DeLay indicted on criminal charges:

[Terminator X]

Discuss.

[Terminator X]

He just relinquished his house status.

That didn't take too long :D

[Warriorbird]

It was only a small delay.

[kranfer]

WTF were the charges?

[Warriorbird]

Being like all the other Republicans?

It was probably due to the myriad list of ethics and lobbying violations he's suspected of.

Ah. They sent him and two associates up for conspiracy due to campaign finance issues.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/09/28/delay.investigation.ap/index.html

[Edited on 9-28-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Terminator X]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
It was only a small delay.

DOFL :lol:

Jesus, he's one disgusting looking individual.

- Arkans

[DeV]

The indictment included a copy of the check.
ouch.

And in other news this gives new meaning to "Don't mess with Texas" ... Democrats that is.

[Gan]

It was only a matter of time. His level of corruption is no worse than that of his counterparts on the other side of the aisle. Saying its only because he's a Republican is stuipd and blind.

I'm not a fan of DeLay and I live a few miles from his office.

[xtc]

If I understand the article he is being indicted for accepting campaign contibutions from corporations which is against Texas law.

As I understand the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, unions and corporations are forbidden to run ads but can still donate money to political parties.

I guess Texas laws are tougher.

[Edited on 9-28-2005 by xtc]

[Warriorbird]

His level of corruption is no worse than that of his counterparts on the other side of the aisle.

Considering the number of ethics violations he's been cited for... he makes the rest of Congress look clean, Democrat or Republican.

[Parkbandit]

Best line of the day:

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi called the indictment "the latest example that Republicans in Congress are plagued by a culture of corruption"

:lol::lol::lol:

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Warriorbird

His level of corruption is no worse than that of his counterparts on the other side of the aisle.

Considering the number of ethics violations he's been cited for... he makes the rest of Congress look clean, Democrat or Republican.

So cited for = guilty before trial now?

I've never been a big fan of Delay's.. and I certainly don't believe he is as clean as he is trying to make himself out as... but let's wait until the evidence is heard before we convict him.

[TheRoseLady]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
Considering the number of ethics violations he's been cited for... he makes the rest of Congress look clean, Democrat or Republican.

So cited for = guilty before trial now?

I've never been a big fan of Delay's.. and I certainly don't believe he is as clean as he is trying to make himself out as... but let's wait until the evidence is heard before we convict him. [/quote]

On which allegation? :D

He has quite a few. :kiss:

[Gan]

Its the nature of the PC Politik to convict before trial. They did that with Rove as well. :whistle:

[Edited on 9-29-2005 by Ganalon]

[Warriorbird]

Eh. I think Delay's a bit different. Remember the Republicans backtracking relaxing the House ethics rules over him?

He may not go down on THIS charge but this is not a man you should get too attached to. Even my ex Republican state rep cousin says that.

[Gan]

As noted in my first post in this thread... I'm no fan of DeLay's. I think he represents a lot of whats wrong with the Hill and big Politik.

I just find it amusing to watch the posts that make up a thread like this where folks scream for his 'obvious' guilt before a conviction is made. Its a norm here.

[Back]

Originally posted by Ganalon
As noted in my first post in this thread... I'm no fan of DeLay's. I think he represents a lot of whats wrong with the Hill and big Politik.

I just find it amusing to watch the posts that make up a thread like this where folks scream for his 'obvious' guilt before a conviction is made. Its a norm here.

I don’t see any posts screaming for his conviction. What board are you reading?

[Warriorbird]

The little Republican board in the sky.

[xtc]

Is it true that Delay's prosecuter is a dyed in the wool Democrat and that he first brought up the idea of charges against Delay at a Democratic fund raiser?

I know this a highly bias source but I am linking it just the same.

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/news/050929a.asp

[Warriorbird]

Seems quite possible. With that said, he has a case, biased or no.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Seems quite possible. With that said, he has a case, biased or no.

If so it begs the question of the equal application of the law. Perhaps another prosecutor should be appointed.

[Gan]

Considering Earle's track record in prosecuting notable political figures, it would be best of he remained on board for the prosecution from Delay's perspective.

Here's a good unbiased article by the Dallas Morning News about the whole debacle.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/politics/national/stories/092905dntswdelay.a0903e49.html

[Back]

From the article...


Mr. Earle denied that the investigation had a partisan stench, pointing out that during his tenure, his office's public integrity unit had pursued investigations against 15 elected officials – 12 Democrats and three Republicans. The most famous was his failed prosecution of state Treasurer Kay Bailey Hutchison on charges of official misconduct for using state resources for political purposes.
But he also has taken on Democrats. Former Attorney General Jim Mattox was acquitted of bribery charges, but Mr. Earle did succeed in getting House Speaker Gib Lewis to step down from office for a misdemeanor ethics charge.

So its a partisan attack? Yeah.

And the criticism about wasting taxpayers dollars on a frivolous suit? Coming from republicans who hired Star for a whopping price tag... thats a joke. Not to mention how they’ve passed every spending bill since Bush Jr. took office...

[xtc]

Originally posted by Backlash
From the article...


Mr. Earle denied that the investigation had a partisan stench, pointing out that during his tenure, his office's public integrity unit had pursued investigations against 15 elected officials – 12 Democrats and three Republicans. The most famous was his failed prosecution of state Treasurer Kay Bailey Hutchison on charges of official misconduct for using state resources for political purposes.
But he also has taken on Democrats. Former Attorney General Jim Mattox was acquitted of bribery charges, but Mr. Earle did succeed in getting House Speaker Gib Lewis to step down from office for a misdemeanor ethics charge.

So its a partisan attack? Yeah.

And the criticism about wasting taxpayers dollars on a frivolous suit? Coming from republicans who hired Star for a whopping price tag... thats a joke. Not to mention how they’ve passed every spending bill since Bush Jr. took office...

Yes I read the second article. It does seem that he has prosecuted more Democrats than Republicans. I asked the question before the link to the second story was posted.

[Gan]

Update:

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) -- In a courtroom victory for Rep. Tom DeLay, the judge in the campaign-finance case against the former House Republican leader was removed Tuesday because of his donations to Democratic candidates and causes.

A semiretired judge who was called in to hear the dispute, C.W. "Bud" Duncan, ruled in DeLay's favor without comment. Duncan ordered the appointment of a new judge to preside over the case.

The ruling came after a hearing in which DeLay's attorneys argued that state District Judge Bob Perkins' political donations created the appearance of bias. Perkins, a Democrat, has contributed more than $5,000 since 2000 to Democratic candidates such as John Kerry and the liberal advocacy group MoveOn.org.

More at the link below

SOURCE (http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/01/delay.indictment.ap/index.html)

[Warriorbird]

Funny. We should have a completely non political judicial branch ... except that's impossible.

[Gan]

Guess that rules out the judge with the 3 wives... :lol:

[Warriorbird]

He has his own little party.

:D

[Back]

He is pulling strings. Judges in Texas run by party. So he wants a non-democratic judge to avoid bias. So getting a republican judge avoids that? Riiiiiight.

DeLay has strings to pull, favors to call in and money to pay them all off with.

[Gan]

One must also not forget he's got Dick DeGuerin as lead council.

And this judge should not have been suprised, since this has happened to him before...

"The issue came up for Perkins before. He voluntarily stepped aside in a 1994 case against Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison. Perkins had made a $300 contribution to Hutchison's opponent. Hutchison, who was also represented by DeGuerin, was ultimately acquitted of misconduct charges."

[Back]

Originally posted by Ganalon
One must also not forget he's got Dick DeGuerin as lead council.

And this judge should not have been suprised, since this has happened to him before...

"The issue came up for Perkins before. He voluntarily stepped aside in a 1994 case against Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison. Perkins had made a $300 contribution to Hutchison's opponent. Hutchison, who was also represented by DeGuerin, was ultimately acquitted of misconduct charges."

Yeah, I’ve read about that. Kay “perjury technicality” Hutchison. Maybe Libby should hire DeGuerin.

[Edited on 11-3-2005 by Backlash]

[Terminator X]

"Judges are presumed to be impartial," Reed said.

Under the given circumstances, that statement is ironic enough to throw one into a fit of convulsions.

- The Termite

[Parkbandit]

If I were Tom and knew the Judge was so biased towards the Democratic Party that he donated money to Moveon.org... you bet your sweet ass I would want another judge.

It's called common sense.

[Tromp]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
If I were Tom and knew the Judge was so biased towards the Democratic Party that he donated money to Moveon.org... you bet your sweet ass I would want another judge.

It's called common sense.

Under that pretense the new Supreme Court nomination would be understandably shot down by the Democrats for previous rulings.

Common sense right?

A judge should base his opinion on the law. The ruling to dismiss this one from Tom's case was unfounded because in his history on the bench there was not an instance where a political agenda swayed his rulings.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Tromp

Originally posted by Parkbandit
If I were Tom and knew the Judge was so biased towards the Democratic Party that he donated money to Moveon.org... you bet your sweet ass I would want another judge.

It's called common sense.

Under that pretense the new Supreme Court nomination would be understandably shot down by the Democrats for previous rulings.

Common sense right?

A judge should base his opinion on the law. The ruling to dismiss this one from Tom's case was unfounded because in his history on the bench there was not an instance where a political agenda swayed his rulings.

You are trying to compare apples to oranges here. One, we are talking about a judge who gave his personal money to a far left organization.. who would be trying a case that is very political in nature.. against a far right conservative. I can see the issue, surprised you cannot.

A Supreme Court nominee is appointed by the sitting President. It's not a surprise to anyone, but you, that a conservative President would nominate a conservative Judge. Much like a liberal President (Clinton) nominated 2 liberal judges.

Your comparison sucks.

[Tromp]

No it doesn't suck PB!

Just as the Democrats are suppose to have faith that the Supreme Court nominee is going to be a good judge regardless of who nominates him so should Tom have faith that this unblemished Judge would try his case in a fair and proper manner.

The Republicans are using the same analogy to defend their guy are they not?

[Gan]

One would think that a person representing a position of fair, unbiased, and objective authority would make sure he policed him/herself personally to live up to that standard. I see being a judge as more than a profession but a lifestyle because of what they represent.

As such, the ousted judge in this case has demonstrated time and time again and to an escalating degree that his personal views and his financial engagement and support of political activisim give cause for doubt to his ability to remain neutral and objective when the premise of the case before him is questionable and political in nature.

Therefore, I do agree with removing him from the case and relegating him to more poitically neutral oversight where his personal preferences will not compromise justice.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Tromp
No it doesn't suck PB!

Just as the Democrats are suppose to have faith that the Supreme Court nominee is going to be a good judge regardless of who nominates him so should Tom have faith that this unblemished Judge would try his case in a fair and proper manner.

The Republicans are using the same analogy to defend their guy are they not?

I am with PB, Delay isn't holding a philibuster so it isn't the same thing.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Ganalon

As such, the ousted judge in this case has demonstrated time and time again and to an escalating degree that his personal views and his financial engagement and support of political activisim give cause for doubt to his ability to remain neutral and objective when the premise of the case before him is questionable and political in nature.

Apply the same standard to religions then. Using the same exact arguement, you can say anyone who belongs to a religion that is against abortion, especially the ultra right evangelical type should be removed from any legal decision that concerns abortion. It is certainly "cause for doubt to his ability to remain neutral and objective". Abortion and a host of other issues.

Raven

[Gan]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm

Originally posted by Ganalon

As such, the ousted judge in this case has demonstrated time and time again and to an escalating degree that his personal views and his financial engagement and support of political activisim give cause for doubt to his ability to remain neutral and objective when the premise of the case before him is questionable and political in nature.

Apply the same standard to religions then. Using the same exact arguement, you can say anyone who belongs to a religion that is against abortion, especially the ultra right evangelical type should be removed from any legal decision that concerns abortion. It is certainly "cause for doubt to his ability to remain neutral and objective". Abortion and a host of other issues.

Raven

Agreed. Hard part is finding people who are so uniformly neutral about all issues. And finding a ruling authority to agree with that premise.

Man governing man, imperfection judging imperfection. What a delimma.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm

Originally posted by Ganalon

As such, the ousted judge in this case has demonstrated time and time again and to an escalating degree that his personal views and his financial engagement and support of political activisim give cause for doubt to his ability to remain neutral and objective when the premise of the case before him is questionable and political in nature.

Apply the same standard to religions then. Using the same exact arguement, you can say anyone who belongs to a religion that is against abortion, especially the ultra right evangelical type should be removed from any legal decision that concerns abortion. It is certainly "cause for doubt to his ability to remain neutral and objective". Abortion and a host of other issues.

Raven

I am sure if there was an abortion case before the court and the litigants felt the Judge held a bias that would unduly influence his/her ruling the litigants could request the Judge be removed from the case. I don’t think being a member of a religion or holding a certain political view is enough, they would have to show that it would interfere with the Judge’s ability to be impartial. I am guessing that is what Delay’s council was able to do.

[Warriorbird]

It's Texas. I'm sure both ends are working the system.

[Gan]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
It's Texas. I'm sure both ends are working the system.

You say that like no other state is immune to political agendas. Way to represent an immature perspective! :clap:

[Ravenstorm]

So now after the first judge was removed at DeLay's request because he contributed money to Democrats, the judge who replaced him was removed at the prosecutor's request because he contributed money to Republicans.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1278092


State district Judge Bob Perkins, a Democrat, was removed from DeLay's case Tuesday after DeLay's legal team cast doubt on Perkins' ability to judge the case fairly because of more than $5,000 in contributions he's made to Democrats.

Earle said in his motion filed Thursday that Schraub has made more than $5,000 in contributions to Republican candidates, including to Gov. Rick Perry, a DeLay ally, which calls into question Schraub's impartiality in the case.

Raven

[Parkbandit]

I do not think that any judge that gives money to either political party or affiliate, should judge a political case, such as DeLay is involved in. I think both sides were within their right to dismiss those judges.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
So now after the first judge was removed at DeLay's request because he contributed money to Democrats, the judge who replaced him was removed at the prosecutor's request because he contributed money to Republicans.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1278092


State district Judge Bob Perkins, a Democrat, was removed from DeLay's case Tuesday after DeLay's legal team cast doubt on Perkins' ability to judge the case fairly because of more than $5,000 in contributions he's made to Democrats.

Earle said in his motion filed Thursday that Schraub has made more than $5,000 in contributions to Republican candidates, including to Gov. Rick Perry, a DeLay ally, which calls into question Schraub's impartiality in the case.

Raven

Well looks like whoever ends up the Judge in this case it will be contentious.

[Tromp]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
I do not think that any judge that gives money to either political party or affiliate, should judge a political case, such as DeLay is involved in. I think both sides were within their right to dismiss those judges.

It isn't a political case... it is a criminal case right?

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Tromp
It isn't a political case... it is a criminal case right?

When it's a Republican? Never.

Raven

[4a6c1]

Love the mugshot.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
I do not think that any judge that gives money to either political party or affiliate, should judge a political case You mean a highly politically charged case.

Like Tromp or whoever said, it's a criminal case, only with major political implications.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm

Originally posted by Tromp
It isn't a political case... it is a criminal case right?

When it's a Republican? Never.

Raven

Then I'm absolutely certain you would agree that the charges brought up against Bill Clinton were indeed criminal at the time.

Oh wait.. they aren't when it's a Democrat. Gotcha.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[DeV]

Well, they certainly weren't civil charges PB.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
Then I'm absolutely certain you would agree that the charges brought up against Bill Clinton were indeed criminal at the time.

You're right. I fully agree it was a criminal investigation. Clinton lied under oath about getting a blowjob. That was definitely the wrong thing to do. So was cheating on Hillary.

Unlike you, I've never been an apologist for the administration.

Raven

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by DeV
Well, they certainly weren't civil charges PB.

Since when is purjury not considered criminal?

[xtc]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm

Originally posted by Parkbandit
Then I'm absolutely certain you would agree that the charges brought up against Bill Clinton were indeed criminal at the time.

You're right. I fully agree it was a criminal investigation. Clinton lied under oath about getting a blowjob. That was definitely the wrong thing to do. So was cheating on Hillary.

Unlike you, I've never been an apologist for the administration.

Raven

What really disgusted me about Clinton was that he picked a chubby girl to shine his knob. I mean come on you are the President of the United States, pick someone like Brook Burke or Anticor's favourite Jesscia Alba.

[Skirmisher]

Eh, close your eyes and it doesn't really matter much the looks of the giver as much as the skills.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm

Originally posted by Parkbandit
Then I'm absolutely certain you would agree that the charges brought up against Bill Clinton were indeed criminal at the time.

You're right. I fully agree it was a criminal investigation. Clinton lied under oath about getting a blowjob. That was definitely the wrong thing to do. So was cheating on Hillary.

Unlike you, I've never been an apologist for the administration.

Raven

Cheating on Hillary wasn't criminal.

Getting a blowjob wasn't criminal.

Lying under oath was criminal.

Get it right.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by DeV
Well, they certainly weren't civil charges PB.

Since when is purjury not considered criminal? Um. That response meant that it was a criminal case. Duh.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Skirmisher
Eh, close your eyes and it doesn't really matter much the looks of the giver as much as the skills.

Exactly.. it's not like she was hideous.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Skirmisher
Eh, close your eyes and it doesn't really matter much the looks of the giver as much as the skills.

I am one of those people that likes to look at the Mantle piece as I poke the fire. In other words I need hot skills and a hot face and damn it, if I was President I would it expect it.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by xtc

Originally posted by Skirmisher
Eh, close your eyes and it doesn't really matter much the looks of the giver as much as the skills.

I am one of those people that likes to look at the Mantle piece as I poke the fire. In other words I need hot skills and a hot face and damn it, if I was President I would it expect it.

Please.. he only got caught with her. I'm sure he's had his knob polished by beautiful professionals.

[DeV]

They can't all have the Marilyn Monroe types.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
Cheating on Hillary wasn't criminal.

Getting a blowjob wasn't criminal.

Lying under oath was criminal.

Get it right.


Originally posted by Ravenstorm
You're right. I fully agree it was a criminal investigation. Clinton lied under oath about getting a blowjob. That was definitely the wrong thing to do. So was cheating on Hillary.

Thanks for clearing that up. I'd never have suspected. What he should have done is refused to testify under oath at all and insisted Gore be there to hold his hand through it all.

Raven

[Skirmisher]

Raven ftw

[DeV]

Even when you're right you're wrong. For shame.

[Warriorbird]

You say that like no other state is immune to political agendas. Way to represent an immature perspective!

No, I say it being content in the knowledge that cronyism works both ways in the South...unlike the North and Midwest where sometimes it is solely Democratic.

Least it's a level playing field. With that said, I heard something to the order of the Republican who was supposed to appoint a new judge for Delay recusing himself as well.

[Back]

Its looking more and more like the Republicans got the ball, ran with it, and are now dropping it.

2006 could very easily see the Democrats recovering the Senate.

[Gan]

If the dem's dont capitalize on this opportunity in the next round of elections I'll lose faith in them being a worthy adversary in the political arena.

[Back]

Its not even a matter of capitalizing. All they really have to do is sit back and let the repubs run themselves into the ground.

But yes, I agree, and have said for a while, the dems need some balls.

[Ravenstorm]

And we're back to a Democratic judge. Round and round she goes, where she stops, nobody knows. Though considering who appointed this one...


DeLay gets Democratic judge in Texas

By Jeff Franks
Reuters
Thursday, November 3, 2005; 8:11 PM



HOUSTON (Reuters) - A Democratic judge was named on Thursday to preside over the money-laundering and conspiracy case against U.S. Republican Rep. Tom DeLay in an appointment made by the chief justice of the Texas Supreme Court.

Senior Judge Pat Priest of San Antonio will replace state District Judge Robert Perkins, who was forced off the case on Tuesday after DeLay's attorneys complained he was too staunchly Democratic to give their client a fair trial.

Priest was appointed by Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson, a Republican endorsed and aided by DeLay's Texans for a Republican Majority, or TRMPAC, a political action committee at the center of the criminal charges.

Jefferson made the appointment after a Republican judge in a lower court, B.B. Schraub, recused himself earlier on Thursday after prosecutors charged he was too staunchly Republican to make a fair choice.

The charges of partisanship against Schraub and Perkins were based on contributions they had made to candidates of their respective parties and, in Perkins' case, to liberal group MoveOn.org.

In Texas, judges must run for office in partisan elections and are free to donate to political candidates and causes.

DeLay, who represents a Houston-area district, is accused of laundering $190,000 in corporate campaign contributions gathered by TRMPAC through the Republican National Committee to candidates for the state Legislature in Texas in 2002.

Texas law forbids the use of corporate funds in political campaigns.

TRMPAC's efforts helped Republicans take control of the Texas Legislature for the first time since the Reconstruction era after the Civil War.

At DeLay's urging, the Legislature then redrew congressional districts to increase the number of Republicans from Texas in the U.S. House.

DeLay and lawyer Dick DeGuerin have repeatedly accused Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle, a Democrat who led the investigation into DeLay's activities, of cooking up the criminal charges as part of a Democratic vendetta for the redistricting.

DeLay was House majority leader, or the second highest- ranking Republican in the House, until his indictment on September 28.

Due to House Republican rules, he was forced to resign his leadership position, but allowed to keep his congressional seat.

Priest was a respected judge in San Antonio for years, but no longer works full time on the bench.

Raven

[Edited on 11-4-2005 by Ravenstorm]

[Warriorbird]

:whistle:

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm

Originally posted by Parkbandit
Cheating on Hillary wasn't criminal.

Getting a blowjob wasn't criminal.

Lying under oath was criminal.

Get it right.


Originally posted by Ravenstorm
You're right. I fully agree it was a criminal investigation. Clinton lied under oath about getting a blowjob. That was definitely the wrong thing to do. So was cheating on Hillary.

Thanks for clearing that up. I'd never have suspected. What he should have done is refused to testify under oath at all and insisted Gore be there to hold his hand through it all.

Raven

You're welcome. I sensed some confusion on your part.

Glad I could help.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Backlash
Its looking more and more like the Republicans got the ball, ran with it, and are now dropping it.

2006 could very easily see the Democrats recovering the Senate.

Same line, different year. It's sad when Democrats have to look for Republicans to mess up in order to win an election. Perhaps this is because they run on the platform "We can do better.. just don't ask us how because we don't know"

[Gan]

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[Back]

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by Backlash
Its looking more and more like the Republicans got the ball, ran with it, and are now dropping it.

2006 could very easily see the Democrats recovering the Senate.

Same line, different year. It's sad when Democrats have to look for Republicans to mess up in order to win an election. Perhaps this is because they run on the platform "We can do better.. just don't ask us how because we don't know"

I guess thats why the repubs haven’t had this much control since.... ever? Here they are with their big chance to shine and prove how great they are. What do we get?

Do I really have to go any further?

[DeV]

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by Backlash
Its looking more and more like the Republicans got the ball, ran with it, and are now dropping it.

2006 could very easily see the Democrats recovering the Senate.

Same line, different year. It's sad when Democrats have to look for Republicans to mess up in order to win an election. Perhaps this is because they run on the platform "We can do better.. just don't ask us how because we don't know" It's even sadder when the Republican fuckups are so numerous Democrats would be doing their party a disservice by not capitalizing off of them. The Repulican platform as of late is sort of reminiscent of the march of the Penguins: A march to nowhere.

[Parkbandit]

When the Democrats gain shit in 2006.. please come up with a new reason.

Thanks.

[DeV]

Don't think that until that happens non-Republicans won't have anything to say about current political affairs.

Not gonna happen. You're welcome.

[xtc]

I am guessing that whoever wins the Repub nomination for 2008 will not want Bush standing on the platform next to them. Any smart Republican will be silent on Bush when they win. I heard on the radio that Bush's approval rating dropped to 35%.


I think in 2006 the Dems will gain some seats but it won't be huge.

[Edited on 11-4-2005 by xtc]

[Kefka]

Except The Gropenator. Neither Bush nor Ahhhnold wants to be anywhere near eachother.

[Parkbandit]

The great part is.. whoever gets the Republican nomination will wind up winning because the Democrats still don't get it after 8 years.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
The great part is.. whoever gets the Republican nomination will wind up winning because the Democrats still don't get it after 8 years.

I think if McCain gets the nod it is possible however I wouldn't be too smug about a Repub lock for 2008, there is alot this current administration doesn't get and if the election had been Nov 2005 rather than Nov 2004 Bush would have lost.

The Dems need to field a good centrist candidate. I know they think Obama is the second coming but he is too young/inexperienced to win plus he is too left wing. I am not sure how Hillary would do, I think alot depends on how the majority of women perceive her and I don't have a read on that.

A lot depends of course on who both parties run.

[Edited on 11-4-2005 by xtc]

[Warriorbird]

I doubt the Democrats will run who they need to run for President. Baugh would be a good choice.

With that said, I wouldn't be too confident about Congress, Parkbandit, and Congress matters a lot, as we can see by the Congress that's working on tripling government spending in a ten year period.

[Edited on 11-4-2005 by Warriorbird]

[xtc]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
I doubt the Democrats will run who they need to run for President. Baugh would be a good choice.

With that said, I wouldn't be too confident about Congress, Parkbandit, and Congress matters a lot, as we can see by the Congress that's working on tripling government spending in a ten year period.

[Edited on 11-4-2005 by Warriorbird]

Yeah the Dems have been unable to captialize on the litany of bad news coming out of this administration. You guys should try to recruit Karl Rove, he may be evil but he can win elections.

[Warriorbird]

The Democrats need to make Rupert Murdoch, James Carville, and Dick Morris a series of offers...and blackball Dick Morris from the publishing industry at the same time.

They won't though.

It does give me hope that Congress will at least get more sane...but I have a positive terror of Hillary running for President. Then again, I was afraid that John Kerry would run for President too...and he did.

:chuckles:

[Ravenstorm]

*bump*

So DeLay won't be running again. And there was much rejoicing.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/03/delay.election/

[Skirmisher]

I guess maybe you really can only bob and weave for so long.

I won't believe it till it's a done deal though.

Kind of like a vampire needing a stake through the heart or it just "looks" dead.

[ElanthianSiren]

Well, since they have political strategists, we can pretty much agree that he didn't give up until the GOP was sure they had someone that they felt could carry Texas and/or knew his reelection was basically impossible. I'm not sure one candidate is much different from the other, so I'd not rejoice yet. Early-Mid 2008 would be the time for dems to start doing things to evoke the filibuster threat again. We'll have to wait and see 2008.

-M