In my next life, the men I’d most want to be…
In my next life, I want to be Tom DeLay, the House majority leader.
Yes, I want to get almost the entire Republican side of the House of Representatives to bend its ethics rules just for me. I want to be able to twist the arms of House Republicans to repeal a rule that automatically requires party leaders to step down if they are indicted on a felony charge — something a Texas prosecutor is considering doing to DeLay because of corruption allegations.
But most of all, I want to have the gall to sully American democracy at a time when young American soldiers are fighting in Iraq so we can enjoy a law-based society here and, maybe, extend it to others. Yes, I want to be Tom DeLay. I want to wear a little American flag on my lapel in solidarity with the troops, while I besmirch every value they are dying for.
- Thomas L. Friedman
It’s been said (and Lord knows I’VE said it on multiple occasions) that Americans get exactly the quality of representation that they deserve. That being the case, and I believe it is, we are an exceedinly stupid and undemanding lot. How else can the voters of my district explain away Tom DeLay, the ethically- and morally-challenged House Hypeocrite-in-Chief…er, Majority Leader from Texas District 22- my district?
In DeLay we have a man who understands the symbolism of saying the right things and wearing his little American flag pin- while failing to grasp the true meaning of it. Of course, this does not matter to him, since all he truly cares about is his own personal self-aggrandizement and political empire building.
Tragically, the voters in my district were either too blind or stupid to recognize this truth, which is apparently blindingly obvious to everyone except those voters here in District 22.
There is nothing admirable about the hypocrisy with which DeLay conducts himself. In a world in which nothing matters save for the aggregation and consolidation of personal political power, anything goes- including using fallen American soldiers as props to support his own self-righteous self-aggrandizement.
If I can’t be Tom DeLay, then I want to be one of the gutless Republican House members who voted to twist the rules for DeLay out of fear that “the Hammer,” as they call him, might retaliate by taking away a coveted committee position or maybe a parking place.
Yes, I want to be a Republican House member. At a time when 180 of the 211 members of the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit in Iraq who have been wounded in combat have insisted on returning to duty, I want to look my constituents and my kids in the eye and tell them that I voted to empty the House ethics rules because I was afraid of Tom DeLay.
Almost as bad as an unprincipled, self-absorbed troll such as DeLay claiming the mantle of morality and righteousness is the fact that his colleagues have neutered themselves in his presence. I’d almost be willing to bet that DeLay probably has an autographed copy of Machiavelli’s The Prince, and it’s likely the most dog-eared book in his library. He certainly has shown an affinity for Machiavelli’s methods, and to call Tom DeLay a modern-day Medici would not be far from the truth.
When it’s all (and only) about collecting political power, nothing else is allowed to get in the way. This is nothing to be proud of, but America has only itself to blame for this one. The voters of my District re-elected Tom DeLay, but the voters nationwide elected the milquetoasts who cower in his presence and live to satisfy his every whim, no matter how capricious. Nice going, America…you have EXACTLY the quality of leadership you deserve.
I still don't get it.
Why, exactly, do Democrats hava a problem with changing GOP caucus rules on indicted party leaders to make them identical to that of the Democrat caucus rules? After all, the Democrats have never adopted such a rule, and have steadfastly stood behind indicted leaders -- none of which have stepped aside in the face of criminal charges. On what basis do they complain that the GOP Caucus changed its rules before any individual has been indicted? Is it an admissionby the Democrats that they are much more corrupt than the GOP?
Like I said elsewhere -- it is like drivers on the Autobahn complaining that the US raised the speed limit on interstate highways to 75 miles per hour.
Well, no, Greg, clearly you DO NOT get it.
The rule was enacted circa The Contract With (On) America and was intended to demonstrate how much more law abiding and upright the GOP was than were the Democrats (Jim Wright's book deal comes to mind; altho by the end of Gingrich's rule in the House, Jim Wright's book deal looked like pretty small potatoes even compared to Phil Gramm and Mrs. Phil Gramm, the Enron boardmember's, foibles and fractuousness).
Now it's Tom (Frenchman) DeLay, the Ham(mer) Sandwich, whose ox is being gored. The Pharaisiacality of the rush to repeal the rule is almost comical.
So what you are saying is that you don't have a problem with indicted leaders -- as long as tehy are indicted leaders from your party.
Got it -- you really do hold yourself to a lower standard than you hold your opponents. I guess that would put you in the same category with a long-time prostitute complaining about the loose sexual morality of girls these days.
No. Look again.
I am saying that the GOP rush to inoculate DeLay's House leadership position against possible indictment in his home state reveals exactly how two-faced the GOP is. They are a gyp outfit. They're gypping you again.
Loose sexual morality? What's that got to do with the price of tomatoes?
Look, Greg. Here it is in small words.
When the GOP took over Congress in Gingrich's day they made a new rule to try to show off what good people they were and how strict they wanted to be in making their high-profile leaders behave.
Only 10 years down the road now, oopsie, one of their big daddies is caught out, and they've got to run fix things so it won't hurt him in Congress if he gets indicted in Texas.
can't do anything about the past. The Dems have a history of not letting indictments stand in the way of doing business. The Repubs did too, up until they loudly, publicly, with much fanfare and ballyhoo and foofarrau, put out the word that they were too good to do business that way.
Only when the rubber hits the road they're not really too good to hold to their own famous new rule.
So, um, who's holding themselves to a lower standard?
I guess it's been well over a year since my first comment here at TPRS. Then, I remarked about a post concerning the alleged ultimate incarnation of evil, Tom DeLay. Northstar was (still) lamenting about DeLay's re-election, and I wondered aloud why when conservatives loose they typically say, "The people have spoken." But when the liberal candidate looses we more often hear, "The people must not have known what they were talking about!"
Northstar has every right to express his opinion of DeLay to the degree of extremity that he chooses. But in doing so, does he also implicate the millions of Texas voters that caused our state legislature to swing right? Without that majority, DeLay could not have succeeded in committing his dastardly crimes against liberalism.