Redstate

will not just fade away.  His FOX interview just now leads me to believe he will still be in the backroom mix for the Conservative movement.

There's more to come from Tom DeLay in the near future.

I agree that Delay was a master of the House, and highly effective at getting legislation passed. But it's probably a stretch to lump him in with the reformers' class of 1994. Rather than romanticize him as a champion of conservative values, it is better to acknowledge that he was as often as not an opponent of some of those values, especially with regard to fiscal discipline. His outrageous statement that there was no fat left to cut in the federal budget was a howler of the highest order, but was hardly a slip of the tounge.

And as for social policy, I may be grossly wrong but I can't recall him ever taking a public stand - except once, during the Schiavo affair, which serves as an example of a rare miscalculation rather than a principled position.

As a strong advocate of a healthy two party system, I am pleased that Delay's departure removes a major source of corruption from the GOP. However, I actually have reason to feel a sens eof loss - for there was no single greater champion of teh space program than Tom Delay. Ironically, it was his decision to absorb much of the NASA district in Clear Lake that probably weakened him.

DeLay's departure energizes the "politics by indictment" approach the Democrats are taking. The legal experts here can correct if I'm wrong, but in most states you can indict a turnip on very little evidence. Will this victory for the left intimidate good politicians on the Republican side to pass on a run for public office for fear they will be dragged through the courts by "untouchable" Democratic prosecutors? DeLay's questionable practices not withstanding this is part of the larger Democratic strategy.

Can't beat Bush, impeach him.

Can't stop Bush's judges, indict Frist.

Can't monopolize the public debate, indict Rush Limaugh.

Can't win elections, indict as many high profile members of the opposition as possible.

The GOP needs to come up with a solid defense against this or we will see this kind of thing happening more and more often. I think that that is where the real fight will be.

is in the final stroke by DeLay to move to Virginia and keep his district in Republican hands.

As for the overall issue, the strategery for the GOP needs to be to keep our nose clean since we have power.  Not rely on our power, to cover up our issues.

I agree. This does not look like a good move. I sure would like to know WHY he's resigning.

makes me think it is because of the plea from his former aide.

Also, I think he wants to make sure the detestable Nick Lampson does not get his seat. By leaving now, the Governor can appoint someone and the Republican party has time to rally around that person.

DeLay is above all someone who understands that a political party is better than no political party.

He is loyal. this is the best for the party.

What will be fun will be to watch the Ronnie Earle problems disappear.

The bet is on how fast.

He was polling at only 50% in a heavily Republican district which, one can surely presume, was drawn specifically for his benefit. He saw the handwriting on the wall and left before he was Daschled. I'm not sure it had that much to do with national politics at all.

He needs to focus his time and energy on 'not picking up the soap'.

I will be accused of trolling, but the recent indictments of so many of his former staffers make the answer to your question obvious.

Loyalty to the party is one thing, but ignoring what is going on in the real world...

Actually, he took it on the chin in redistricting to shove some friendly votes into other districts. That's part of why the left gunned so hard at him in 2004; they knew the district was more left-leaning than ever. (Not that's it a left-district, merely that he didn't gerrymander for himself.)

that his departure will dry up the national money coming in to his opponent's campaign from the Soros & Hollywood types.

He acknowledged a dicey at best result in November, and did this to essentially guarantee a Repub takes his place...his words.

But it's probably a stretch to lump him in with the reformers' class of 1994.

Only if you weren't paying attention then.

Rather than romanticize him as a champion of conservative values, it is better to acknowledge that he was as often as not an opponent of some of those values, especially with regard to fiscal discipline.

More accurately, he was, as the editorial notes, a Party champion of the first order. He was a proponent or an opponent at need. Fairly conservative guy who was bound and determined to destroy the Dems once and for all, a goal I can admire in a number of ways. I'm not keen on his whatever-means-necessary approach, but let's not mix things up, here.

His outrageous statement that there was no fat left to cut in the federal budget was a howler of the highest order, but was hardly a slip of the tounge.

Actually:

(1) It was both;

(2) It was years after 1994, and after he'd begun doing what he'd been bound and determined to do for years before. See above.

And as for social policy, I may be grossly wrong but I can't recall him ever taking a public stand - except once, during the Schiavo affair, which serves as an example of a rare miscalculation rather than a principled position.

He was an ardent pro-lifer. It isn't hard to find his public words on that, among other things.

As a strong advocate of a healthy two party system, I am pleased that Delay's departure removes a major source of corruption from the GOP.

You're lucky you have the cred you do around here. Given that no one has shown him to be corrupt, this is guilt by association at best.

...wasn't helping the cause.

As a more moderately conservative observer of the scene, I've thought that Delay was a master of legal but bad behavior. Example: His extraodinary number of junkets were all cleared with the ethics committee. Great. Smart move. That doesn't mean that I have no problem with them.

Delay worked within the system, and probably didn't break the law -- at least not the laws he's chareged with breaking. The style of attacks against him has been unethical and unfair. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't be looking at him and saying "that's not what we want..."

He is a classic master of the smoke-filled room. I don't care for those types. I find them mildly sleazy.

The other thing his departure does is hobble the "culture of corruption" meme--draws their fangs as it were seven months out.  No one will care in October.

With all due respect, you’re assuming that the Democrats are squeaky
clean and can legitimately run on the “holier than though” ticket.
This this web site does a great job of
chronicling the Democratic Party’s own culture of corruption. The GOP
needs to fight back and not let good potential leaders of our party be intimidated
by what the Dems are doing. If we have people who have broken the law then they
should go, but if we have good leaders who are being targeted as part of a desperate
Democratic strategy then we should have a plan for standing by them and repelling
the attack.

of the principle that one is innocent until proven guilty and that the Ronnie Earl charges can objectively be viewed as nothing more than a political vendetta, please elaborate on your comment

 I am pleased that Delay's departure removes a major source of corruption from the GOP.

Being accused of corruption does no equate to being corrupt.

I seem to recall a great debate over Newt Gingrich's ethical and legal "problems" which resulted in the findings of only one violation of federal laws; tha being the one against Jim McDermott

Shame on you.

Thanks for the information about his redistricting. Still, I would think the possibility of losing the election must have played at least some role in his decision.

...some on the left are baffled and down right upset at his decision. They were so looking forward to ridding this into November, hoping to grab his seat and embarrass the party.

I believe this to be a very good move, put a republican seat back in play and effectively shuts down the corruption meme  

True, not a conviction, but it's easy to see which way the wind is blowing on this one!

...comes to mind. You might want to take a look at the facts about corruption and the parties at fault? Better Think Twice: The Campaign Against Republican Corruption

The entire system in washington seems a bit corrupt to me.  I do not hate Delay; I hate the way things seem to work in national politics these days.

Both parties are forced to 'play ball' to get the cash and votes they need, and even the best of them can't seem to help getting a bit dirty.

You put it better than I did.  Thanks.

The Fatherless Children...the Media, won again.

Not for me, not at all.

Unless, of course, I were to subscribe to the "innocent before proven guilty by reason of someone saying it's so" rule.

I posted this in the other comments section too, but this seems to be where more people are, so...

I am not sure of all the facts, but it looks to me like Delay has done his last bit of vote counting. By moving out of district after the primary, Perry can set up an election where 50% is required to win the seat, which basically eliminates Lampson's chance to win a 3 party election. Delay knows exactly what he is doing and while they may get him to retire, they are not getting his seat.... a final burr under the Democrats saddle and it will take them a bit to figure out it's there....

The thought of Majority leader Nancy Pelosi or Harry Ried keeps me fighting
on. The overarching strategery of the Dems is not to get overwhelming numbers
of people to vote Democratic. It's to get the GOP base discouraged and cynical
so they will stay home in November. Their ultimate goal is to breed pessimism and
despair in the GOP base.

No matter how you spin it, DeLay got exactly what he deserved. He came to Congress, his Congressional salary evidently was not enough, so one of the first things he did was try to make a little extra on the side. He got involved in illegal activities and pulled his family in. He enjoyed the good life for a while as we all paid for it, and now, he is suffering the humiliation, and perhaps, jail time for his misdeeds. I'm tired of crooks pretending to hide behind Christianity. He is no better than the crooked preachers who dupe people out of their money because they can. Slick Tom outdid slick Willy.

The actual text of the indictment accuses two aides of arranging an exchange of money contributed to the RNC to be contributed to the campaigns of Republican candidates to the Texas state legislature.

The indictment never accuses DeLay of any crime, but merely states that the others worked for DeLay, although DeLay might not have had knowledge of what the others were doing.

The prosecutor Ronnie Earle needed three grand juries to get an indictment (the first two grand juries refused to indict), and Earle had to water-down the charges. It was all a big fishing expedition. I wouldn't be surprised if the charges were dropped, now that DeLay has resigned. Earle has achieved his purpose--why would he risk losing a trial?

Before we unceremoniously boot you to the side, I'd kindly ask you to back up that screed. Thanks.

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/delay/delay92805ind.html

This is the actual text of the indictment. Charges of money laundering were made against John Colyandro and James Ellis.

Concerning Tom DeLay, it says that DeLay "did...waive the application of Articles 12.01 and 12.03 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure to the indictment presented herein."

DeLay also "did...waive the requirement that an indictment for the felony offense of criminal conspiracy...may be presented within three years of the commission of the offense, and not afterward."

In other words, Tom DeLay is accused of allowing himself to be indicted more than three years after the alleged offense, but he is not actually accused of a crime, other than allegedly conspiring with the others.

Can Ronnie Earle PROVE in a court of law that Tom DeLay conspired with Colyandro and Ellis? It might be difficult, if not impossible, but Earle doesn't really care. The purpose of the indictment was to get Tom DeLay's name as a defendant, so the media could portray DeLay as a criminal, regardless of whether he did anything illegal.

A blatant attempt at guilt by association, which with today's media which votes 90% for Democrats, "worked". Substitute "Clinton" for "DeLay" on this indictment, and this would have been buried, and he or she would still be in office.

You can be a stalwart party man and solid leader without doing the things he did in the manner he did them.  He may not have broken the law, but he sure skated on the razor's edge of the rules (not always on the right side of the blade either).  

Luckily, the GOP was able to usher him out of the leadership to create enough of a time "gap" on the news story.  But it should be noted that they had originally fought the very rule which has now afforded them some political cover.

The stench of this man's tenure in the party leadership pervades the House.  It is good he is gone.

I say this as a conservative.

insofar as you say this:

The stench of this man's tenure in the party leadership pervades the House.  It is good he is gone.

as a Conservative.  But you knock yourself out...he's dead, the stake is through his heart, and your just jumping on in the leftnut pig pile.

Enjoy your stay...however brief...our return volleys are being primed.

up against yours any day.  I just do not subscribe to the concept that to succeed you must "game" the system however you can.  Perhaps it is a somewhat naive or utopian for me to expect that public servants act in an ethical manner.

It is very simple.  While the public perception of this man has been molded by the media, they have to have something to work with and this man provided them with tons of material. If your idea of a "dream" Republican caucus is 290 Delay clones, operating with the same loose adherence to ethical rules, the party is in deeper trouble than I originally thought.

Did it ever occur to you that people contribute money to politicians because the pol has a record of supporting a particular position, rather than being "bought"?

Raising money for a political campaign is a basic thing.  If you can't raise money, you likely don't have a message that resonates.  "Public funding" is a really bad idea because it creates a disconnect, even bigger than now, from the electorate.  Put public funding in place and legislators are fully owned by the government.

I only got to Texas in 1998, so I may not be aware of Delay's decades' ong commitment to the pro-life cause. Certainly he doesn't get any local pres in that regard, so I confess to ignorance and will happily acccept being corrected on that score.

But as with regard to ethics, it is indeed possible to look disfavorably upon the shenanigans in Delay's office without being a rank partisan hack. At least, this is what my neighbors and friends in CD22 - reliably Republican voters - tell me. I read the local headlines around here, and I am not talking about the Chron, either.

I'm also fairly solidly in agreement with mainstream conservative pundits that the Abramoff issue is a GOP one - and if I was trying to cast guilt by association, I'd have said that Delay's departure didn't remove a source of corruption. In fact the corruption of which I speak largely centers on Delay and his office, and is primarily Abramoff-driven. Most of the Republicans who hold local office around here are good people who are very often frustrated by the damage done to their brand by Delay's ongoing scandals.

I hope you aren't going to argue that the latest chapter, a guilty plea by one of Delay's aides, to bribery charges was all without knowledge of the Hammer. If so, then I am curious as to your opinion about the guilt or innocence of City councilwoman and former Mayor pro-tem Carol Alvarado with regards to the Bonusgate scandal.

I most certainly take issue with your contention I've cast any doubts upon the GOP as a whole. That's wrong. I've done nothing of the sort and in fact have even implicitly separated Delay's corruption from the honest, decent people in the Republican party who genuinely work on their districts' behalf - and whose welfare, until now, Delay was not particularly concerned with.

My cred is worth nothing to me if I seek to preserve it only by expressing my opinion on matters that don't displease you, Thomas. It's a privelege to post here, not a right. If I've abused that privelege by your standards, then you have my personal apology for any offense or disapointment caused in your esteem - which I do indeed value - but not any admission of guilt.

But as with regard to ethics, it is indeed possible to look disfavorably upon the shenanigans in Delay's office without being a rank partisan hack.

I never said you were; never meant to do so; and my apologies insofar as my words came across that way.

Most of the Republicans who hold local office around here are good people who are very often frustrated by the damage done to their brand by Delay's ongoing scandals.

One hopes they have the good grace to thank him for everything else he's done to make their political lives easier.

I hope you aren't going to argue that the latest chapter, a guilty plea by one of Delay's aides, to bribery charges was all without knowledge of the Hammer. If so, then I am curious as to your opinion about the guilt or innocence of City councilwoman and former Mayor pro-tem Carol Alvarado with regards to the Bonusgate scandal.

Maybe being a lawyer has jaded me, but I tend to give the benefit of the doubt to criminal defendants.

I most certainly take issue with your contention I've cast any doubts upon the GOP as a whole. That's wrong. I've done nothing of the sort and in fact have even implicitly separated Delay's corruption from the honest, decent people in the Republican party who genuinely work on their districts' behalf - and whose welfare, until now, Delay was not particularly concerned with.

I misunderstood you. For the record, I'm extremely tired today, and an unabashed fan of Tom DeLay's for all the good work he's done in Texas. Unfashionable though it might be to say so, I'm proud that he was and is part of my Party: Insofar as we have a spine for our issues, some thanks goes in his direction.

In other words, I'm also more than a little peeved at the loss of a Congressman of whom I'm proud, who represented my district when I lived there.

My cred is worth nothing to me if I seek to preserve it only by expressing my opinion on matters that don't displease you, Thomas. It's a privelege to post here, not a right. If I've abused that privelege by your standards, then you have my personal apology for any offense or disapointment caused in your esteem - which I do indeed value - but not any admission of guilt.

See above. I misconstrued you. I disagree, vehemently, with your characterization of DeLay, but that's another issue.

I never meant to imply that your posting is at my pleasure. Sorry about the crankiness.

we all have bad days. especially during daylight saving week :)

"[H]e began to take part in the excesses of his Democrat predecessors."

Bwah hah hah.  Blame the Dems all you like.  Corrupt republicans will be your undoing however and I'm afraid it leads all the way to the top.

can't wait to see how long YOU last...

Coming here and spewing your bile in a foolish attempt to be witty or poke at republicans.

It's actually very amusing to me the childish way your party acts!!!

Have a supper day!!!  

But your tinfoil slipped. We've pinned you down through your filling transmitters.

Expect the knock on the door. Soon.

Man, seeing bug-man go must really hurt for you wingnuts to be so testy. Heeheehee... It's just the beginning so get used to it!

http://ihateredstate.com/

were handed out like candy today.

I think we'll see a few blams outta this thread....

DeLay is a criminal, and I'd call him that no matter what party he was in.  It's great to defeat the Democrats, but doing it while losing your soul is pretty sad - and those of you who support his "by any means" politics should really reassess what side you're on;  The party, or the country?

Is it so much to ask that our trolls at least use English correctly?

Ah, well. If we're measured by the quality of our enemies, we must rank only slightly above Jerome Armstrong and Stinky Stoller.

<nt>

Somewhere else.

Bl... no.  You don't deserve the blam.  You weren't worthy of it.

Moe

There was corruption in the 94 Democrats to be sure. But the difference between then and now is that at least the Dems had good sense not to run around invoking the holy spirit and their holier-than-thou Christianity with their hand stuck in the cookie jar as upholders of 'family values.' And even as Delay is washed down the toilet he still has the gall to claim he fasted and asked God's views on what he should do. Delay had better hope there's no heaven because if there is, there's also a hell, and that's where he's going.  

While the public perception of this man has been molded by the media, they have to have something to work with

Bush and Reagan must both be morons. Sure, it is the media that creates that perception but as you say, they must've had something to work with.

Ah, yes.  That would be something like cynically using language and rhetoric for partisan purposes, just because you think that the unwashed Jeebus-lovers won't pick up on it.

Bzzzt!  Try again.  Far from here.

Moe

...at how thin-skinned some people can be.

Truth be told, Bush has made some bone-headed decisions (his recent foray into amnesty...uh, I mean "guest worker program" being a glaring example...Harriet Miers...anyone?).  I don't subscribe to the portrayal that he's an idiot, but some of his actions do feed into the perception that he is (and certainly provide fodder for those who wish to argue in support of that position).  

The same with Reagan...I think he was a damned good president, but some of his actions (or those of others he supported) were suspect (e.g., 1986 Tax Reform, which set the stage for the implosion of the S & L's under Bush I; lack of restraint on government spending).

Conservative leaders are not perfect and we should be prepared to call them on the carpet when they screw up.  Delay was (and is) far worse than a screw-up.  For me to be a conservative does not require me to ignore or gloss over his behavior, which I find abhorrent.

You might have noticed that we've had to have various cleanups this morning, ranging from the outright gloaters to the barely-smarter instigators and going on to the incoherent ranters.  The byproducts from that sort of thing can make for an edgy board.

Plus, it's Daylight Savings Time week.

Moe

but I'd take that action if you want to do a "who's more conservative than whom" challenge on another thread or another day.

Your angst with DeLay's actions (as yet not proven to be criminal) implies a different political perspective, nonetheless.  So, assuming for a second you really ARE a staunch conservative, your process for dealing with DeLay's news of the day is a good indicator of one of the core problems we have within the party.

You likely couldn't distance yourself from Lott fast enough.  Perhaps you never forgave the past misdeeds of Gingrich.  Maybe you even stood up and shouted from the rooftops how ashamed you are to have had Reagan as President given the Iran-Contra deal.  Did you disavow Ollie North?  And on a more personal level, where did you come down on the Augustine affair?  

If you are a Conservative and you refuse to offer friendship and support in troubled times; if you distance yourself from good people that do great things when they face a personal moment of weakness or crisis, then you are perhaps VOTING Conservative, but you are no FRIEND of a Conservative when we need to rally the troops, circle the wagons, and stand and fight as a Team.

I am sure I can strike you from any list I may have when I am in trouble and need support and encouragement.

So you go on and be that staunch conservative...you aren't much of a team player.

Until he is found guilty, he is innocent.  Used to be the American way...now it is a fading Conservative ideal.

When he found himself needing to make a personal and professional decision, for whatever reason, he began to accept personal responsibility and accountability; another fading Conservative ideal.

When he decided to take one on the chin for the team, he did so publicly and across all the standard media outlets...let the chips fall where they may.  Yet another fading Conservative ideal...taking one for the team.

Hmm...I think I get my point across.

shunning the egotistical course and doing one last service for his party.

More like tucking his tail between his legs before he sinks the party he brought to prominence. This is what happens to corrupt bastards who would sell their grandmother's fillings to get one more suck off the corporate tit.

5 days to post that??? Or is the 5 day waiting period done?

Very bourgeois and stuffy of us, I'm sure - but mind it, please.

I hope you feel better now.

5 minues ago!!

for insight in some circles.

Crop circles.

The pragmatic way and the idealized way.

Pragmatically, the perfect is the enemy of the good. Patton said the following: "A good solution applied with vigor now is better than a perfect solution applied ten minutes later." Given that there are two sides here, and that the "other side" is going to be throwing everything they possibly can and collecting every scalp they can, you have to look at the big picture:

Winning is more important than losing. If the other guys win, that means that we lost. By attacking our guys, we're giving aid and comfort to the other side. Let's face it, we're not perfect, but the other guys would be worse. A lot worse.

The other way to look at this is the more idealized way. The most important thing is not "our guys winning" but "our ideals winning". "But what gaineth a man if he gain the whole world and lose his soul?" and so on. You have to look at the big picture:

Winning is more important than losing. You cannot mistake a skirmish here or a battle there with the overall war. We only have so much political capital... even though we have more than the other guys, we don't have an infinite amount. We should not spend our precious capital defending scoundrels who did a good job with this issue or that issue when it will result in a huge chunk of the rest of our issues no longer getting any political play. If how we defend against the other guys' attacks results in people merely voting against the other guy rather than voting FOR us, then we will be eventually be looking at another 3rd party coming out of nowhere and eating up 15% or more of the popular vote... and getting the other guy into office (when, had we acted according to our stated principles more often, we wouldn't have had to worry about the 3rd party).

Both of these views have upsides, mind.

It seems to me that the most important thing we can do is not automatically assume that someone who is more pragmatic than idealistic (or vice-versa) is somehow not on our side in the war.

if i irritated you even a little, Mr Haychaff.

Not at all. You just asserted that if the perception is there, that in itself is evidence there is something behind it. This is false.

Bush and Reagan are not stupid, even if you don't agree with some of the decisions they made. In any case, the meme about stupidity got traction before either took office and long before 1986 in the case of Reagan.

Watch the personal shots. That's the last warning.

in cases of folks like you giddy to come into the house, pee on the carpet, kick your heels 3 times and go back to wherever you came from:

I used to be disgusted, now I'm just amused

sorry to disappoint-not irritated, just entertained.

Godspeed.

and you can't appreciate the sensation of haychaff...it's quite exhilarating actually...you know you did REAL work.

Winning is more important than losing

I hope you're trying to say that the positive effects of winning are more desirable than the negative effects of losing are undesirable.

One of many. I stay on a leash when the inhabitants show good behavior. You're not.

Moe's one of my kind, as well.

Please play nice. Thanks.

For swearing I'll content myself with a reminder of the rules; insulting another commenter rates a warning.

Behave.

Maybe I should have said "winning is better than losing"... but that would have been a hair tautological.

Maybe I could have trimmed it down to "Winning is important." Hrm. Now I'm going to chew my lip over this all day.

you will be equally entertained by George's continually sinking polls, the stratospheric price of filling up your Escalade, and the 06 elections.

I just find Delay to be one of the most sanctimonius jerks I ever seen as a talking head.

Unless, of course, the rules of polite discourse on the web snort prevent me from going even that far...

And as far as the honest work of producing haychaff- wouldn't what you separated the chaff from be something more worthy of pride?

Answer the question- do you have access to administrative control over this board?

It doesn't matter if I am or not. You've managed to break two rules already. If you want to continue to do so, you do that at your own peril. Govern yourself accordingly.

I hear they're about the sweetest SUV ride around. True?

"You likely couldn't distance yourself from Lott fast enough."  

I did not think Lott should have lost his position because of the Thurmond affair, I thought he should have lost it because he was a feckless "leader".  Unfortunately, we got an equally feckless leader (if not worse) in his replacement

"Perhaps you never forgave the past misdeeds of Gingrich."

I thought Gingrich's personal actions were deplorable, but they never rose to the level of ethical breaches.  The ethics actions against him in the House were pure BS.  He was a choirboy next to Delay.  I am not a purist, but I would like a little white to show.  

"Maybe you even stood up and shouted from the rooftops how ashamed you are to have had Reagan as President given the Iran-Contra deal."

Personally, I did not have a problem with it at all.  In my opinion, the statute prohibiting support of the Contras was contrary to the inherent authority of the President.  Going back on his position to not deal with terrorists was disheartening (and likely fostered the image of weakness that played a role in 9/11), but I did not abandon Reagan for that.

"Did you disavow Ollie North?"

No.

"And on a more personal level, where did you come down on the Augustine affair?"

I thought it was BS.  Spaking as a former academic, I have a real issue with plagerism; however, if someone can do it and be Senator (and a possible candidate for President in 2008), I don't think that would disqualify someone from authoring a WaPo blog.  As for the other issues (racism, sexism...), trumped up crap.  

Lastly,

"Proud to be: politically incorrect, straight, white, pro-life Christian, and of the opinion the spotted owl tastes just like chicken."

Right there with you, with the exception of "pro-life".  I am personally pro-life, but the federalist in me thinks this is an issue to be decided on a state basis.  Just as it is wrong for the pro-choice position to be the law of the land (not allowing those states opposed to it to have their own policies), I think the reverse is equally wrong.

I hope you can explain how that LAST post contained an insult to anyone. I didn't realize what a tender bunch ran around here.

All Republicans are rich, so it doesn't bother us to fill up our Escalades when gas is $2.60 a gallon.

That it is taking so long to get banned? You'll never get in the dkos troll hall of fame with numbers like this.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised at the prissy and repressive reception I'm receiving here at this site- it seems typical of the neocon Rebpublican mentality. I specifically came to this site to make sure I was seeing the other side of the question- but if you all can't get over issues of language then I guess your point of view isn't worth examining. You can call it maintaining standards ar whatever, and then smugly congratulate each other, but it just makes me happy for your analysts that your so "gosh-darned" repressed.

Only the best rendered blubber from humpbacked whales for my car.  Only from the calves, though - and only when it's fresh (pipe it in right from the body).  I have standards.

...of civility and intellect you're obviously unaccustomed too.

But as a guest you should be acutely aware of!

Get one of these VRWC membership cards. Then you only have to pay 25 cents a gallon.

so what schoolyard meaning does n/t mean in this instance? I don't know your secret handshake either.

the baby seal fur seat covers. I prefer gas to whale blubber for 'killing the earth' aspects in the SUV. I save the whale blubber for my private jet (shoot I just told them we all have private jets).

You're giving away all of our secrets for keeping everyone else poor.

only when the Hummer and Range Rover are in the shop and not flying around in our G5's

The profanity admonishment came out of left field; it's not a usual gambit and, coupled with the lack of a formal warning, made the standard ripostes not really applicable.  She never really recovered after that; the wellIthoughtthatIdcomeheretolearnbutyourealljustpoopyheads was forced and way too soon.

Overall, a C-minus; sure, anybody can stumble, but the greats know how to make that work for them.

You'll see a "Latest Comments" area.

You can click on any one of those and see any of the latest comments. If it has "n/t" in it, that's a heads up that there is No Text in the comment and those who glance over to consider clicking can know that doing so will provide no new information.

It doesn't help to keep people poor unless we also keep them stupid, right?

Off to the deforestation seminar in Room 321...

years ago when it was taught by Professor Dean. Hasn't he been the best mole we've ever had?

Don't you worry none.

We'll have good times by and by

Next fall when the work's all done.

Well, Darwinita died that spring, of neoconitis. We did the burial up the hill, where we left the boys after World War I, and World War II.

That's ok, Rose would say...

I use my big ole 1 ton diesel duelie for the highway, compliments of Cummins...

...my neo-Zionist-globalist masters do all the thinking.  I just follow orders like a good little chickenhawk brownshirt.

...Professor Dean. Hasn't he been the best mole we've ever had?

That wasn't supposed to be revealed by the Great Lord Rove until the afternoon of November 5th!

Didn't you get the memo - you know, the one printed on non-recycled genuine baby sheep skin?

EagleWatcher.  

Let's take this one piece at a time.

Can't beat Bush, impeach him.

Bush lost the popular vote in 2000.

He CAN be beaten in a fair election.

And, last I looked, he has not been impeached.And if he gets impeached, perhaps it's because he's done illegal things.

I think you meant to say: Repugs couldn't beat CLINTON so they must impeach him.  

Can't stop Bush's judges, indict Frist.

Again, you don't have to come to Frist's defense.  He had some shady dealings.  HE did that, not his critics.  And, get it right, HE WASN'T INDICTED.  Just recently shunned by his own party.

Can't monopolize the public debate, indict Rush Limaugh.

Yes, Repugs have monopolized the public debate for most of the past 6 years.  Who indicted Rush?  His legal troubles have to do with his DRUG USE!?!?

The GOP needs to come up with a solid defense against this or we will see this kind of thing happening more and more often. I think that that is where the real fight will be.

It's okay to say, "Some of my guys have screwed up".  When you ignore your party

memo:

Ok to discuss HD. Bats are blind.

Signed KR

Hi there. The use of the word "Repugs" is a de facto "please let me go post a diary at Kos about how intolerant you fascists are" keyword.

Your wish is granted. The choir appreciates a range of keys, and even some outside music; but the sound of some idiot smashing his bottle on a trash can cover is really not our thing.

Wow, that's the most brilliant thing I've ever read. I'm going to vote for Democrat from now on. You convinced me!!!!!one!!11!!!!oneone!

If you cannot write a post on a site belonging to the Other Side without resorting to derogatory names, you are either not as clever as you think that you are, or not as in control of yourself as you think that you are, or both.

Think of this as evolution in action*.

Blam.

Moe

*Larry Niven.

Jack Murtha for President? That speaks volumes.

Biologically, Puppeteers are highly intelligent herbivores; a herd animal, Puppeteers prefer the company (and smell) of their own kind. Their cycle of reproduction is unusual, but Earth cognates exist in the form of digger wasps: the Puppeteers wrongly consider themselves to have three genders (two male, one female), except their two "male" genders are the cognates of human male and female (one has an ovipositor, the other a penis, of sorts) and the "female" is the parasitised host into which the ova and spermatozoa are deposited...

Another noticeable behavioral trait is the coma state, broadly a cognate of the human fetal position -- in the same way that ostriches are said to bury their heads in the sand, Puppeteers fold up into a ball, tucking their three legs and two heads underneath the padded cranial bulge. This is, in part, an explosion reflex, learnt from childhood. Their cowardice is also reflected in their architecture and object design, as all the Puppeteer-designed rooms and vessels have no sharp edges, everything curves into everything else, giving a "half-melted" look and meaning that objects are less likely to damage someone inadvertently, through their own carelessness.~Larry Niven rocks

I guess this makes Cheney a Kzin warrior.

I believe that it is properly spelled "teat" in that context.

I fully believe that DeLay is innocent until proven guilty, however I believe this is definately the right choice.  C'mon now, how many times has he gotten in trouble with the house ethics committee?  3 times?  The House Republicans changed the rules just so that he could keep his leadership position!  People in Congress who toe that line that closely and have the "We will win at all cost and at the same time beat down the opponent into submission" don't need to be there.  We do not need Congressman who keep things as partison as they can.  It's just aren't good for our country and for political discourse.

Was he good for your party?  Of course.  He's a guy I love to hate and I've thought for years that the Democrats need someone in the party like him.  But now that he's gone, I think the country will be better off, and eventually it will make for a stronger Republican party.

I just love the part about service to the party...almost sounds like a Soviet-era compliment..just like Repugnant-cans...party before country...tell me -- do you put party before God too ??

Note to myself: this is why we don't bother, usually.

Oh, yes, for the record: Blam.

Apparently whan a Conservative has a bad day, all the nutjobs want to come out and play...and pee in our little sandbox.

While I find your moniker endearing, I'm struck by your patience to clear the waiting period only to have both of your first posts captured as worthy of having you removed to the Pile (tm).

As bugs bunny would say, "what a maroon".

Go find a different corpse to pick over, buzzard.  Your pals already picked this one clean today...

Like Babs Streisand, Alec Baldwin, Martin Sheen, and, oh, sorry, I forgot, them be the liberals who care about the environment.

And, c'mon now, us conservatives would only fly in our custom triple-7 to see our NASCAR races.  G5's are so, well, not.

Excuse me, replace "liberals" with "progressives" so that I may be media correct.

The aide's guilty plea will certainly ignite another round of media attacks on Delay's integrity and will most assuredly promote an avalanche of culture of corruption screeds from the other side of the great divide.  I agree, that had to be part of the calculation.

But, looking at the timing of Delay's departure from a practical standpoint:

1. Delay has talents he intends to employ.
   
   
2. Current lobby restrictions require a one-year ban on former members of congress.
   
   
3. Proposed lobby reform legislation extends that ban to three years.
   
   
4. ex post facto
   
   
5. Still minority leader Pelosi's head explodes when K Street welcomes its newest member.
   

IIRC, Texas requires a special election to fill an open seat, or leave the seat open until the next scheduled election.  Strategically, the GOP will want to run an incumbent against Lampson in November.

I'm inclined to believe Lampson lacks the courage to challenge the GOP for that seat without the cover afforded by the November election and the nationwide media campaign promoting their democrat counterparts.