A DeLayed Rule Change

November 17, 2004 4:35 PM

House Republicans Change Rules to Protect DeLay
"On a voice vote, the House Republican Conference changed a rule that required party leaders to step down if indicted for any crime that carries a prison sentence of two or more years."
posted by fenriq (79 comments total)

Truly the best of the web!
posted by ericost at 4:40 PM on November 17, 2004

cue the indespensable RudePundit:

Here's a member of Congress (used in the perjorative sense) who lied under oath about not remembering he was the chairman of a company (right after, you know, leading the rampage against Bill Clinton for, you know, lying under oath). Said Houston attorney Gerald de Nico in 1999, "At the time of taking the deposition, the guy perjured himself. There is no doubt in my mind that the guy looked me in the eye and perjured himself." A filth-encrusted cock who halted a deal that would have allowed Clinton to be censured and for the nation to move on. DeLay's reasoning was an outright lie - that there was evidence of more crimes and that an impeachment trial was the only way to air them. Remember, good Americans, the nutzoids in the House wanted to drive Clinton to resignation. And the Hammer, the gay fuck nickname for DeLay, threatened to drive nails into the nuts of any Republican underling who did not madly rant in favor of impeachment. DeLay is a piece of shit, an odious worm, a "born again Christian" (in the batshit insane sense of the phrase) who has probably has fathered an illegitimate child who he then took in under foster care. And that's the fuckin' surface. We'll get to the truly horrible, avaricious nastiness tomorrow. (All of this info, by they way, is readily available on Lexis-Nexis, and it's all from the Houston Chronicle.

posted by matteo at 4:41 PM on November 17, 2004

Matteo, that's what I wanted! Thanks for adding it. I spent about a half hour looking for something that neatly wraps up the kind of scumfuck DeLay is.
posted by fenriq at 4:46 PM on November 17, 2004

I hope they don't get away with this, but given the majority, there's no hope for fairness. DeLay should be in jail, not Congress.

BEYOND REDEMPTION: The Crimes of Tom Delay
posted by amberglow at 4:46 PM on November 17, 2004

But the blow job! Remember the blow job! The blow job! Thank goodness the party of "values" has rescued us from a national nightmare of unauthorized blow jobs.
posted by digaman at 4:55 PM on November 17, 2004

Wait, you mean I can't be hyperbolic when I call these people criminals?
posted by Outlawyr at 5:02 PM on November 17, 2004

Thank you, kablam, ParisParamus, MattD, and others for helping make this all possible.
posted by deanc at 5:03 PM on November 17, 2004

Now "runaway prosecutors" are joining "activist judges" as the enemies of the good Christian people of middle america. Are the defense lawyers next?
posted by PrinceValium at 5:03 PM on November 17, 2004

Every time I think these fuckers have hit bottom, they manage to dig a little deeper.

Congratulations, red states.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 5:06 PM on November 17, 2004

Ahh, nothing quite like lowering your own ethical standards to provide leadership on values.
posted by NortonDC at 5:06 PM on November 17, 2004

Innocent until proven guilty? Ha! That's only for Democrats...

Yeah yeah. I disagree with his politics just as much as the rest of you, but cripes...this won't get Democrats elected to office. This will only fuel the ever-increasing pettiness observed in US politics.
posted by BlueTrain at 5:29 PM on November 17, 2004

Well BlueTrain, this move by the repubs basically paints him as guilty from the start, doesn't it? If they thought he was innocent, there would be no need for this move.
posted by Espoo2 at 5:32 PM on November 17, 2004

Well, they don't seem to mind having convicted criminals as high-ranking Republicans, so why should they fret about someone being indicted?

Really, they're not even going to try to hide that they're crooks anymore, now that they've locked up control of the government. Why should they? There's nothing we can really do about it... legally, anyway. They make the laws now. They can do anything.

On preview: BlueTrain, RTFA. This is a change in the Republican Party's OWN rules as to Congressional conduct, NOT a Federal law or any bipartisan policy. Get that? Their OWN GOP rules.

To make sure you get it clearly: previous to this change, the Republicans made their own rule that indicted Republicans should step down while under indictment, thus they themselves "violated" the innocent-until-proven-guilty provision of the Constitution. Understand?
posted by zoogleplex at 5:35 PM on November 17, 2004

If they thought he was innocent, there would be no need for this move.

not true. i'm sure their defense is that the indictments against DeLay's associates are purely political, and that no wrongdoing has occured on anyone's part.

it's still embarrassing as all hell, especially after all that crap they pulled in the '90s.
posted by mrgrimm at 5:41 PM on November 17, 2004

Remember that they instituted this rule to show how different they were from Democrats, during Dan Rostenkowski's leadership, when he was indicted and, IIRC, continued to serve a while.

Now, as has been said, their defense is that the indictments are purely political. Next time I get a speeding ticket, I'm going to use that defense - 'rule of law' be damned.
posted by bashos_frog at 5:47 PM on November 17, 2004

Everyone keeps forgetting that the footnotes in the Starr report specified that it wasn't a blowjob but rather a rimjob. How this relates to Delay I haven't the faintest.
posted by paleocon at 5:52 PM on November 17, 2004

To make sure you get it clearly:
Understand?

Way to belittle me with bold to make a really obvious point. Let me help you understand something. I'm not suggesting that what they're doing is peachy, but to suggest that this is somehow damning evidence that Delay is guilty is damn foolish. They changed their own rules. Get that? People do this all the time. We hold certain ethical positions until we face a difficult position; and immediately change our own rules, rationalizing our decisions to fit the circumstances. Remember Clinton lying under oath? From an absolutist standpoint, he should have step down, knowing he broke the law and abused his position in office. Yet he served out his term and now no one cares that he lied. (Including me; I only use him as a very public example.)

Once again...if he settles or is found guilty, hang him. Otherwise, I find this type of pettiness to only help perpetuate the hostility found in Congress and at home.
posted by BlueTrain at 5:53 PM on November 17, 2004

If the Democratic Party doesn't make this a talking point every single night until DeLay resigns, they don't deserve to be in the majority.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 5:54 PM on November 17, 2004

Remember Clinton lying under oath? From an absolutist standpoint, he should have step down, knowing he broke the law and abused his position in office.

"I believe the title was 'Bin Laden Determined to Attack inside the United States.'"
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 5:56 PM on November 17, 2004

Is there a list online somewhere of all indictments and convictions of members of Congress?
posted by rushmc at 5:59 PM on November 17, 2004

here's a partial list
posted by amberglow at 6:04 PM on November 17, 2004

actually, that's presidential and associates--never mind.
posted by amberglow at 6:06 PM on November 17, 2004

...this won't get Democrats elected to office.

it's interesting that you're under the delusion that MetaFilter is somehow supposed "to get Democrats elected to office". who cares? personally, Republicans are too funny, I hope they stay (with a caveat: one hopes that they manage not to blow up the world). I was also sorry to see Ashcroft go: Helms, Thurmond, Ashcroft, DeLay -- comedy gold, really.

anyway BT, it's clear how the wonderful irony of this whole new DeLay mess escapes you.
in a nutshell: DeLay, leader of the Clinton lynch mob, now whines about politically motivated prosecutors. it's so fucking rich that one cannot believe it.

it's not about guilty or innocent. it's about the "Hammer" 's hypocrisy. what a fucking laughinstock, asking his S/M congressional slaves to bail him out of another mess. he'll just never learn.


Let me help you understand something.

ok, but after that let me help you understand something: next time, read the article. so you'll understand that "innocent until proven guilty" is totally not the point. it's about a GOP internal rule for those who are indicted. not those who are convicted.
read it, next time. then you'll be able to get snarky on the rest of the thread without looking like... somebody who doesn't read ther articles linked because he's too eager to look all smart-alecky.
then, mommy'll be so proud of you. promise.
posted by matteo at 6:16 PM on November 17, 2004

What I keep thinking about is that line indicted for any crime that carries a prison sentence of two or more years.

Does that mean if the crime being indicted for has a prison sentence of less than two years, that they don't even have to consider stepping down?

They could possibly still serve in the House of Representatives and be serving a prison term?

That can't be, can it?

Please, someone set me straight here.

On Preview: A smiling ditto to Matteo's rebuttal to BlueTrain about MeFi's role in electing Democrats. Actually, right on to all of it.

Hey Matteo, can I buy you a beer?
posted by fenriq at 6:21 PM on November 17, 2004

Now "runaway prosecutors" are joining "activist judges" as the enemies of the good Christian people of middle america. Are the defense lawyers next?

I'm a defense lawyer at a large defense firm. Trust me when I say that defense lawyers will never be the enemy of the Republicans.

*showers in attempt to rid self-loathing. fails.*
posted by monju_bosatsu at 6:21 PM on November 17, 2004

Innocent until proven guilty is a rule that applies within the criminal justice system. As phrased in the constitution, the government cannot imprison or fine a person without due process of law. However, the government is not obligated to let you perform the duities of your civil service position while under investigation.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 6:25 PM on November 17, 2004

Huh. Silly me, matteo.

it's interesting that you're under the delusion that MetaFilter is somehow supposed "to get Democrats elected to office". who cares?

BWA HA HA! So the past six months of electionfilter was just to pass the time? And the 3 months before that of primaryfilter were because the winter months are slow news months?

it's about a GOP internal rule for those who are indicted. not those who are convicted.

No shit. You certainly didn't read my comments, or you'd notice that I acknowledged that.

mommy'll be so proud of you. promise.

Ah yes, the intellectual troll. Clearly you're too smart for me...

::rolls eyes::

I apologize for saying anything in the Arafat thread matteo. Getting in a pissing match with you is a complete waste of my time and terrible for MeFi and for that, I am sincerely sorry for getting involved. But do me a big favor. Take the high road for once you supercilious, pompous fuck. I get it. You think your brilliant.
posted by BlueTrain at 6:27 PM on November 17, 2004

What ericost said.
posted by homunculus at 6:45 PM on November 17, 2004

DeLay didn't request or lobby for the rules change, said his spokesman, Stuart Roy.

...Henry Bonilla, a Texas Republican who drafted the rules change.

From Delay's Dirty Money, a list of Delay PAC contributions:

Rep. Henry Bonilla TX R $12,942

That looks like it paid off.
posted by joaquim at 6:58 PM on November 17, 2004

Well, I support the rule change. But it sure looks stupid.

What is the current equivelant rule for Democrats? Did they ever change it after Rostenkowski? Is there now parity again?

The Republicans originally made the rule as a ploy to make Dems look bad in comparison. It is only fair that they now change the rule, apparently as a ploy to make Dems look good in comparison.
posted by obfusciatrist at 7:11 PM on November 17, 2004

What do you mean, obfusciatrist? Rostenkowski's indictment meant that he had to step down as chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, which he did as soon as the indictment was handed down.

I'm not sure, actually, that indictment is actually the point at which sanctions should come into play. There are, as the saying goes, grand juries that would indict a ham sandwich. I would think that conviction would be the point at which sanctions should come into play.

However, making this change at this time looks sleazy beyond compare.
posted by Sidhedevil at 7:16 PM on November 17, 2004

With all due respect, BlueTrain, WTF in hell exactly are you talking about? This is a rule change by Republicans, designed to help Republicans, in particular, Republicans indicted of crimes. And yet you're blathering on for some reason about Democrat and even MetaFilter "pettiness?"

Hint: methinks nobody really buys anymore the hypocritical "raise the political discourse level" whining of right-wingers, after their decades of partisan witch hunting, and now that they're finally pleased with the (temporary) status quo. Try a new shtick.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 7:19 PM on November 17, 2004

However, making this change at this time looks sleazy beyond compare.

And they don't care. That is the telling part.

THEY DON'T CARE HOW IT LOOKS.

They have learned from Bush/Rove that so long as they say the right one thing, they can do whatever other thing they like without any possibility of being held accountable for it.
posted by rushmc at 7:22 PM on November 17, 2004

Yes, well, watch the so-called liberal media fucking roll over on this story, just as they do on everything else.

I swear to God, it's like I'm flashing back 30 years ago all the time. Except, back in those days, there were actual news reporters who did investigative reports on shit like the Vice President's links to corrupt corporations with sweetheart government contracts...
posted by Sidhedevil at 7:26 PM on November 17, 2004

Hey, there are actual news reporters doing investigative reports, on this type of stuff, as we speak.

Oh, wait - no there aren't. My bad.
posted by bashos_frog at 7:32 PM on November 17, 2004

I think the success of Tom Delay gives hope to exterminators across the country that they too can become creepy, shadowy, power-mad criminals that tear down a democracy from its core.
posted by graventy at 7:42 PM on November 17, 2004

This is a rule change by Republicans, designed to help Republicans, in particular, Republicans indicted of crimes. And yet you're blathering on for some reason about Democrat and even MetaFilter "pettiness?"

I don't believe that Bush won the election, and Republicans gained a greater majority in Congress, because Iraq is such a debacle, although most people can agree that it is. I don't believe that Bush and the Republicans won because Bush lost more jobs than any other President in US history, even though that's true as well.

There's a pattern...Democrats and their cronies spent more time, energy, and money focusing on an unethical party and incompetent President instead of cultivating a voting base. Why do Republicans keep winning? Because they have a base to fall back on. You don't have to agree with the base; in fact, most people here are completely opposed to their policies and morals. However, you cannot ignore the fact that they exist, they vote, and they're a force to be reckoned with.

My comment is only one of many solutions that the Democrats need to implement to truly create an organized opposition. They need to find common values; POSITIVE values that can oppose the Republican base and my opinion is that the incessant mudslinging shown here on MeFi and out in the public only divide the voting population further and turn people off of politics. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the type of anti-Bush politics being shown are truly hurting the cause. Exit polls, pundits, academics have all agreed that the Democrats did not create enough of a unified, comprehensive opposition. They were divided among themselves and extremely negative. I've said this again and again. We can do better.
posted by BlueTrain at 7:49 PM on November 17, 2004

The new rule says that upon the return of an indictment against a committee chairman, a subcommittee chairman or a party leader, a steering committee made up of House leaders other than the accused lawmaker will have 30 days to recommend to the full Republican conference "what action, if any, the conference shall take concerning said member."

why even bother keeping the accused lawmaker out of the circlejerk? if they are gonna let him slide, why not give him a hand in deciding his own fate as well? are they worried about appearing unethical? they can't be by now.
posted by memnock at 8:13 PM on November 17, 2004

Why should those scumbags even bat an eye about this? They've been fucking the country over for the past four years and the voters approved.

As Mencken -- himself an American, tellingly -- said, no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.
posted by clevershark at 8:37 PM on November 17, 2004

because he's too eager to look all smart-alecky

....he said all smart-alecky like.

A smiling ditto to Matteo's rebuttal to BlueTrain about MeFi's role in electing Democrats. Actually, right on to all of it.

Oh please fenriq. you couldn't be more opposite to matteo's rebuttal. You don't want to keep republicans around because they're funny. You want them out very badly. Hell, you spent the week after elections with post after post on how it was rigged (and I'm sure you still think it was rigged).

Oh no, you didn't care who won.

Where does the line form to smack Bush in the ass on his way out the door?
posted by fenriq
posted by justgary at 8:56 PM on November 17, 2004

no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.

The same american public that elected clinton to two terms. I guess they turned stupid in 4 years? Instead of insulting the same people who elected both clinton and bush you might want to look at who the dems are picking to run.

But, you know, calling the public stupid (compared to you at least) is much easier than looking in the mirror..
posted by justgary at 9:00 PM on November 17, 2004

As I said, it's a Mencken quote. Then again it IS fun to see it being learned and used by the rest of the world since the beginning of the month.

And yes, I am calling Bush voters stupid. I don't think there are two ways about it. I don't care what they have to say to me, and they don't care what I say to them. It works out beautifully. As for the Dems' choice of candidate, well, I had nothing to do with that, what with being Canadian and all, but of the people running for the nomination I thought he was indeed among the least interesting -- he would have been the least interesting, but Kucinic and Sharpton also inexplicably decided to throw their hats in the ring.
posted by clevershark at 9:53 PM on November 17, 2004

And yes, I am calling Bush voters stupid. I don't think there are two ways about it.

Which is fine, but it's not true, just as voting for kerry doesn't make anyone smart. It seems to be such a simplistic answer. There are reasons why people voted for bush. Disagreeing with their reasons doesn't make them stupid.

I don't care what they have to say to me, and they don't care what I say to them. It works out beautifully.

I remember when 9/11 happened how the left thought we should be asking "why do they hate us?". Yet when it comes to people in their own country, there's very little "why are they voting republican?". There's been more of a "screw them" attitude, which seems to be the attitude the right get's hammered on normally. (and yes, I realize you're canadian).
posted by justgary at 10:04 PM on November 17, 2004

Wow, I'm impressed. The Republicans throw all dignity to the wind in an effort to bail out their sleaziest member, and this thread turns into yet another series of lectures on what's wrong with the Democrats. Anything to avoid the obvious, I guess.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 10:06 PM on November 17, 2004

...Democrats and their cronies spent more time, energy, and money focusing on an unethical party and incompetent President instead of cultivating a voting base....

It seemed to me the Republicans spent an inordinate amount of time focusing on Kerry and trying to drag him down rather than addressing issues, a method I would think would be critical to building a base. I didn't see the mindless character bashing from the Democrats, at least not to the extent that I saw it from Repubs..then again I live on a military base so mea culpa, I simply may have missed it.

They need to find common values; POSITIVE values that can oppose the Republican base and my opinion is that the incessant mudslinging shown here on MeFi and out in the public only divide the voting population further and turn people off of politics.

I don't think the Republicans ran a particularly POSITIVE campaign, yet found success. And I'm not sure if the Dems can find common values, their biggest value is personal freedom. When you impose specific values it seems that you become less and less inclusive, something that goes against Democrat nature. I'm right with you on the mudslinging though, unproductive and unnecessary. Personally, I'm NPA and seeing people hate Repubs solely because they're Repubs and Dems solely because they're Dems gets old and its silly.


I wouldn't say Americans turned stupid in 4 years, they turned scared. And then some clever people exploited that, and they turned over an unprecedented amount of governmental power in exchange for "security". Fear was the big motivator in this election, the problem most Americans were contending with, and the Repubs saw that, took advantage, and won.
posted by tetsuo at 10:11 PM on November 17, 2004

and this thread turns into yet another series of lectures on what's wrong with the Democrats. Anything to avoid the obvious, I guess.

Nothing is more obvious than what the democrats are doing isn't working. Or are you avoiding that?
posted by justgary at 10:20 PM on November 17, 2004

mm it is a bit of a thread hijack tho.
posted by edgeways at 10:32 PM on November 17, 2004

The same american public that elected clinton to two terms. I guess they turned stupid in 4 years?

Oh, make no mistake. They were stupid then, too.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:49 PM on November 17, 2004

What's that about absolute power, again?
posted by Vidiot at 10:54 PM on November 17, 2004

Oh, make no mistake. They were stupid then, too.

You beat me to it by about twelve minutes. The left took a vacation for the majority of Clinton's moderate republican presidency. Don't get me wrong, he was a pretty successful president, the kind of moderate republican that I can stand, but the left let the progressive movement flicker out of existence in the mid-to-late 90s and they're reaping the "benefits" of it now.
posted by The God Complex at 10:56 PM on November 17, 2004

Nothing is more obvious than what the democrats are doing isn't working. Or are you avoiding that?

Am I avoiding it in a thread about the Republican party's internal machinations?
It's called "staying on topic".

Still, it's cute that BlueTrain has a sidekick.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 10:58 PM on November 17, 2004

Or seven minutes, according to lame Metafilter time.
posted by The God Complex at 10:58 PM on November 17, 2004

"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives."
-- John Stuart Mill
posted by bashos_frog at 11:55 PM on November 17, 2004

There are reasons why people voted for bush. Disagreeing with their reasons doesn't make them stupid.

That's a clever rhetorical dodge, but it won't wash. There are reasons why people dig holes in the ground. If one of those reasons is because they think it's a cheap way to get to Australia, then that makes them stupid.

Meaning that trying to pass up as 'disagreement' the fact that Bush voters are more likely to believe that, say, Iraq was behind 9/11, or had large stockpiles of WMD, or all manner of other misconceptions is itself sustaining a misconception.

Anyway, BlueTrain's right, in a sense. People voted for Republicans either ignorant of things like this, or knowing and not giving a shit, and that's not going to change unless Tom DeLay is revealed to have been using his stationery allowance to pay for blowjobs from young boys in his private Congressional toilet. And perhaps not even then. So Mencken needs revising: to say that no Republican ever lost his job underestimating the capacity of the American public to tolerate corruption and mendacity.
posted by riviera at 12:11 AM on November 18, 2004

Thank goodness the party of "values" has rescued us from a national nightmare of unauthorized blow jobs.

You mean, they have authorized blow jobs now! Where do I file the necessary paperwork? A Cabinet department dedicated to blow jobs would be probably the only thing that could get me to vote for the Republicans at this point.
posted by jonp72 at 12:34 AM on November 18, 2004

There are reasons why people voted for bush.

And some of those reasons are demonstrably stupid.
posted by rushmc at 12:37 AM on November 18, 2004

Ah, CalvinBall.
I'm in the corollary zone! If I catch the balloon...
posted by trondant at 12:45 AM on November 18, 2004

trondant, I was just thinking the same thing..

*IMPORTANT -- The following rules are subject to be changed, amended, or deleted by any player(s) involved.

1.2 Any player may declare a new rule at any point in the game. The player may do this audibly or silently depending on what zone (Refer to Rule 1.5) the player is in.

1.3. A player may use the Calvinball (See Calvinball Equipment - 2.2)in any way the player see fits, whether it be to incur injury upon other players or to gain benefits for himself.

1.4. Any penalty legislation may be in the form of pain, embarassment, or any degradation the rulee wishes to execute upon the other player.
posted by bashos_frog at 1:15 AM on November 18, 2004

Hmm, a criminal in Congress. How novel ...
posted by moonbiter at 3:24 AM on November 18, 2004

What do you mean, obfusciatrist? Rostenkowski's indictment meant that he had to step down as chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, which he did as soon as the indictment was handed down.

If that's true, then never mind. One of the local radio stations reporting the story said that Republicans had first put their rule in to put Democrats in a bad light when Rostenkowski's continued to head Ways and Means for a short period after the indictment.

Maybe I misunderstood or they misreported.
posted by obfusciatrist at 5:57 AM on November 18, 2004

Hey Justgary, you're right, I don't like the Republicans, I don't like how they govern, I don't like how they lie and pretend its the truth but I do appreciate matteo's point that they are funny in the abstract. You don't seem to think that I'm capable of finding humor in a shitty situation, you also don't know me.

But hey, thanks for trying to suck me back down into being depressed about the election.

And thanks for trying to further rub my nose in the loss.

And please show me post after post that I put up that demonstrate how I think the election was rigged. Oh you mean I commented on threads? Much as you did to try and rebut the interest in the investigations? So what?

I'm allowed to change how I feel about things. I'm changing how I feel about the election and how the GOP is apparently going to do any old damned thing they want. I'm trying to get above the petty fury and find my inner zen with it. But hey, I'm sure you like to kick people while they're meditating too, just to tell them that they're doing it wrong.
posted by fenriq at 6:53 AM on November 18, 2004

Democrats and their cronies spent more time, energy, and money focusing on an unethical party and incompetent President instead of cultivating a voting base.

I think they spent more time and energy leading. They spent more time and energy generating a budget surplus. They spent more time and energy trying to get health insurance for people. They spent more time and energy having more people employed and less trying to please stockholders.

I think the above statement/quote in a nutshell is one of the more obvious differences between progressives and conservatives. Progressives want to lead while conservatives want to rule. When you want to rule you worry about pandering and building a "base" to make sure you continue to reap the benefits of being the majority. When you want to lead you make decisions that are bad for your re-election but realise that you are trying to server your country.
posted by terrapin at 7:19 AM on November 18, 2004

From the story in The Hill:

In 1987, then-Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) told The Washington Post: “[You] now have a House where it is more dangerous to be aggressive about honesty than it is to be mildly corrupt."

Yep. That Newt Gingrich.

Plus ca change...
posted by Vidiot at 8:18 AM on November 18, 2004

They have learned from Bush/Rove that so long as they say the right one thing, they can do whatever other thing they like without any possibility of being held accountable for it.
posted by rushmc at 10:22 PM EST on November 17

Oh, rushmc! Fuck "Calais"! If I were to drop dead right now, this is what they would find engraved on my heart.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 8:38 AM on November 18, 2004

Did I leave a pop-tart in here?
posted by squirrel at 9:05 AM on November 18, 2004

Progressives want to lead while conservatives want to rule.

I think that is as true as any general statement can be. I have been wondering about the difference in discourse between the two sides of this division, and I think you've put your finger right on it.
posted by rushmc at 10:13 AM on November 18, 2004

Gravy, I love you for so many reasons, but especially because nobody else quotes Mary Tudor on MeFi. (MaTuFi?)

obfusciatrist, either you misunderstood or your radio station was misreporting. Cf. this story and this story.
posted by Sidhedevil at 10:16 AM on November 18, 2004

The primary language of politics is emotion.

The republicans learned this long ago. Democrats are still trying to debate. Compare and contrast the relative amount of references and links to data and sources here on Mefi. Troutfishing et. all versus, welll ParisParamus, or Seth, or Hama7 (although Hama was fairly good at backing up some of his assertions.) The democrates are bringing calculators and spreadsheets to a football game.

I understand how people could be presented with such a preponderance of data, facts, quotes, etc. and yet remain steadfast in the emotionaly informed descisions. For example people who are turned off by rampant liberal ranting. The sort that said "I voted for Bush because Kerry's supporters were such dicks". But i don't think i can forgive them, nor consider their emotional opinions as being a valid argument. Give me quotes, facts, statistics, links, primary documents, press breifings. Otherwise, take your "I don't like him/they way he does X/ Liberals are so Y /Conservatives want Q" bullshit elsewhere. Seth and Paris, I am speaking directly to you. You are the worst offenders of the undefended opinion that is expected to be taken seriously just because you hold it, and feel it to be true, but are utterly unwilling to present any justification. (Man, I've waited a long time to be able to say that.)

Back on topic: Why is this a defensible move by the republicans? Is there any possible justification other than the obvious, less than savory implication that Delay is a crook, and yet they want to keep him around as long as possible?
posted by Freen at 11:43 AM on November 18, 2004

Am I avoiding it in a thread about the Republican party's internal machinations?
It's called "staying on topic".

I'll worry about staying on topic when links are posted that are not strictly news items you can read on cnn posted by members to push their point across. Best of the web? Ha. Since you're so concerned about etiquette why don't you start there.

Still, it's cute that BlueTrain has a sidekick.

I wish I could be like you and toe the party/metafilter line! God, grow up.

There are reasons why people voted for bush. Disagreeing with their reasons doesn't make them stupid.

That's a clever rhetorical dodge, but it won't wash.

That statement if far less rhetorical than most of the statements on this page. Some people voted for bush for stupid reasons, some voted for kerry for stupid reasons.

You don't seem to think that I'm capable of finding humor in a shitty situation, you also don't know me.

I only know you from here, and your comments here are what I responded to.

But hey, thanks for trying to suck me back down into being depressed about the election.

And thanks for trying to further rub my nose in the loss.

But hey, I'm sure you like to kick people while they're meditating too, just to tell them that they're doing it wrong.

Oh god, give the "poor me/I'm a victim/I'm being picked on" crap a rest. Saying you don't care doesn't jive with someone who has posted constantly with anti bush threads from before the election, during the election, and after the election. If you've changed your mind and now find it hilarious, good for you.

You see this all in black and white. Republicans evil, liberals good. So when someone disagrees with you they're on the other side. You're so far left anyone else not in your camp is on the far right.

This isn't about sides. It's you who is taking it that way. You've found a place (here) where you can post anything anti conservative and 98 percent of the members will agree with you. So stop acting persecuted.

Progressives want to lead while conservatives want to rule.

I think that is as true as any general statement can be. I have been wondering about the difference in discourse between the two sides of this division, and I think you've put your finger right on it.

Well rush, you've always been a big fan of sweeping generalities, so its not surprising you agree. It looks good, even if it's so biased its worthless.
posted by justgary at 1:13 PM on November 18, 2004

You see this all in black and white. Republicans evil, liberals good. So when someone disagrees with you they're on the other side. You're so far left anyone else not in your camp is on the far right.

Kind of interesting that you then derogate someone for being "a big fan of sweeping generalities" then, isn't it?
posted by Vidiot at 5:31 PM on November 18, 2004

Kind of interesting that you then derogate someone for being "a big fan of sweeping generalities" then, isn't it?

When it comes to groups of people, republicans, liberals, catholics, muslims, I don't understand how anyone can be an advocate of such statements, and no, it's not that interesting.
posted by justgary at 7:05 PM on November 18, 2004

Thanks vidiot.

justgary, for the record, you're quite wrong on your assumptions and generalizations. I'm very aware that life is almost never black and white. It simplifies things to put the world into two camps but I know its far from that simple.

Again, you don't know me and basing your assumptions on what you've sampled of my comments in my history is stupid. Yes, you can make general conclusions about someone by their comments here. And yes, you can decide that I'm some kind of frothing political wanna-be-wonk or whatever, it doesn't make you right. It just makes you have an opinion.

But let's go for a little stroll through your own storied comment history and see what we find, shall we?

462 comments to date in the blue.
Well now, this is nice.

In the last 25 threads you've commented, 4 have not been political. That's 21 of 25 threads that you have commented on most recently that have been political.

Of your last 50 comments (strange in those last 25 threads and not one more), 44 have been in those political threads.

So, most recently you're running at an 84% for threads being political and an 88% for your comments going into those political threads.

Shall we compare that to my own record over the last 50 comments and/or 25 threads? I mean, truthfully now, you have levelled the accusation of me being on some holy political crusade. I'd expect the numbers to bear that out if I were you. And I'm very pleased to remind you that I'm not you.

Of the last 25 threads I've commented in, I've made comments in 7 political threads.

To get to 50 comments I had to go to 30 threads but I came up with 13 comments to political threads and 37 comments to non-political threads.

That gives me a 28% for political hawkery and a 26% for comment political hawkery.

You win. Thank you, please come again.
posted by fenriq at 7:27 PM on November 18, 2004

Fenriq, first of all, you can buy matteo a beer, and you can thank vidiot (for god knows what), but this isn't tag team wrestling to me. If you think mefi members coming out to 'support' you shows anything but the makeup of the site, you're mistaken. This isn't a game to me, I don't care about winning. As I've said before, metafilter is a world of its own and in no way representative of the world as a whole. It's a cacoon for the most part, one that is far left, one that you fit in quite nicely. This should be a playground for you. You can claim the election was rigged and you actually get taken seriously here. So I find it funny you accuse me, one of the few here who would disagree with anything you say, of ruining your 'mood'.

As for your statistics, I'm not sure what you're trying to prove, though I'm honored you took the time to investigate my history. It's boring I know.

When have I ever complained of the amount of comments you make? I brought up your comments because you've been very vocal in your hatred of the right, and all of a sudden in this thread you claim you find it funny and agree with matteo who says "Republicans are too funny, I hope they stay". Now you say you've changed your mind. Great.

How many political posts have I made? I'm thinking zero. Political posts such as this very one are not the best of the web. It was simply a news story that in your mind validates your feelings and your views.

You're able to get your views across to thousands of people and, for the most part, they join in your crusade. Cheer up.
posted by justgary at 7:57 PM on November 18, 2004

Whatever gave you the impression that I was down?

Anyway, I really don't see any point in any further communications with you, you don't like me, okay. That's fine. I think I'll get over it.

You don't like my posts yet you seem inexorably drawn into them. No one's forcing you to come in and piss on things.

Anyway, you're welcome to the last, final final snarky whatever. I'm on vacation soon.
posted by fenriq at 9:38 PM on November 18, 2004

you don't like me, okay. That's fine. I think I'll get over it.

I don't like you or not like you. I don't know you.

You don't like my posts yet you seem inexorably drawn into them. No one's forcing you to come in and piss on things.

Disagreeing with you is not "pissing on things". You just take things way to personal. (and I mean that in the least snarky way possible).
posted by justgary at 9:46 PM on November 18, 2004

But see, fenriq seems to put some care into articulating a political point of view and providing some rationale for his/her assertions. I don't see you doing that, justgary.

(And hell, I don't even know why I'm getting involved in this, anyway.)
posted by Vidiot at 9:52 PM on November 18, 2004

Vidiot, I don't care about the link, there's nothing to discuss. It's a bad link. However, it does interest me that imho the left hasn't seemed to learn a thing about why they lost.

This was brought up:

Yeah yeah. I disagree with his politics just as much as the rest of you, but cripes...this won't get Democrats elected to office.

Which I agree with, and said in as much here:

The same american public that elected clinton to two terms. I guess they turned stupid in 4 years? Instead of insulting the same people who elected both clinton and bush you might want to look at who the dems are picking to run.

I also said:

I remember when 9/11 happened how the left thought we should be asking "why do they hate us?". Yet when it comes to people in their own country, there's very little "why are they voting republican?". There's been more of a "screw them" attitude, which seems to be the attitude the right get's hammered on normally. (and yes, I realize you're canadian).

Which no one answered.

You accuse me of not articulating a point, yet we have these gems:

But the blow job! Remember the blow job! The blow job!

Thank you, kablam, ParisParamus, MattD, and others for helping make this all possible.

Congratulations, red states.

Just a tiny sample. All pure rhetoric.

And what could be more snarky than:

mommy'll be so proud of you.

But I'm the irrational/inarticulate one?

I think your bias is showing.
posted by justgary at 10:57 PM on November 18, 2004

I remember when 9/11 happened how the left thought we should be asking "why do they hate us?". Yet when it comes to people in their own country, there's very little "why are they voting republican?

Except that the left is by no means a monolithic force with one opinion -- if it had been, there'd likely be a different president right now -- and what you describe just isn't true. There's lots of "why are they voting Republican?" analysis, chatter, and post-election musing -- good lord, it's been all over the place (including MeFi) lately. And I think that yes, we should have been asking "why do they hate us?" You need to know your enemy and understand their motivations, chiefly because it aids you in their destruction. It's not some fuzzy-headed kum-bah-yah moment here...it's about figuring out how best to go after them, rather than rattling around and posturing and seeing the world in strictly dualistic terms.

And I'm certainly not saying that people of the left persuasion can't be snarky. (We certainly can be, and often are.) But I also see them articulating a political philosophy.
posted by Vidiot at 6:32 AM on November 19, 2004

There's lots of "why are they voting Republican?" analysis, chatter, and post-election musing -- good lord, it's been all over the place (including MeFi) lately.

Well, maybe it's the glasses we're looking through. All I see is comments that the north should secede, the south is ignorant, the map with jesus land, etc, not to mention articles on some very popular blogs about simply forgetting the south (let them reap what they sow).

When in reality florida was won by a small margin, ohio also, and if you look at northern states millions of people voted for bush with some even being close.

So the whole black and white of south = dumb, north=smart just doesn't work.

I did not vote for bush, nor kerry. When you look at how the public felt about the war and the economy, as well as bush's job approval, there's no way in hell he should have won. So if the left wishes to win in future elections, it's going to take more than bush is bad to win. The left needs a candidate that makes people want to vote for him. Anyone but bush failed.

But I don't think people like fenriq grasp that at all. I'm not against their views, but their methods. How long until fenriq posts another negative link? (he already did). And no one cares, except those already in his camp. So if they honestly want the republicans around for humor, they're going about it the right way.

Anyway, thanks for responding to my question.
posted by justgary at 3:07 PM on November 19, 2004