You also mistake my happiness. My smile is because DeLay managed not to be hurt very much by what I consider to be a very thin politically-based prosecution by Ronnie Earle. It wouldn't bother me one bit if a reform-minded person stepped up to the plate, cleaned DeLay's clock in the election, then managed to get some of those systemic changes into Congress that I'm sure we'd all like to see. I want ten or fifteen Newt Gingrich-style reformers in Congress and I want them to clean house.

But guess what? I also have to accept reality. The reality of the situation is that there aren't any real reformers in that race, on either side. So, as a politically-aware American voter, I have three choices: 1) I can hold my nose and support for the skunk who will at least use the system to benefit most of my political beliefs and pray that in other places, reformers will come; 2) I can vote against the skunk and for someone who will use the system to the detriment of most of my political beliefs; or 3) I can not support anyone at all.

You seem to suggest that I should take the third route. The problem with that is that if I do so, I leave the field to the likes of you and most of the folks who have posted comments in this thread. That's just not going to happen. So you know what? I'll choose to prefer the Devil who is working on my side and is at least susceptible to change his behavior because he actually needs the support I have to offer. What I won't do is cast him into outer darkness and leave the field to some other Kos-certified maniac.

You know, when I wrote this post, I wasn't especially a fan of Tom DeLay. I have said many times that I don't like the way he plays the political game, though I understand that he plays it the way we've allowed it to be played. It would not hurt me at all to see him honestly lose an election to a candidate who beat him in a straight-up fight, without the official assistance from Ronnie Earle. And while I don't think that Earle hoodwinked a Grand Jury, it's not a big secret that he kept ramming the same case at the grand jury over and over until he got one that would hand down an indictment (on the very last day the GJ was empaneled, by the way).

My only point in my original post is that, like Martha Stewart, I and glad that DeLay managed to rise above what I believe to be an abuse of government power by a piqued official and that if I had to choose between DeLay and Earle, I'd choose Delay every time.

Now I'm thankful for the Daou link and I'm glad that you all have chosen to comment here – I like comments and want The Shack to be a place where folks can come and have lively and productive conversations.

Well, at least I got the lively part of that this week. I don't know how productive the discussion has been, considering that most of the folks who left comments here, yourself included, jumped to several untrue conclusions that you would not have reached had you just read what I said. Instead, you saw the words "DeLay" and "happy" and reacted as if you had seen the words "baby-eating" and "hooray for". Instead of kicking around some real ideas, I spent most of the week trying to unbunch the panties of complete strangers who had nothing better to do than to show up here and call me names or suggest that I'm a crook also. You wasted my time, your own time, and the time of my readers playing the Howard Dean game instead of sitting down like civilized folks and have an actual conversation.

If you want to know why conservatives like me have contempt for liberals in general, that's one of the reasons.

On the other hand, it's clear you *would* vote for him. Am I wrong? Or are you just applauding those who did?

2) The fact that you *would* vote for him. This is a very important point, Jimmie. And let's not split hairs. The lesser of two evils argument just doesn't cut it. The "crook that I know" doesn't cut it. If you don't like the system then you have to vote for candidates who will change it and against those who are "perfectly adapted to it". And not be writing blog posts about how happy you are when they win!

3) I don't think you can have it both ways. You've got a nice big smile, I don't. Therein lies the difference. If you want to know why liberals have contempt for TX Republican voters, this is the reason.

Regards,

Fred

1) What makes you think I've ever voted for Tom DeLay?

2) What gives you the impression that I support the system, especially considering the many comments I've left in this thread that have very plainly said that I don't?

3) On a scale of 1-10, where would you rate my like for Tom DeLay, based on my post and this entire comment thread. On what do you base your belief?

Give me some quick answers to those and I'll answer your questions.

You say Earle prosecutes "regardless of the strength of his evidence".

Are you saying he's managed to hoodwink the grand jury?

You say you want your political views represented; Is this why

you vote for "a creature perfectly adapted to a system that rewards bad behavior"?

You say DeLay has "only [one] redeeming point". You're willing to vote for someone if he brings home the bacon, even if it's "bad for the country or bad for politics". I think that's very selfish, not to mention shortsighted.

You say the system sucks, but you keep on supporting it because you think it's good for YOU. Maybe you'd favor me with a list of the 5 best things Tom DeLay did for you. (Is redrawing legislative districts to disadvantage Democrats your idea of a good thing for the people of TX? If so perhaps you don't consider Democrats Texans?)

There's a simple answer to your query (reproduced below):

DON'T REWARD CROOKS WITH YOUR VOTE!

Fred

Jimmie said:

Here’s the real question. Since we both agree, I believe, that the system itself is wide open to the sort of self-aggrandizing games that neither of us like, what do we to to repair it?

I believe that DeLay is emblematic of the Congress in at least the last twenty years, if not the last forty. I believe that he's a creature perfectly adapted to a system that rewards bad behavior and punishes good behavior. I believe that the entire reason the system exists in its current form is because we allow it to remain so.

That said, I abhor more the blatant abuse of a public position that Ronnie Earle has exhibited in the last few years. I find Earle more repugnant because he is willing to use his power to push forward tendentious prosecutions regardles of the strength of his evidence. He is Don Quixote minus any possible nobility tilting at windmills. DeLay's only redeeming point in my eyes is that he has sought not only his own advantage but the advantage of his constituents and his fellow Republican Representatives. Anyone who says that he's only been out for himself is simply ignorant of his history as a Representative.

You call me a jerk and an idiot or a scumbag. I'm sorry that you've chosen not to discuss the issue but to hurl invective. I believe that you'd have a bright future as a Democratic Senator, if you chose to go that route. You'd fit right in.

DeLay clearly works for his own best interest as much as he does for his constituents. He takes money from lobbyists who are promoting terrible working conditions in the Northern Marianas Islands. Young women are forced to work long hours for small pay, some forced into prostitution and reports of forced abortions when they become pregnant. Rather than investigate these allegations, the "devout" christian DeLay has used his clout to prevent any investigations into these deplorable reports. Lobbyists have payed for him and other members of Congress to visit the Marianas, and have contributed to his PACs.

So, if you believe DeLay is a better public servant than Ronnie Earle, you are either an idiot or a scumbag. Do you think DeLay is doing the best possible job a congressman can do? Why defend this guy? If you're a Republican, find an upstanding Republican to run for office and replace DeLay. Defending him simply because he's a powerful conservative is totally hypocritical. He doesn't stand for anything more than acheiving power at all costs. If that's what you look for in a public official, you're a real jerk.

It seems like you'd rather support a Republican, simply because he's a member of the GOP than bother to find out the facts yourself and stand up for your own convictions…..unless your convictions include breaking campaign laws, promoting the abuse of human rights for personal gain, and using your position of power to enrich yourself. It certainly is easier to just smear Earle in response, but it's a sad statement about how far you're willing to go to keep a Republican majority. What does it even mean to be a Republican anymore?

No, jimmie, I'm indicating my disdain for all things Texan – personally I think Democrats suck – it's just that they don't suck near as much as ignorant Republicans do . . . and when it's an ignorant Texan Republican it's a hat trick . . . like the Chimpresident.

Yeah, Republicans have rolled in the mud. They're no different than their Democratic counterparts like Jim Wright and those who helped trigger the Gingrich Revolution. They were as into gaming the system as any Republican Congressman is today. Abramoff doesn't work for me because when you look at who gave what to whom and how, each party was getting their share of cash and favors from him and his firms and those he represented. The point is not which side is dirtier and when. The point, at this point, is that there's a problem and it needs to be fixed. We know that our elected officials don't have a vested interest into limiting their own power (though I happen to think that Senator Frist was on the right track in limiting Congress from intruding on the President's Constitutional obligations) unless we make it very clear that they must or face being turned out of a job.

I've said quite plainly that I'm no great fan of Tom DeLay. I'm only a fan of his when my other choice is Ronnie Earle. I'm sure that due to political considerations, most folks who have come here from Mr. Daou's site see things quite the other way. No real surprise, I'll bet, right?

Here's the real question. Since we both agree, I believe, that the system itself is wide open to the sort of self-aggrandizing games that neither of us like, what do we to to repair it?