Redstate

I failed to say, and don't believe in serious additions to pieces once posted, that part of DeLay's trouble is his success.  Like Gingrich before him, DeLay is a major reason for GOP successes, which is why he is such a huge target.  Were he not successful at both helping Republicans and pushing a rather conservative agenda inside the GOP, DeLay would not be as big an issue as he is.

For these reasons, Republicans owe DeLay much. But, if DeLay did cross the legal line in his dealings, the GOP should also toss him.  Loyalty only goes so far.

The reason that Delay has a big target on his back is that he has been successful, but also that he simply knows how to play the game of congressional power like few others in recent memory.  The thing about Delay is that there are a lot of democrats that want to see him gone, but I also think that there are a fair number within the republican congressional caucus (house side) that would like to see him gone as well.  From casual conversations with friends on the hill who work for republicans, I have gotten the feeling that the support that Delay gets is, in a lot of instances, based on fear, rather than respect.  When you rule like that, the dam has a way of bursting all at once with few people in support.

On the flip side...having Delay as one of the primary faces of the republican party is not a good thing for the party IMHO.  Delay is effective, but he is not particularly likeable outside of fairly partisan circles.  He is nothing if not a firebrand and he doesn't have a particularly low key style in his positions.

The republicans would be better to keep Delay out of the spotlight, however that is accomplished.

he is really that good.  I think he timed his

political life well.  But sucess means more than that.  From what he's dished out to both sides, when it's his turn to suffer the consequences, there will be no one there to lend him a hand.  They will be waving goodby to him.

that whatever end he comes to will be spectacular in its vitriol.  However, he is a masterful politician...that is how he has amassed the power that he currently has and why he is in his current predicament.  He has not built power based on longevity or close personal relationships, he has built it on bare knuckle power plays (Texas redistricting for example)...and he is a master of that.  That's what I think he's good at.

Just out of curiosity, if one of the arguments being made for replacing Tom Delay is over his alleged role in strong-arming a member of Congress to vote for the $849 Billion boondoggle (back when it was "only" supposed to cost $395 Billion), what about the stories of the former CMS Administrator threatening the chief actuary in order to conceal the true cost of the new benefit from Congress prior to the vote?

IMO the charge of pressuring an actuary to conceal the cost of a program from members of Congress before they vote on it is far more serious than a case of political horse-trading.  This is precisely the reason why we're supposed to have Congressional oversight and - if it should turn out that this fellow was acting on orders from the White House, an impeachable offense.

I've seen a lot of hue and cry on this forum for impeaching "activist judges" for some of their rulings.  I'm curious if any of the posters on Red States (besides the leftists g) would be willing to (a) call for a full congressional investigation into the matter and (b) demand that Congress rewrite the Medicare prescription drug benefit so that it's true cost will be the original $395 that Congress was told by this pressured actuary and (c) if President Bush carries through on his threatened veto then (d) the next action of Congress should be his impeachment.

Any takers?

I think there should be a full investigation into the circumstances under which this prescription drug bill was passed...right after the bill is repealed.  It is astounding to me that a party as committed to free-market ideas would pass a bill that prevents the government from taking advantage of its market power to reduce the cost of an entitlement program.  Simply astounding.

I disagree on the impeachment angle...let's spend our time doing something productive, rather than going through another boondoggle like that.

that this bill will be repealed.  And even if it is - weren't there huge payments to the drug companies up front to gear up - way before any benefits kick in the populace in general.

This bill sickens me and I'd be glad to contribute to anyone who has the chops to champion its repeal, or even to amend it to allow bargaining between free actors in the marketplace.

DeLay will survive as long as everyone else is afraid of him.  He's not loved.  Machiavelli, would say he lasts longer that way:

And here comes in the question whether it is better to be loved rather than feared, or feared rather than loved. It might perhaps be answered that we should wish to be both; but since love and fear can hardly exist together, if we must choose between them, it is far safer to be feared than loved.

As to skill, sometimes it just comes down to has the bigger pair, not who's the best.  We don't exactly have a bunch of Churchill's and Roosevelt's walking around the chambers of power today.  It's a pretty short list of outstanding leaders (Bush and.....?).  Rush would say that's because all of the Republicans are too busy making money to be in office.  

...the Democrats have adopted a "Gingrich" strategy of tarring and feathering every opposition leader...

I for one don't see anybody slandering Dennis Hastert or Bill Frist (and I don't think Trent Lott took a ton of abuse until that stupid Strom Thurmond  comment) - FWIW, I think Republicans slammed Tom Daschle at least as hard as Tom DeLay is getting it now, and for a lot less reasons.  Sure a lot of it is politically motivated, but in this case, where there's smoke, there's fire.  Like a good number of the pre-1994 Dem leaders, this guy is dirty.

from one friend who is sorta tied into the whole 'animal rights' world, they do plan on screeching about "cat murderer" Bill Frist if he runs for President anytime soon, heheh.... Not that it should or will bother too many people, but I kinda find it amusing, anyway

Welcome to the free spending, big government, and anti-state party. At least the other side's worse.

the payments to the drug companies...I didn't think there were any payments under the law until 2006...that way they could say that the cost for the first ten years was whatever they said it would be...i.e. they counted two years when the law would not be in effect.

I doubt that it will be repealed anytime soon.  It's too big of a part of Bush's agenda.  It should be.  If we're going to go down that road, we should do it right and not just throw up some window dressing that makes bad law and bad policy.

DeLay is prized for being an extremely able politician, not a man of principle.  If this turns out to be more than another Texas style game of political tar and feather - which at this point seems more likely than not to me - he should step down for the good of the party.

Most of the Texas stuff is indeed crap, BTW - it's the Washington stuff that is serious.

There's quite a bit of confusion on this point since the original $395 figure has been "revised" three times and for different reasons.  

The $395 figure was originally revised to $545 Billion when it turned out that the actuary hadn't included all of the projected costs of the new program.  

It was "revised" a second time to $720 Billion when it turned out that the ten year figure included two years that the benefit wasn't into effect. This was what redcell was referring to and it is different than what the actuary was originally threatened with although IMO it borders on deception but I think Congress deserves part of the blame for not asking for what the figures would be for the actual ten year period that the benefit would be in effect.

It has since been "revised" a third time to $845 Billion.  I haven't had a chance to look at the latest revisions but from what I've read, this seems part of the normal inability to accurately project health care costs and not the result of anyone's attempt at deceiving the public.  Being off by a couple of magnitudes when it comes to projecting health care costs seems the rule rather than the exception due to normal problems of trying to anticipate changes in life-expectancies, new treatments, etc. which are almost impossible to predict with any degree of accuracy.  

However being off because someone tried to conceal costs what they knew should have been included but weren't or because the fiddled with the years in order to get the "right" number for a ten-year cost is something we ought to be angry about.  

Just to clarify, though I don't like to make changes after the fact, I did change "we" to "I" to clarify that this is not an official RedState position.

If you're referring to the government trying to create price controls via "negotiating" as the Canadian government does, forget it.  I'm not about to support any attempt to bring in price controls via the back door as some "conservatives" have tried to suggest by either having the government set prices via "negotiation" or by importing Canadian price controls via so-called "reimportation" while making the specious argument that is supposedly just part of the "free market."  

If however you're referring to the scuttled idea that was in the original legislation to allow non-Medicare providers to compete with Medicare in order to introduce competition into the Medicare system (as opposed to the final legislation which has them compete on a regional basis), then I agree.  I also think we need to change the Depression-era federal law which lets States rather than the federal government regulate health insurance companies and allows States like my own to restrict the ability of consumers to purchase an indemnity policy from an out-of-State health insurance company rather than the current "pre-paid medical care" that passes for "insurance" these days.

not to give too much power to either party, perhaps?  Reserve some in the people?

a good case for split government.  Government works best when it's not working.

It's not price controls when the government uses its market power to negotiate for the prices on drugs that it is paying for.  Price control would be if the government mandated across the board caps on prices that could be charged for drugs.

If the government is going to get into the business of buying drugs for the individuals that it covers, why is it a bad idea to let them use the power they have to negotiate for the best possible price on those drugs?

I don't know how the canadian system is set up, so I can't speak to that, but why is it such a bad thing to let the government do what private insurance companies already do?

If the parties represent the people, how do you reserve power in the people?  Through referenda?

Also, it could be argued that the people are behind the GOP's big-government leanings, to the extent that the people demand extensive government benefits.  

Congress didn't pass the Medicare bill because they thought it was a really nifty idea-- they passed it to score political points.

Machiavelli goes on to say that the key is actually to avoid being hated, far important over being either feared or loved. I don't know what one would call Rep. DeLay if not hated. He's the sort of fellow that doesn't know when to shut up before he damages his position.

I agree with that.

to all the special interests.

Mind you, unlike many here, I think that the government using it's volume buying power can help medicare folks get their meds cheaper.  But this bill made no effort to do that.  In fact it was written into the bill that Social Security has no power to negotiate better than list price.

So.  It was a buy off to the drug manufacturers with the willing accomplices of our elected representatives.

I blame the bills authors & managers.  They knew the true costs as it was written.

& pharmacies out there.  I've never seen one advertise their drugs for sale.

Has anyone here?

Because he's acting in the scope of his enumerated powers.

Next.

I likewise haven't seen much to support the assertion that the Dems are trying to tar and feather any and all Rep congressional leaders.  Face it, Delay is dirty and the sooner rid of him, the better.

Unless you like swimming with anvils in upcoming elections.

And he's gets results because he's good at it. But good hardball can translate into bad PR. It's the whole "who would you rather have a beer with" thing.  People like Bush because he seems like a nice guy that you'd like to hang out a barbeque with. DeLay doesn't come off that way. When he complains about being a target (which may be true, but he's not helping his cause, the Schaivo mess being the latest gaffe), he comes off as a whiner. You want someone positive as your party's face, not a whiner, and definately not someone with some questionable lapses in judgement.

The GOP could score big PR points by taking him to task. Voters will trust a party that can clean its own house. DeLay can still be a player, just one that stays in the background.

The old, "the ends justify the means?" theory of 'democratic' government.

Being on the 'right side' of the 'Life' argument trumps everything it would seem, even to the extent of overlooking overwhelming evidence of malfeasance.

Do you have anything meaningful to contribute here?

Pray, tell, your overwhelming evidence of malfeasance. Please cite to the appropriate criminal or ethical codes.

One thing that the American people do not like

(when they become aware of it) is being lied to.

We hate hypocrites and liars - and I personally do not care who Clinton shared a cigar with - but do NOT lie to me. All politicians lie - so they say but that does not make it right - now does it?

I am leaning to change my registration from Republican to Independent - and the likes of DeLay is one reason. I hope someone can give me a coherent reason not to. All I want is consistency in my party. Do not cry about "culture of life" in regards to Shiavo - while you cut medicaid - the very funding she would need to continue to be kept alive. At the same time - taking a stand against stem cell research the only promising research that has a long shot of helping Shiavo.

Do not claim to care about people, and do all you can to benefit corperations such as the new bankruptcy laws do. Yea there are a-holes that will try to "shirk" their responsibilities - but why are we hurting thousands more? It is not like the credit card companies are bleeding red ink? The vast majority of people do NOT want to file for bankruptcy - but medical events or job loss can FORCE them into it.  If we need to go into Iraq to checkmate China, secure the region for a steady flow of oil - then say so do not lie to me. Do not shove your religious beliefs down my throat - abortion and homosexuality while abhorent to me personally is not the end of the world as we know it. People in this country are jobless, homeless, not insured and dying. Can we prioritize? We can and should do all we can to minimize abortions - and when it comes to gays - mind your own business. Like an old friend use to say, the more gay men - the more woman for us.

Above all FORCE the media to tell the truth. Sometimes the truth will hurt the left, sometimes it will hurt the right - it is what it is - but do not condone propaganda of our 4th estate. The pendulum swings - and when the media really is "liberal" we will rue the day we allowed Faux news to become what it obviously is.

And last what exactly is wrong with peace?

to tar and feather all of them...Delay is such an inviting target.

I'm sure "Get Rid of Tom DeLay!" will be the rallying cry to get the Donkeys within spitting distance of a majority again.

Add it to Enron.

May I ask why you registered Republican in the first place?

I share many of the views you espouse (although not all), but I am curious as to which of your views led you to the party.

Thanks.

over the last generation or two. My father was a Republican of the Eisenhower-Nixon sort. Believed in low taxes and less regulation and strongly supported the Cold War. He did not want to see Social Security gutted however, he believed that we need some form of back-up insurance for people who can't get/afford health care otherwise, and he despised the Religious Right. If the GOP were still what it was in Nixon's day I would easily be a Republican. As it is I am an independent, not enamored of the Democrats certainly, but watching the GOP slowly drift off into the rightwing backwaters, a far cry from the America I live in.

Which part of the "Religious Right" platform would either Eisenhower or Nixon have disagreed with?

Remember that Eisenhower added "Under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance and made "In God We Trust" the national motto. Both of these would be considered by today's elite to be a "Religious Right" thing, but at the time they were just an "American" thing.

And to say that Social Security will be "gutted" is assuming a premise that others genuinely do not agree with you about.

I agree that the GOP has changed.  But much of what the "religious right" asks for today was universally accepted in the Eisenhower/Kennedy era.  The President speaking about God and faith in public, allowing prayer in school, discouraging teenage and premarital sex, opposing abortion, opposing gay marriage, etc.  These weren't even debated really in that era.  I don't agree with all of those positions, but they are not unreasonable in and of themselves.

The Schaivo incident is worrisome because it shows that some Republicans are willing to push the limits of law and limited government when it is to pursue a "conservative" cause.  But overall, the hippie left worries me more than the religious right in its demands.

Finally, your assertion that anyone wants to "gut" Social Security is rather disingenuous.  The President's PRA proposal is probably the safest and most secure way to avoid having government spend all of our Social Security on other items.  Further, it creates an ownership that leads to prosperity without taking away the insurance scheme.  If anyone was proposing an entire privatization that would be different.  As is, you can keep all your money in the old insurance scheme OR you can keep 2/3rds of it there and 1/3rd in a PRA.  How is that "gutting" Social Security.  It's providing more options to help poorer citizens accrue wealth.  That's laudable in my book.

What are those demands again, Doverspa?  Sometimes I find you a curious Republican (as some find me a curious Democrat) and I'm interested what turns you off about the Democratic party.

It is astounding to me that a party as committed to free-market ideas would pass a bill that prevents the government from taking advantage of its market power to reduce the cost of an entitlement program.

Getting in bed with corporations in exchange for money is one of the hallmarks of Tom Delay's politics. Tom Delay and his colleagues allowed the drug company's lobbyists to write the prescription drug bill.

Other members are loyal to Delay because he delivers the $$$.

Catastrophic Health Benefit (forget its actual title) was repealed. Granted, it took some seasoned citizens to mob Rostenkowski, but still...

The government is not just another player in the market - giving the government the ability to negotiate simply creates price ceilings.

Less regulation?

Sputter. Cough. Cough. Sputter

Sadly, DeLay has been an accomplice in allowing Democrats to portray him as both corrupt and arrogant.

I agree. If only he hadn't been corrupt and arrogant it would make their task that much harder.

...DeLay supposedly pressured one Member of Congress into voting for the medicare reform bill by offering support or opposition to the Member's son...What's worse is that DeLay actually acted like an unethical man [ed. by doing unethical things?]...DeLay willingly participated in junkets arranged by scandal plagued lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

Tom DeLay, as far as anyone can tell, has not broken any law.

If you believe that Delay attempted to win Nick Smith's vote by offering his son campaign money and that he went on the junkets "knowingly" then you believe he broke at least two laws as both of these actions are illegal.

What you can say is that so far Delay has not been indicted or convicted of any crime.

 guess because I was upwardly mobile. Felt very fortunate - but kinda resented

 paying high taxes when I personally knew people that milked the system.

 I did some study of the Bible, I dare say I have back slid some but the foundation tenements are still with me. One is a sense of fairness. Quite  frankly since GoP claimed individually to be Christians - I was naive to think that would translate into real compassionate conservative - just  be fair and if you are not going to help - at least do not be hostile to the working class,

taking away their overtime for example I would consider hostile.  

 When it came to speaking out against violence on tv - you could assume Dem, sex on the TV - repubs. I think there was a little too much violence - and there was little too much sex. It was a toss up on which issue - which party.

 I thought Reagan would be tougher on abortion. He was, some my not agree. But I cannot fathom why somebody who is victimized by incest, raped or whose life is threatened should be denied an abortion. What is ironic, economic circumstances results in more abortions - which is what we now have.

 Knowing friends that work hard to run their own business - I thought that  government should cultivate these business - give some tax breaks. RNC  seemed to talk about that - DNC did not. I was a young man, I did not look at all the nuances; maybe I would have voted dem..

 What I have seen the GoP do is drive down the wages of the workers - and  do nothing about the other cost of doing business (incredibly high healthcare cost).  Logic tells me that by driving down wages  (and do not kid yourself if you work for wages your pay can and will be driven down). I was a computer professional and was payed well -then well,  you know the rest. Drawing

unemplyment checks was not an experience I want to repeat.

 At a macro level - it just does not make sense. A healthy population -  and a sizeable middle class - provides the catalist to create markets for real estate, automobiles and other big ticket items. I can see how if  I was part of the investment class - and had eough in the market - I might be enthused about the race to the bottom. Short term gain - at what price? Instead we now have giants like  Wall-mart that actually instructs employees on how to get public assisted health care - draining millions from the tax base.

 Because as a consumer of what is American media - I had come to believe that  goverment produced and censored news - was something that Russia, China etc do. We lived in an "open" society like President Bush was quoted recently to Russia.

 So at the time I did not even occur to me that this could change under any political party - so why not vote republican?

 But  mostly that I figured we would always have an equal number of repubs and dems to keep check on each other. A president that could can get a devided house  to really work in the popular "bi-partisan" way. I felt that Reagan could finesse

 anyone. At the same time - Reagan was moderated.  One party control scares the

 sh*t out of me - I do not care which party - someones best interest will lose-

 ALWAYS. I cannot see how anyone can disagree with that sentiment. The minority needs to be protected from the tyranny of the majority.

- jason

Just sayin.

What was it that Grover Norquist said about social programs?  Do not piss on my leg and tell me it is raining. Bush has no plan to "save" social security. It is a bone for those who believe that everyone is on their own, and it is not government place to provide for the poor. Assuming that this stance is simply not based on greed, then it is a stance of someone who has never had to choose between replacing their tires on their car or visiting the dentist for a tooth ache.  SS was never an investment vehicle, it was an insurance so that we did not have people in such poverty in their old age that they resorted to eating dog/cat food. The money borrowed - to start this program would have to be paid back with interest - and then what ever is left if anything is yours. For 40-55 year olds this is surely a raw deal - especially if SS is all you have. Not everyone is blessed with the intellect and moxy to make wise investments, and those that are do not depend on SS anyway. This only relates to Delay in regards to the agenda guys like him push - so my apologies to the owner of this blog - but I had to respond to that canard.

-jason

I think you misunderstand the SS reform proposal.  For one, it is an option to get a PRA.  Anyone can stay in the old system if they choose.  So if you don't think you have the "moxy" to invest in 7 defined broad baskets of investments, then stay in the old system.

For two, your understanding of "borrowing" money is misplaced.  We owe a lot more than we can afford in the future, roughly $11 trillion.  If we move up $2 trillion of that and pay the other $9 trillion later, we are not creating new debt but rather paying it up front.  Further, it is not individuals who have the "cover" the "borrowed" money.  It is the overall SS system.  So there is no deduction from your PRA to pay the debt.  If there was, no one would choice the PRA.

I must say I am still amazed at how many people are against giving the OPTION of having a Personal Account to people.

I agree with some of your views and not with others, but all are sincere.

Almost every proposal that comes from the left is to increase the reach of government into another realm.  I support some of their ends (conservation, animal rights, human rights, helping the poor here and abroad, etc), but the answer seems to be always the same: more government.  Pro-market environmental reforms are too "pro-business," aid is only measured by governmental donations instead of private ones, and welfare is the first answer, not the last one.

I believe individuals giving their time and money to help one another is how communities are created.  Often religious and educational institutions help people congregate and create these communities.  However, the more we push off onto government and bureaucrats, the less we are responsible for as the "we the people."  If there are homeless in my town, the question becomes "why hasn't government fixed this?" or if there is a disaster in another country then leftists demand that government spend someone else's money helping out.  I would prefer that someone take in the homeless and hand out their own money to those in need.  I think Rockfeller, Carnegie and Gates are part of a long line of philanthropic Americans who took it upon themselves to improve the country instead of spending $15 million on a John Kerry's campaign (see: Soros, George).

As for pet peeves, I dislike the intolerance I experience in liberal circles focused mainly on Christians but also toward conservatives broadly.  Ditto for limosine liberals fighting Wal-Mart while it provides cheap, convenient goods to many poor people who wouldn't have access to them otherwise.*  Finally, the righteousness of the Michael Moore left that sneers at Southern and Midwestern Americans down their multimillionaire noses really bothers me.  And it bothers me even more that the Democrats embraced it this cycle.

In fact, I was a swing Republican before this cycle.  I voted against Bush twice in 2000 and I liked McCain a lot.  I hope Lieberman would be the Dem nominee and I would have supported him.  But when I saw him (and other Dems) speak at OSU, the Dems booed Lieberman.  That's when I knew things were changing.  The Clinton/Lieberman Democrats that I respected and could defend to an extent were being pushed out.  No more pro-NAFTA and welfare reforming Democrats.  And I watched Dems turn toward this guy.  And now his "I hate Republicans and all they stand for" type statements really make me more partisan by the day.

Maybe in the future, Democrats will pick up the mantle of small government (since some libertarians are leaning left these days).  But right now they are wedded to growing government and generally hating Republicans (straight from the leader's mouth).  That isn't going to win me over.

*Check out this Dkos thread as commenters grapple with the alluring convenience and cheapness of products along with the availability of things that otherwise they can't get in their town.

when it comes to those comments.  But he clearly has a pretty established case of foot in mouth syndrome.  In all fairness though, how many other Yankee Democrats would even think they wanted southern confederate flag flying Democrats in their camp, not for their votes but because they could do better by the Democratic party?

Intolerance is an equal opportunity business.  Do you think the right is more tolerant?  Really?  A more nuanced argument than Wal-Mart sucks is out there.  People don't dislike Wal-Mart out of sheer perverse ill-will, although it helps.  

The Clinton/Lieberman Democrats still exist, and will re-emerge.  Particularly if the middle-right starts getting happy feet and another brilliant liberal opportunist like Bill Clinton (or even a shadow of him) sees the opening.  

letting the government benefit from the size of the group it serves, just as any market player... lead to increase in revenue.

that might not seem important... but you could use it for a tax cut!

:)

soon after said junket you use your political power to make good things happen for said junket's payor.  If a junket occurs and nothing happens for or against then be my guest.

Thanks for your reply - but you ignored the reference to Norquist which is very germaine.

If the story was - stay in the old system, the govt will pay out just as if the old system was (guaranteed by raising the cap from 90k, it would effect me - I do make well over 90k - but I have enough compassion for the poor I am ok with that). But at your option - and some risk you can go into this private account scheme.

That I would be ok with.

Again people in their late 40's early 50s would be screwed under any privitization scheme. The money is borrowed pls do not be disengenuos. And it does have to be paid back - by the individual.

It is assumed to be 3% - you better get much better return on it. I am 99% certain that President Bush is not concerned about "saving" anything except tax breaks for the allready well off. He has proven that over and over again.

- jason

Re: Which part of the "Religious Right" platform would either Eisenhower or Nixon have disagreed with?

The GOP used to be about freedom from Big Govermment and security from enemies abroad. Remember Ronald Reagan's paeans to  liberatarianism? Neither Nixon nor Eisenhower would have run on the Religious Right's platform. They didn't give a damn about "social issues" (Nixon maybe a little about the Law and Order issue if you count that).

Some history is in order-- Gerald Ford was pro-Choice and supporst gay marriage and Barry Goldwater (remember him?) was also pro-chocie and supported gay rights that did not involve government creating new entitlements.

As time goes by the GOP becomes less and less the party of freedom and more and more the party of theocracy.

Re: But overall, the hippie left worries me more than the religious right in its demands.

What "Hippie Left?

Dude, look at your calendar! You're stuck in a time warp! It's 2005 for crying out loud! There haven't been any hippies since I was learning how to read and write. We're 30 some years past the 60s! Move on and get over it!

Re: For one, it is an option to get a PRA.  

We already have that option, in a couple different ways. You can have a 401K at work, or an IRA privately. I'd happily support expanding the IRA option since as of right now it is a little limited (just 2K a year and only if you don't have a work plan). So this "reform" doesn't give us anything new, it just makes the future even riskier than it already is.

...and registered foreign agents such as those Delay took to London, Scotland and Seoul are very much illegal.

Do you want to see the wining and dining and bribing of our elected representatives become standard operating procedure?

Get a freakin' grip, you apologist!

DeLay is good at what he does, there's no doubt.  With a slim House majority, the GOP almost never has to worry about losing on any bill in the House of Representatives.  We've almost come to take it as granted that every Republican will vote for the bill; even though in the past, such as the 80s Democrat majority, there were often intra-party disputes and thus legislative failures.  DeLay worked hard to shift Texas to accurately represent the GOP-lean of its constituents; it was the right thing to do and benefitted the party.  What's going on now is a politically calculated smear by the Democratic Party, their special interests, and in conjuction with their allies in the media- and I must say they're doing a good job.  They've convinced a lot of Republicans twho themselves can't even explain precisely what Delay has done illegally.

Does anyone know if this is legal:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/06/politics/06delay.html?ex=1113451200&e
n=de32c03c8034a71f&ei=5070

If congressmen can simply open up a PAC and use it to funnel money to their family members, what in the world are  campaign finance reform laws even for?? I mean, Delay's PAC paid a mere $500,00 to his wife and daughter, but what's to stop a politician from just dumping a couple million to his wife for their retirement?  My gosh.  This guy is as crooked as they come.  

Allow me to chime in for a moment on the topic of the goodness of WalMart.

WalMart sells commodity stuff cheap.  That's great.  They also pay poorly and offer few benefits.

Costco sells commodity stuff cheap.  Equally great.  They also pay very well, and offer great health coverage.

Costco's stores turn better numbers than Walton's "Sam's Club" stores.  They offer better customer service, because -- suprise!! -- their employees are better motivated and stick around longer.  They offer better value for the same dollar.

If you work for WalMart, you'll have a hard time living on your pay.  If you work for Costco, you can probably actually afford to live in a decent home, take a vacation now and then, and send your kids to college.  You can go to the doctor when you're sick.  You won't be locked into the damned store overnight.

I hear a lot of people talking about how wonderful WalMart is because they make stuff available to poor folks cheap.  Well, a lot of those poor folks work for WalMart.

The Waltons are astoundingly wealthy.  They've made their money off the backs of their employees.  If that's the "red state" vision of how the economy should operate, and of a good and useful relationship between an employer and its employees, you're welcome to it, but stay the heck out of my world.  Personally, I think it's despicable.  But, then again, I'm a blue state kind of guy.

I'll make another reply to some other of Doverspa's comments.

Cheers -

Doverspa -

Couple of thoughts on your reply.

IMO, you have identified the essential point of difference between red and blue on matters of public policy.  The blue point of view sees a positive role for government in resolving social issues, the red point of view prefers that government leave such things to private initiative.  This is a pretty fundamental difference, and each point of view seems pretty deeply rooted in the history and culture of the area where it is dominant.  

My opinion is that neither point of view is inherently better, but that each is either better suited to, or is simply preferred by, different parts of the country.  For that reason, and starting long before Bush's presidency, I've increasingly become convinced that responsibility for anything outside of a pretty narrow and focussed scope needs to move to state and local government.  

Regarding some of your more sociological pet peeves:

You seem to associate a liberal point of view with rich people -- multimillionaires, limousine liberals.  If you choose to dig into it a bit, I think you'll find that "blue" values extend much deeper into the demographic strata, and that those values are not of a knee-jerk variety, but are thoughtfully held.

Intolerance and bigotry toward conservative Protestant Christians -- evangelicals and fundamentalists -- is a reality.  It's unfortunate, and doesn't speak well of those that hold it.  Ditto for prejudice against Southerners, although I think that's less strongly held.  Prejudice toward midwesterners and westerners, frankly, I don't see at all.

Without seeking to defend cultural bigotry, I'll just say that (a) like most bigotries, it comes from ignorance, and (b) IMO it's more than matched by prejudice coming the other way.  Everyone, and from my experience I do mean literally everyone, has their own mental trash to get rid of.  Again IMO, you'll probably be best served to just rise above it, both in yourself and others, rather than let it inform your positions at a policy level.

Cheers -

 You are totally right on DeLay. He is very good at his job as whip. That is why the Democrats want him gone. They think they can divide and conquer.