Unspooling the ongoing thread of deceit

July 12, 2004 8:33 AM

"DeLay is doing everything moral, legal and ethical to increase the Republican majority and advance conservative ideas," says his spokesman, Stuart Roy. Heck, we already know that Tom DeLay loves the children enough to start a charitable fund to help pay for "late-night convention parties, a luxury suite during President Bush's speech at Madison Square Garden and yacht cruises" during the 2004 GOP convention (as well as the children, of course). Now, he's connected (via an email) to Enron, asking them for extra money in order to help fund the already-notorious redistricting in Texas. When will enough be enough?
posted by almostcool (50 comments total)

This wouldn't be that interesting, if it wasn't for the fact that corporate money for state legislator campaigns is banned in Texas (if you can believe that.).

Which means that if true, Delay broke Texas law with little shenanigan. (The deal was: vote for redistricting, get Enron money for your campaign). DeLay is under investigation by a TX DA, and has even retained a pair of criminal defense lawyers.

That's kind of an important point. I mean, if it wasn't for that law I don't really see what a big deal this was. Everyone knows Enron was a big republican supporter, why would it be odd for a republican to go to a known republican supporter for some, uh, support?
posted by delmoi at 8:56 AM on July 12, 2004

So clearly enough will be enough when:
- The Dems in DeLay's district actually run a challenger against him who is worth voting for.
- The Republicans in DeLay's district have had enough of him and run someone against him in the primaries with the money, endorsement and popular support of the local GOP.
- Someone brings charges against DeLay if he actually did break Texas law.

It's not as if the man has been appointed for life. The process of getting rid of a congressman, even an entrenched one, is fairly simple and starts with coming up with a real challenger who presents a meaningful alternative.
posted by Dreama at 9:00 AM on July 12, 2004

- The Dems in DeLay's district actually run a challenger against him who is worth voting for.

morrisonfor22.com, looks like his non-delay stuff is pretty standard texas-democrat platform, but he isn't ignoring the chance to make his campaign a referrendum on Delay, which at this point looks like it may not be a sure thing.
posted by Space Coyote at 9:18 AM on July 12, 2004

Delay's challanger has been advertizing on dailykos (for funding).
posted by delmoi at 9:25 AM on July 12, 2004

You know what: there are idiots on both side of the political spectrum. In equal number. So: get over it.
posted by ParisParamus at 9:28 AM on July 12, 2004

PP: That was an excellent retort and an amazing and thorough rebuttal of the facts at hand. I congratulate your debate skills hope and to see more of this effortless mastery.
posted by xmutex at 9:30 AM on July 12, 2004

The point, ParisParamus, is to root out the "idiots on both side (sic) of the political spectrum" and remove them from the governing process. What part of that is so hard for you and your head-in-the-sand ilk to understand?
posted by rushmc at 9:30 AM on July 12, 2004

Does DeLay Own the House Ethics Committee? Of the five Republicans investigating an ethics complaint against House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, four have received campaign contributions from DeLay's political action committee, splitting $28,504 over the past seven years, records show.
...
In addition, DeLay's PAC gave money to most members of the "ethics pool," a group designated by House Speaker Dennis Hastert to serve on potential investigative subcommittees. The PAC contributed $65,902 to eight of the 10 Republican members...
posted by amberglow at 9:40 AM on July 12, 2004

there are idiots on both side of the political spectrum.

...as you so competently continue to illustrate.
posted by quonsar at 9:50 AM on July 12, 2004

I'm reading that DeLay has gotten himself all lawyered up due to these criminal charges.

You don't suppose these are [gasp!]Trial Lawyers do you?

What will we tell the children when a (so called)man can be so dishonest, greedy, criminal and hypocritical all in the same breath? Will the SBC wing of the GOP disown him? Will he be served fundie communion? Will FreedomParamus give him a big wet smooch on his ass? Stay tuned!! Developing!!!!!
posted by nofundy at 9:53 AM on July 12, 2004

Here... diagonally.

{crash}

Pretty sneaky sis.
posted by Witty at 10:18 AM on July 12, 2004

You know what: there are idiots on both side of the political spectrum. In equal number. So: get over it.

Your eloquent command of syntax is evident in the above, as is your inability (once again) to deliver a cogent defense for anything you believe. Imagine, if you will, the following:

A forty-two-year-old Virginian man was arrested late Thursday night for the murder of twenty eight people over the last six years.

PP responds: Know what: there are killers all over. Everywhere. Doing the same thing; just get over it.
posted by The God Complex at 10:25 AM on July 12, 2004

I always thought there was more than two sides to a spectrum. In fact, I am pretty sure that it does more than run the gamut from A to B.
posted by crunchland at 10:27 AM on July 12, 2004

My point is that the ship or to tilted towards the right here that I feel obliged to say that. Got it?
posted by ParisParamus at 10:28 AM on July 12, 2004

My point is that the ship or to tilted towards the right here that I feel obliged to say that. Got it?

Your point is that you can't come up with a proper defence of the indefencible. But thanks for admitting it.
posted by Space Coyote at 10:31 AM on July 12, 2004

Got it?

No, could you try being coherant, please? Seriously, I've come to understand and even respect other conservative perspectives on Metafilter, but I consistantly don't even comprehend what your trying to even say, nevermind stand for.
posted by sequential at 10:38 AM on July 12, 2004

My point is that the ship is tilted so far toward the left, that every additional reference to the Evil Non-Left needs to be rejoinded.
posted by ParisParamus at 10:39 AM on July 12, 2004

that every additional reference to the Evil Non-Left needs to be rejoinded.

We're waiting. (sticking your tongue out doesn't count.)
posted by Space Coyote at 10:43 AM on July 12, 2004

So your point is that anything left-minded has to be sharply rebuked in a delirious and incomprehensible manner, simply out of some obligation to "right the ship"? Gotcha.
posted by The God Complex at 10:44 AM on July 12, 2004

Good lord. Would you people give it up already. If what PP said was so senseless and pointless, etc... then why are you spending so much time talking/worrying about it? Move on with your conversation for god's sake. This is exactly how y'all end up in a big huff over nothin', then scamper off to Meta. Sheesh. It's pathetic.
posted by Witty at 10:55 AM on July 12, 2004

Some of us don't see the world in such a simplistic black/white, left/right dichotomy, ParisParamus. Rather than obsessing over the labels as they have been marketed to you, why not focus on opposing wrong and supporting right, wherever you may find them?
posted by rushmc at 10:56 AM on July 12, 2004

I used to think the right was so evil that I cut off my right hand and foot. Then I came back to my senses and realized that it was truly the lefties that were evil, so I killed my mom and Uncle, who were both left-handed. Then I found out that lefties were actually products of nature, not nurture and felt real bad. Now I'm just a poor guy with no family and only half my limbs and I don't know what to think. I hope it's not the center that's evil, 'cause I don't wanna hafta cut out my heart.
posted by PigAlien at 11:16 AM on July 12, 2004

Oh really?! So, why is it that complaints about politicians run 100-2 against Republicans? How about the fact that prior to running for the Presidency, Kerry was more Hawkish on Iraq than President Bush (as I am)? Clearly, the Hypocracy Bullshit Meter deflects in one direction here on Metafilter, and that direction ain't a gauche.
posted by ParisParamus at 11:18 AM on July 12, 2004

When are you going to learn how to spell hypocrisy?

and that direction ain't a gauche.

your meaning here is a bit obscure
posted by y2karl at 11:24 AM on July 12, 2004

there are idiots on both side of the political spectrum

I just wish DeLay was one of them. I'm more concerned with his blatant power grabs than with his mental acuity.

your meaning here is a bit obscure

I'm guessing gauche == left? C'est vrai, PP?

So, why is it that complaints about politicians run 100-2 against Republicans?

I can't speak for everyone else, but I'm generally more critical of those in power than those who aren't. They're the ones we need to keep an eye on. DeLay is the worst of them, in that he's working very hard to keep and extend that power.
posted by me & my monkey at 11:31 AM on July 12, 2004

there are idiots on both side of the political spectrum. In equal number. So: get over it.

Translation: there are liberal idiots, so we should overlook this example of festering corruption (Delay's no idiot).

why is it that complaints about politicians run 100-2 against Republicans?

Why indeed.
posted by adamrice at 11:36 AM on July 12, 2004

So, why is it that complaints about politicians run 100-2 against Republicans?

Why, that is an interesting question... hmm...
posted by mkultra at 12:07 PM on July 12, 2004

So, why is it that complaints about politicians run 100-2 against Republicans?
Come on, don't exaggerate. Complaints against Repubs run only 50-1!
posted by strangeleftydoublethink at 12:41 PM on July 12, 2004

So, why is it that complaints about politicians run 100-2 against Republicans?

Because IOKIYAR.
posted by eriko at 12:52 PM on July 12, 2004

This guy is running against Tom DeLay. Maybe you can't vote for Richard Morrison in his district, but you can certainly make a donation or get the word out to people you may know in the Houston area.

(Should you be so inclined, that is. Apparently some people here are Republicans...not that there's anything wrong with that.)
posted by pomegranate at 1:04 PM on July 12, 2004

I am in Tom DeLay's district.

What I want is a representative who actually represents my district. Tom DeLay's powertrip has taken him far from representing the people of Sugar Land and Clear Lake (as well as parts inbetween). Instead he does the bidding of his corporate sponsors and works as an attack dog of the GOP. His attitude is devisive and I pray that the people of my district wake the fuck up and boot this asshat out of office.

In this weekend's Houston Chronicle there was an article saying how DeLay is siding with his corporate backers over a rail line which will bring hazardous material through parts of his district and two miles from my home, and literally feet from the Ellington Air Force base where President Bush may have served.

DeLay continues to side with big business, or ignore the people of his district completly. I met Richard Morrison a few months back, and he seemed like he has a good grasp of the issues affecting District 22. I'm voting for him instead of voting against DeLay this year.

Please contribute!
posted by DragonBoy at 1:25 PM on July 12, 2004

I don't quite get the point of these constant conservative complaints. If you have points to make that make your party look less repulsive, make them. If you don't like how liberal MeFi is, you can contribute anyway, bringing it more to the center, or you can leave. As far as I can tell, the two of you are just being snarky and contrary without actually furthering debate.

And you wonder why this place leans so far to the left? The two of you are walking commercials for the DNC.
posted by Epenthesis at 1:26 PM on July 12, 2004

The two?
posted by Witty at 1:41 PM on July 12, 2004

Dragonboy I'm probably moving to Houston to work at a large sugar manufacturer in the area, maybe you've heard if it? Rather than living in Houston I'm seriously considering living in this district just to do everything I can to help Morrison.

EMP if you don't mind, I have a few questions.
posted by pomegranate at 1:44 PM on July 12, 2004

So, why is it that complaints about politicians run 100-2 against Republicans?

Given ParisParamus would NEVER make up numbers or facts, the above must be true.

If all elected officials are equally corrupt, then the "Democrats" who are 'ivory tower intellectuals' must be far brighter than "Rebublicans" and are smart enough not to get caught.

If all elected officials are equally smart, then "Republicans" must be more corrupt than "Democrats".

So, which is it PP? You are the source of the 100-2 claim, are "Republicans" dumber or more corrupt?
posted by rough ashlar at 2:20 PM on July 12, 2004

Generally speaking, politicians are pretty loathsome. And, it's often a good idea to keep majorities thin just to keep the majority on its toes. So, I would propose voting for President Bush (because Kerry would be worse, at least on national defense issues); and against Republicans in congress.

Not hypocrisy at all!
posted by ParisParamus at 2:59 PM on July 12, 2004

So, I would propose voting for President Bush (because Kerry would be worse, at least on national defense issues)

And your evidence for this prognostication is what? And exactly what does that have to do with Tom DeLay? Come on, Paramus, you can try just a teensy bit harder than that before insulting the rest of us, can't you?
posted by Wulfgar! at 3:16 PM on July 12, 2004

That may be the first reasonable statement I've seen from PP in a very long while. I'd love to see Bush II trying to work with a Democrat-dominated Congress. Doubt that Democrats are significantly smarter than Republicans or vice-versa, but if nothing else there would be a stop to all the yes-men-ing.
But I'd rather see him completely out of office first.
posted by casarkos at 3:19 PM on July 12, 2004

This guy is running against Tom DeLay. Maybe you can't vote for Richard Morrison in his district, but you can certainly make a donation or get the word out to people you may know in the Houston area

No offense to the people in Houston, but if you want to limit DeLay's influence, you'd be better off giving some money to a Democrat in a relatively close race than by helping Morrison lose by a wide margin, which is all he's going to do unless DeLay drops dead or is caught with the proverbial live boy or dead girl.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 3:43 PM on July 12, 2004

Bush: very good on national security, on Israel, on appropriately treating the UN. Bush: disturbing on energy policy, on the environment. Bush: C+ or B- on economy.
posted by ParisParamus at 4:13 PM on July 12, 2004

Kerry would be worse on national defense: for one thing, he's voted again almost every defense appropriations budget and weapons system he's had the chance to. He has no credibility. He loves to UN too much, and has been afraid to call the Axis of Weasel (France-Germany-Russia) what it is.

You know, were Kerry to come out and criticize the UN, and the Axis of Weasel, and President Bush, I might reconsider voting for him.
posted by ParisParamus at 4:20 PM on July 12, 2004

WE must contain Euro-lunatics who give "credibility" to "World Court" decisions authoried by Chinese and other depot-connected nations.
posted by ParisParamus at 4:27 PM on July 12, 2004

We have depots in this country, too.
posted by dhoyt at 4:45 PM on July 12, 2004

Credible on defense: squandering the military on wars of conquest with no plan; basically throwing a quarter-trillion dollars worth of matches into a powder keg the size of a continent.

Not credible on defense: voting against any appropriations bill, irrespective of what's actually in it.

There really is nothing like keeping it simple, is there?
posted by George_Spiggott at 5:11 PM on July 12, 2004

No George, except keeping it nice and cowardly.
posted by ParisParamus at 5:16 PM on July 12, 2004

despots. I think there's a virus in my Mozilla....
posted by ParisParamus at 5:17 PM on July 12, 2004

has been afraid to call the Axis of Weasel (France-Germany-Russia) what it is.

You mean "right?" Because that's what they were. The evidence did not justify a war. They said that. History has proven them right.

That is what you meant. Right?
posted by NortonDC at 5:46 PM on July 12, 2004

I think there's a virus in my Mozilla....

Is 'Mozilla' slang for 'conscience'?

I kid, I kid!

I kid because I mock.
posted by dhoyt at 5:54 PM on July 12, 2004

PP: ...appropriately treating the UN...

Uh, would that be when he was claiming that they were irrelevant, or when he was crawling back to them for help?
posted by bashos_frog at 6:43 PM on July 12, 2004

So, why is it that complaints about politicians run 100-2 against Republicans?

Perhaps there is some bias on the site. Perhaps there is some imbalance in the behavior of the two groups. Perhaps it is something else entirely. But in any case, that has little to do with objecting to call-outs of perfidity. If the 100 complaints against Republicans are valid, then they should all be aired; if the Democrats are committing 50 sins and only 2 are being complained about, then by all means, bring the other 48 into the light. But don't insist that we should bury 98 of the Republicans' sins just to establish some sort of false parity.
posted by rushmc at 9:06 PM on July 12, 2004