Tom DeLay

[Zimri]

I've been thinking of doing this for a while, and while I may not be consistent every week, I wanted to start a weekly thread on various political topics.

This week, I'd like to talk about Tom Delay and how the Republicans have handled the media stories surrounding him.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2005Mar13.html

First and foremost, Republicans need to reign this guy in. He's a great power broker and has really been key into getting a plethora of Republicans elected to the house. Unfortunately, the power has made him prideful and arrogant and he simply refuses to acknowledge that certain things "smell bad" regardless of whether his actions are technically "unethical". For example, paying his wife and daughter almost $500,000 in salaries from his pack doesn't sit right with over 70% of the US. (As reported by Bill OReilly, of all people, based on his online poll). www.billoreilly.com

I utterly disagree with the Republican's efforts to change House ethics rules (which they did last year) and for protecting him -no matter what- simply because he's a Republican House leader. This is ludicrous. Arrogance with position is what led to the Contract on America in 94 and the rise of republicans, because Democrats had been arrogant and self-serving for years. Now, a decade later, the Republicans are doing the very same thing that the liberals did for decades, and it disappoints me. America is in a need for ethical, upfront leadership that possess enough character to call a spade a spade. If one of your members does something that doesnt smell right - you correct them. Publically if need be. They should know better. Even if such actions might be legal and ethical, -everyone- knows by now that the opposing party is going to use -anything- they can to smear you (and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are expert muckrakers).

The -only- way to defeat the advance and continued denigration of "the politics of personal destruction" is to maintain such high moral, ethical and legal standards, that you -never, ever- do -anything- which can be questioned. Sort of like what my parents taught me when I was young - "when in doubt, don't do it." Tom Delay could benefit alot, and even moreso, benefit the american view of the US government and the Republicans by adopting a similar view.

Fighting public image slander by democrats should not be based upon a hope that you can convince people what you did wasn't unethical, immoral or illegal; it should be be based on NOT DOING ANYTHING QUESTTIONABLE from the start.

On the other hand, I continue to be amazed at how vindicative, mean spirited, angry, spiteful, hateful and poisonous so many liberals and Democrats are after losing the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections. They continue to beat the "anti iraq war drum" and US intelligence gong (IE, Look at the senate confirmation hearings for Sec. of State Condi Rice, National Int. Director Negroponte, US Amb. to the UN.

Regardless, this spiteful, vindictive attitude is -precisely- why conservatives and the Republicans need to maintain a mugh higher ethical, moral standard. The American people are tired of slander and lies, of attacks, and self-serving acts. By maintaining a higher stance, the party that now represents the majority viewpoint in America (and yes, I'd love to debate this with anyone) can continue to demonstrate that it cares for the US and its people above politics, their jobs, and their power in Washington. Mr. Delay, take note.

[kestra]

The -only- way to defeat the advance and continued denigration of "the politics of personal destruction" is to maintain such high moral, ethical and legal standards, that you -never, ever- do -anything- which can be questioned.

Looks good on paper, yet humanity is inherently flawed. I believe your position is rather unrealistic.
Whether your a democrat or a republican, neither side is holier than the other; and to suggest otherwise is naive.
Both sides are guilty of slander, and neither party really deserves to run the country.
Also, how do you come to the conclusion that the majority of America is pro-republican, considering the outcome of the last election?

[Graeblyn]

Originally posted by kestra
Also, how do you come to the conclusion that the majority of America is pro-republican, considering the outcome of the last election?

Kestra, please take a look at the following link from CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pag...lts/president/

You will see that based on the outcome of the last Presidential election, the majority of active American voters are pro-republican.

[kestra]

48% to 51% for the republicans. Yes, a statistical majority, but not by much.

The -only- way to defeat the advance and continued denigration of "the politics of personal destruction" is to maintain such high moral, ethical and legal standards, that you -never, ever- do -anything- which can be questioned.

This is an impossibility. Whether you are a politician or a garbage man, our actions can be questioned at any time by anyone.
Morality depends on your point of view.
Some saw taking Terri Schiavo off her tube as immoral, while others saw keeping it in as pointless.
Many muslims around the world see western culture as immoral, and vice versa. These are just a couple examples on how no one person,political party or culture epitomizes morality.

Your ideas and hopes have been spoken throughout the ages, Zimri.
To go out on a bit of a philosophical/religious note, humanity will always be less than moral, completely ethical and will continue to be selfish until we undergo a fundamental evolutionary change on a mental or spiritual level.(kinda like how Jesus preached, I guess)

I know, I know.....stop smoking the weed dude!!

[Zimri]

Wow, I never thought I'd catch a fish this quick!!!

American's are pro-republican right now. As for your words "considering the outcome of the last election" I have only one response - where the HELL have you been. Well Kestra, perhaps you could remove your head from whereever you keep it. Not only did Bush win the MAJORITY of the popular vote (and thus also the electoral college), but he also was the first presidential candidate to do this in 20 years. Even the Democrat's post boy, Bill Clinton, wasn't able to accomplish that feat despite trying to label himself as a centrist moderate (which is absurd).

Second, look at (1) the states that have republican governors outnumber democratic states by 6 - 29 to 21 (count the pictures - 29 states and guan). http://www.rga.org/?page_id=51 (2) Look at the US congress, where Republicans INCREASED the number of US Senators for a third election in a row www.senate.gov and (3) look at the US House www.house.gov. You can try to argue or deny these facts, but they CLEARLY demonstrate that the United States people favor Republicants in every single major office at the state and federal level. Thats what i call pro-Rebuplican. You can't spin that, honey.

On another point, I agree with you - humanity is inherently flawed. Although I don't plan to get into this topic in depth, its called inherent sin in the judeo-christian community. The fact that humanity has flaws does not preclude one party from having a superior moral viewpoint. If your position were true, then, lets say the Bolsheviks or the Nazi party are just as "moral" as any other party. Clearly, thats wrong. Yes, both parties are guilty of slander. Neither side is "holier" either. But the issue to me is - which party represents the majority of Americans' viewpoints, traditional values of the American legal and economic system, conservative values, democracy, capitalism, - the foundations of the U.S. The party that represents these values is morally superior. Socialism and communism (and I'm inviting tons of argument here) are denigrations of human spirit and truly seek to subjugate the human individual to the needs of the whole. Thats morally inferior. Unfortunately, brevity is necessary (I could probably write a treatise on this). But, the bottom line is, even if you don't think any party is "morally superior", that the Republicans represent the view of more of the United States' population than Democrats. If they act irresponsibly, unethically, immorally or otherwise even engage in acts that "do not pass the smell test", they will lose that representation, which shows them also irresponsible.

Next, you opine: "This is an impossibility. Whether you are a politician or a garbage man, our actions can be questioned at any time by anyone. Morality depends on your point of view. " Well, i'm glad to see your hope for any type of morality or ethics in politics. Way to be a naysayer. Further, you are -partially- correct. Anyone can question anyone else. However, if that person's questions are constantly over the most assine things in the world, over the most trivial of matters that continually demonstrate pure hatred and spite, that person loses respect, influence and their opinions are less valued in the future. Thus, by -not- doing things that are questionable or toe the line, while people -may- question them, the questioners risk MUCH MUCh more by trying to engage in personal destruction. Basically, petty bickering and hatred shows itself what it is - pure bias on nothing more than personal hatred.

As for your "evolutionary spiritual or mental change" - you're nuts.

Thank you.

[kestra]

However, if that person's questions are constantly over the most assine things in the world, over the most trivial of matters that continually demonstrate pure hatred and spite, that person loses respect, influence and their opinions are less valued in the future. Thus, by -not- doing things that are questionable or toe the line, while people -may- question them, the questioners risk MUCH MUCh more by trying to engage in personal destruction. Basically, petty bickering and hatred shows itself what it is - pure bias on nothing more than personal hatred.

Yes, the keyword there is 'IF'.
To question someone's actions does not automatically imply an attempt at character assasination.

If they act irresponsibly, unethically, immorally or otherwise even engage in acts that "do not pass the smell test", they will lose that representation, which shows them also irresponsible.

Clearly that didn't happen with the 2004 election. I believe scare tactics played a huge part in the Republican election campaign.(Cheney implying the chances of America being attacked again would increase with Kerry in power) Plus the fact that John Kerry has zero pizzazz and personality.

Invading a country based on shitty intelligence is what I call irresponsible and immoral. Yet Bush is re-elected. The US could have promoted democracy in Iraq peacefully,
but then they wouldn't have permanent bases in the country, would they? But I'm getting off track.

So the Republicans currently reflect the majority of Americans? So be it. Bush is also at his lowest rating, as is Congress.

Well, i'm glad to see your hope for any type of morality or ethics in politics. Way to be a naysayer.

Given the current state of affairs up here with our government in Canada, let me just say I have good reason.

As for your "evolutionary spiritual or mental change" - you're nuts.

They said the same thing about Jesus, too.
While it is possible for us all to act and be moral, we all have our faults, temptations, and weaknesses.
With politicians, it always seems to be on a much grander scale, with far bigger and further reaching consequences.

[Aristotle]

Tom DeLay has always bothered me. Everything about him just screams POLITICIAN to me. That's a bad thing, by the way.

I do not think he is unethical nor do I think he is corrupt. He doesn't seem to understand that just because something isn't wrong, doesn't mean there is not a better way to do something.

The recent issue is an interesting one because so many politicians have family members that work for them. While this seems outrageous at first, think about how many businesses have family members who work for them for one huge reason: trust. It is usually easier to trust family.

Having family members work for you is not unethical for a reason I guess. Despite this, one would think there are ways to disclose things very, very openly (excessively openly even) so someone can never say "hey, whatta ya mean he's got his kid on the payroll." For example, Dick Cheney's daughter was paid pretty highly to work on his campaign but it was never an issue because her position was so visible and thus it did not seem underhanded.

[Graeblyn]

Originally posted by Aristotle
The recent issue is an interesting one because so many politicians have family members that work for them. While this seems outrageous at first, think about how many businesses have family members who work for them for one huge reason: trust. It is usually easier to trust family.

Having family members work for you is not unethical for a reason I guess. Despite this, one would think there are ways to disclose things very, very openly (excessively openly even) so someone can never say "hey, whatta ya mean he's got his kid on the payroll." For example, Dick Cheney's daughter was paid pretty highly to work on his campaign but it was never an issue because her position was so visible and thus it did not seem underhanded.

The only problem with this is that the implication of the criticism is that these relatives are not on the campaign or private employee payroll of DeLay but rather government employees on DeLay's congressional staff. While who DeLay may hire for his campaign or for his private affairs is none of my concern, my tax dollars going to what appears to be nepotism and influence peddling is bothersome.

That said, this appears to be a widespread problem, so I don't particularly see any point in singling out DeLay. Rather, this is just another in a long list of reasons why politicians are generally so slimy.

[Aristotle]

Originally posted by Graeblyn
The only problem with this is that the implication of the criticism is that these relatives are not on the campaign or private employee payroll of DeLay but rather government employees on DeLay's congressional staff. While who DeLay may hire for his campaign or for his private affairs is none of my concern, my tax dollars going to what appears to be nepotism and influence peddling is bothersome.

That said, this appears to be a widespread problem, so I don't particularly see any point in singling out DeLay. Rather, this is just another in a long list of reasons why politicians are generally so slimy.

I believe the situation is that DeLay's wife and daughter were being paid out of his campaign contribution coffers, not tax payer dollars.

[Zimri]

Yes, they are employed by his Political Action Committee, which was set up specifically to work on getting Republican candidates elected. They are not paid with public, tax payer funds.

This issue continues to get hot and nationwide press. On monday, he sent a letter to constituents.

I agree with him to a large extent - the Democrats are going after him purely for political purposes now.