Goodbye Tom DeLay

Remove all ads!

It appears that for now at least, Tom DeLay is political toast. It really is not that much of a surprise. Even his most diehard political fans had to see that he was in pretty deep. And this is a strong indication that the Republicans are in pretty bad shape (not that the Democrats are anything to crow about either). I still don't know what it will take to clean-up this system, but the exit of DeLay may be a pretty good start.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12141276/

 

Getting rid of a two party system would help as well. Two parties simply become too entrenched and too powerful to truly remain populist in nature. A true multi-party system would probably rejuvenate the electoral process for the time being as well. I believe it was Thomas Jefferson who stated that this form of Republic needed a revolution every 20 years to keep the electoral process working properly (and as well to make people realize how important what they have is).

I'm a "Democrat" simply because on the vast majority of social and economic issues I'm far left of center, but both parties are just so complacent.

However, what DeLay did helps enforce the idea that Repblicans are too closely connected with Big Business. Maybe however, only those who already believe that will "pick up" on it.

 

Damn that liberal media. They finally got the best of good ol' Tom.

Update: I think Josh Marshall says it best as:

Sounds about right to me. After all, he won the primary, so if the hammer wasn't about to fall, he wouldn't have dropped out.

Go Nick Lampson!

Second edit: Accidental Pun! "Hammer about to fall"...HA! Just re-read that realized how appropriate it was. Gawd I rule sometimes.

[ April 04, 2006, 06:41: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

 

Heh, no kiddin some good news indeed.

 

Now he can go be a corporate lobbyist in D.C. and earn seven figures. We'll never be rid of scum like him.

 

Maybe not. It's kind of interesting to speculate about what might have led to his resignation. Typically people like him do not give up power easily. It is very possible we'll see some new developements in the legal cases involving DeLay soon. My only question is, will it be the Texas campaign money stuff, or the Abramoff affair (although I suspect it is the Abramoff affair; some of DeLay's underlings just plead guilty a week or so ago in this case, and it is expected to cooperate with the prosecutors).

So prison time may very well be in the cards for DeLay.

 

From what I read it was really simple. With all of the dark clouds around him, he wasn't a shoe-in to win re-election and could quite possibly lose.

He chose to fade away rather than suffer a potential defeat.

 

If that's the case, then it was his own party that put pressure on him to resign. Let's face it - the Republicans are deeply concerned (and justifiably so IMO) of losing seats in Congress this fall. While it is extremely unlikely that they will lose control of the House of Representatives, it is reasonable to assume that they are going to lose some seats, and losing their majority in the Senate is a real possibility. So every seat matters. If the Republicans feel that his chances of winning are low, they may want him to step aside so that some other Republican, who has a better chance of being elected, can run in his place.

 

Or maybe because now he can use the campaign money he amassed for his legal defense: (WaP article):

That's quite cool, I did not know you can spend money you ostensibly gathered for a political purpose to stay out of jail.

 

Apparently, DeLay's not bowing out for doing anything wrong, it's cuz he's another valiant Christian crucified by godless libruls:

 

That's a very good point BTA. Why the hell is such a law on the books? It's presupposing criminal activity on the part of lawmakers. When was this law passed anyway?

In the end though, my thoughts on this are good ridance to bad rubbish and don't let the door whack you on the ass on the way out.

 

It's designed as a retirement fund of sorts. It's also not really plausable to return to the money to the donors. Too much mixup over who's money is who. Anyway, very few reps/senators actually abuse the law, as most announce quite some time before an election that they're retiring and contributions stop coming in.

 

it's a byproduct of the American electoral institution. Since canidates are not synonymous to political parties like in Europe, the party can't handle the money and charity isn't an option as people donated the money with the intent of the money going the canidate. The money would still have to be given to the canidate so he could donate it. The idea being you can't take something that isn't yours and use it for a purpose not intended by those who gave it.

The money was given with the intent to aid the canidate so the money goes to the only it was intended to go in the end.

 

True enough, but why could it not be given to whatever canidate the party decides to endorse following the current canidate's resigning/retirement.

 

...or given it to a charity, or used to fund a community development program, or somehow return it to the constituency at large. That money really should belong to the office, not the officeholder.

 

@ IS - Surely, though, support for a politician or their party is (or should be) a representation of the ideals for which that person or party stands, rather than for that specific person. The tendency to identify the person rather than the political office is confusing the issues of personality and policy, IMO.

Amen, Rally. Would that we had more politicians who saw their positions as responsibilities and duties first and foremost, not entitlements or pork barrels.