 2003 or 2004, depending who you listen to.

The Feds never charged him with anything.

He chose to cast his lot with Gingrich and Norquist. It was a bad choice. I don't hate the guy, lots of pols let their egos get ahead of their judgment. It seems to be a widespread occupational hazard. But realistically speaking any chance he ever had at a political comeback died the moment the neocons fell out of favor and he was squished between his own Hammer and K Street.

 

[sangha]

You're assuming political advertising is relevant, verifiable information.

The biggest problem I see with it is the lack of accountability. As a legal fiction, corporations can and are dissolved, reformed, their ownership buried or veiled, and each entity is a new individual and identity. Not to mention in the case of this type of political participation any AQ member or other nutjob anywhere in the world with an axe to grind who has a couple hundred bucks and an American PO Box can set up a sub-S and be able to participate fully in the process - with unlimited funds from any number of questionable and unknown sources. It's not a brilliant move pragmatically.

Actually, the assumption is that people can't acquire the "relevant information" about a candidate without viewing corporate funded propoganda

I really want to thank Sangha here for all of the great analysis. I just don't know where I'd be without Sangha to misquote, mis characterize and misrepresent everything I post. I'm just so touched. I feel .... Blessed... yeah that it... Blessed. No matter the Thread, the Post, I am pretty much guaranteed Sangha will give it new meaning through Translation, from English to Stalking Jackass Sangha Speak.

Once again, a wingnut claims I made a mistake, but can't identify any mistakes.

 

[sangha]

Healthy perspective. I did find it interesting how little support he had in the Republican ranks from when this first surfaced. Do you have any input on that? Was the distancing a political survival thing, or was there something else to it?

DeLay's nickname of "The Hammer" came from his ability to keep the GOP House members in line. It was given to him by the Right, not the Left. I'd imagine that when the Hammer started to fall on him, there were plenty of GOP folks cheering, if not actively helping bring the Hammer down.

DeLay's popularity only lasted as long as he was successful. Lots of folks on the Right and the Left detested what he did to keep people in line, detested the K-Street boondoogle, were infuriated at the Abramoff scandal, and thought that the other tricks and games he was running were borderline legal at best. Once he fell, there wasn't anyone really left to defend him. You rarely even see DeLay on the Right Wing talk circuits anymore. IIRC, many of DeLay's ethics charges in the House came from his treatment of other GOP House members. In short, I'm sure they weren't sad to see him go.

On the Left, I know that the opinion of Reid isn't that far off, only where DeLay was seen as "strong," Reid is seen as dissapointingly weak. Reid actively has to engage in quasi-legal/corrupt practices to keep his job, and even then he can't bring the kind of order that DeLay could. A lot of folks were actively hoping Reid would lose his bid for re-election, if not at least lose the leadership position.

You give me much to think about there, you and GC. Up until now I thought he was targeted as a perspective Presidential Candidate, that was merely shot down, to keep him out of the running. His lack of support from the start, does suggest it was much deeper than that. Who really stepped up to the plate for him? Had he been a Democrat, his ass would have been totally covered, even if he had been caught robbing a 7/11 at gunpoint on tape or a Dunkin Donut's with 50 Cop Eye witnesses. Thanks for the assessment, it is helpful and sincere.

If wingnuts didn't lie, they'd have nothing to say. In wingnut world, Delay didn't get any support when he was accused of criminal activity

In the real world

Malkin supported Delay. So did the NRCC. SO did Barbara Comstock

Michelle Malkin TOM DELAY INDICTED

So did Denny Hastert, Blunt and bush*

DeLay indicted in campaign finance probe - Politics - msnbc.com

 

[sangha]

DeLay would be better off knocking over a Dunkin' Donuts than trying to run for President. He stepped on too many toes in his own Party to even try to run the primary gauntlet. Not to mention his previous ethics problems irrespective of this conviction. Who's going to back him for early traction, financially or on the ground?

Nah, his political career was long over no matter what happened with this trial. It will be interesting to see if he can keep out of jail now. While the law he was convicted under was obscure, you don't sign your name to the letterhead of a PAC without taking responsibility for even the most complex and obscure campaign finance laws. I agree with Traveler, I'm interested to see what happens next but I certainly won't lose any sleep over it.

I was reffering to the 2008 Election. He got nailed even before Primary Season started. I guess I'll probably be supporting Romney again.

He was tossed from the House Majority Leader position in 2005 (well, resigned under pressure - same deal), and has been under either Federal or State investigation since 2003 or 2004, depending who you listen to.

The Feds never charged him with anything.

He chose to cast his lot with Gingrich and Norquist. It was a bad choice. I don't hate the guy, lots of pols let their egos get ahead of their judgment. It seems to be a widespread occupational hazard. But realistically speaking any chance he ever had at a political comeback died the moment the neocons fell out of favor and he was squished between his own Hammer and K Street.

Not exactly. Delay wasn't "tossed' or "forced" out by republicans. The House rules required him to resign his position because he was under indictment.

 

[Synthaholic]

I was reffering to the 2008 Election. He got nailed even before Primary Season started. I guess I'll probably be supporting Romney again.

He was tossed from the House Majority Leader position in 2005 (well, resigned under pressure - same deal), and has been under either Federal or State investigation since 2003 or 2004, depending who you listen to.

The Feds never charged him with anything.

He chose to cast his lot with Gingrich and Norquist. It was a bad choice. I don't hate the guy, lots of pols let their egos get ahead of their judgment. It seems to be a widespread occupational hazard. But realistically speaking any chance he ever had at a political comeback died the moment the neocons fell out of favor and he was squished between his own Hammer and K Street.

Not exactly. Delay wasn't "tossed' or "forced" out by republicans. The House rules required him to resign his position because he was under indictment.

The revisionism is breathtaking.

 

[sangha]

He was tossed from the House Majority Leader position in 2005 (well, resigned under pressure - same deal), and has been under either Federal or State investigation since 2003 or 2004, depending who you listen to.

The Feds never charged him with anything.

He chose to cast his lot with Gingrich and Norquist. It was a bad choice. I don't hate the guy, lots of pols let their egos get ahead of their judgment. It seems to be a widespread occupational hazard. But realistically speaking any chance he ever had at a political comeback died the moment the neocons fell out of favor and he was squished between his own Hammer and K Street.

Not exactly. Delay wasn't "tossed' or "forced" out by republicans. The House rules required him to resign his position because he was under indictment.

The revisionism is breathtaking.

Anybody want to see a wingnut get pwned?

CBC News - World - DeLay resigns as U.S. House leader after indictment

"I have notified the speaker that I will temporarily step aside from my position as majority leader pursuant to rules of the House Republican Conference and the actions of the Travis County district attorney today," DeLay said in a statement.

The quote makes it clear that republicans didn't force delay to resign as House Majority Leader. Here's an article that discusses an attempt to change the rule that REQUIRES a House Majority Leader to resign if indicted

DeLay Resigns as Majority Leader - ABC News

DeLay's legal troubles began in earnest in September 2004, when a Texas grand jury indicted three of his associates for allegedly using corporate funds to aid Republican candidates for election to the Texas legislature in 2002 through a political action committee DeLay worked with. Two of them were indicted on additional charges in the probe the following September.

At the same time, DeLay was reprimanded by the House Ethics Committee for creating the appearance of tying political donations to legislative favor, as well as for improperly seeking the help of the Federal Aviation Administration in a political dispute.

That November, House Republicans passed a rule that would have allowed DeLay to stay in the leadership position if he were indicted, but they reversed the controversial measure in January 2005.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

I was reffering to the 2008 Election. He got nailed even before Primary Season started. I guess I'll probably be supporting Romney again.

Ditto. I like Romney in 2008, and would have probably voted for him if he'd carried the primary. I can easily see me supporting him in 2012.

Biggest issue he faces is the fact he's a Mormon. If he gets past that he's a shoe in.