EDITORIAL
The Last-Ditch Excuse
Allies of Rep. Tom DeLay of Texas have finally gotten around to the "everybody does it" justification of the ethical lapses of their guy, the No. 2 Republican in the House. It's the excuse used after more specific defenses, such as "he couldn't have known where the money was coming from," begin to sound hollow.
In response to one recent discovery, the $500,000-plus paid by DeLay-controlled political committees to DeLay's wife and daughter, Rep. Roy Blunt of Missouri (the No. 3 Republican in the House) said, "The things that Tom has been criticized about in one way or another every member of Congress could be criticized about…. I think he's taking arrows for all of us."
Let the arrows fly where they belong, then. If all members are shoveling that kind of special interest money to their kin, the voters would like to know the specifics.
This is about lobbyists lining the DeLay family's pockets. The political committee, Americans for a Republican Majority, or ARM, is funded largely by lobbying groups eager to influence DeLay or to rent his power on behalf of their interests. The committee pays wife Christine DeLay's consulting fees, or salary, or whatever they call it. Daughter Dani DeLay Ferro runs her own obscure Texas political consulting company. It received $222,000 over four years from Texans for a Republican Majority, the state version of DeLay's ARM and funded in the same manner. Lobbyists seeking access to DeLay are ultimately Ferro's paymasters.
DeLay, the House majority leader, couldn't figure out that the nearly $60,000 cost of his visit to Russia in 1997 seems to have come, via a conservative nonprofit group, from a shadowy Bahamas-based company with ties to Russian gas and oil interests. Or that more recent trips to Britain and South Korea had questionable funding. Are all members of Congress allowed to be equally careless in their vetting of overseas trips?
Apparently so. DeLay told CNN on Wednesday that "no member can be responsible for going into the bowels of researching … this organization, how it gets its money or how it's funded."
There's also the disclosure Thursday that 11 people who once worked for DeLay have raked in at least $45 million in lobbying fees from various corporations since leaving DeLay's employ. A spokesman responded that DeLay's "legislative activities are based on strongly held beliefs and the corresponding merits of the legislation." If that's how Congress operated, all these lobbyists would be wasting their clients' millions.
Over the last several years, The Times has exposed family/lobbyist ties among many lawmakers, notably Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Sens. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) and Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), former Sen. John B. Breaux (D-La.), and Reps. Nick J. Rahall II (D-W.Va.), and Curt Weldon (R-Pa.). Instead of improving its self-regulation, Congress has weakened its ethics rules to help DeLay, who is also facing possible indictment for political activities in Texas.
"Everybody does it." When children say that, their mothers ask: "Would you jump off a cliff if everyone did it?" Maybe Republican defenders of DeLay are thinking, "yes."
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editor...ment-editorials
Full Version: Ethics/Values in politics
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191
Jonathan Chait:
It Was Only a Matter of Time for DeLay
In 2002, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay wanted to redraw Texas' district map to guarantee GOP gains. To pull this off, he needed Republicans to win control of the Texas Legislature, which would undertake the gerrymander.
DeLay went about raising large sums of corporate cash to plow into the Texas Statehouse races. Alas, Texas law prohibits corporations from donating money to candidates. So DeLay's group, Texans for a Republican Majority, raised $190,000 in corporate donations and sent the money to a national Republican campaign group, which in turn donated the $190,000 to individual GOP candidates for the Texas Statehouse.
DeLay is facing possible indictment for this incident. But the above paragraph doesn't contain the accusation. That's DeLay's defense. GOP lawyers say this money trading is a legal loophole. As DeLay told reporters, "When you have lawyers advising you every step of the way, it is very hard [for your opponents] to make a case stick." This defense may or may not work, but either way it doesn't quite meet the usual meaning of the word "innocent."
And that's the funny thing about the hot water DeLay finds himself in these days. He can make a plausible case that he's legally innocent of everything he's been accused of. Yet the things DeLay has admitted to are pretty bad on their own.
Like the controversy over letting a lobbyist pay for his overseas travel, which House rules prohibit. The lobbyist, Jack Abramoff, funneled money through conservative think tanks, which funded the trips. Nobody is questioning that part; the sticking point is that on at least one occasion Abramoff abandoned the pretense and picked up DeLay's tab directly.
DeLay says he didn't know that Abramoff paid the bill, and he probably didn't. Still, he surely knew that Abramoff, his friend and ally, wasn't showing up on trip after trip out of sheer coincidence.
DeLay's story, then, is that he and Abramoff circumvented the ban on lobbyist-funded travel with a transparent ruse, only Abramoff slipped up, dropping the ruse without DeLay's knowledge. Again: not guilty, perhaps, but hardly "innocent."
Then this week, the Washington Post reported that yet another DeLay trip was financed by Russian business interests, also, of course, without DeLay's knowledge. (House rules prohibit traveling at the expense of foreign agents.)
The purpose of the trip was apparently to secure DeLay's support for funding the Overseas Private Investment Corp. Most conservatives scorned OPIC, which provides a subsidy for businesses investing abroad, as corporate welfare. The Russians who allegedly paid for DeLay's trip had a strong interest in seeing the funding pass, and DeLay did not disappoint them. His spokesman, according to the Post, insisted the majority leader had a perfectly valid reason for his "yes" vote: "OPIC had the strong backing of the energy industry, including companies from Texas that received OPIC financing."
This is funny given that DeLay's loyal deputy, House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), recently insisted with a straight face that his boss is "driven by philosophy…. I don't think I've ever been in a room where he said, 'We need to do this because some lobbyist needs it done.' " So now DeLay is reduced to essentially admitting he violated his principles at the behest of U.S. companies, which is merely sleazy, in order to deny violating his principles on behalf of Russian companies, which could be illegal.
It was probably just a matter of time before DeLay got nabbed for something or other. The hallmark of his career lies in pushing previously known social, ethical and legal norms further and lower than anybody else had ever had the guts or the indecency to push them.
Congress has always run something of a protection racket, but only DeLay was blunt enough to divide Washington's special pleaders into "friendly" and "unfriendly" camps based on their donations and to invite them into his office to see the lists. It's a tradition for the majority party in the House to run roughshod over the minority, but DeLay has taken majority tyranny to an extreme — wantonly changing voting rules and forbidding Democrats from reading or debating legislation. Gerrymandering is a hallowed American tradition, but DeLay was the first to hit upon doing it without the cover of a census.
DeLay has yet to be judged, but this much is clear: If you constantly violate the spirit of the rules, it will be hard to avoid the charge that you violated the letter.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commen...omment-opinions
It Was Only a Matter of Time for DeLay
In 2002, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay wanted to redraw Texas' district map to guarantee GOP gains. To pull this off, he needed Republicans to win control of the Texas Legislature, which would undertake the gerrymander.
DeLay went about raising large sums of corporate cash to plow into the Texas Statehouse races. Alas, Texas law prohibits corporations from donating money to candidates. So DeLay's group, Texans for a Republican Majority, raised $190,000 in corporate donations and sent the money to a national Republican campaign group, which in turn donated the $190,000 to individual GOP candidates for the Texas Statehouse.
DeLay is facing possible indictment for this incident. But the above paragraph doesn't contain the accusation. That's DeLay's defense. GOP lawyers say this money trading is a legal loophole. As DeLay told reporters, "When you have lawyers advising you every step of the way, it is very hard [for your opponents] to make a case stick." This defense may or may not work, but either way it doesn't quite meet the usual meaning of the word "innocent."
And that's the funny thing about the hot water DeLay finds himself in these days. He can make a plausible case that he's legally innocent of everything he's been accused of. Yet the things DeLay has admitted to are pretty bad on their own.
Like the controversy over letting a lobbyist pay for his overseas travel, which House rules prohibit. The lobbyist, Jack Abramoff, funneled money through conservative think tanks, which funded the trips. Nobody is questioning that part; the sticking point is that on at least one occasion Abramoff abandoned the pretense and picked up DeLay's tab directly.
DeLay says he didn't know that Abramoff paid the bill, and he probably didn't. Still, he surely knew that Abramoff, his friend and ally, wasn't showing up on trip after trip out of sheer coincidence.
DeLay's story, then, is that he and Abramoff circumvented the ban on lobbyist-funded travel with a transparent ruse, only Abramoff slipped up, dropping the ruse without DeLay's knowledge. Again: not guilty, perhaps, but hardly "innocent."
Then this week, the Washington Post reported that yet another DeLay trip was financed by Russian business interests, also, of course, without DeLay's knowledge. (House rules prohibit traveling at the expense of foreign agents.)
The purpose of the trip was apparently to secure DeLay's support for funding the Overseas Private Investment Corp. Most conservatives scorned OPIC, which provides a subsidy for businesses investing abroad, as corporate welfare. The Russians who allegedly paid for DeLay's trip had a strong interest in seeing the funding pass, and DeLay did not disappoint them. His spokesman, according to the Post, insisted the majority leader had a perfectly valid reason for his "yes" vote: "OPIC had the strong backing of the energy industry, including companies from Texas that received OPIC financing."
This is funny given that DeLay's loyal deputy, House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), recently insisted with a straight face that his boss is "driven by philosophy…. I don't think I've ever been in a room where he said, 'We need to do this because some lobbyist needs it done.' " So now DeLay is reduced to essentially admitting he violated his principles at the behest of U.S. companies, which is merely sleazy, in order to deny violating his principles on behalf of Russian companies, which could be illegal.
It was probably just a matter of time before DeLay got nabbed for something or other. The hallmark of his career lies in pushing previously known social, ethical and legal norms further and lower than anybody else had ever had the guts or the indecency to push them.
Congress has always run something of a protection racket, but only DeLay was blunt enough to divide Washington's special pleaders into "friendly" and "unfriendly" camps based on their donations and to invite them into his office to see the lists. It's a tradition for the majority party in the House to run roughshod over the minority, but DeLay has taken majority tyranny to an extreme — wantonly changing voting rules and forbidding Democrats from reading or debating legislation. Gerrymandering is a hallowed American tradition, but DeLay was the first to hit upon doing it without the cover of a census.
DeLay has yet to be judged, but this much is clear: If you constantly violate the spirit of the rules, it will be hard to avoid the charge that you violated the letter.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commen...omment-opinions
DeLay Says Federal Judiciary Has 'Run Amok,' Adding Congress Is Partly to Blame
By CARL HULSE and DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
Published: April 8, 2005
WASHINGTON, April 7 - Representative Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, escalated his talk of a battle between the legislative and judicial branches of government on Thursday, saying federal courts had "run amok," in large part because of the failure of Congress to confront them.
"Judicial independence does not equal judicial supremacy," Mr. DeLay said in a videotaped speech delivered to a conservative conference in Washington entitled "Confronting the Judicial War on Faith."
Mr. DeLay faulted courts for what he said was their invention of rights to abortion and prohibitions on school prayer, saying courts had ignored the intent of Congress and improperly cited international standards and precedents. "These are not examples of a mature society," he said, "but of a judiciary run amok."
"The failure is to a great degree Congress's," Mr. DeLay said. "The response of the legislative branch has mostly been to complain. There is another way, ladies and gentlemen, and that is to reassert our constitutional authority over the courts."
Mr. DeLay's comments are the latest evidence of his determination to follow through on his vows to hold federal judges accountable in the aftermath of the failure of the federal courts to order the reinsertion of Terri Schiavo's feeding tube as Congressional conservatives intended.
He spoke against the backdrop of a looming confrontation in the Senate over potential changes to the chamber's rules that would end the power of the Democratic minority to filibuster President Bush's judicial nominees. But Mr. DeLay's confrontational tone differed starkly from that of Senator Bill Frist, the Republican majority leader, who says he seeks only to preserve the current independence of the courts and hopes a compromise can avoid a fight to change the rules.
Judges, including Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and one member of the federal appeals court who heard the Schiavo case, have already been sharply critical of Congressional efforts to interfere with their authority as a violation of the Constitution's separation of powers. In a recent report, Chief Justice Rehnquist called one such measure "unwarranted and ill-considered" and said "a judge's judicial acts may not serve as a basis for impeachment."
Democrats and other critics are accusing Republicans of seeking to undermine the courts just because they do not like their decisions.
"The first lesson we teach children when they enter competitive sports is to respect the referee, even if we think he might have made the wrong call," Senator James M. Jeffords, independent of Vermont, said Thursday in a Senate speech. "If our children can understand this, why can't our political leaders? We shouldn't be throwing rhetorical hand grenades."
Mr. DeLay criticized Congress as failing to act vigorously enough. "I believe the judiciary branch of our government has overstepped its authority on countless occasions, overturning and in some cases just ignoring the legitimate will of the people," he said.
"Legislatures for too long have in effect washed our hands on controversial issues from abortion to religious expression to racial prejudice, leaving them to judges who we then excoriate for legislating from the bench. This era of constitutional cowardice must end."
Did he just bring race into the argument? is he actually going to play the redneck race card?
Mr. DeLay alluded to Congressional authority to "set the parameters" of courts' jurisdictions and its obligation "to make sure the judges administer their responsibilities."
The organizers of the conference and Congressional staff members who spoke there called for several specific steps: impeaching judges deemed to have ignored the will of Congress or to have followed foreign laws; passing bills to remove court jurisdiction from certain social issues or the place of God in public life; changing Senate rules that allow the Democratic minority to filibuster Mr. Bush's appeals court nominees; and using Congress's authority over court budgets to punish judges whom it considers to have overstepped their authority.
"I am in favor of impeachment," Michael Schwartz, chief of staff to Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, said in a panel discussion on abortion, suggesting "mass impeachment" might be needed.
In an interview, Jeff Lungren, a spokesman for Representative F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., Republican of Wisconsin and chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said the panel was likely in some way to take up the issue of how the federal judges handled Ms. Schiavo's case.
But Mr. Lungren said Mr. DeLay had not requested a hearing and the committee had not decided on a course of action. "There does seem to be this misunderstanding out there that our system was created with a completely independent judiciary," he said.
Dr. Rick Scarborough, chief organizer of the conference, called on Congress "to protect us from an overactive judiciary," saying: "Right now they are ruling as an oligarchy. They are the kings of the land."
Mr. DeLay, who was previously criticized by some Democrats who said his open-ended remarks about holding judges accountable might incite violence, took care to warn the few dozen attendees at the conference to keep their emotions in check.
"As passionately as we all feel, especially about issues of life and death, the fact is that constitutional rule of law is a matter for serious and rational discussion," he said. "People on all sides of this debate need to approach the issue for what it is: a legitimate debate by people of good will trying to clarify the proper constitutional role of courts."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/08/politics/08judges.html
Did I just see a quote from TOM DELAY, of all people asking for a serious and rational discussion? Oh my goodness. Will the total hypocrisy ever end?
Theocracy anyone? CROOKED Theocracy anyone?
By CARL HULSE and DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
Published: April 8, 2005
WASHINGTON, April 7 - Representative Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, escalated his talk of a battle between the legislative and judicial branches of government on Thursday, saying federal courts had "run amok," in large part because of the failure of Congress to confront them.
"Judicial independence does not equal judicial supremacy," Mr. DeLay said in a videotaped speech delivered to a conservative conference in Washington entitled "Confronting the Judicial War on Faith."
Mr. DeLay faulted courts for what he said was their invention of rights to abortion and prohibitions on school prayer, saying courts had ignored the intent of Congress and improperly cited international standards and precedents. "These are not examples of a mature society," he said, "but of a judiciary run amok."
"The failure is to a great degree Congress's," Mr. DeLay said. "The response of the legislative branch has mostly been to complain. There is another way, ladies and gentlemen, and that is to reassert our constitutional authority over the courts."
Mr. DeLay's comments are the latest evidence of his determination to follow through on his vows to hold federal judges accountable in the aftermath of the failure of the federal courts to order the reinsertion of Terri Schiavo's feeding tube as Congressional conservatives intended.
He spoke against the backdrop of a looming confrontation in the Senate over potential changes to the chamber's rules that would end the power of the Democratic minority to filibuster President Bush's judicial nominees. But Mr. DeLay's confrontational tone differed starkly from that of Senator Bill Frist, the Republican majority leader, who says he seeks only to preserve the current independence of the courts and hopes a compromise can avoid a fight to change the rules.
Judges, including Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and one member of the federal appeals court who heard the Schiavo case, have already been sharply critical of Congressional efforts to interfere with their authority as a violation of the Constitution's separation of powers. In a recent report, Chief Justice Rehnquist called one such measure "unwarranted and ill-considered" and said "a judge's judicial acts may not serve as a basis for impeachment."
Democrats and other critics are accusing Republicans of seeking to undermine the courts just because they do not like their decisions.
"The first lesson we teach children when they enter competitive sports is to respect the referee, even if we think he might have made the wrong call," Senator James M. Jeffords, independent of Vermont, said Thursday in a Senate speech. "If our children can understand this, why can't our political leaders? We shouldn't be throwing rhetorical hand grenades."
Mr. DeLay criticized Congress as failing to act vigorously enough. "I believe the judiciary branch of our government has overstepped its authority on countless occasions, overturning and in some cases just ignoring the legitimate will of the people," he said.
"Legislatures for too long have in effect washed our hands on controversial issues from abortion to religious expression to racial prejudice, leaving them to judges who we then excoriate for legislating from the bench. This era of constitutional cowardice must end."
Did he just bring race into the argument? is he actually going to play the redneck race card?
Mr. DeLay alluded to Congressional authority to "set the parameters" of courts' jurisdictions and its obligation "to make sure the judges administer their responsibilities."
The organizers of the conference and Congressional staff members who spoke there called for several specific steps: impeaching judges deemed to have ignored the will of Congress or to have followed foreign laws; passing bills to remove court jurisdiction from certain social issues or the place of God in public life; changing Senate rules that allow the Democratic minority to filibuster Mr. Bush's appeals court nominees; and using Congress's authority over court budgets to punish judges whom it considers to have overstepped their authority.
"I am in favor of impeachment," Michael Schwartz, chief of staff to Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, said in a panel discussion on abortion, suggesting "mass impeachment" might be needed.
In an interview, Jeff Lungren, a spokesman for Representative F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., Republican of Wisconsin and chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said the panel was likely in some way to take up the issue of how the federal judges handled Ms. Schiavo's case.
But Mr. Lungren said Mr. DeLay had not requested a hearing and the committee had not decided on a course of action. "There does seem to be this misunderstanding out there that our system was created with a completely independent judiciary," he said.
Dr. Rick Scarborough, chief organizer of the conference, called on Congress "to protect us from an overactive judiciary," saying: "Right now they are ruling as an oligarchy. They are the kings of the land."
Mr. DeLay, who was previously criticized by some Democrats who said his open-ended remarks about holding judges accountable might incite violence, took care to warn the few dozen attendees at the conference to keep their emotions in check.
"As passionately as we all feel, especially about issues of life and death, the fact is that constitutional rule of law is a matter for serious and rational discussion," he said. "People on all sides of this debate need to approach the issue for what it is: a legitimate debate by people of good will trying to clarify the proper constitutional role of courts."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/08/politics/08judges.html
Did I just see a quote from TOM DELAY, of all people asking for a serious and rational discussion? Oh my goodness. Will the total hypocrisy ever end?
Theocracy anyone? CROOKED Theocracy anyone?
Celebrate Tom DeLay's birthday!
Join Premium today and get 15 months of independent reporting for the price of 12.
Join Premium today and get 15 months of independent reporting for the price of 12.
QUOTE(davisął @ Apr 8 2005, 09:11 AM)
[color=blue]Did I just see a quote from TOM DELAY, of all people asking for a serious and rational discussion? Oh my goodness.
[right][snapback]73653[/snapback][/right]
I'm not sure you'd recognize rational discussion even if DeLay was willing.
QUOTE(SpaceCowboy @ Apr 7 2005, 07:32 AM)
Lying weasels got caught.
[right][snapback]73463[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]73463[/snapback][/right]
That deafening silence you here is a giant
[center]<SHRUG>[/center]
from the powers what be.
After DeLay Remarks, Bush Says He Supports 'Independent Judiciary'
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
Published: April 9, 2005
WASHINGTON, April 8 - President Bush appeared to distance himself on Friday from recent comments by the House Republican leader, Representative Tom DeLay, that Congress should crack down on unaccountable judges.
Asked in a conversation with reporters about statements by Mr. DeLay that judges were out of control and should be held accountable, the president said: "I believe in an independent judiciary. I believe in proper checks and balances. And we'll continue to put judges on the bench who strictly and faithfully interpret the Constitution."
Trent Duffy, a spokesman for the White House, said Friday night that the president was only "saying what his view of the judiciary is," in the same terms he has always used.
Dan Allen, a spokesman for Mr. DeLay, said the lawmaker's views were consistent with the president's statement. "Congressman DeLay as well as House Republicans have made it clear that Congress has a role to play here to ensure there are checks and balances and the judiciary doesn't run amok," Mr. Allen said.
WTF? DeLay's people even twisted Bush's words. Liars. How can anyone consider him a fine, upstanding ANYTHING?
Democrats called the president's statement a contradiction of Mr. DeLay's.
"The Republican Party has to make up its mind," Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, said. "One day, they're essentially threatening judges who act independently. The next day the president says he wants an independent judiciary. They can't have their cake and eat it, too."
Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, praised Mr. Bush as "distancing himself from the current Republican rhetoric on retaliation against judges."
The House Democratic leader, Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, said: "Mr. DeLay's escalating threats aimed at intimidating the federal judiciary fundamentally disrespect our Constitutional framework. As Republicans increasingly use any means to justify their partisan ends, that system has never been more critical."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/09/politics/09judges.html
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
Published: April 9, 2005
WASHINGTON, April 8 - President Bush appeared to distance himself on Friday from recent comments by the House Republican leader, Representative Tom DeLay, that Congress should crack down on unaccountable judges.
Asked in a conversation with reporters about statements by Mr. DeLay that judges were out of control and should be held accountable, the president said: "I believe in an independent judiciary. I believe in proper checks and balances. And we'll continue to put judges on the bench who strictly and faithfully interpret the Constitution."
Trent Duffy, a spokesman for the White House, said Friday night that the president was only "saying what his view of the judiciary is," in the same terms he has always used.
Dan Allen, a spokesman for Mr. DeLay, said the lawmaker's views were consistent with the president's statement. "Congressman DeLay as well as House Republicans have made it clear that Congress has a role to play here to ensure there are checks and balances and the judiciary doesn't run amok," Mr. Allen said.
WTF? DeLay's people even twisted Bush's words. Liars. How can anyone consider him a fine, upstanding ANYTHING?
Democrats called the president's statement a contradiction of Mr. DeLay's.
"The Republican Party has to make up its mind," Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, said. "One day, they're essentially threatening judges who act independently. The next day the president says he wants an independent judiciary. They can't have their cake and eat it, too."
Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, praised Mr. Bush as "distancing himself from the current Republican rhetoric on retaliation against judges."
The House Democratic leader, Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, said: "Mr. DeLay's escalating threats aimed at intimidating the federal judiciary fundamentally disrespect our Constitutional framework. As Republicans increasingly use any means to justify their partisan ends, that system has never been more critical."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/09/politics/09judges.html
It all depends on whose ox is gored. Dems who were recently still whining about Bush being selected by the court are now it's defenders? The folks filibustering judges who might not find their way complaining about an independent judiciary?
That's a laugh.
That's a laugh.
It isn't just a matter of whose ox is gored.
THere are principles involved, including the 2k election which have not been adequately addressed or answerred.
There is and ought to be political input into judgeships, but among the reasons for the 60-vote rule is to prevent the kind of wild swings the 'mob' would put the leadership through if that is the sole voice in the decision. One of the jobs of government is to prevent that kind of disruptive and unpredictable lurch and to prevent mere ' majority rule ' which so quickly becomes an oligarchic entitlement.
The Repulicans had the same option the eight years of Clinton, I don't recall them using it, but ol' Bill was such a Republican hisself....
THere are principles involved, including the 2k election which have not been adequately addressed or answerred.
There is and ought to be political input into judgeships, but among the reasons for the 60-vote rule is to prevent the kind of wild swings the 'mob' would put the leadership through if that is the sole voice in the decision. One of the jobs of government is to prevent that kind of disruptive and unpredictable lurch and to prevent mere ' majority rule ' which so quickly becomes an oligarchic entitlement.
The Repulicans had the same option the eight years of Clinton, I don't recall them using it, but ol' Bill was such a Republican hisself....
QUOTE(celtcahill @ Apr 9 2005, 06:19 PM)
It isn't just a matter of whose ox is gored.
THere are principles involved, including the 2k election which have not been adequately addressed or answerred.
There is and ought to be political input into judgeships, but among the reasons for the 60-vote rule is to prevent the kind of wild swings the 'mob' would put the leadership through if that is the sole voice in the decision. One of the jobs of government is to prevent that kind of disruptive and unpredictable lurch and to prevent mere ' majority rule ' which so quickly becomes an oligarchic entitlement.
The Repulicans had the same option the eight years of Clinton, I don't recall them using it, but ol' Bill was such a Republican hisself....
[right][snapback]74137[/snapback][/right]
THere are principles involved, including the 2k election which have not been adequately addressed or answerred.
There is and ought to be political input into judgeships, but among the reasons for the 60-vote rule is to prevent the kind of wild swings the 'mob' would put the leadership through if that is the sole voice in the decision. One of the jobs of government is to prevent that kind of disruptive and unpredictable lurch and to prevent mere ' majority rule ' which so quickly becomes an oligarchic entitlement.
The Repulicans had the same option the eight years of Clinton, I don't recall them using it, but ol' Bill was such a Republican hisself....
[right][snapback]74137[/snapback][/right]
If we were so concerned about mob rule in the senate, why pass the 17th amendment?
QUOTE(celtcahill @ Apr 9 2005, 07:19 PM)
It isn't just a matter of whose ox is gored.
THere are principles involved, including the 2k election which have not been adequately addressed or answerred.
[right][snapback]74137[/snapback][/right]
THere are principles involved, including the 2k election which have not been adequately addressed or answerred.
[right][snapback]74137[/snapback][/right]
No amount of answers would suffice for the losers. Goes for either side because it isn't like both sides wouldn't have something to gripe about.
QUOTE
There is and ought to be political input into judgeships, but among the reasons for the 60-vote rule is to prevent the kind of wild swings the 'mob' would put the leadership through if that is the sole voice in the decision. One of the jobs of government is to prevent that kind of disruptive and unpredictable lurch and to prevent mere ' majority rule ' which so quickly becomes an oligarchic entitlement.
The Repulicans had the same option the eight years of Clinton, I don't recall them using it, but ol' Bill was such a Republican hisself....
I have a feeling that what goes around will come around.
Posted on Fri, Apr. 15, 2005
LEGISLATURE
Voters will decide on term limits
Legislators sent to the 2006 ballot a proposal to extend their term limits from eight to 12 years, saying they need more time to learn how to govern.
TALLAHASSEE - The Florida Legislature decided Thursday that eight years is not enough.
By a 35-4 vote, the Florida Senate passed a House bill that will put an amendment before voters in 2006 that asks them to expand term limits to 12 years from the current eight, modifying a 1992 constitutional change that won voter approval that year by a 77-23 percent margin.
The measure applies only to legislators whose first term begins in 2006, theoretically making ineligible the 160 legislators now serving. But lawmakers, more than half of them in office less than two years, have already come up with potential exceptions -- such as switching districts before their term expires or moving from the House to the Senate.
''Term limits have done significant damage to the Legislature in some respects,'' said Senate President Tom Lee, a Brandon Republican whose term ends in 2006. ``The learning curve is steep and the empowerment of the lobbying corps and the staff is no longer just a threat. We've seen it happen.''
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/11398283.htm
LEGISLATURE
Voters will decide on term limits
Legislators sent to the 2006 ballot a proposal to extend their term limits from eight to 12 years, saying they need more time to learn how to govern.
TALLAHASSEE - The Florida Legislature decided Thursday that eight years is not enough.
By a 35-4 vote, the Florida Senate passed a House bill that will put an amendment before voters in 2006 that asks them to expand term limits to 12 years from the current eight, modifying a 1992 constitutional change that won voter approval that year by a 77-23 percent margin.
The measure applies only to legislators whose first term begins in 2006, theoretically making ineligible the 160 legislators now serving. But lawmakers, more than half of them in office less than two years, have already come up with potential exceptions -- such as switching districts before their term expires or moving from the House to the Senate.
''Term limits have done significant damage to the Legislature in some respects,'' said Senate President Tom Lee, a Brandon Republican whose term ends in 2006. ``The learning curve is steep and the empowerment of the lobbying corps and the staff is no longer just a threat. We've seen it happen.''
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/11398283.htm
Can you say CHHAAAAAA-CHINGGGG!!!!?
Politician's Assistance Came After Donation
By Ted Rohrlich and Dan Morain, Times Staff Writers
California Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata (D-Oakland) intervened in a dispute with regulators to help a West Hollywood company maintain lucrative billboards on freeways in Los Angeles and Orange counties, records show.
Perata intervened in 2001 the day after the company, Regency Outdoor Advertising Inc., reported giving a $25,000 campaign contribution to a Perata-backed initiative. The company's co-owner said the contribution came in response to a request from the senator.
Later, as the senator and his aides made inquiries with the California Department of Transportation on Regency's behalf, the firm gave an additional $300,000 in contributions and free advertising to political committees Perata controlled or influenced, records show.
At the time, the firm was in the midst of a multimillion-dollar dispute with Caltrans.
When Perata intervened on the firm's behalf, he was a member of the Senate Transportation Committee, which oversees Caltrans. Caltrans officials treated the inquiries from his office as a high priority. As agency officials scrambled to gather information, they exchanged e-mails among themselves carrying the subject line: "Fire drill for Senator Perata."
No law prohibits an elected official from soliciting a campaign contribution from a company and then taking action on the contributor's behalf. State and federal law, however, do prohibit explicit deals in which campaign contributions are traded for an officeholder's services.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-pe...-home-headlines
It happens all the time!!! Everybody does it!!! <grrrrrrrr> I believe that is a "bootable" offence. (or should be)
Politician's Assistance Came After Donation
By Ted Rohrlich and Dan Morain, Times Staff Writers
California Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata (D-Oakland) intervened in a dispute with regulators to help a West Hollywood company maintain lucrative billboards on freeways in Los Angeles and Orange counties, records show.
Perata intervened in 2001 the day after the company, Regency Outdoor Advertising Inc., reported giving a $25,000 campaign contribution to a Perata-backed initiative. The company's co-owner said the contribution came in response to a request from the senator.
Later, as the senator and his aides made inquiries with the California Department of Transportation on Regency's behalf, the firm gave an additional $300,000 in contributions and free advertising to political committees Perata controlled or influenced, records show.
At the time, the firm was in the midst of a multimillion-dollar dispute with Caltrans.
When Perata intervened on the firm's behalf, he was a member of the Senate Transportation Committee, which oversees Caltrans. Caltrans officials treated the inquiries from his office as a high priority. As agency officials scrambled to gather information, they exchanged e-mails among themselves carrying the subject line: "Fire drill for Senator Perata."
No law prohibits an elected official from soliciting a campaign contribution from a company and then taking action on the contributor's behalf. State and federal law, however, do prohibit explicit deals in which campaign contributions are traded for an officeholder's services.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-pe...-home-headlines
It happens all the time!!! Everybody does it!!! <grrrrrrrr> I believe that is a "bootable" offence. (or should be)
These jerks have no ethics. I don't want to pay for someone like Armstrong Williams to lie to me. I can get that for free from the admOnistration.
Inquiry Finds White House Role in Contract
# An aide apparently knew of the Education Department's $240,000 deal with a journalist.
By Tom Hamburger and Peter Wallsten, Times Staff Writers
WASHINGTON — A White House aide was told about potential problems with the Education Department paying a conservative commentator to promote an administration policy but did not prevent the contract from being renewed, according to a new government report.
The White House involvement, noted briefly in a report Friday by the Education Department's inspector general, appears to contradict statements by President Bush in January that the White House had no knowledge of the $240,000 contract with Armstrong Williams. The contract's existence was disclosed publicly at that time by USA Today.
After it was revealed that Williams was being paid by the administration to promote its No Child Left Behind initiative, the White House moved swiftly to condemn using government funds to pay journalists to advance its policies.
The 20-page report by the inspector general provided no indication that Bush or his senior staff knew about the contract when it was issued in late 2003 and renewed in mid-2004.
But the report said that shortly before the renewal, a midlevel White House aide received calls from Education officials concerned about the contract's cost, its effectiveness and Williams' dual role as journalist and government public relations man.
Despite those discussions, the Education Department renewed the contract.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/na...eadlines-nation
Inquiry Finds White House Role in Contract
# An aide apparently knew of the Education Department's $240,000 deal with a journalist.
By Tom Hamburger and Peter Wallsten, Times Staff Writers
WASHINGTON — A White House aide was told about potential problems with the Education Department paying a conservative commentator to promote an administration policy but did not prevent the contract from being renewed, according to a new government report.
The White House involvement, noted briefly in a report Friday by the Education Department's inspector general, appears to contradict statements by President Bush in January that the White House had no knowledge of the $240,000 contract with Armstrong Williams. The contract's existence was disclosed publicly at that time by USA Today.
After it was revealed that Williams was being paid by the administration to promote its No Child Left Behind initiative, the White House moved swiftly to condemn using government funds to pay journalists to advance its policies.
The 20-page report by the inspector general provided no indication that Bush or his senior staff knew about the contract when it was issued in late 2003 and renewed in mid-2004.
But the report said that shortly before the renewal, a midlevel White House aide received calls from Education officials concerned about the contract's cost, its effectiveness and Williams' dual role as journalist and government public relations man.
Despite those discussions, the Education Department renewed the contract.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/na...eadlines-nation
He's filthy. I hope he already has done permanent damage to the party. They're too greedy for money and permanent power.
GOP Congressman urges DeLay to step aside
By Suzanne Gamboa, Associated Press Writer | April 16, 2005
WASHINGTON -- One of Congress' most conservative members on Friday became the second House Republican to urge Majority Leader Tom DeLay to step aside because of the ethics scrutiny he's facing.
"If the majority leader were to temporarily step aside so that these trumped up charges can be dealt with in a less hostile environment, as they have proven to be an unnecessary distraction, it may be a productive move," said Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo.
Tancredo's comments come after Connecticut Rep. Chris Shays, a moderate Republican, urged DeLay to resign from his leadership position at the beginning of the week. Also, Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, the No. 3 Republican in the Senate, said DeLay needs to answer questions about his ethics.
Tancredo, elected in 1998, said he believes all charges against DeLay, R-Texas, "lack merit" and are "being leveled in the hopes of bringing him down and with him, the Republican majority."
Tancredo is known in the House for his tough stand on immigration and has 100 percent rating from the American Conservative Union for votes and his position on issues.
DeLay has been dogged by questions for months about his overseas travel, corporate fundraising in 2002 for Texas legislative campaigns, campaign payments to family members and his connections to a lobbyist now under federal investigation.
Some GOP colleagues have suggested his continuing ethics controversy is harming the GOP, while others say the criticism has been orchestrated by Democrats and their liberal allies.
DeLay has said he is eager to appear before the leaders of the House ethics committee and give "everything I have" in connection with allegations of misconduct. Spokesman Dan Allen provided a similar comment Friday and cited a list of accomplishments by House Republicans with DeLay as majority leader.
Before DeLay can meet with the ethics committee, Democrats and Republicans must resolve a deadlock over rules Republicans pushed through the House. Democrats oppose the changes.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washingt...ay_should_quit/
This is one lousy photo.
GOP Congressman urges DeLay to step aside
By Suzanne Gamboa, Associated Press Writer | April 16, 2005
WASHINGTON -- One of Congress' most conservative members on Friday became the second House Republican to urge Majority Leader Tom DeLay to step aside because of the ethics scrutiny he's facing.
"If the majority leader were to temporarily step aside so that these trumped up charges can be dealt with in a less hostile environment, as they have proven to be an unnecessary distraction, it may be a productive move," said Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo.
Tancredo's comments come after Connecticut Rep. Chris Shays, a moderate Republican, urged DeLay to resign from his leadership position at the beginning of the week. Also, Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, the No. 3 Republican in the Senate, said DeLay needs to answer questions about his ethics.
Tancredo, elected in 1998, said he believes all charges against DeLay, R-Texas, "lack merit" and are "being leveled in the hopes of bringing him down and with him, the Republican majority."
Tancredo is known in the House for his tough stand on immigration and has 100 percent rating from the American Conservative Union for votes and his position on issues.
DeLay has been dogged by questions for months about his overseas travel, corporate fundraising in 2002 for Texas legislative campaigns, campaign payments to family members and his connections to a lobbyist now under federal investigation.
Some GOP colleagues have suggested his continuing ethics controversy is harming the GOP, while others say the criticism has been orchestrated by Democrats and their liberal allies.
DeLay has said he is eager to appear before the leaders of the House ethics committee and give "everything I have" in connection with allegations of misconduct. Spokesman Dan Allen provided a similar comment Friday and cited a list of accomplishments by House Republicans with DeLay as majority leader.
Before DeLay can meet with the ethics committee, Democrats and Republicans must resolve a deadlock over rules Republicans pushed through the House. Democrats oppose the changes.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washingt...ay_should_quit/
This is one lousy photo.
Look for it now to show up in an avatar. Nice goin', davey ya punk.
Stock photo.
In DeLay's Home District, Rumblings of Discontent Surface
By RALPH BLUMENTHAL
Published: April 17, 2005
SUGAR LAND, Tex., April 16 - Patricia Baig, a substitute teacher with a comfortable inheritance, paid $2,776 this week to call for Representative Tom DeLay's resignation.
Ms. Baig, 57 - who identifies herself as a fellow Republican of Mr. DeLay, the House majority leader, and is one of his constituents - took out a full-page advertisement on Wednesday in the 62,000 copies of the weekly free Fort Bend Southwest Sun. It urged demonstrators "who want ethical reform" to rally against Mr. DeLay's scheduled keynote speech Saturday night to the National Rifle Association in downtown Houston, "to protest the actions of Representative DeLay and ask for his resignation," while adding her gun-owner's caveat: "This is NOT a protest of the N.R.A.!"
The Texas fallout from Mr. DeLay's citations for ethical lapses and the investigations of political fund-raisers and lobbyists close to him has been hard to gauge, but there are signs of restiveness here in his hometown, named for the historic plantation and defunct Imperial Sugar refinery that now beckons redevelopers to this thriving Houston suburb of 64,000 people.
Another Republican, who runs the other weekly county paper, has also been openly hostile to Mr. DeLay, and a Zogby poll two weeks ago for The Houston Chronicle found nearly 40 percent of 501 voters saying that their opinion of Mr. DeLay has declined since last year, with 11 percent saying their opinion of him had improved. His Democratic opponent from 2004 has already declared for a rematch next year, along with some other likely candidates, including a possible primary opponent.
In Austin, a state judge may rule as soon as this coming week in a civil lawsuit by five losing Democratic candidates against the treasurer of a political action committee formed by Mr. DeLay that the Democrats say improperly funneled corporate money to state races. A criminal investigation is also pending, and this week a Republican member of the Texas House came forward for the first time to say he was offered an inducement, barred under law, to elect an ally of Mr. DeLay's, Tom Craddick, as the Texas House speaker last year.
In addition, some lawmakers in the Texas capital say Mr. DeLay's troubles have subtly affected issues in the waning weeks of the 2005 legislative session.
Ms. Baig, who signed her advertisement with her maiden name, P. A. Perine, "A Texas Republican for Ethical Reform" at a post office box in neighboring Missouri City, said she often used her maiden name and was not trying to hide.
"Tom DeLay is not representing his district," said Ms. Baig, as she buttonholed neighbors on Friday in support of the demonstration. "Tom DeLay is taking care of Tom DeLay. He has become an embarrassment to his district. It's time for him to go."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/17/politics/17delay.html
By RALPH BLUMENTHAL
Published: April 17, 2005
SUGAR LAND, Tex., April 16 - Patricia Baig, a substitute teacher with a comfortable inheritance, paid $2,776 this week to call for Representative Tom DeLay's resignation.
Ms. Baig, 57 - who identifies herself as a fellow Republican of Mr. DeLay, the House majority leader, and is one of his constituents - took out a full-page advertisement on Wednesday in the 62,000 copies of the weekly free Fort Bend Southwest Sun. It urged demonstrators "who want ethical reform" to rally against Mr. DeLay's scheduled keynote speech Saturday night to the National Rifle Association in downtown Houston, "to protest the actions of Representative DeLay and ask for his resignation," while adding her gun-owner's caveat: "This is NOT a protest of the N.R.A.!"
The Texas fallout from Mr. DeLay's citations for ethical lapses and the investigations of political fund-raisers and lobbyists close to him has been hard to gauge, but there are signs of restiveness here in his hometown, named for the historic plantation and defunct Imperial Sugar refinery that now beckons redevelopers to this thriving Houston suburb of 64,000 people.
Another Republican, who runs the other weekly county paper, has also been openly hostile to Mr. DeLay, and a Zogby poll two weeks ago for The Houston Chronicle found nearly 40 percent of 501 voters saying that their opinion of Mr. DeLay has declined since last year, with 11 percent saying their opinion of him had improved. His Democratic opponent from 2004 has already declared for a rematch next year, along with some other likely candidates, including a possible primary opponent.
In Austin, a state judge may rule as soon as this coming week in a civil lawsuit by five losing Democratic candidates against the treasurer of a political action committee formed by Mr. DeLay that the Democrats say improperly funneled corporate money to state races. A criminal investigation is also pending, and this week a Republican member of the Texas House came forward for the first time to say he was offered an inducement, barred under law, to elect an ally of Mr. DeLay's, Tom Craddick, as the Texas House speaker last year.
In addition, some lawmakers in the Texas capital say Mr. DeLay's troubles have subtly affected issues in the waning weeks of the 2005 legislative session.
Ms. Baig, who signed her advertisement with her maiden name, P. A. Perine, "A Texas Republican for Ethical Reform" at a post office box in neighboring Missouri City, said she often used her maiden name and was not trying to hide.
"Tom DeLay is not representing his district," said Ms. Baig, as she buttonholed neighbors on Friday in support of the demonstration. "Tom DeLay is taking care of Tom DeLay. He has become an embarrassment to his district. It's time for him to go."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/17/politics/17delay.html
QUOTE
Marriage Act sponsor facing divorce
By Skip Cauthorn, scauthorn@nashvillecitypaper.com
April 15, 2005
Senate Republican Caucus Chairman Jeff Miller, the sponsor of Tennessee’s Marriage Protection act, is facing divorce because of his alleged relationship with a Senate aide, his wife said.
Miller (R-Cleveland) has been the chief sponsor of the Marriage Protection Amendment, which passed the Senate in February mere days prior to the divorce filing.
Brigitte Miller, Sen. Miller’s wife of 15 years, said he is having an affair with a legislative researcher and that he and the young lady accompanied the Millers’ three daughters to a November Martina McBride concert in Nashville.
“They’ve been seeing each other for a while,” Mrs. Miller told a Capitol Hill reporter. “Now he admits things. But he said it’s only been since he moved out. But I know better. I’ve got things that tell me differently.”
Sen. Miller said at the time of the concert the aide was a “friend,” Mrs. Miller said.
A court date has not been set in Bradley County Circuit Court. Sen. Miller, who is representing himself in the proceedings, filed a countercomplaint with the court March 23. The countercomplaint said the February claim of “inappropriate marital conduct” is without merit.
Miller didn’t return calls to his legislative office Thursday afternoon but issued the following statement:
“My wife and I are in the process of getting a divorce. Divorce is a very difficult time for everyone. It is a very private matter, which is played out in public proceedings. Our chief concern right now is the best interest of our children,” the statement said. ... “It became apparent over the last week or so that we have irreconcilable differences which we have been unable to resolve.”
The Marriage Protection Amendment, which passed the Senate floor Feb. 23, would place a ban on gay marriage in the state constitution. The amendment, which says marriage should be defined as between “one man and one woman,” will go before the voters in a November referendum next year.
Miller described the measure last year, in the first of two passages needed for a constitutional amendment, as a means of preserving the sanctity of marriage.
In addition, while pushing the marriage act through the Senate last year, Miller openly opposed an amendment sponsored by state Sen. Steve Cohen that would have included an “adultery clause.”
Cohen’s amendment, which failed, stated: “Adultery is deemed to be a threat to the institution of marriage and contrary to public policy in Tennessee.”
Prior to the passage of the amendment last year The City Paper learned Miller’s brother and Nashville resident Gregg Miller was openly gay.
Gregg Miller said at the time he was surprised to learn Sen. Miller was pushing the initiative.
“It’s not going to hurt my relationship with [my brother]. He’s a grown man and I love him and my whole family loves him and we love each other,” Sen. Miller said of his sibling. “We support each other whenever we feel like the other person is in the right. But, if the other person is not acting appropriately according to the belief systems that we all have, then we still love each other but we disagree.”
Mrs. Miller said she has suspected the senator to have had extramarital affairs in the past.
“I think he’s played around for a long time. … It’s not any more wrong to be gay than to commit adultery,” she said.
http://www.nashvillecitypaper.com/index.cf...s&news_id=40741
By Skip Cauthorn, scauthorn@nashvillecitypaper.com
April 15, 2005
Senate Republican Caucus Chairman Jeff Miller, the sponsor of Tennessee’s Marriage Protection act, is facing divorce because of his alleged relationship with a Senate aide, his wife said.
Miller (R-Cleveland) has been the chief sponsor of the Marriage Protection Amendment, which passed the Senate in February mere days prior to the divorce filing.
Brigitte Miller, Sen. Miller’s wife of 15 years, said he is having an affair with a legislative researcher and that he and the young lady accompanied the Millers’ three daughters to a November Martina McBride concert in Nashville.
“They’ve been seeing each other for a while,” Mrs. Miller told a Capitol Hill reporter. “Now he admits things. But he said it’s only been since he moved out. But I know better. I’ve got things that tell me differently.”
Sen. Miller said at the time of the concert the aide was a “friend,” Mrs. Miller said.
A court date has not been set in Bradley County Circuit Court. Sen. Miller, who is representing himself in the proceedings, filed a countercomplaint with the court March 23. The countercomplaint said the February claim of “inappropriate marital conduct” is without merit.
Miller didn’t return calls to his legislative office Thursday afternoon but issued the following statement:
“My wife and I are in the process of getting a divorce. Divorce is a very difficult time for everyone. It is a very private matter, which is played out in public proceedings. Our chief concern right now is the best interest of our children,” the statement said. ... “It became apparent over the last week or so that we have irreconcilable differences which we have been unable to resolve.”
The Marriage Protection Amendment, which passed the Senate floor Feb. 23, would place a ban on gay marriage in the state constitution. The amendment, which says marriage should be defined as between “one man and one woman,” will go before the voters in a November referendum next year.
Miller described the measure last year, in the first of two passages needed for a constitutional amendment, as a means of preserving the sanctity of marriage.
In addition, while pushing the marriage act through the Senate last year, Miller openly opposed an amendment sponsored by state Sen. Steve Cohen that would have included an “adultery clause.”
Cohen’s amendment, which failed, stated: “Adultery is deemed to be a threat to the institution of marriage and contrary to public policy in Tennessee.”
Prior to the passage of the amendment last year The City Paper learned Miller’s brother and Nashville resident Gregg Miller was openly gay.
Gregg Miller said at the time he was surprised to learn Sen. Miller was pushing the initiative.
“It’s not going to hurt my relationship with [my brother]. He’s a grown man and I love him and my whole family loves him and we love each other,” Sen. Miller said of his sibling. “We support each other whenever we feel like the other person is in the right. But, if the other person is not acting appropriately according to the belief systems that we all have, then we still love each other but we disagree.”
Mrs. Miller said she has suspected the senator to have had extramarital affairs in the past.
“I think he’s played around for a long time. … It’s not any more wrong to be gay than to commit adultery,” she said.
http://www.nashvillecitypaper.com/index.cf...s&news_id=40741
Typical
QUOTE(Bee @ Apr 16 2005, 09:26 PM)
Marriage Act sponsor facing divorce
[right][snapback]76187[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]76187[/snapback][/right]
Imagine that.
QUOTE(SpaceCowboy @ Apr 16 2005, 11:30 PM)
Imagine that.
[right][snapback]76188[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]76188[/snapback][/right]
And his brother is openly gay.
Go figger
How tolerant.
QUOTE(Bee @ Apr 16 2005, 08:26 PM)
Typical
[right][snapback]76187[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]76187[/snapback][/right]
That .... is .... rich.
I would be p!sseder than p!ssed if the mofo had taken my daughters out with his girlfriend.
Can't these people move on to something other than hypocrisy and sanctimony? How 'bout their preachers tell 'em that.
QUOTE(davisął @ Apr 16 2005, 08:03 PM)
In DeLay's Home District, Rumblings of Discontent Surface
By RALPH BLUMENTHAL
Published: April 17, 2005
SUGAR LAND, Tex., April 16 - Patricia Baig, a substitute teacher with a comfortable inheritance, paid $2,776 this week to call for Representative Tom DeLay's resignation.
[snip]
"Tom DeLay is not representing his district," said Ms. Baig, as she buttonholed neighbors on Friday in support of the demonstration. "Tom DeLay is taking care of Tom DeLay. He has become an embarrassment to his district. It's time for him to go."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/17/politics/17delay.html
[right][snapback]76088[/snapback][/right]
By RALPH BLUMENTHAL
Published: April 17, 2005
SUGAR LAND, Tex., April 16 - Patricia Baig, a substitute teacher with a comfortable inheritance, paid $2,776 this week to call for Representative Tom DeLay's resignation.
[snip]
"Tom DeLay is not representing his district," said Ms. Baig, as she buttonholed neighbors on Friday in support of the demonstration. "Tom DeLay is taking care of Tom DeLay. He has become an embarrassment to his district. It's time for him to go."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/17/politics/17delay.html
[right][snapback]76088[/snapback][/right]
Boy howdy
Delay's been messin with Texas....
pics from Delay protest
QUOTE(Bee @ Apr 17 2005, 05:27 AM)
Boy howdy
Delay's been messin with Texas....
pics from Delay protest
[right][snapback]76341[/snapback][/right]
Delay's been messin with Texas....
pics from Delay protest
[right][snapback]76341[/snapback][/right]
QUOTE
John Cobarruvias holds a sign as he joins a group of more than 100 protestors outside the site where U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, is scheduled to address the 134th National Rifle Association member banquet, Saturday, April 16, 2005, in Houston.
100 protestors outside the NRA banquet. Amazing turnout that.
It was rather large in comparison to the 'protestors protesting the protest,' crowd
QUOTE(Bee @ Apr 17 2005, 07:31 AM)
It was rather large in comparison to the 'protestors protesting the protest,' crowd
[right][snapback]76353[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]76353[/snapback][/right]
Old pic.
I saw old Blunt on Meet the Press looking like a total fool defending Tom DeLay. The Contract for America was brought up and he waffled like an Eggo.
What a slug.
What a slug.
Even though I don't agree with DeLay on a lot of politics it is funny to see Dems attack him on ethics without being able to actually point to illegality. The lefties on Fox Newswatch are left saying it's no defense to say "you do it too" when in fact that is a perfect defense. Dem gerrymandering OK, Delay gerrymandering unethical, Bernie Sander's family on the payroll OK, Delay family on the payroll unethical, Hillary trips OK, Delay trips unethical.
I'm all for tighter rules on ethics, but they have to be enforced equally and the press shouldn't be allowed to paint one legal thing worse than another based on dollar amounts alone. If DeLay overpays his wife on his payroll that's his problem(and people who donate to him) not the NYT's.
I'm all for tighter rules on ethics, but they have to be enforced equally and the press shouldn't be allowed to paint one legal thing worse than another based on dollar amounts alone. If DeLay overpays his wife on his payroll that's his problem(and people who donate to him) not the NYT's.
QUOTE
The lefties on Fox Newswatch are left saying it's no defense to say "you do it too" when in fact that is a perfect defense.
Not even close. A crook is a crook is a crook. The Republicans got into office promising to change the ethics for the better. Doesn't that mean anything to you or them?
Like I said, the Contract for America. WTF happened? Now they are the worse hogs at the trough. The sheer scale is staggering. Especially when it's done by those who claim moral superiority.
Bottom line, they betrayed every voter who supported the Contract for America.
They haven't made it better, the fact is, now it's a free for all.
QUOTE(davisął @ Apr 17 2005, 08:35 AM)
Not even close. A crook is a crook is a crook. The Republicans got into office promising to change the ethics for the better. Doesn't that mean anything to you or them?
Like I said, the Contract for America. WTF happened? Now they are the worse hogs at the trough. The sheer scale is staggering. Especially when it's done by those who claim moral superiority.
Bottom line, they betrayed every voter who supported the Contract for America.
They haven't made it better, the fact is, now it's a free for all.
[right][snapback]76371[/snapback][/right]
Like I said, the Contract for America. WTF happened? Now they are the worse hogs at the trough. The sheer scale is staggering. Especially when it's done by those who claim moral superiority.
Bottom line, they betrayed every voter who supported the Contract for America.
They haven't made it better, the fact is, now it's a free for all.
[right][snapback]76371[/snapback][/right]
Somehow I just don't feel betrayed. The dems were able to slime a couple of guys out, but DeLay is fighing back and they don't know what to do about that. Let the motherfuckers fight it to the end.
QUOTE
If DeLay overpays his wife on his payroll that's his problem(and people who donate to him) not the NYT's.
QUOTE(Bart Katz @ Apr 17 2005, 09:37 AM)
Somehow I just don't feel betrayed. The dems were able to slime a couple of guys out, but DeLay is fighing back and they don't know what to do about that. Let the motherfuckers fight it to the end.
[right][snapback]76372[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]76372[/snapback][/right]
Republican morals and values.
QUOTE(davisął @ Apr 17 2005, 08:42 AM)
Republican morals and values.
[right][snapback]76374[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]76374[/snapback][/right]
Democrats - against progress, for the status quo.
QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ Apr 17 2005, 06:27 AM)
Even though I don't agree with DeLay on a lot of politics it is funny to see Dems attack him on ethics without being able to actually point to illegality. The lefties on Fox Newswatch are left saying it's no defense to say "you do it too" when in fact that is a perfect defense. Dem gerrymandering OK, Delay gerrymandering unethical, Bernie Sander's family on the payroll OK, Delay family on the payroll unethical, Hillary trips OK, Delay trips unethical.
I'm all for tighter rules on ethics, but they have to be enforced equally and the press shouldn't be allowed to paint one legal thing worse than another based on dollar amounts alone. If DeLay overpays his wife on his payroll that's his problem(and people who donate to him) not the NYT's.
[right][snapback]76368[/snapback][/right]
I'm all for tighter rules on ethics, but they have to be enforced equally and the press shouldn't be allowed to paint one legal thing worse than another based on dollar amounts alone. If DeLay overpays his wife on his payroll that's his problem(and people who donate to him) not the NYT's.
[right][snapback]76368[/snapback][/right]
QUOTE
All of this is not to say "everybody does it," so get off DeLay's back. What it says is that so many members of Congress make use of their families in a professional capacity because it is perfectly legal and ethical, approved by both House rules and the FEC. The relevant binding rule concerning the employment of family members on election campaigns is that they must be paid for actual work, not simply for their relation to the candidate. In the examples cited above, all members, from both parties, have met with the regulation guidelines. Their family members are providing valuable work and probably being underpaid for their efforts.
So, why did the New York Times choose to single out DeLay in their coverage? As DeLay spokesman Dan Allen told NRO, "The fact that the New York Times singles out Tom DeLay on the front page shows how slanted they are." And the Times is not alone. This week, the San Francisco Chronicle ran a list of congressional members who employ their relatives. The list naturally led with DeLay. It also excluded their home-state senator Barbara Boxer, who has risen in prominence this year to become one of the leading liberal voices of protest against the Bush administration.
Conservatives know it would be unrealistic to expect fair coverage from the media when it comes to matters such as this. Imagined scandals provide the instant gratification that fair and dispassionate reporting denies. And while it's true that Tom DeLay is one of the most powerful Republican lawmakers, the New York Times and other leading media outlets, either through lazy reporting or by conscious decision, chose to ignore the similar and legal practices of leading Democrats. His critics, meanwhile, should save the outrage for actual scandals.
Eric Pfeiffer writes the daily "Beltway Buzz" column on NRO.
So, why did the New York Times choose to single out DeLay in their coverage? As DeLay spokesman Dan Allen told NRO, "The fact that the New York Times singles out Tom DeLay on the front page shows how slanted they are." And the Times is not alone. This week, the San Francisco Chronicle ran a list of congressional members who employ their relatives. The list naturally led with DeLay. It also excluded their home-state senator Barbara Boxer, who has risen in prominence this year to become one of the leading liberal voices of protest against the Bush administration.
Conservatives know it would be unrealistic to expect fair coverage from the media when it comes to matters such as this. Imagined scandals provide the instant gratification that fair and dispassionate reporting denies. And while it's true that Tom DeLay is one of the most powerful Republican lawmakers, the New York Times and other leading media outlets, either through lazy reporting or by conscious decision, chose to ignore the similar and legal practices of leading Democrats. His critics, meanwhile, should save the outrage for actual scandals.
Eric Pfeiffer writes the daily "Beltway Buzz" column on NRO.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/04/14/...ain688174.shtml
QUOTE
Asked if he generally thinks it's appropriate to have family members on a politician's campaign staff, Sanders said, "I think sometime it is, sometimes it's not. And it's dependent entirely on the situation. It has to do with how much you pay people and what kind of work they do. In my case, my wife made I think, $30,000 in two campaigns. My daughter $65,000 in five years time. If anything, that payment is much lower than people doing comparable work would get."
Sanders says if there are members of congress paying inflated wages to their family members that is not appropriate. But he does not think the practice should be banned outright.
Sanders says if there are members of congress paying inflated wages to their family members that is not appropriate. But he does not think the practice should be banned outright.
http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=3208553
QUOTE(davisął @ Apr 17 2005, 07:35 AM)
Not even close. A crook is a crook is a crook. The Republicans got into office promising to change the ethics for the better. Doesn't that mean anything to you or them?
Like I said, the Contract for America. WTF happened? Now they are the worse hogs at the trough. The sheer scale is staggering. Especially when it's done by those who claim moral superiority.
Bottom line, they betrayed every voter who supported the Contract for America.
They haven't made it better, the fact is, now it's a free for all.
[right][snapback]76371[/snapback][/right]
Like I said, the Contract for America. WTF happened? Now they are the worse hogs at the trough. The sheer scale is staggering. Especially when it's done by those who claim moral superiority.
Bottom line, they betrayed every voter who supported the Contract for America.
They haven't made it better, the fact is, now it's a free for all.
[right][snapback]76371[/snapback][/right]
If a crook is a crook, arrest them all.
The contract with American has no bearing outside of provisions actually passed that apply to DeLay.
QUOTE(Bee @ Apr 17 2005, 09:31 AM)
It was rather large in comparison to the 'protestors protesting the protest,' crowd
[right][snapback]76353[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]76353[/snapback][/right]
Now, that's priceless!
Sometimes, a picture really is worth a thousand words.
Just because something might be old, does not automatically mean it's ineffective....but, on the other hand, some things that are old become stale, bothersome, predictable, tedious, pathetic, and ridiculous...and should be flushed post haste.
QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ Apr 17 2005, 11:03 AM)
If a crook is a crook, arrest them all.
The contract with American has no bearing outside of provisions actually passed that apply to DeLay.
[right][snapback]76389[/snapback][/right]
The contract with American has no bearing outside of provisions actually passed that apply to DeLay.
[right][snapback]76389[/snapback][/right]
I love this. The Contract With America has no bearing? has no bearing? WTF??Forget that sh*t. If you gain power by making ethics charges and saying your opponents are unethical... even portray yourself as the new sherriff gonna clean this town up ... don't you think YOU SHOULD BE ETHICAL?
They presume they are more moral than everyone. Let them act like it FOR A CHANGE.
Culture of bribes, culture of cash, culture of corruption.
By the way, how the hell can you arrest someone who cannot be investigated?
QUOTE(Bix12 @ Apr 17 2005, 11:17 AM)
Now, that's priceless!
Sometimes, a picture really is worth a thousand words.
Just because something might be old, does not automatically mean it's ineffective....but, on the other hand, some things that are old become stale, bothersome, predictable, tedious, pathetic, and ridiculous...and should be flushed post haste.
[right][snapback]76411[/snapback][/right]
The reason it was mentioned to be old is because the pic in the posted context is a lie.
QUOTE(Bart Katz @ Apr 17 2005, 02:44 PM)
The reason it was mentioned to be old is because the pic in the posted context is a lie.
[right][snapback]76440[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]76440[/snapback][/right]
Indeed Bix. Bart is the expert here.
Don't mind him though, he gets very cranky when someone emulates his various dishonest techniques.
In the meantime, it is no doubt a "typical" portrait of a RRWer protestor protesting protests.
Ever notice how they look like hippies from 1972? I wonder what the significance is. Care to speculate?
QUOTE(Bee @ Apr 17 2005, 06:01 PM)
Indeed Bix. Bart is the expert here.
Don't mind him though, he gets very cranky when someone emulates his various dishonest techniques.
In the meantime, it is no doubt a "typical" portrait of a RRWer protestor protesting protests.
Ever notice how they look like hippies from 1972? I wonder what the significance is. Care to speculate?
[right][snapback]76463[/snapback][/right]
Don't mind him though, he gets very cranky when someone emulates his various dishonest techniques.
In the meantime, it is no doubt a "typical" portrait of a RRWer protestor protesting protests.
Ever notice how they look like hippies from 1972? I wonder what the significance is. Care to speculate?
[right][snapback]76463[/snapback][/right]
Interesting way to admit your attempted deception. Interesting indeed.
I had a $385 utility bill for one month this winter. Hey, I have a wonderfully unethical proposal which rightwing corporate whores will just love. Let's give one of the Republican's biggest group of campaign contributors a HUGE taxcut.
House Energy Bill Increases Tax Breaks
Legislation at Odds With Bush Proposal
Ya think Bush will veto a present to his cash buddies? Don't hold your breath.
By Justin Blum
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, April 19, 2005; Page A04
The House this week will consider $8 billion in tax breaks targeted to the energy industry at a time when some of those companies are enjoying soaring profits from high consumer prices.
The vast majority of the tax breaks would benefit companies that produce and supply traditional forms of energy, with a large portion going to the oil and natural gas sector.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2005Apr18.html
What a bunch of corporate pigs. Give them what they want as far as mercury rules go AND a huge taxcut. Bend over America, you've been Enroned right in the assss BY REPUBLICANS
House Energy Bill Increases Tax Breaks
Legislation at Odds With Bush Proposal
Ya think Bush will veto a present to his cash buddies? Don't hold your breath.
By Justin Blum
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, April 19, 2005; Page A04
The House this week will consider $8 billion in tax breaks targeted to the energy industry at a time when some of those companies are enjoying soaring profits from high consumer prices.
The vast majority of the tax breaks would benefit companies that produce and supply traditional forms of energy, with a large portion going to the oil and natural gas sector.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2005Apr18.html
What a bunch of corporate pigs. Give them what they want as far as mercury rules go AND a huge taxcut. Bend over America, you've been Enroned right in the assss BY REPUBLICANS
QUOTE(davisął @ Apr 19 2005, 07:11 AM)
I had a $385 utility bill for one month this winter. Hey, I have a wonderfully unethical proposal which rightwing corporate whores will just love. Let's give one of the Republican's biggest group of campaign contributors a HUGE taxcut.
House Energy Bill Increases Tax Breaks
Legislation at Odds With Bush Proposal
Ya think Bush will veto a present to his cash buddies? Don't hold your breath.
By Justin Blum
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, April 19, 2005; Page A04
The House this week will consider $8 billion in tax breaks targeted to the energy industry at a time when some of those companies are enjoying soaring profits from high consumer prices.
The vast majority of the tax breaks would benefit companies that produce and supply traditional forms of energy, with a large portion going to the oil and natural gas sector.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2005Apr18.html
What a bunch of corporate pigs. Give them what they want as far as mercury rules go AND a huge taxcut. Bend over America, you've been Enroned right in the assss BY REPUBLICANS
[right][snapback]76803[/snapback][/right]
House Energy Bill Increases Tax Breaks
Legislation at Odds With Bush Proposal
Ya think Bush will veto a present to his cash buddies? Don't hold your breath.
By Justin Blum
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, April 19, 2005; Page A04
The House this week will consider $8 billion in tax breaks targeted to the energy industry at a time when some of those companies are enjoying soaring profits from high consumer prices.
The vast majority of the tax breaks would benefit companies that produce and supply traditional forms of energy, with a large portion going to the oil and natural gas sector.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2005Apr18.html
What a bunch of corporate pigs. Give them what they want as far as mercury rules go AND a huge taxcut. Bend over America, you've been Enroned right in the assss BY REPUBLICANS
[right][snapback]76803[/snapback][/right]
Po, po, oil companies. They sure have had a rough time under Bushie.
QUOTE(SpaceCowboy @ Apr 19 2005, 08:15 AM)
Po, po, oil companies. They sure have had a rough time under Bushie.
[right][snapback]76805[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]76805[/snapback][/right]
I don't know if they can survive Bush.
Oh wait, that would be the middle and lower class.
QUOTE(davisął @ Apr 19 2005, 07:17 AM)
I don't know if they can survive Bush.
Oh wait, that would be the middle and lower class.
[right][snapback]76806[/snapback][/right]
Oh wait, that would be the middle and lower class.
[right][snapback]76806[/snapback][/right]
Don't need 'em anymore. We have the Chinese for that.
What a lowlife scumbag. The absolute perfect posterboy for the greedy, corrupt so-called faith-based (bwahahahahahaha!!!) Republican party.
DeLay Letter Cites Democrats' 'Hate'
# House majority leader says he's being targeted in an effort to damage the conservative agenda.
By Richard Simon, Times Staff Writer
WASHINGTON — House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas), dogged by questions about his ethics, is fighting back by telling supporters that Democrats have targeted him in an effort to derail the conservative agenda.
In a five-page single-spaced "briefing document" sent to supporters, DeLay contends that "Democrats have made clear that their only agenda is the politics of personal destruction."
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/na...eadlines-nation
Can you believe that lying ass-face would even say anything about the politics of personal destruction? The man is just amazing. How low can you go? Cockroaches are cleaner than this weasel.
DeLay Letter Cites Democrats' 'Hate'
# House majority leader says he's being targeted in an effort to damage the conservative agenda.
By Richard Simon, Times Staff Writer
WASHINGTON — House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas), dogged by questions about his ethics, is fighting back by telling supporters that Democrats have targeted him in an effort to derail the conservative agenda.
In a five-page single-spaced "briefing document" sent to supporters, DeLay contends that "Democrats have made clear that their only agenda is the politics of personal destruction."
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/na...eadlines-nation
Can you believe that lying ass-face would even say anything about the politics of personal destruction? The man is just amazing. How low can you go? Cockroaches are cleaner than this weasel.
QUOTE(davisął @ Apr 19 2005, 08:04 AM)
Can you believe that lying ass-face would even say anything about the politics of personal destruction? The man is just amazing. How low can you go? Cockroaches are cleaner than this weasel.
[right][snapback]76837[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]76837[/snapback][/right]
Kinda funny after the way they went after Slick Willie and Daschle.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.