’)Let that horrible’s man shadow no longer infect the people’s House.
Officials: DeLay to Quit Leadership Post
Embattled Rep. Tom DeLay decided Saturday to give up his post as House majority leader, clearing the way for new leadership elections among Republicans eager to shed the taint of scandal, two officials said.
These officials said DeLay, R-Texas, was preparing a letter informing fellow House Republicans of his decision. These officials spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they did not want to pre-empt the formal announcement.
YES!!!
Bye-bye Bug Man!
I stand corrected. Nonetheless, it is the House of Representatives, and is no more connected to “the People” than the gift shop receipts from the Washington Monument.
By the way, I have probably experienced more history than you know, Sonny.
It’s a commonly used term to describe the House of Representatives. But expecting you to know history is probably expecing too much.
Thanks to you, Oliver, the Republic will survive!
And where did this “People’s House” thing come from? An old copy of the Daily Worker?
Buzzkill: You’re right — If he were a real man, he would have strapped himself with explosives and blown himself up in the DNC offices…
Now that would have been a sacrifice!
DeLay’s letter to Hastert can be found here:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/01/07/national/w101136S15.DTL
How “big” of DeLay to sacrifice himself for the party!
By the way, I have probably experienced more history than you know, Sonny.
Heh. You have ‘experienced’ history in much the same way as my wife’s dog ‘experiences’ a fire truck’s siren.
Well, I predicted that one wrong. I thought DeLay had at least a few loyal lieutenants who would fight for him.
Instead, they just sort of stood there and watched him sink.
That said, now my guess is the Republicans might be more glad to be rid of him than the Dems.
The House of Representatives is based on the population of the states, and is directly connected to the people in the state in question. Dude, that’s elementary school level civics.
No quaker, if he had been a lefty democrat he would have fought it to the last, who cares if it is bad for the country and the party.
The idea of honor is so unfamiliar to you bolshie democrats that you can’t even recognize when you see it…
Corrigan: get away from the keyboard, and get back to work. Isn’t Saturday night ‘chili night’ at the firehouse?
Honor? Tom DeLay?
Haw! Good one, peedro. If Tom is what the GOP has to offer in the way of “honor,” all my deepest suspicions are confirmed.
Delay put the good of the country and party ahead of his personal good and desires.
He may believe he is innocent and will fight the charges. But the honorable thing to do was to step down from his leadership position until he can prove his innocence.
This is an unfamiliar concept to liberals…..I can understand your confusion
Stop it! You’re killing me!
drpedro, if what you say were true, Tom DeLay would have stepped down long ago, as soon as the indictments were handed down. The fact is, he didn’t step down until he exhausted every single tactic he could to keep from being prosecuted, including trying to get the rules of the House of Representatives changed so that he could remain as majority leader while being under indictment. If that’s what you consider to be honorable… well, it’s no wonder you’re such a Bush fan. When a Republican breaks the rules and gets caught at it, the “honorable” thing seems to be to try to change the rules.
Yea and when a democrat does it, he blames a VRWC and allows millions to be spent proving him guilty, all the while dragging this country through his mud. There is a difference.
DeLay did the right thing, you might as well just admit it.
Yes, DeLay did the right thing, money laundering is for the good of the country. Using campaign contributions to bribe representatives is for the good of the country. Breaking campign laws is for the good of the country. Landing high paying consulting fees for his family from his corporate cronies is all for the good of the country. You have a warped view of what is for the good of the country. But then you believe in torture and secret police too.
I agree. Nixon did the right thing too, as did Joe McCarthy.
But some people are too blind to see reality.
Who? “Proved guilty” of what?
Are you hallucinating again, peedro?
Frank:
I hadn’t heard that DeLay was leaving the House, just his leadership post. And that only because Republican House members demanded a new election.
Please, you guys. Stop with the “Tom DeLay did the honor…hon…” aw, hell, I can’t even type it without cracking up.
Dr P: You are so frightened of republicans you don t have time to defend against terrorists.
They’re so frightened of Republicans they don t even want to defend against terrorists: Let’s get out of Iraq; stop the NSA, before they overhear my ordering out for Chinese, etc.
Pidge you are an idiot.
DeLay has been convicted of nothing, but realizes that he can’t defend himself and have a leadership position.
Has the american ideal of innocent until proven guilty become some sort of a dream for liberals? Your sense of fairness just completely out the window because of your fear of another decade of a country with a republican majority?
You are so frightened of republicans you don’t have time to defend against terrorists.
Don’t worry morons, we will protect the rest of you
DeLay stepped down a hell of a lot quicker than William Jefferson Davis Clinton…
Wow, two “Clinton did it too”’s in one thread! Come on, guys, go for the hat trick.
I wonder if they’ll haul out the ol’ “Clinton and Carter broke the wiretap rules” lie too?
As for stopping terrorism by staying in Iraq… I fail to see how creating vast amounts of new terrorists is any kind of blow to terrorist networks.
Ryland, I’m not surprised you missed the irony — William Jefferson Clinton never stepped down.
In fact, sometimes when I hear him speak, I think he still doesn’t know he’s not the President anymore. I guess it’s because you liberals keep encouraging him.
By your logic, James T, I suppose that if we leave Iraq, the terrorists evaporate like the morning dew.
An by your logic Frank…
Oh wait. That doesn’t even work.
If the Americans are no longer in Iraq, what impetus would the insurgents have for attacking? Sure, there will be sectarian violence between the different ethnic groups, but is our presence stopping that now? No. Is our presence there stopping the terrorists? No. Were there huge terrorists attacks in Iraq prior to our occupation? No.
Like I said, so much for ‘logic’ and ‘Frank’ appearing in concert.
No DrPedro, you are an idiot. There is a ton of evidence that suggests DeLay did exactly what I said. I don’t have to wait for a trial to prove him guilty or not guilty (which is different from innocent) to reach my conclusions. To suggest that what he did he did for the good of the country… sheer idiocy. What is good for the country? Lots of money from giant corporations being funneled into Washington to buy legislation, tax breaks, exemptions, lack of regulation, whatever, is that for the good of America? Let’s go further, Bush’s initial platform is that Business can regulate themselves. I would say Enron and the recent mine disaster prove otherwise.
Yea John you are right of course.
When Mussolini was in power “The trains ran on time”.
And there were no terrorist attacks in Iraq because they were all there going to school:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/550kmbzd.asp
Clinton didn’t step down? Wow Frank! Thanks for the history lesson. I would have missed your sarcasm and irony because it was so subtle.
Right pidge, by all means don’t wait for a messy old trial.
And you morons think YOU are protecting peoples constitutional rights. This is why you continue to lose elections. We don’t want liberal elites like pidge deciding guilt or innocence
Enron occurred during the clenis years, you should take that up with him….
John S. I know you think you have vast ideas, but they’re actually half – vast.
If the Americans are no longer in Iraq, what impetus would the insurgents have for attacking?
Attacking where? Attacking what? Do you think the terrorists are like some Mongol horde who, once we leave Iraq, will say, “At last we have a homeland.”
If, as you suggest, they all headed for Iraq to claim that country for fundamentalist Islam, why would they settle for Iraq, especially after having defeated the Mighty Satan?
Talk about missing the big picture…
Why would Clinton step down? He never laundered money, nor was he indicted and arrested as numerous Republicans have in the past 12 months.
Leave Reagan out of this.
No he committed perjury before a federal judge. He was accused of rape and numerous sexual assaults. He was impeached and disbarred.
Any ONE of the above would have led an honorable man to step down for the good of the country.
Instead we got a dissertation on the meaning of “IS”.
If Clinton were the CEO of a company he would have been fired simply on the basis of sexual relations with someone like a company intern, why do the democrats hold their presidents to a lower standard?
We’ve already been through this, peedro. No, he didn’t. You’re making that up.
No he definately committed perjury…that is why he was disbarred.
Stop trying to rewrite history
Main Entry: per·ju·ry
Pronunciation: ‘p&r-j&-rE, ‘p&rj-rE
Function: noun
: the voluntary violation of an oath or vow either by swearing to what is untrue or by omission to do what has been promised under oath : false swearing
Lying under oath= Perjury
That is why he was disbarred.
I never said he was convicted of perjury, he weasled out of that, like so many other legal challenges. I said he COMMITTED perjury which is exactly what Judge Wright and a board of attorneys in Arkansas found as well.
Wrong.
Provide a cite, please.
The Southeastern Legal Foundation and U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright referred the Clinton case to the court’s committee on professional conduct, saying the president lied under oath in the Jones case by denying he had a sexual relationship with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky.
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/05/22/clinton.disbarred/
BTW, peedro, wasn’t Matt Glavin in charge of the outfit–the Southeast Legal Foundation–that claimed Clinton should be disbarred for lying about his sex life?
Whatever happened to that guy?
No, no, the CNN article doesn’t count. The article doesn’t contain the word “perjury” and it certainly doesn’t say Mr. Clinton committed it.
Your quotation from it says that a right-wing legal foundation asked the Arkansas bar to look at Mr. Clinton’s conduct. That’s not a finding, that’s a referral. What did the professional conduct committee conclude, peedro?
Still waiting to see that big “P” word somewhere in your cite.
Still wrong.
Still no cite.
You’re M.S.U.
Hehehehehe……Quaker has dropped back to that lefty fall-back position….
“it all depends on what the meaning of is,is”
Doesn’t fly with the average american, no matter how you parse it.
It remains amazing to me though that someone like quaker who at least alludes to being a Quaker would actual back someone like Clinton. After all that talk of bravely staying home for WWII, he is afraid to stand up and call BS on a fast talking used car salesmen with no respect for women….
Quaker shorter: nanananannanananananananahhhhhh, I ‘m not listening!
LOL
Matt Glavin?
You’re still M.S.U., peed’.
“Perjury” has a specific legal meaning. You still haven’t produced even one cite that supports your fantasy.
That’s because you can’t.
Are we done now?
No cite? No proof?
Matt Glavin?
It’s not me who’s trying so very hard to change the subject, peed’.
Please click my CNN reference above
And stop trying to use old Media Matters talking points.
It is this disingenous dissembling that americans are really tired of.
Here is a new t-shirt for you
“Democrats: The Antidote for Straight Talk”
You know, put a flag and a donkey next to it…huge hit
Lukily for the country, and unfortunately for Al Gore, the rest of the country didn’t just plug their ears and say “I can’t hear you…!” over and over again like quaker.
That would explain the majorities in the house, senate and white house
You musta missed this first time ’round, so let me post it up for you again:
Still no cite. Still no proof.
Still nothing on Matt Glavin.
Still MSU.
Another attempt to change the subject?
Still no cite. Still no proof.
Still nothing on Matt Glavin.
Still MSU.
As before:
Wrong Matt Glavin…I’m talking about the director of the Southeast Legal Foundation, the outfit you quoted. What ever happened to that guy?
So the score on your assertion that Clinton committed perjury remains:
Still no cite. Still no proof.
Still nothing on Matt Glavin.
Still MSU.
{sigh}…..Citation above, read the definition of perjury (again) and finally, I don’t know why you are so fascinated with Matt Glavin, but here you go
http://members.tripod.com/Matt_Glavin_Art/
you’re a moron quaker, but you’re OUR moron, and thats why we love you!
Oh, and Quaker….it was just about sex (in fact, involving no one else!) so it doesn’t really matter, right?
WOW, I didn’t know that about Glavin!
Holy crap, I didn’t realize that Clinton would be so brazen in his retaliation! I mean, I know about how he used FBI files, and how he ran the travel office out of town. I know how many of his associates and people that were testifying against him died “mysteriously”….but to actually have an undercover federal “park police” ( I didn’t even know they existed) actually frame a guy….that is Chutzpah!
Thanks Quaker, I always thought all those other deaths and such were just coincidence! Now I know better. God help all those poor souls who dig up dirt on hillary!
At the end of the inning, the score on your assertion that Clinton committed perjury is now:
Still no cite.
Still no proof.
Insane conspiracy theories on Matt Glavin.
Still MSU.
If I may take you at your word, you and I agree on that. Mr. Glavin, however, felt differently…until he was busted twice for public indecency.
{yawn}, you win.