(Politics) Tom DeLay, whiny maggotweasel.
 

(this is not a Democrat vs Republican debate, just me and my personal feelings about this scumwaad)

See this guy?

His latest whine to his supporters says that he's being targeted because people hate "Reagan-era conservatives".

Would that be the same Reagan-era conservatives in state and federal courts that turned down your blatant pander to the Religious Right on Terri Schiavo and the same group you advocating stripping of power as judicial activists?

Most, if not all politicians are lying bags of crap who would sell their mother into slavery if it thought they would get ahead by it, but DeLay is the worst of the bunch. If there was a line of people to kick him in the ass, I'd pay $100 to stand in line for hours.

I'm actually a Reagan-era Republican...and a Bush Sr. era one too - or at least I voted for both.

Tom DeLay, you are not a Reagan-era Republican. You're a thief, a scumbag and a political opportunist, pure and simple.

I think that if he and Hillary Clinton got together and took this on tour we could solve the deficit right there.

DING! We have a winner! Thread over.

Actually, I'd trade Hillary for Ted Kennedy, Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson.

Time to get my size 12 in motion!

I saw a bumper sticker on a truck with Texas plates driving around here the other day that said "We Need to Improve Texas Without Delay." Thought that was pretty good.

how do you think being called a maggotweasle and a scumbag makes the Delay family feel?

I dunno, you can go ask them as they cash checks from DeLay's PAC.

I guess they're proud of their scumbag maggotweasel.

You're right it's not a Republican Democrat thing, because Democrats like "Dingy" Harry and Barbara Boxer are just as guilty of things that don't pass the "smell test" as Delay -- but for some reason, the story about Delay is big news, I guess because he's a Republican.

No, it's because he's been admonished three seperate times by the ethics committee, and tried to have the rules changed to make it harder for the ethics committee to start investigations.

As far as I can recall, Reid and Boxer have never been admonished by the ethics committee.

hell.. if Barbara Boxer, facing numerous ethics charges, stated that she was being unfairly targeted because she is a Kennedy-like (or Clinton-era for more modern times) Democrat.. I'd be just as pissed off.

Tom Delay is not being targeted because he's a Reagan-ish conservative.. he's being targeted because he's a lying, whiny bully who radiates chutzxpah.

When I lived in Houston (so that this stuff mattered more to me), I disliked John Culberson because I disagreed with his politics. I scorned Tom Delay because he's an ass.

I didn't think too much of Sheila Jackson-Lee, either.

Praised.

Oh God, it's always the liberal media, always. :rolleyes:

Delay is under fire because he's a leader within the party and since he tried to get the rules changed in his favor.

Actually, if you read The Hill (hardly a conservative paper, btw) on a regular basis, you'd have read over a month ago that none other than George Soros is bankrolling the effort to oust Delay. His groups like Democracy 21 were the first to bang the drum about Delay, and papers like the Washington Post and the NYTimes picked up the stories... quoting the Soros-funded groups quite extensively.

Yes, Delay had his wife and daughter on the payroll of his re-election campaign. That's pretty common. The AP last week had a lengthy list of some of the politicians (I know the list was incomplete, because they left off Bernie Sanders of Vermont) who have family members on the payroll.

I hate to blame the liberal media, but in this case I think the shoe fits. The first Delay story I remember reading concerned his trip to South Korea. The paper finally mentioned the fact that a Nancy Pelosi staffer went on the exact same trip somewhere around paragraph 19.

The media could be doing some really interesting stories on just how widespread some of these situations really are... but then they'd have to point out that people on both sides of the aisle are doing the exact same things.

I never gave much thought to Tom Delay before now, but after seeing how the press and the liberal groups are trying to take him down... I'm gonna support the guy.

If the shoe fits...

And if it doesn't.. hammer it on there anyway. It's close enough! The fact that the shoe doesn't fit is the liberal media's fault anyway!

Even if what you say is true, its sickening that you would support him just because he's being attacked. HE COMMITTED ETHICS VIOLATIONS. That fact seems to be lost in all this. Conservatives excuse for everything they do wrong these days is a liberal media. Own up for once, take some responsibility for your actions and don't politicize them.

So you are suggesting that Soros paid the Republican members of the ethics committee that unanimously voted to admonish him three seperate times last year? Maybe Soros is bankrolling an attack on him, but the spark that led to these intense attacks were the admonishments. Without those bi-partisan admonishments, you wouldn't see the level of focus on DeLay.

We all agree that Congressmen regularly do shady things. So they are a bit immune to the acts committed. But if members of both parties agree unanimously that someone committed an act requiring an admonishment for behavior reflecting badly on Congress, then that to me had to show pretty bad behavior.

So, let me get this perfectly clear, if you break the law, you're cool as long as it's the other guys paper that reports it? I mean, it doesn't matter, right? If it's the other guy then it's simply a media thing right?

No matter that someone slanted to your side has no reason to, no, in fact has every reason NOT to report it; that doesn't have meaning. If it's not reported by your side then it didn't happen.

Kinda like it was the liberals who created the infamous Schiavo memo right? That never really happened did it? We all read the republican blogs, it was a liberal lie, right

Oh sorry, the republican involved admitted it, crap. What are we to do?

Nothing, damage control has already closed the door since it was reported first by the other side.

How can partisans on either side sleep at night?

But even more, how can the scumbags who ostensibly call themselves defenders of the countries morals do it?

Oh right, they've admitted they take that stand to get votes.

The thought sickens.

BTW, did Ted Kennedy ever take responsibility for Chappequidick?

So, clear this up for me. The level of your moral understanding is, if the other guy does it, it's ok for my guy to do it?

Didn't your mother ever ask you "If Joey jumped off the cliff, would you jump off the cliff?"

If not, I'd blame bad parenting for your lack of morals. ;)

Open your eyes.

It is telling when many actual Reagan-era conservatives are calling Delay out for being a total scumbag. The man deserves to be thrown out of office for consistently breaking the rules.

Jeebus, you have an unhealthy fixation on Ted Kennedy. I'm surprised you haven't asked if Warren G. Harding ever took responsibility for the Teapot Dome scandal.

I never mentioned Ted Kennedy, and in that respect, Kennedy is wrong also he should have taken responsibility for his actions.

My point is, stop defending Delay.

Why should he ask that? He has his token example which exonerates all actions by his party of choice. Life is good to him.

And, by the way, he did. Here is a link to the text of it. It may not be what you wanted to hear, and you can believe it or not, but he came out in public right afterwards and spoke.

hxxp://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/tedkennedychappaquiddick.htm

No, I'm just saying clean up your own party before getting all morally outraged over what the other guys do.

Besides, I've noticed that Republican constituents tend to be a lot harder on their representatives than Democrats. When I lived in Arkansas, Tim Hutchinson rode to the Senate on the white horse of "family values." While in the Senate, he had an affair with one of his staffers and subsequently divorced his wife. His hypocrisy in this area cost him the next election as his base deserted him. On the other hand, having sex with a staffer, and subsequently trying to cover it up for a year or two only seemed to boost Clinton's support from his constituents.

To me, Ted Kennedy is the epitomy of the slime-ball politican, and has been for a very, very, very long time.

A truly moral man doesn't judge his morality on the actions of others nor does he excuse the actions of those professing this morality by comparing it with that of his opponents.

If neither side was claiming moral high ground your point would be valid but as the republics today wish to hold that position then they indeed need to hold their own members to a higher standard and they are hypocrites when political expediency causes them to do otherwise.

It shows them to be hypocrites.

If the Republicans had followed this line of reasoning, they never would have regained control of the House. It was the attacks led by Newt Gingrich that caused Jim Wright to be forced out as Speaker of the House. The main charge leveled at Wright was that in lieu of an honorarium for speaking, he asked to have copies of his book bought.

hxxp://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/tedkennedychappaquiddick.htm

:rolleyes:

Agreed actually so why would you hold your own party member to such a low standard? I do believe in the sincerity of your beliefs but I also believe you aren't thinking this through enough.

Incorrect, it simply shows that power corrupts -- and the Democrats have as long, if not a longer, record of shame as the Republicans.

dola...but as long as we continue to send these slimeballs (both Republicans and Democrats) back because "they do a good job for us," nothing will change.

Like I said, you probably wouldn't agree with or believe what he said, but he at least came out and said something, and pled guilty to a crime.

So a record of shame is ok by you then? I really don't get that, unless you are amoral. Shouldn't Jesus have tithed the hell out of his followers then instead of kicking the temple's ass then? I mean, he could have given a 10% discount and not been as shameful as they were, using your logic.

Can't use this one now, I'm already using it...unless you agree with me that is. :)

That's all fine and good but his initial actions were unconsciousable and horribly wrong. I can't forgive that, not and still respect him as a leader anyway.

I don't know, Soros and his shadow groups have been on Delay for the better part of the year. With all the press the issue had been getting, many congressmen were feeling a little antsy on everything and wanted it to go away. So, it's not surprising they held a hearing last Sept and voted to warn Delay - hoping they wouldn't be next in the crosshairs. Here's an interesting story that just came out in the Washington Times:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/natio...2653-1991r.htm

There is a pretty big stench of political opportunism here by some groups from the left. As Cam cited, many other prominent congressmen have had their own family on the payroll and many of the other accusations (attending a fundraiser - for instance) seem pretty petty. Hopefully, we will get a chance to see Delay make his case and then be able to decide for ourselves. To this point, most of the reports on this have been glossed over press releases by Soros' groups.

No, I just find it laughable that everyone is ready to hang Delay based on news reports fed to the media by Soros backed hit-groups. Let's wait until we have a "stained dress" before crucifying the guy, sound fair?

I wholeheartedly agree, but can you see ANY current politician pleading guilty to a crime? Anyone today would go to trial, no matter how open and shut a case is.

But you can't say that he never claimed any responsibility or completely dodged the matter, as was inferred earlier.

Interesting story, but this is what Delay is saying, his claims. Since he's a Republican you're willing to completely listen and take everything he takes as fact, without even questioning whether he's lying or not. You know he's a politician right?

Oh, I agree but I have NEVER said I base my decisions on who I want as a political leader on their morals though.

I hold a very, very strong opinion on how moral people should act and no politician can ever meet that nor should they necessarily; it would make them a weak leader.

My only point was, if you indeed use this as a voting point, and you excuse the actions of those you elect, then you're a hypocrite and I feel strongly about that.

That being said, and to answer the posts by Arles and SFL CAT, I'd love to see this get a fair hearing and if he did nothing wrong ( not found not guilty but IMHO was shown to have done nothing wrong ), then I would not hold that against the man.

Personally, I find that scenario hard to believe but not impossible. Dude had to know that the eyes of the world are on him. Politics today are a world different than even in Teddy's day.

I would prefer to see some actual facts and evidence either way regarding these accusations. So far, there's been a lot of speculation, but not much substance. I certainly don't plan on taking Delay's "word" on things, no more than I plan on taking the word of Soros. But, if either side has some information to help clear up these events, I would be more than happy to hear that before deciding either way.

Of course, we KNOW a major news outlet *CBS* would NEVER air or report a story *CBS* trying to take down or discredit a political figure *CBS* unless it was ABSOLUTELY true *CBS* and the facts of the story were completely verified *CBS*

"Dewey defeats Truman" - The Chicago Daily Tribune

Just posting an example from the other side. ;)

Translated that for you.

How generous of you. Would you be willing to describe to us what falls under the tent of "wrong"? :p

Agreed here. Even John McCain, whom I hold in very high regard, has been involved in a few "no-nos" this year. Here's one:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/p...ain-donor.html

This, IMO, is much worse than what Delay is being "accused" of doing. Again, I am more than willing to chalk this up as an oversight on McCain's end until more info is available (as many of the same people that have railed Delay have done), but it would be nice the see Delay get afforded that same courtesy. Then again, McCain didn't piss off numerous well-funded action groups and the media columnists like Delay did. So, it's not surprising there is a bit of a double standard.

Honestly, no I can't because I can't put what I will consider right from wrong in a tidy box and present it, especially knowing as little about the current situation as I do. All I can honestly say is that I will consider it and make a heartfelt judgement at the time; the same courtesy I have afforded President Bush and while I dislike the man I have come to his defense on this board, notably defending him in regards to the Michael Moore depiction of him during 9/11 and his actions at the school.

Feel free to google and accept or reject my honesty as you will.


I just moved here in february ( and Phoenix is even nicer than I'd hoped actually ) but already I can see that the national perception of the man isn't exactly the local perception which is not surprising. I don't know if this rises to the level of what DeLay is accused of but again, hold me to my statement if/when we get a fuller picture of what actually happened here.