WHY TOM DELAY MUST GO RIGHT NOW -- No. 9

DFU | 4-20-05 | dfu

[doug from upland]

Pinging the WHY TOM DELAY MUST GO RIGHT NOW list.

[woofie]

*Ted Kennedy Fights Removal of Feeding Tube*

DC --- Ted Kennedy, who was recently declared brain-dead by his
physician, is fighting for his life. The Senator's family is trying to
have his feeding tube removed to allow him to die a sober death. The
tube, attached to a bottle of vodka and a bottle of gin, has been
utilized by the senator for his entire adult life. Medical experts
believe removal will almost certainly result in death.*

*"This is a very complex situation," said one medical expert. "Senator
Kennedy appears to be functioning normally to many people, but it is
quite obvious that the man is brain-dead by his public comments. Most
of us in the medical community think he should be allowed to have a
dignified death by sobering him up and removing his feeding tube."*

*Liberals were stuck in a quandary today as they want Terri Schiavo
dead, but they don't want Ted Kennedy to die. "This is a moral dilemma
to many people," said Commie Greenstein, a liberal living in **New
York**. "Fortunately, most of us don't really make decisions based on
any morals, so it's okay if we want one person to die while allowing a
brain-dead person to live."*

*Alcohol manufacturers around the world are scrambling to raise money
for the "Keep Kennedy Alive" fund. Removing his feeding tube is
predicted to cause a 12% annual decrease in global alcohol consumption.
Some manufacturers risk going out of business as soon as the feeding
tube is removed.*

[kingattax]

ROFL

[Spunky]

Whew! I sure am glad I read all the way to the bottom.

You really had my blood pressure rising. :-)

[Spunky]

By the way, I heard you on (I think it was Medved) asking Jana Davis a question.

[kingattax]

."I've never seen the Senator look so peaceful and beautiful"

[atlaw]

While your satiric pieces are quite funny, I really don't see the value in reiterating the point that Rep. Delay may be ethically challenged, but there are others that are a whole lot worse. It just seems like such a low standard for comparison.

[doug from upland]

It was Medved with Jayna. She will be on my Rightalk radio show next Wednesday for an hour beginning at 2pm Eastern. Afterwards, she will be on a live FReeper thread answering questions.

[doug from upland]

Sorry that you are missing the point. If DeLay did something illegal or that violates House rules, he should pay the consequences. The point of these posts is the hypocrisy of the DemocRATS and their surrogates in the mainstream media who are driving this story. If DeLay goes, that is fine. But Harry Reid has to also go, along with many others on the other side of the aisle. Let the rules apply to all. If our side had a rapist in the White House, he would have been forced out.

I don't wish to hear Ted Kennedy talk about water torture or Hillary Clinton brag about the good things her rapist husband did for women.

[atlaw]

If DeLay goes, that is fine. But Harry Reid has to also go, along with many others on the other side of the aisle. Let the rules apply to all.

Agreed. But the problem now is that Rep. Delay saw to it that the rules were changed to protect his own hide, and the effect of the change is to let all the ethical scalawags off the hook.

[ladiesview61]

This whole thing with DeLay is a blessing in disguise. It points out the total hypocrisy of the democrats in a very clear and obvious way..If the American people don't get it..they are stupid..either that or blind. Oh, and yeah, Doug, that was a funny piece you wrote!

[eyespysomething]

What rule was changed to protect him? The one that says he doesn't have to resign because of an indictment, only if he's found guilty?

[atlaw]

That's "unethical scalawags." The ethical ones we can't do much about except vote out of office.

[doug from upland]

I do believe that the hypocrisy will come shining through. I hope you saw No. 4 in the series. It is the ultimate hypocrisy.

[atlaw]

No. It's the new ethics committee rule that dismisses an ethical complaint if a majority of the committee cannot agree on whether to proceed with an inquiry after 45 days and before 90 days (the prior rule required that an inquiry proceed if the committee was deadlocked).

Because the committee is evenly split between republicans and democrats, a partisan vote assures that an inquiry will not proceed (and a partisan vote is virtually assured now, in light of Rep. Delay's stacking of the republican side of the panel with folks who will follow his orders, including two new members who are contributors to his legal defense fund).

[rockrr]

I have followed all in the series. I agree that #4 gored the left's favorite ox.

#9 is the best yet IMHO - it is BRUTALLY accurate!

Thanx

~rockrr~

[rockrr]

In case you hadn't noticed (or have been paying attention), everything in DC is partisan these days.

The re-org of the committee makes perfect sense in that no complaint can linger, slowly tugging at the hem of a member, hoping for a chance to hamstring him, unless it has enough weight to induce bipartisan support. It supports a "put up or shut up" approach to one of the most abused processes in Congress.

The other part about "stacking" the deck is just a straw-man and not worthy of reply.

[atlaw]

A. "In case you hadn't noticed (or have been paying attention), everything in DC is partisan these days.

B. "The re-org of the committee makes perfect sense in that no complaint can linger, slowly tugging at the hem of a member, hoping for a chance to hamstring him, unless it has enough weight to induce bipartisan support.

Your A. and B. contradict each other. When it comes to commencement of ethics inquiries, there will, as you say, always be a partisan split, which makes your supposed "bipartisan support" to initiate an inquiry so rare as to be an utterly ineffective deterrent to unethical conduct.

So the "[t]he re-org of the committee" does not make "perfect sense." It just gives in to the reality of partisanship and gives up on ethics enforcement and deterrence.

"The other part about "stacking" the deck is just a straw-man and not worthy of reply."

Why do you consider stuffing the panel with cronies a straw-man? Sheesh, I guess its true. As long its our guys, anything goes.

[rockrr]

When it comes to commencement of ethics inquiries, there will, as you say, always be a partisan split, which makes your supposed "bipartisan support" to initiate an inquiry so rare as to be an utterly ineffective deterrent to unethical conduct.

Quite to the contrary, it deters fishing expeditions and BS witch hunts.

If the "offense" is based in reality, and has "legs" you will get your bipartisanship, and your deterrence.