Behold the power of the Republican Propaganda Machine

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Texans take great pride in presenting an image of themselves as upstanding, moral, and ethical people. They are very proud of their state and boast about how great it is and how wonderful the people are. How can people of this caliber keep voting for Delay? It doesn't make any sense. Their standards are that low?

It's OK, Mexico is slowly but steadily taking Texas back. Then it will be their problem.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Channman 2]

> Texans take great pride in presenting an image of themselves as upstanding, moral, and ethical people. They are very proud of their state and boast about how great it is and how wonderful the people are. How can people of this caliber keep voting for Delay? It doesn't make any sense. Their standards are that low?

Most of us are transplated here from the North East.
We're still stuck on stupid. But thanks for thinking of us a caliber people, we do like or guns, more the better.

[champu 1]

Quote

Anyone who reads through the details of the ethics violations the Delay has been censured for should be appalled. He is beyond shady.

Why do you feel that it is "dangerous ground" to want to hold all politicians to much higher standards than everyday people are held to?

If politicians operate in a moral and ethical way there won't be any scandals. When they don't, and they get caught, they should lose their jobs. When they don't lose their jobs, their behavior is rewarded.

Texans take great pride in presenting an image of themselves as upstanding, moral, and ethical people. They are very proud of their state and boast about how great it is and how wonderful the people are. How can people of this caliber keep voting for Delay? It doesn't make any sense. Their standards are that low?

You've missed my point in a manner one might construe as intentional.

Holding politicians to much higher standards than everyday people does not equate to ending their career because of something they may or may not have actually done, but that happens to be getting a lot of press.

You're absolutely right that if all politicians operated in a moral and ethical fashion, scandals would be a thing of the past. But before that happens, one politician has to operate in a moral and ethical fashion, and, if something were to come up anyway, we have to not stone him or her to death before the case has seen its way past a judge.

You're promoting an environment where it's not about what you do, but what the opposition and/or the press alleges you have done. And that is the dangerous ground to which I was referring.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Holding politicians to much higher standards than everyday people .....

Is nuts - state it this way. "I hold the average guy to lower standards than others"

What a crappy way to look at the average man.
I hold all people to high standards (politicians, engineers, doctors, plumbers, etc) because they are individuals that deserve respect and the benefit of the doubt until they prove otherwise.

What makes politics so noble that one would automatically hold those people to higher standards than the person that builds bridges, or doctors, or quality pornography movies, to plastic poop novelty toys?

The consequences and punishments of low standards may vary from career choice to career choice, but the 'expectations for a single human being' shouldn't at all.

Children don't even have jobs, but we should hold them to very high standards also, for the sake of them.

Edit: people say that because it's a lame way for them to justify their outrage at politicians which they disagree with, especially when they'd do the same thing. It's very clever to hold someone to task for something they, themselves, would demand instant forgiveness for.

I'm gigging on the ignorant cliche statement, not necessarily about the post topic itself

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Hawkins121 0]

Quote

Where else in the world would a suspected felon be voted into power? Behold the power of Fox News, the mouthpiece of the Republican Party.

"I guess if Bill O'Reiley says he is OK, that's good enough for me, despite the Corruption and Money Laundering felonies he is charged with"

Thankfully, when the Department of Justice starts handing out indictments and arresting people, they aren't relying on the critical thinking or rational judgement of any Texas citizens to do it.

DeLay wins GOP primary
Wednesday, March 8, 2006; Posted: 9:19 a.m. EST (14:19 GMT)

HOUSTON, Texas (CNN) -- Despite being indicted and relegated to the back benches, Rep. Tom DeLay's political stock remained strong enough with the folks back home for him to win Tuesday night's primary election in his Houston-area district.

The Associated Press projected DeLay the winner of the GOP primary in the 22nd District, centered in the southeastern Houston suburbs.

The former House majority leader was carrying about 64 percent of the vote against three GOP challengers, according to the Texas Secretary of State's Office. The total includes results from early voting, as well as reports from about 14 percent of the precincts. (Watch DeLay vote, raise more money, have last laugh -- 1:38)

The Tuesday primary was DeLay's first electoral test since he was indicted on money-laundering charges in September. He later stepped down as House majority leader.

You must be really bored.

[akarunway 1]

"It's OK, Mexico is slowly but steadily taking Texas back. Then it will be their problem."____________________And Ca.,Az., Nm.,Fl.______________________________________________

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[champu 1]

Quote

Quote

Holding politicians to much higher standards than everyday people .....

Is nuts - state it this way. "I hold the average guy to lower standards than others"

What a crappy way to look at the average man.
I hold all people to high standards (politicians, engineers, doctors, plumbers, etc) because they are individuals that deserve respect and the benefit of the doubt until they prove otherwise.

What makes politics so noble that one would automatically hold those people to higher standards than the person that builds bridges, or doctors, or quality pornography movies, to plastic poop novelty toys?

The consequences and punishments of low standards may vary from career choice to career choice, but the 'expectations for a single human being' shouldn't at all.

Children don't even have jobs, but we should hold them to very high standards also, for the sake of them.

Edit: people say that because it's a lame way for them to justify their outrage at politicians which they disagree with, especially when they'd do the same thing. It's very clever to hold someone to task for something they, themselves, would demand instant forgiveness for.

I'm gigging on the ignorant cliche statement, not necessarily about the post topic itself

You're right, and perhaps I borrowed too much of the language from the parent post. By "held to much higher standards" I was thinking more along the lines of "subjected to greater scrutiny," which are two different things.

Standards should be standards, hence the negative connotations around the term "double-standard."

But scrutiny is a limited resource, and should take into account the responsibilities of the individual in question.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

You're right, and perhaps I borrowed too much of the language from the parent post. By "held to much higher standards" I was thinking more along the lines of "subjected to greater scrutiny," which are two different things.

"subjected to greater scrutiny" - I like that. I think you're the first one that's understood me when I've made that point about holding others to high standards. A tribute to my inability to clearly communicate on this subject.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[stoneycase 0]

Quote

Fair enough, my dear Wendy. You obviously have actually thought about the issue in detail and articulate good reasons for your point of view. I have no problem with that.

That's a far cry above the knee-jerk response: "He's been indicted and therefore he's a crook!"

The rest of this is directed at the others whom I've been addressing, and not at you, Wendy.

The collective attitude that someone is guilty just because they've been indicted, is probably for more harmful to America than a free golfing trip to Scotland taken by Tom Delay. And I find it shocking how many people are willing to express such a view and condemn a man who has yet to be convicted of anything. There's a saying in the legal profession: "You can indict a ham sandwich." What that means is that an indictment means nothing - you can indict anyone for anything. Proving it is another matter. Some of the original charges brought against Delay have already been dismissed by a Judge. As for the remainder, I'll personally withhold my opinion until I hear the jury verdict.

grand jury, anyone, anyone??...

sure sure, "prosecutorial discretion" is a bitch. i live in santa barbara, our DA here used millions of tax dollars trying to prosecute Jackson on child molestation (for a second time, same DA tried in the 90's). now that it's re-election time, and that trial was a loss, and that money is spent, people are pissed about how the DA used his discretion - most are saying he had no business trying the case, and all are saying he had no business spending that much $ again...but i digress...

if you're going to hold the position that grand juries are useless, and that a DA can just "indict anyone for anything" then, IMHO, you're making a baseless and naieve comment that's real purpose is to insinuate that this whole issue is based solely on "partisan politics".

the collective opinion is that if you get indicted by a grand jury, after a prosecutor brings charges against you, than there is a at least a "good chance" that the prosecutor has "tangible evidence" you committed a crime. i seriously doubt mr earle walked into the grand jury and said "i dont like delay, he's a your typical crooked republican" and got the grand jury to return a multiple-count indictment.

before you write everyone off for their knee-jerk response, consider the facts:

an impartial grand jury returned an indictment against mr delay allowing mr earle to move forward with his prosecution.

sure we should all remember "innocent until proven guilty" but i'd like to think that most people hold their elected representatives to a higher standard than the average joe. there is nothing wrong with citizens looking unfavorably upon the man considering the fact that a grand jury returned the indictment against him, and a judge has found at least one of the charges to have "merit". let him have his day in court, but don't wander around with your head in the sand wondering why everyone is distancing themselves or talking smack - they're looking at the facts and the progress thus far.

Does whisky count as beer? - Homer
There's no justice like angry mob justice. - Skinner
Be careful. There's a limited future in low pulls - JohnMitchell

[masterrig 1]

Quote

Quote

Texans take great pride in presenting an image of themselves as upstanding, moral, and ethical people. They are very proud of their state and boast about how great it is and how wonderful the people are. How can people of this caliber keep voting for Delay? It doesn't make any sense. Their standards are that low?

It's OK, Mexico is slowly but steadily taking Texas back. Then it will be their problem.

____________________________________

Then, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Missouri, New Mexico...


Chuck

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

before you write everyone off for their knee-jerk response, consider the facts: an impartial grand jury returned an indictment against mr delay allowing mr earle to move forward with his prosecution.

It sounds like you may not be familiar with the details of Mr. Earle's grand jury usage; how he failed with some, waited for their term to expire, and then went shopping again with new grand juries.

Latest news on Earle's shenanigans:

A state appeals court Monday gave U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay a legal and public relations victory by throwing out more than 30 subpoenas issued by Travis County prosecutors investigating the Sugar Land Republican's political finance activities.

The Third Court of Appeals said the subpoenas issued by District Attorney Ronnie Earle after a senior district judge stayed proceedings in the criminal case against DeLay in December are "null and void..."

Full Story: Houston Chronicle

If you're operating under the assumption that Earle's motives are pure, you're mistaken.

[stoneycase 0]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4933002

October 2, 2005 · William Gibson Jr., the 76-year-old foreman of the Texas grand jury that indicted Rep. Tom DeLay, says jurors saw abundant evidence. Included were testimony and phone records supporting a conspiracy charge against the Republican leader.

listen for yourself....my favorite quote, “It was not a rubber stamp deal. It was not an overnight deal. If we needed extra information, it was provided to us,” Gibson said.

care to spin the wheel, and try again? or are you suggesting that laws be amended in regards to grand juries? should mr earle have only had 1 chance, with 1 grand jury, and if that failed, "do not pass go, do not collect $200?"...maybe mr gibson is really just a partisan as well, hell, maybe the whole damn grand jury just hates white people...or maybe, just maybe, there is some merit to the charges that were brought against delay...you know what they say, the shortest distance between 2 points is a straight line, and the easiest explanation is often the most accurate...

Does whisky count as beer? - Homer
There's no justice like angry mob justice. - Skinner
Be careful. There's a limited future in low pulls - JohnMitchell

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

the 76-year-old foreman of the Texas grand jury that indicted Rep. Tom DeLay, says jurors saw abundant evidence.

Are you aware that grand juries hear only the prosecution side of the story, and that the defense is not allowed to provide any input?

You put way too much trust in the decisions of grand juries, as determiners of ultimate truth.

As for me, I'm waiting until the real court trial to make up my mind about his guilt. That's the one where a real jury gets to hear all of the evidence, from both sides.

Does that seem so unreasonable to you?

[kallend 2,106]

More bad news for Republican crooks:

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/31/AR2006033100663.html

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,071]

Not possible! DeLay's problems stem exclusively from an evil lying liberal prosecutor, not from anything he (or his staff) have done! But then again, his aide pled guilty. Is the conservative world coming apart?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

More bad news for Republican crooks

Well, the ice upon which you Republican-haters have been standing just got much thinner.

News:

"Overruling an appeal by Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle, the 3rd Court of Appeals has affirmed Senior District Judge Pat Priest's decision to dismiss two charges against U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Sugar Land."

Source: Texas Lawyer

This is in addition to several other Ronnie Earle indictments already dismissed. The only leg he has left to stand on at this point is the money laundering charge.

The ice is cracking under the feet of the Republican-bashers. They're in danger of being dunked in ice cold water. Are those of you who rushed to condemnation and judgement getting worried yet?

[Amazon 7]

Gee I wonder what the politics of the Court are that dismissed the charges... who appointed the Judge... and could there be even more corruption there so that NO justice will ever be possible.


Its so nice when you own the courts as well as the legislative branches of government you never have to worry about what you can get away with

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Gee I wonder what the politics of the Court are that dismissed the charges...

I see. So any time a court decision doesn't go your way, it's due to politics.

It couldn't possibly be that the charges were false to begin with because of the politics of the prosecutor. It couldn't possibly be that the two judges actually made findings based upon facts and law. No, you can't even begin to consider those possibilities.

Don't look now: the black helicopters are hovering over your house, and Bush's CIA men are coming to take you away!

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Don't look now: the black helicopters are hovering over your house, and Bush's CIA men are coming to take you away!

Think they might be surprised if I toddes a couple rattlesnakes into their friggin helicopter???


Face it.. in this day and age.. politics is played by the Lee Atwater School of Dirty Tricks....

[stoneycase 0]

without talking about politics, correct me if i'm wrong here, but delay is getting off on what most folks would call 'a technicality'. and just to throw this in there: most folks don't consider getting off on a technicality the *same* as being innocent.

from your article:
According to the 3rd Court's April 19 opinion, the Texas Legislature amended the Election Code in 2003 to incorporate a conspiracy offense. But the state cannot rely on that amendment because DeLay is charged with conduct that took place prior to its enactment
...
The Election Code conspiracy charges stemmed from how the DeLay-founded Texans for a Republican Majority Public Action Committee (TRMPAC) used corporate contributions in the 2002 election cycle.
...
Although the state argued that conspiracy to violate the Election Code has always been an offense and that the 2003 amendment merely clarified the law, Austin's 3rd Court is bound by controlling precedent that limits the applicability of the Penal Code's conspiracy provision to offenses found in the Penal Code,


reads to me like somebody is getting off because the court is, essentialy, following the 'letter of the law' rather than the 'spirit of the law' (in the state's interpretation). i'm not a lawyer, but my guess this isn't the first time that this has happened - but i bet it has also gone the other way as well.

so then, the facts of mr delays actions become only a secondary issue. the primary issue, it seems here, is the legislation itself and the precedent that controls its applicability.

delay got lucky? naw, i dont think so, give the man some credit - $1 says he knew the legislation and saw the loophole. A+ effort and creativity, but a F for 'remembering the goals of your public office - serving the public' because, sorry, i don't much trust an elected official that makes his criminal defense focus on the technicalities of the law, rather than his actions/inactions themselves. maybe i'm weird?

/oh, almost forgot, but but but clinton....

Does whisky count as beer? - Homer
There's no justice like angry mob justice. - Skinner
Be careful. There's a limited future in low pulls - JohnMitchell

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Gee I wonder what the politics of the Court are that dismissed the charges...

I see. So any time a court decision doesn't go your way, it's due to politics.

It couldn't possibly be that the charges were false to begin with because of the politics of the prosecutor. It couldn't possibly be that the two judges actually made findings based upon facts and law. No, you can't even begin to consider those possibilities.

Don't look now: the black helicopters are hovering over your house, and Bush's CIA men are coming to take you away!

It is also quite interesting to note that Mr Earl told a bunch of his party higher ups (months before anything started) that he promised he would ge Mr Delay for them.

No, no politics involved

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

It is a technicality if you are acused of breaking a law that doen't exist?

Now you will make a good lawyer......

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Amazon 7]

Quote

No, no politics involved

Have you ever read about Lee Atwater....???


When he got cancer and he knew he was dying.. he had a VERY big change of heart and apologized to many of those he smeared over the years...

Lee Atwater was Karl Rove's Mentor. I wonder if any of his shenanigans will haunt him before he goes to his grave and if he would beg those he has hurt for forgiveness as Atwater did.

[rushmc 23]

Ya, Earl needs to ask for forgiveness

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[stoneycase 0]

Quote

It is a technicality if you are acused of breaking a law that doen't exist?

Now you will make a good lawyer......

Let's try this again:

He's accused of breaking the law. That's the nature of being a defendant.

As to these charges under review the state says, "hey the law has said these actions were always criminal offenses". The defense seems to be saying, rather eloquently, the actions are irrelevant. The law you say Mr. Delay broke was not further clarified to *specificially include conspiracy* (the action in question) until later. Due to controlling precedent, you cannot legally apply the clarification to Mr Delays actions, since they occurred prior to your amendment.

That's a technicality. They aren't debating what he did/did not do. They're debating whether or not the law was clear, at the time of delay's actions, on what was legal/illegal. In this case, there seems to be controlling precedent that indicates, even if the 'spirit of the law' was to prohibit conspiracy, the letter of the law was different, therefore charges dropped. See the technicality? For me, and I'm sure YMMV, the biggest difference is that the debate is focused 'on the letter of the law' and specifically the amendment. Rather than focusing on say, what the facts are and whether or not delays actions were conspiracy or not. That's not the defense's argument. They aren't saying, "there is no conspiracy here" They are saying, "There is no conspiracy here because, at the time of mr delays actions, the law was unclear. Even though you further clarified the law to include mr delays actions, that is irrelveant, as controlling precedent stipulates that you can not apply the amendment to mr delays actions."

Your simplification, is well, a little too simple. Mine is perhaps as well, considering the article takes up some serious space discussing HOW and WHY the precedent exists and HOW it applies to this specific case.

To sit there and say, sarcastically: it's a technicality if you are accused of breaking a law that doesn't exist is purporting to say mr delay did nothing wrong. And what I'm saying is, if you look closely, the defense hasn't made their cornerstone "delay did nothing wrong". They've made their cornerstone "the law was unclear, and was not further clarified to include mr delays actions until after mr delay had committed the specific acts. you cannot charge him with a crime based on the amendment, when the controlling precedent says otherwise, *therefore* delay has done nothing wrong."

Does whisky count as beer? - Homer
There's no justice like angry mob justice. - Skinner
Be careful. There's a limited future in low pulls - JohnMitchell