Redstate

if the next guy tarnishes the image of conservatism through similar technically-unsound practices.

should replace "technically" above :)

How about the GOP does it to the Dems, the Dems do it to the GOP, and we have a less-ethically-challenged congress to show for it?

is a mistake.  It's exactly what the Dems want us to do.

a republican anymore?  Or is it that republican criticism of DeLay doesn't count?  That was just this weekend.  Your memory can't be that bad.

Shays rarely says anything good about Republicans.  I tend to ignore him, as should you.

but whose criticism would you respect?

If we cast Rep. DeLay overboard, we will be emboldening the left to go after more conservatives.  We will, in fact, be "rewarding" their behavior -- and thus -- encouraging more of it.

Bill Kristol made a very good point on Fox News Sunday: The left is after DeLay -- not only because he has been extremely effective -- but because he has stood firm as a "Social Conservative."  

That's an important distinction.  There are a lot of Members who are "conservative," but, unlike some of them, DeLay is more than willing to take a stand on social issues.  And that is a major reason the liberals absolutely hate him!

Kristol also pointed out that the accusations that DeLay played to his "base" in the Schiavo case was a false argument.  

I admire leaders who are willing to sacrifice popularity and power in order to do what is right.  It would've been easier for DeLay to back off and become more "moderate."  The fact that he was under attack -- yet continued to stand up to the left -- is one of the reasons I admire him the most.  

A few here would disagree that DeLay is a social conservative.  I see DeLay as more a Republican than a conservative willing to sell out conservatives for the party -- of course his job is Republican leader, not conservative leader of the House.  I'll give him that.

Tom Price, Lynn Westmoreland, Richard Baker, Bob Livingston, John Boener, Speaker Hastert, Roy Blunt, Duncan Hunter, Bobby Jindal, and several hundred others.

In addition to Shays, I should add McCain, Chafee, Snowe, Collins, Specter, and several others in the House who I would ignore.

Because it seems whenever a Republican is criticized by another Republican, other Republicans (not necessarily you) discount him.  Has anyone on your list seriously criticized Republicans?

have criticized Republicans? Just wondering.

They are after him because the attacks are effective, not because he is.  When was the last ethical barrage against Hastert? Frist?




He is only hiding under the "social conservative" banner because he needs the cover.  Unfortunately there are people at FRC and elsewhere that will buy this nonsense and never believe that he could actually do bad stuff.  

The democrats will always be "inspired" to go after our weak links.  It's their job and it's actually good for us.  We should just be more careful about who we allow to have so much power.




Where do you get "questionable" out of this? He's been found to have violated the rules. Of course the payroll stuff is nonsense, but it's only come after he's been caught doing other stuff.

...attacks by Democrats, then hell no, DeLay shouldn't go.  Whether Democrats attack or not is--or at least should be--irrelevant.  They're the adversarial party and they're going to attack anyway.  It happened during Gingrich's tenure, it happened during Lott's and it's happening now.  Granted, they're smelling blood in the water, but the issue is and always should be the weight and seriousness of his ethical lapses.  Either his conduct is becoming or not.

The lack of a similarly effective successor is also not a reason to keep him in place.  There 225 or so Republican House members.  There's not one other out there that can do the job just as reasonably well?  I find that notion a little hard to believe.

Whether this may or may not incentivize Democrats to turn on the destruction machine for future members is also irrelevant.  They're going to do it anyway.  The last big dust-up occurred after Trent Lott made his remarks at Strom Thurmond's birthday party.  Liberals raised a ruckus, but ultimately Lott's fate came down to fellow conservatives.  Quite frankly, the ruckus tactic failed for the Left because we now have a better Senate majority leader and a larger Senate majority.

Try a blatant disregard for the health and future (not to mention the core principles) of the very party.

whether criticism of the party is considered evidence of "a blatant disregard for the health and future (not to mention the core principles) of the very party" by the party faithful.

carry a little water for a while and you might get the credibility to offer criticism.

Take yourself, for instance. Pardon me if I don't run right out to put everything you suggest into practice.

...focusing less on what is good for the party, and more on what is good for the country and it's people.

Give me a break. At the very worst, none of this rises to the level of "bad for the country and it's(sic) people."

This is an intraparty skirmish. If you have nothing to offer but inane and irrelevant platitudes, move along.

The question for the day is this: If the GOP dumps DeLay in the face of Democratic attacks, won't the Dems be inspired to just move on to another target and find every questionable piece of dirt on the next guy to get the GOP to dump the next guy and so on, and so on, and so on?

Perhaps, however (and I have no position on the question of "keep him or dump him") there is nothing wrong with replacing leaders with those you think would be more effective.  There is a difference between removing a leader because you have someone you think would be more effective in their position versus dumping someone because he's become a target for the other side's attacks.

If someone has the name of a Republican in the House (and don't give me the "there has to be SOMONE" line) who (a) would be more effective as the House Majority leader than Tom Delay, (b) why they would be just as effective if not more so than Tom Delay (specifics please), and (c) how they could replace the Majority Leader in a way that does the minimal amount of damage or creates a net benefit, I'm open to it.

As far as the alleged "ethical violations" go, I'm pretty much of the opinion that this is just a repeat of what they did to former Speaker Newt Gingrich - they went through his past with a fine tooth comb and threw out everything they could until something stuck.  Kate O'Beirne had a great point on "Meet the Press" yesterday that (paraphrase) "if you get asked a thousand questions and you answer each one, each question will still do some damage even if you're exonerated."  Generally when someone throws out ten charges and the first nine fall flat on their face, people lose interest by the time they get to thetenth.  I think that is what happened with Gingrich in that he didn't step down until he was no longer seen as effective and the same will probably happen with Delay.

Delay has courted a specific constituency within the GOP and that constituency will be loath to give him up because he represents their best opportunity to get things done and enshrined into law that they currently have.  For them Delay is a champion of their ideals.  Republicans have greater party discipline than Democrats and this has served them well both in gaining office and in maintaining it.  But Delay is not like Frist or Hastert or even the President, he commands greater loyalty from his personal constituency than anyone else in the Republican leadership and if his removal is pursued from within this will ultimately threaten party loyalty.

I'm not aware of any who think of DeLay that way, and I rather like the guy.

There must be some good stuff for sale in whatever 'blue state' you're from.  The following statement is ludicrous:

Republicans have greater party discipline than Democrats and this has served them well both in gaining office and in maintaining it.

Now if you replaced "Republicans" with "The Bush Administration" then I would agree with you to some degree.  But you must have ignored the last ten (plus) years of Republican 'discipline'.  I would look for tombstones named "Lott", "Gingrich", and "Livingston" for specifics.

Delay has courted a specific constituency within the GOP and that constituency will be loath to give him up because he represents their best opportunity to get things done and enshrined into law that they currently have.  For them Delay is a champion of their ideals.

Care to point out which constituency that is?? Since it's so "specific" and they have a clearly defined "ideals" then it should be easy for you.  

If you want some state level examples of this hard core party discipline you speak of I would suggest looking under "Mike Farris", "Oliver North", and "Mark Warner's Tax Hike".

This defense of DeLay sounds like what the Democrats tried to use to defend Clinton:

As far as the alleged "ethical violations" go, I'm pretty much of the opinion that this is just a repeat of what they did to former Speaker Newt Gingrich - they went through his past with a fine tooth comb and threw out everything they could until something stuck.  Kate O'Beirne had a great point on "Meet the Press" yesterday that (paraphrase) "if you get asked a thousand questions and you answer each one, each question will still do some damage even if you're exonerated."  

"It's all a vast right-wing conspiracy!"  "They are digging up any little thing to see what sticks!"

Sometimes you have to look at the big picture.  People are digging into DeLay's past because there is a lot of smoke there.  His close tie to Jack Abramoff speaks volumes.  If this media circus were just due to the democrats trying to make a mountain out of a molehill, then why are they focusing on just DeLay?  Why not every R in the house and senate?  There are other powerful Republicans that would represent big victories for the D's to knock off.

My personal opinion is that this sort of attack happens all the time from and against congressman on both sides of the aisle.  It just doesn't stick on the majority of them as well as it is sticking to DeLay.

Believe me, the D's want nothing more than us to protect DeLay.  They think that is their way of besmirching the whole GOP.

There are a lot of people within the party who criticize the leadership, tactics, and even (shudder) disagree on issues but that's part of the process and so long as they're constructive about it and we generally agree on most things, I'm a fan of a healthy debate and willing to listen to any sensible idea that might improve things.

And yes that applies to "moderates," many of whom are loyal Republicans who while they disagree (even publicly) with the majority of the party on some issues or question a particular decision of the leadership, they offer their criticism in a generally constructive manner, try to work within the party structure to persuade the rest of us to agree with them, and they don't pull a Cartman if they lose.  They also, it should be pointed, agree on most things and generally support the Republican Party and its candidates although the MSM doesn't often mention that part as it may interfere with the perpetual "GOP ready to self-destruct over ideological rifts" story that they've been running as long as I can remember.

Those individuals are loyal and honorable and deserve to be treated with respect just as we should any "conservative" or "libertarian" within the party who does the same.  Examples of prominent "moderate" Republicans (and this is by no means exclusive as I'm just naming a few off the top of my head) that I believe should be treated respectfully are Congressman Jim Ramstad (R-MN), Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA), and former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani (R-NY).  I have also defended Senators McCain, Hagel, and Luger on this forum but would put them in the "conservative" category based on their voting records.

At the same time, though I have no problem with dumping a "Rino*" who pulls a "if you won't give me everything I want, I'll take my ball and go home" approach or for those who usually vote on the other side and are generally act in way that is either intentionally or recklessly adversarial to the party that they claim membership in.   Examples of "Rinos" would be Senator Jim Jeffords (pre-defection), the Log Cabin Republicans (who should be distinguished from the 23 percent of GLBT voters who did support Bush), former Governor Arnie Carlson (R-MN), and Ariana Huffington (if she's still calling herself a Republican).  By the same point I would add former Congressman Bob Barr and former Senator Bob Smith to that category.

* While I do not believe that "Rinos" tend to exclusively be moderates and there are some "conservatives" and "libertarians" who can be put in that category, generally those "conservatives" and "libertarians" tend not to be actual Republicans and slide by on a technicality.  Which is why members of the Constitution and Libertarian Parties do not qualify as "Rinos."

most unsurprisingly would be a part of his constituency within the GOP.

Denizens of the 'culture of life' before all else.

Theocrats.

Christan conservatives as opposed to conservative christians.

Call them what you will, they are a self identified constituency within the GOP.

Must have been one heck of a challenge, huh?

Reread the comment. Digest it. Cuddle it. Then come back and tell me how you square it with yours.

If you think we're just whoopdeedooing over Tom DeLay, you're really not gifted with a visual comprehension of the English language.

Theocrats, by the way, walks reeeeaaal close to the posting rules. Just a heads up.

Democrats have a new slogan.

Withdrawn

If so, thanks for confirming my statement.

You've taken a portion of the republican party and said they are the only "true" republicans.  All others don't matter.

That is the very same thing the Taliban did.  That is the same thing OBL did.  Sure they did it with religion, but the error was the same.  They transposed their superiority over others ideas.

All this would be well and good if you only cared about primaries.  But here we have examples of good republicans that many of you have written off because they don't qualify in your HO.  With those attitudes you are destined for minority party status again.

BTW - when a representative/senator is elected, they are supposed to serve everyone in their districts/state, not just those of the same political party.  Where do some of you come up with the idea that broad based work is wrong?

Of automated program? Because it cannot reasonably be a response to the comment you're replying to.

You should know that around these parts words like "theocrat" are only to be used for people like Iranian mullahs and federal judges.

Seriously Thomas, I know you were using that word in jest in the other thread, and it's your site not mine, but it seems to me that "theocrat" should be nowhere near a posting rules violation.

But it walks close. The next step is usually American Taliban, which does indeed cross the line.

you are right. the D's would like nothing better than a long drawn out scandal, with the R's defending Delay all the way.

kudos, thats a very insightful omment. Wish I could rate it a +5.

The partisans on either side serve a watchdog purpose, because no one one's own side is ever really going to do the due diligence.

The thankless task of sorting legitimate critique from Powerline-style nonsense* of course, falls to the moderates.

* couldn't resist.

shouldn't you be encouraging us to fight tooth-and-nail for DeLay?

Or are you some sort of super-undercover-double-secret-agent sort of political operative?

to liberals as "moonbats" to meet with a similar warning.

Just conflicted.

The Bug Man has done serious damage to the House as a national political institution but then it was already pretty far gone and if he can work the same magic on the Republican party with a little help from his 'constituency' then so much the better for Democrats in the long run.

My pointing this out will have no effect on Delay's supporters or opponents within the GOP, consider the source.

better than "liberal" anyways.

I've always thought of him as the quintessential Republican - although I admit I don't follow that closely.  Why do you label him a RINO?

Just curious...

...because he has sided against the Bush administration on many issues - most notably teaming up with the ACLU to fight the The Patriot Act.  He's also come out vociferously against the Admninstration on their fiscal policies, big government tendencies, and lack of a strong illegal immigration enforcement policy.

While I hold very different ideological positions than Bob Barr, I find him to be a very principled conservative, which is more than I can say about this administration.

To lable Barr a RINO says more about the people making the charge than Bob Barr.

I've certainly always thought of Barr as a pretty principled conservative (with whom I agree on a lot of issues).

I will be interested to hear what the gentleman who listed Barr as as RINO has to say on this matter.

Now, what to do with Mr. DeLay?  I agree that he's just being used as a Democratic target to distract us from the President's agenda, and if for no other reason, that is why Republicans should not cave in without a fight.  His judgement on certain matters has been questionable, and so perhaps he should agree to step down as Majority Leader AFTER his term is up (that at least allows us all to watch the Democrats kick and scream like babies for another year).  

In short, I think Republicans need to put up more of a public defense, if only as a countering tactic.

Just a thought.

But for different reasons. Thorley rarely tosses that line around, and the popular perception of Barr (pre-redistricting) is closer to Thorley's stated positions than not.

that would tend to support the idea of dumping him does it not?

Gadmon said "focusing less on what is good for the party and more on what is good for the country"

to which you replied "None of this rises to the bad for the country and it's people"

Now if you can't see the link between what I said, what you said and what has been said in this thread previously in terms of who is and who isn't a good republican, I will be glad to spell it out in detail for you.  But, I thought you really are intellagent enough to see that on your own.

Some times I see you critisizing others in ways that are not becomming of you.  Think first.  My point here was that a minority of the party trying to say that only they hold the keys to enlightenment (good governance) is a danger not just to the republican party but to the functioning government of the United States as a whole. Is that clearer for you?

But irrelevant. Not only are the Taliban and OBL references insulting and inappropriate, but they have the added advantage of not having a thing to do with anything I said, or indeed, of any position I hold on the Republican Party (the only, tenuous nexus to what you're talking about).

So, really, with that in mind, do you have a point?

that unlike your fellow travellers you were never in favour of removing Speaker Wright or President Clinton from office? since the charges levelled in those instances, at their very worst, never rose to the level of bad for the country, only good for Republicans.

drag this thing out, give it time to stew and let ethics investigations drone on hopefully very far into '06.  The guy may not be a criminal, but he's definitely not a guy I trust to have such a position of power, he's proved time and again that he either doesn't care about ethics rules or he's incompetent and doesn't even have the intelligence to figure out the intricate nature of politics.  I'm betting a man who's shown himself to be a great political operative, hasn't been ignorant of what's going on around him.  

Now, since it's not my party, my opinion doesn't really matter so much in terms of the way he represents Republicans, but he seems to be more of a liability at the moment.  There must be something there if members of his own party are hitting him in the national media.  But if he drops out of the Majority Leader position and back into obscurity it would behoove Democrats and Republicans who spoke out against him to watch their backs.  

who is in line for Majority Leader as a way to understand why some Republicans are lashing out at DeLay?  

eh?  OK

The Taliban & OBL are to conventional muslim practice as the "purity" element of the republican party is to the party ( and all americans) as a whole.

It's a literary device that I figured you knew of.

Which is why I say it's not only insulting, but utterly irrelevant to anything I said to which you might be responding. Tell me how a remark about an intraparty skirmish has word one to do with your remark.

Knowing him, I would say he is not a RINO, he is a flagrant opportunist with some strong beliefs on liberty that cross the line between common sense and nonsense.

In my book, moonbat is an acceptable alternative to lefty and wingnut is an acceptable alternative to rightwing nutjob.

And see my clarifying comment on "theocrat."

The more general case of people who have one gear that goes backwards?  Can we call them epicyclics?

Come to think of it though ... I am unaware of any Democrat (except Zell Miller) publicly criticizing the Democrat Party and attacking Democrat Party Leaders in public within the past two decades.

Maybe you guys just run a tighter ship?

I understand where you are coming from (I think), but there have been a number of Democrats (on both the right and the left) who have critized the Democratic leadership.  Jesse Jackson has critized the Democratic establishment in the past.  Lieberman blasted Clinton on the floor of the Senate.  Moynihan was a frequent critic of the Clintons, and he also attacked many sacred Democratic policies.  Phil Gramm, while he was still a Democratic Congressman from Texas, blasted Speaker O'Neill.  Sen. Kennedy ran against Jimmy Carter, a sitting Democratic incumbent, in 1980.  So, I think there have been a number of Democrats who have attached their establishment.

Look, politicians of any stripe are mixtures (in varying proportions) of idealists and opportunists.  Sometimes idealism leads them to attack their leaders, while other times opportunism leads them to attack.  

My answer, so what if they do?  I'd prefer that the GOP didn't need the Democrats and the media to reveal the dirt, but if we won't do it ourselves, then the Democrats will do just fine.  And they can keep going until every last member of the GOP leadership behaves in a manner keeping with how our leadership ought to act.

And keep this in mind: we wouldn't be dropping him because Democrats don't like him.  We wouldn't be dropping him because of the Texas redistricting.  We wouldn't be dropping him because he ranted about some judges.  We wouldn't be dropping him because he was an exterminator.  We wouldn't be dropping him because GOP poll numbers aren't as high as we'd like.  We wouldn't be dropping him because he is one of the most partisan players there is on Capitol Hill.

We'd be dumping him because his ethics - and his attitude about his ethics - are not appropriate for someone in a leadership position.  At least not a leadership position in the GOP.  For the Democrats, they seem to have no problem with their leaders hiring staff, taking trips paid for by those seeking to influence legislations, driving off bridges, and having the wife get rich feeding off the husband's influence.  But that's one of the ways you can us apart.... or at least, it ought to be one of the ways.

Further thoughts can be found here

Erick and krempasky -

John McCain began his career in Congress in '82.  Olympia Snowe, in '78.  I'm guessing you guys are in the typical RS editorial demographic, which is to say in your late 20's or early 30's.  That means those two have been serving the US, and the Republican party, in Congress since you all were in knee pants.

John McCain, specifically, was treated more or less disgracefully by GWBush's campaign in 2000.  In 2004 he put that aside and campaigned effectively and graciously for Bush.  In my book, you all owe him a debt.

Snowe, Chafee, and Shays represent the Republican party in a part of the country where Republicans aren't particularly popular.  The people they represent apparently like them well enough to vote them in.  I'd think you'd be glad to have them aboard.

I think, live and vote blue state.  I frankly don't care if you all decide to tear your party to shreds, but I find the tone of your posts above more than a little presumptious.  Who made you guys the arbiter of who is or is not "Republican enough"?

Cheers -

Erick,

I'm sorry, but keeping DeLay so as not to hand the media a "win" is just strategically dumb. To the extent it is a "win" for the Dems, it's a hollow victory, since we discard a potential albatross heading into 2006 and deprive the Democrats of the opportunity to run ads in every swing district morphing our candidate into Tom DeLay -- and having voters know exactly what that means.

DeLay's effort to personalize the party and hold the conservative movement hostage is utterly detestable. If it's personal and DeLay is even a factor, we're losing, plain and simple. Here are some numbers that highlight why: 255 and 62.

That's how many seats we'd hold in the House and Senate if every state and district that voted for Bush in a closely contested party-driven 2004 election went Republican. The Republican "brand" alone gets us 25 more seats than we have today, and we should stake our hopes on some mercurial personality? No, no, no. This is a case where our Congressional leaders need to be as anonymous as possible, and let the voters' natural inclinations take over. If it's personal, we're losing.

You ask whether this will give Democrats license to after even more of our leaders. That's a legitimate concern, but ultimately, it rarely pans out that way. When Gray Davis was recalled, Democrats threatened to set off an endless series or recalls, starting with Arnold. Did it happen? Nope. The public/media/politico appetite was sated. Many made the same argument when Trent Lott was on the chopping block. Unless you want to argue DeLay is somehow related to Lott (2 1/2 years later) the argument falls short.

Are there illegitimate witchhunts? Sure, but I don't think this is one of them. The bogus controvery over Newt's college classes remains a perfect example. Like DeLay, Newt was a polarizing figure and easily caricatured, but unlike DeLay, he stood on principle, was a man of substance and vision, and architected one of the most stunning political victories of our time. He was worth saving, at least for a time, against the trumped-up charges against him.

there is that big of a correlation between winning a state for Bush -- and electing Republicans to Congress from those states???

...Because the numbers don't add up.  Bush won West Virginia BIG -- yet Republicans only (barely) have one Republican Congressman in the state(Shelley Moore-Capito).  

How 'bout the Dakota's?  Bush won both states by at least 20 points -- yet Democrats control 5 out of 6 Congressional seats.

Do you really believe abandoning Tom DeLay will be the deciding factor in winning Republican seats in states like West Virginia and North Dakota?  

I mean, "The Republican Brand" wasn't enough to win those seats before -- why would it change now?  

In short, why should we abandon the one man who is working the hardest to increase our majority?

...and yet we have Chris Shays, Nancy Johnson and Rob Simmons comprising a majority GOP House delegation.

Yes, there are countervailing examples in many states. But overwhelmingly the trend is for House districts that vote one way on the Presidential level vote to vote the same way -- especially when these seats open up. This trend has only been heightened over the last decade. When those reps. retire, expect the GOP to make gains in WV, and the Dems to make gains in CT.

No, Tom DeLay is not the reason there are more homegrown good 'ol boy Dems representing GOP districts. But there is a risk that if things DeLay continues to hang on by a thread, there are gonna be A LOT MORE good 'ol boy Dems entrenched in our districts come January '07 if the GOP=corruption message sinks in. And it's gonna be hard to unseat those incumbents once they're there.

Here's what getting rid of DeLay gets us, no, not a 20 seat gain, but the security of the status quo, and a steady ascent in seats as those conservative Dems start retiring. Keeping DeLay jeopardizes all that.

They criticized their party on specific issues, were denied floor time to speak, and, thankfully, became Republicans.  I'm proud to say I was able to know them (loosely) with both of them around the time of their transitions. (Tauzin shortly after, and Good before,during, and after)

I am NOT a moderate darnit. I'm a conservative who likes to kick butt and not be shredded by an ethically weak link who has either confused himself with the cause or has crassly sought shelter from the conservatives.

that the best way to keep our Republican majority is to make sure we have a tough Majority Leader like DeLay fighting for us.

In 2004, only three incumbent Democrats were ousted.  Texas re-districting gave us two of the three seats.  

But enough playing defense.  

Let's take a closer look at Nancy Pelosi.  Frankly, I believe Democrats in states like North Dakota and West Virginia would do better if they didn't have to explain to their constituents why their first vote is for a San Francisco liberal.  If they want to keep the seats they've got left, they should look at getting rid of her!

First, you may want to consider the possibility, remote as it may seem to you, that Delay may actually have done something illegal or unethical.

Folks are after Delay because he is vulnerable.  He is vulnerable because, through his own actions and the actions of those close to him, he gives the appearance of someone who may be involved in illegal or unethical actions.

If he's clean, he's clean.  If he's not, he's not.  Time to find out which, don't you think?

Cheers -

I am a very sincere liberal - but i call myself moderate because, as far as I am concerned, the weak link argument you made is a universal truth.

I advocated dumping Clinton because he broke his oath of office. I was not aware that there was any real intraparty war over it, unless you count Moynihan's and Liberman's self-serving and ultimately toothless moralizing.

I advocated dumping Wright because of the Wright Amendment. He deserved leg irons for that.

The left is after DeLay because they hate America.

Though each component is individually true, the latter is not the cause of the former.

of an allegory but then you go and act miffed.  You are either confused as to what an allegory is or you are unwilling to admit your apparent limited grasp or literacy.  Get over yourself.

Do you really feel that or are you kidding us?

Specifically, what beliefs does Bob Barr have about liberty that cross over from common sense to nonsense?

It said "the Left," not "Democrats."

Second, I was being snide in the broad application.

But the Delay ammendment to hobble the ethics committee for the express purpose of protecting a specific individual from legitimate investigation doesn't raise your ire?

Nice to see where your priorities lie Thomas and it isn't like subsequent Republican administrations couldn't have modified or removed the Wright ammendment but that's hardly likely is it? not when the chief beneficiary of the ammendment can be counted among the many clients of Delays political machine.

http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2005/04/corporation-with-heart.html

I mean, I could compare you to Stalin all day long. Wouldn't be polite. Might be accurate.

And the word is "metaphor," not "allegory."

Finally, because I'm taking pity on you, travel up the thread. I think your beef is with krempasky's comment up there a ways; or at least, insofar as your comment is responding to anything, it would have to be that.

Yes, toss DeLay. He takes contributions from one of the three airlines that benefits most from making Love Field unusable to Southwest Airlines. Bravo.

I was 13 when Wright was yanked, and I'd already been inconvenienced because of the Amendment at the time. You asked why I supported it. I was 13. That's why I supported it. Deal.

Specificaly to his legal defense fund is the point.

That's completely different. And relevant.

Care to explain how?

which 'inconvenienced' you and you said Wright "deserved leg irons for that".

I merely pointed out that your ethicaly challenged icon could reverse the Wright ammendment any time he wants but that is unlikely when the chief benificiaries of the ammendment go beyond making normal political contributions to Delay by contributing to his 'legal' defense fund.

My heavens. We do need to take this seriously. I never realized so much power was vested in the hands of a single man.

The other point stands.

allegory defined: Allegory is a form of extended metaphor, in which objects, persons, and actions in a narrative, are equated with the meanings that lie outside the narrative itself.

I think my allegory was useful in describing what I think.

If Delay wanted it done it would get done.