DeLay had a "fact vs fiction" sheet written and distributed to his supporters. You can find it here.

I'll highlight a few of the most important points.

-Out of nine charges brought by democrats, 8 were dismissed entirely after hearing the case, and 1 was deferred at DeLay's request.

-This was BEFORE the rule change!

-One of the democrats (Chris Bell) who brought the suits was found to be the only ones in violation of the ethics rules. Extra-inflammatory verbiage was used to attract media attention, which is strictly forbidden.

-The rule change did more than require a majority to open an investigation. It allowed the defendant to publicly plead their case.

-DeLay asked for the rules to be left unchanged! He thought the Democrats would use it as a distraction from the Republican agenda.


Now after reading that, especially the last part, I have a whole new take on the situation. Democrats were bringing up all these bogus charges against DeLay. In retaliation, the Republicans decided to require a vote to start investigations. DeLay wanted to leave the rules unchanged because he KNEW democrats would say what they are now saying. "They changed the rules to protect DeLay."

Half-truths are the most dangerous. They passed the change to protect DeLay, but also any other congressman from frivolous charges. The sad fact remains for Democrats that DeLay has never been found to be in violation of any ethical rules.

This attack looks more and more partisan everyday. Convenient that everything I've heard about the rules changes leaves out the fact that DeLay didn't want it.

There is an 'ethics truce' ... when was the last time ANYONE got nailed for an ethics violation on the Hill? (that could have been covered up, anyway) Was he exxonerated or 'admonished' because of lack of evidence? He was usually slapped on the wrist.

If you just listen to Delay, then, of course - he's as clean as a mountain stream! never ever did anything wrong! (Delay "Ever is a strong word")

What record is there of Delay not wanting the changes? Any actual documentation? Besides, there is public talk and backroom talk. If he really didn't want the changes, he would not have acepted his getting placed on the ethics committee himself


What about this one? A Republican making charges...



You are already suspicious of the Medicare bill...

As Winston Churchill once quoted, "A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on." Fortunately for the truth, it eventually catches up and then surpasses the lie. Sort of like the Uncle Rhemus tale of the Tortoise and the haire.

At this time, the Democrat leadership is still scoring points on Delay, but as the truth gets out more to the public, the lie will turn against them. Provided he is allowed to take the continued punishment long enough.

Democrats would be best advised to ensure that they have substance to their accusations. Because eventually this will come back to sting them even more than they have already.

You seem quite confident that Delay is an utterly honest fellow, John L. How did this come about?

You are putting words in my mouth. I did not state that he was an utterly honest fellow. But I have a few things going for me in my pronouncement. First, in the position he is in, he would be an utter fool to break the law, or the rules of the House. And Second, if you can find one case where he went over the line in the rules department, I would like to know, as I haven't found any real breeches of the rules. Close, sure, but that is what lines are drawn for.

The problem is that it is perfectly admissable for one side to do these things, certain Democrats such as Harry Reed himself, and then accuse the opponent of the same thing. Joseph Goerbles was great at this sort of thing, and made it into an institution. And this is so ironic, because the political left is composed of mostly friendly fascists anyway. So, I am not surprised here.

But instead of actually screaming at the top of their lungs, pointing fingers, and hurling accusations, why don't both sides settle of arbitration from an unbiased party or parties to settle things? And while they are at it, let's allow them to also put the other side under the same microscope, and see where the real problem is coming from.

Do you think that your Dems would consent to this? Don't hold your breath!

Clinton would have had to be an utter fool to fool around.

And if you want to liken anyone to Georbles, then I think Rove is your man.

The Dems are the root cause of everything, you say?

I know the Dems have some major ethics problems, *as do the Republicans* How come I get the feeling that anything less than THE DEMOCRATS ARE RUINING AMERICA!!!! automatically places me in the "leftist' catagory?

Do a little research. There is a de facto truce on ethics investigations in Congress. I forget his name, but the NJ guy that was brought down before the last election was the Republicanbs breaking the truce. The Dems said "You kill our dog, we'll kill your dog" and are going after Delay.

Both sides have a lot of dirt. yes, we need to investigate them. No, NEITHER side wants to be investigated. Thats why the Republicans put in the new "automatically dismiss a claim" clause.

He was and he did. And look where it got him. If he were so worried about his legacy, he would not have allowed his "other brain" to have ruled the one between his shoulders.



A pure case of "wishful thinking" on your part. Just because you wish it to be so does not make it so. Just like the comparison of Bush being like Hitler. All this does is diminish one's intellectual position in front of others, and tell them that it is emotion, not logic, that is in control of that person. Are you taking notes here?



Certainly not! As a "True" Liberal, I would be a shoe-in for Democratic membership. After all, it is the party of Jefferson. Unfortunately, Jefferson must surely be rolling over in his grave, to see what his party has become. It is neither Liberal, nor interested in the very principles that he intended.

Instead, it has been hijacked by the Collectivist elements within this country, and is now the minority party for that very reason. Until the party 'rank and file' expells these "collectivist opportunitists", it will remain so. Trust me. And the only reason why they remain fairly competitive is that they must constantly lie and hide their true intentions, which is the eventual implimentation of Fascism. And please do not argue with me here, as I know well what I am talking about.



I have not stated that. However, it places you in the "ignorant and complacent" category. And it is the Democratic leadership that is not ruining America, but their own party! And if you are willing to concede that both have an ethics problem, are you also stating that a lessor degree of one party equals the greater degree of the other?

This is typical of a party that has been in majority control for too many years. During the second half of the 19th century and early 20th, it was the Republicans. For the last 70 years, it has been the Democrats. When one party gains power and the other loses it's competitive edge, the pary in prominence becomes complacent, and leans toward the seedier side of politics. Today, that is the Democrats.

It is the Democrats who are the true conservatives. They oppose change, whether it is for the good or not. They are digging in their heels and pointing dishonest fingers at the other side, accusing them of the very thing that they are doing. If you are unable to see that, you need help: along with millions of other Democrats walking around with blinders. If you like being minority status, then, by all means, keep them on.



The Democrats realize that without an Ethics Committee, they can say and do what they please, and no ethics committee will be able to bring judgement on them. It is pure politics, and up to you to see this rather than take what they say for granted. And they are after Delay because he is extremely effective in marshaling the Republican members. He is also a tough cookie under his soft spoken exterior, and the Dems realize that if they don't get rid of him, they are in trouble. Hense, the screaming and accusations. The amount of truth in their charges is outstripped by far with the hyprocricy involved. I'm not a Republican and I can see that: why can't you? Is it partisanship perhaps?



What you are stating here is that you are willing to concede moral fibre for moral relativity. Enough of the Democratic rank and file, including you, need to get a back bone, roll up your sleeves, and clean house. Oh, and forget all this 'wishey washey' Collectivist drivel. Get back to the Founder's intent, and allow M. Jefferson to relax in his grave. Then prehaps this classic Liberal may be inclied to 'come home' so to speak.

Yes, hypocrisy notes. You, are, afterall, the one who brought up "certain Democrats such as Harry Reid" as being Georbles-like.

In other news, Delay, a Senator, could not be a fool because opf his position, but Clinton, a President, can? Where is the formula here? Why does Delay get the "Opps - can't be a fool" bonus? Could it be because of his party registration?

... Oh right - sorry ... "The Collectivists" are the root cause of everything evil then?




I fail to follow your logic. You are tryiong to put words in my mouth to defond your own views. I just said that both parties have criminals.
You seem to be saying that one party is beter than the other (unless it changes back,. of course) and therefore its indescresions should be looked over. I fail to follow this logic, too.

Also, you didn't address my comment about the reality of the Hill, about the Ethics Truce. You instead, accused the Democrats of not wanting an Ethics Committee. It seems unfathomable that Republicans might not want Ethics violations, either. This seems wholly unsupported by evidence, especially in light of the Republicans recent Ethics rewrite.

To be fair, Jefferson's boys were called the Democratic-Republicans. It was shortened to Democrats sometime ago by some editorially inclined historians.

Being 'Georbles-Like' means that one shares certain major characteristics with his known proclivities. The Democratic Leadership continually displays Fascist characteristics, because they are constantly aiming to impose Fascist policies on this country. All this "Third Way" rheotric by leftist leaders is 'code' for Fascism.

And M. Reid has clearly given up his prior position of just a year ago to that of the rest of the Democratic Leadership. Now he has become the 'front man' for the Leftist elements within the party that is being controlled by them. With Georbles, his position was the same as the one he started out with. Can you say the same for the Senate Minority Leader?

Tell me Expat, how much is you integrity and good name worth? For M. Reid it was the Senate Minority Leadership. Clearly that was his price.



First off, Delay is not a Senator: he is a Representative of the US House. There is a difference here. But most telling is that you are exposing your ignorance of things political. Am I surprised? No! your past postings fortify your slip here.

But that aside, the 'formula' is simple. Delay is not 'blessed' with one character trait that Bubba has. Simply stated, Delay's brain is not between his legs. Any leader who allows his 'Johnson' to rule the rest of his body is a true Fool. Would you not agree? Or are you willing to trade your good name and integrity for failure to admit this obvious statement?



Of course not! Ted Bundy was not a Collectivist and he was evil. However, Collectivist theory and application is the root cause of a sizable protion of it. And if you refuse to acknowledge this, you are either intellectually lazy, or intellectually dishonest: or both!



Follow my logic here, if possible. I am stating that equating the shortcomings/crimes/actions/problems/etc, of one group or individual of lessor degree to one of major degree, is either not using all one's computing power, or is attempting to run interference to the later. Are you stating that one who is caught speeding is just as bad as one who resorts to armed robbery? Or murder? Be careful of what you defend? Your reputation is at stake here.



I am not surprised. I am still trying to decide whether you are being 'intellectually lazy' or 'intellectually dishonest'. For now, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the former over the later. Naturally one party is not inheritally better than the other, unless it is the positions of the members who contribute to its reputation, one way or the other.

Note that I have previously stated that I am a Jeffersonian Liberal. Now Jefferson started a certain party, that is(?). If you say Democrat,.........You Win!! now, if the Party of Jefferson still followed the beliefs of Jefferson, I would certainly be a Democat. But it is not, and I am not.

Why? Because certain menbers and leaders over time have perverted it's principles and embraced all the Franco/German Collectivist manure that has spread around the world, including this country. Hence, if the Republicans publically repudiate this type of philosophy, it is my honest, and accutate opinion, that the Republicans are, in fact, better than the 'so called' Democrats at this time.

This does not let the Republicans off the hook either. It is just that they are far more preferrable to the Democrats for the above explanation. And if you continue to swallow this Democratic "Kool-aid", you are not as bright as you attempt to convey.



Sigh,............................... . What truce? And of course the Dems do not wish to have an Ehics Committee, because a new Ethics Committee would go after ALL Bad Ethics of BOTH parties. Naturally the Republicans would make sure of this, AFTER attacking the Delay issue. And are you capable of taking a guess as to just who they would go after? If you say Republicans,...............You Lose!!

Come On!! Please put some of that 'grey matter' to work rather than using it to sit upon. You are again naturally assuming that all of your steeds are clean as the pure driven snow. Perhaps you are spending too much time at MoveOn or DemocraticUnderground. You must seriously venture out into the "Real" world for a change and read about ALL the interested parties. You are making things too easy for me. Make me work at this!

And, although I opposed the rule change, I'm serious here, I can fully understand the reason. What we have here is a local Democratic Texas Prosecutor, who is blatantly partisan, and who uses his office to create trouble for the opposition by conveniently using the power of 'indictment' to tarnish the reputations of others. He has done so numerous times in the past, and continues to do so now.

And he is doing this as a result of the case of the "fleeing Democrat Texan legislators" over the state's redistricting issue. Obviously you did not pay attention to that. You were probably busy reading about how GWB is just like Hitler.
He is supremely vexed over the fact that Delay informed the Republican led legislature of their whereabouts in Oklahoma, thus leading to their eventual recall, redistricting of the state, and the rest is history.

And since 'current' Democrats are afflicted with more emotion than logic, or common sense, they hate Delay and are out to get him. Are you jotting this down for later review? And according to the rules of the House, an indicted leader must stand down. So guess who throws out indictments 'willey nilley' as a weapon of choice? If you say that it is the local Democratic prosecutor who just happens to have local jurisdiction over the voting district Delay represents, You Win!!

Expat, you are making things to easy for me here. As Ronnie VanZant once exclaimed, "D@mn, I haven't broken out in a Sweat yet!", before diving into "Free Bird". You have got to make me work at this, or I will become bored and find another challenge.



You are right Ben, but I simply did not wish to overload Expat's harddrive. I am trying to teach him the basics first. Then I will, with perhaps your help, attempt to give him something a bit harder.

THings are only esy for you, John L, because you are still completely missing what I am saying in favor of some strange "class warfare" stuff.

You are also saying things like "There is an Ethics truce because the DEMOCRATS want it." Last time I checked, a truce is at minimum a 2 party affrair. The democrats do not want a new Ethics Committee. I said so myself. But neither do the Republicans. For the same reason.

So keep on thinking that Republican Delay is an unfortunate little angel being preyed upon by an evil prosecutor.

Oh - you want to name everyone poitician who's ever had an affair as an 'utter fool' because Clinton did? Thats geat. Keep 'em coming. And let me know when your next set at The Laugh Inn is. I'll make sure to come down. I *am* a sucker for stand up.