0
   

Should DeLay resign

 
 
Atkins
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 May, 2005 12:38 pm
Re: It's getting worse for DeLay
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:


Well, all of those things are well within the limits of the law, according to Timberlandko.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 May, 2005 12:53 pm
What Timber was pointing out is that Delay has only been accused of breaking the law, but as yet nothing has stuck on that score. They haven't found anything yet to indict him on.

Further, to stop the onslaught of possible or made up accusations against him, the GOP amended the House rules. The Democrats howled in protest, so the GOP put the rules back exactly as they were. The Democrats are still howling.

Why?

Because the Dems wanted the rules changed so that ONLY Delay could be charged with crime after crime after crime, but such investigations would not extend to other members. The current rules allow anybody and everybody to be investigated, and it is highly likely that many of the Dems are guilty of the same things and worse than are the issues of which they accuse Delay. And that includes their fearless leader, Nancy Pelosi.

When it comes down to a barrel of them, it's pretty hard to tell where one snake ends and another begins.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 May, 2005 01:27 pm
Do you have a link to the Dems' howling about the rules being changed back, Fox?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 May, 2005 01:28 pm
http://www.pcactionfund.org/delayspocket/

Find out just how deep YOUR republican congressman is in DeLay's pocket.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 May, 2005 01:36 pm
The dems are not howling because they don't want to be investigated, they're howling because other changes on the ethics committee were not rolled back the same way the rules change was rolled back.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 May, 2005 01:47 pm
Here's where I heard it originally: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4622107

They accuse that staff hired during the rules change is too partisan; the old rules required that both sides work together to hire staff.

Quote:
"There is no point in insisting that the ethics committee be guided by fair and bipartisan rules if those charged with administering and interpreting them are tainted by partisan motives," Ms. Pelosi said in a statement.


http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/042805Z.shtml (That was just the first place I could find a written quote; I think the NPR article is much better but there was no transcript.)
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 May, 2005 02:50 pm
Well I'll have to see what those rules are to arrive at a definitive conclusion. I wonder if Pelosi had similar observations about partisan motives when the Democrats designed and passed the original rules when they had the majority prior to 1994?
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 May, 2005 03:51 pm
The rules from the previous congress were significantly different from those the Republicans recently backed off of.

1. A deadlock in the committee triggered an automatic investigation.
2. The staff hired to perform the invesigations required bi-partisan support.

Please let me know how the rules adopted in 1994 were unfair.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 May, 2005 04:00 pm
I don't know what those rules said specifically either. Most of my knowledge on this issue is based on listening to the parties involved in it talk about each other on television. So I would have to see the rules side by side - pre-1994, post 1994 and present to be able to draw any informed conclusion.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 May, 2005 04:14 pm
Then I would have to say that the remark about Pelosi was uncalled for.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 May, 2005 05:10 pm
Quote:
In Washington, Watchdogs Bear Watching

By BRODY MULLINS, The Wall Street Journal
May 10, 2005


Amid the many attacks on House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, some of the loudest come from an organization called Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. To the average listener, that sounds like a nonpartisan group interested only in good government.

But it isn't that simple.

The "Citizens" behind the group have strong partisan ties. Board members of the group, including former Clinton White House pollster Mark Penn, have contributed $340,000 to Democratic causes in the past four years and $6,000 to Republicans. Melanie Sloan, executive director of the group, is a former aide to Democratic Rep. John Conyers of Michigan and Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware.

Details like that don't typically appear when news organizations quote Ms. Sloan's attacks on Mr. DeLay, as they have done some 140 times in the past two years. And that is a big source of frustration for congressional Republicans, who grouse that attention to such groups represents a third source of hostile fire on top of daily fusillades from overt Democratic partisans and from the media.

"These groups are run by former Democratic Hill staffers or candidates, they are being funded by liberal heavy-hitters like George Soros and they are constantly attacking House Republicans as part of a well-organized political strategy," says DeLay spokesman Dan Allen.

Indeed, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington is hardly alone when it comes to government "watchdogs" in Washington. Since 1999, directors at the most-active government watchdogs have contributed more than $1 million to Democratic campaigns, and just a few thousand to Republican coffers.

Ms. Sloan has pursued the House Republican leader in her two years at Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics. "Since I started, the main thing I wanted to do was to go after Tom DeLay," she says. "DeLay is my top target."

A former assistant U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, Ms. Sloan engineered an ethics complaint against Mr. DeLay in the House, asked the Internal Revenue Service to audit a pair of Mr. DeLay's fund-raising committees and sued the Federal Election Commission to obtain more information about possible financial ties between Mr. DeLay and a Kansas utility. She also urged the Justice Department to investigate Mr. DeLay for his role in promising fund-raising help to a family member of Nick Smith, at the time a Republican House representative from Michigan, in exchange for Mr. Smith's vote on Medicare legislation.

Her strategy has raised questions among some of her counterparts. She "uses different approaches and tactics at times than others do," says Fred Wertheimer, head of Democracy 21, a Washington group that aims to curb the sway of money on politics. Mr. Wertheimer says he hasn't decided "whether at times some of these tactics are helpful, or may be counterproductive."

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington was founded two years ago by Norm Eisen, a lawyer, and Louis Mayberg, the head of the Bethesda, Md., mutual-fund firm ProFunds. Both say they worried that too many decisions by politicians in Washington were based on contributions. Once the founders hired Ms. Sloan, the organization's made Mr. DeLay a priority.

In 2003 Ms. Sloan drafted a sharply worded ethics complaint about Mr. DeLay's fund-raising and political activities and asked a retiring Democratic lawmaker, Rep. Chris Bell (D., Texas), to file it with the House Ethics panel. She says she drafted the complaint because Mr. Bell had no lawyer in his office.

When the Ethics Committee was slow to take up the complaint, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics badgered the panel's leadership by running newspaper advertisements in their home districts. Eventually the committee acted, admonishing Mr. DeLay but also criticizing Mr. Bell for running afoul of the chamber's rules for decorum, by the severe characterization of Mr. DeLay in the complaint. The House Rules Committee has yet to act on Mr. DeLay's request that the panel hold Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington in contempt for its role in the matter ...

... The most recent House ethics investigation into Mr. DeLay has barely gotten off the ground, since House Republicans agreed to abandon recent rules changes to end a partisan stalemate over the ethics panel's organization. But Ms. Sloan already is declaring victory, of a sort.

"One of the main things that we wanted to do was get people focused on Tom DeLay and ethics," she says. "People are paying attention. We have won that battle."
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 May, 2005 10:48 pm
timberlandko wrote:
Media doesn't create a market, it plays to one.


That's nonsense. Markets are created all the time.

Where was the market for rock and roll in the early 1950's? It didn't exist. None of the general population even had a chance to listen to it. The cool people were considered to be Patti Page and Perry Como.

Then Bill Haley released Rock Around the Clock in 1954. It was minor hit. Then it became featured in the popular movie The Blackboard Jungle. It became a much bigger hit, Bill Haley had several followup hits, more artists of a similar style emerged, and then came Elvis. The rest is history.

A market ws created where none existed before. As this was the time of Joe McCarthy and the Red Scare, adults who loved Big Band music concocted this idiotic scenario that rock and roll had to be a conspiracy, since it came out from out of nowhere so suddenly.

Markets are created all the time. Rock and roll is just one example. Talk radio is another.

Rush Limbaugh is the Elvis of talk radio. Only when they show Limbaugh on TV, instead of blacking out the lower half of his body, cameramen would be well advised to blot out the entire physical form.
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 May, 2005 11:08 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
If talk radio was able to 'swing voters' to one candidate or anothers, Bill Clinton would never have been elected. Twice.


That is a silly statement. I said that talk radio is able to get a relatively small percentage of voters to switch, and that this small percentage adds up to a big difference since the majority party in the House and Senate has a majority in every committee, and every committee chairman is of the majority party-even if they are in the majority by only one Congressman or Senator.

The present Republican President won by one state each time. Two percentage points away from him and toward his opponent, and Bush becomes a two time loser.

Some elections are won by huge margins, some by comfortable margins, and some are very close. Talk radio cannot affect the huge margins or the comfortable margins, but it certainly can affect the close ones. A swing of a few percentage points means that you win the close elections, which translates into the minority party becoming the majority. Or the Presidency changes hands.

The election of bill Clinton-twice-doesn't mean talk radio isn't swinging voters. It's just that Clinton's elections weren't close, so talk radio didn't make the difference.
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 May, 2005 11:10 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
So why do the Republicans keep winning?


Sheesh. I already answered that question several times. Talk radio.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 May, 2005 11:32 pm
kw, the market was there - it existed. When product was supplied, it was snapped up. The product did not create the market, the market demanded the product.
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 May, 2005 11:34 pm
I find it amazing that anybody can seriously maintain that talk radio won't affect voters.

Look, how many people really concentrate and think about their voting choices? Most people don't really have a well-worked out political philosophy. they vote ont he basis a few issues that are important to them, they vote on the basis os what their friends say, or something that they saw on TV.

Enter talk radio. These radio hosts have an extremely well-worked out philosophy,and their knowledge of the issues is far, far higher than their listeners. The sympahtetic callers are the ones who call, of course, and that adds momentum to the notion that the host's idea are not just his own, but the opinions of many.

Rush Limbaugh added humor, and transmits a certain contempt for people who disagree with him. By extension, the audience gets to feel superior to Rush's opponents as well. But make no mistake about it-each and every show is a political lecture for the Right.

Since few listeners, of any political stripe, are likely to be as up on the facts of the case as the professional, they very likely will be swayed by him.

Most people are not straight line conservative or liberal-they are a combo of conservative and liberal ideas. they might like the way the host speaks about some issues, and they become regular listeners. At that point, the better informed host is likely to sway the listener a fair percentage of the time.

A college educated woman I know was a fairly frequent Rush Limbaugh listener went he first became popular. As she was nurse at an abortion clinic, this should be surprising. But he actually held her ear for a few months before she realized that he supported the people picketing outside her place of work. Why did she listen even as long as she did? Because she was conservative on some things, and she liked his comments on those issues.

Then there is the secondary effect of talk radio. Most hosts have all the statistics and factoids supporting their point of view. these little snatches of info are recited by listeners at the water cooler at work, or among their friends. With no answer from the other side, it has a cumulative effect. How many people volunteer to attend political lectures in their spare time? Not many. But talk radio is a political lecture, and people listen to it constantly.

Can the listener change the station? Sure. But remember-in many small towns, people keep the radio tuned to one station because it's the only one in town and has the weather, local news, etc. It that one station happens to be a talk radio station.....
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 May, 2005 11:43 pm
Why aren't there more liberal talk show hosts? A variety of reasons.

A) Talk radioi hosts talk AT their listeners, and this is likely to appeal to authoritarian personalities, who are likely to be conservative. Liberals like to discuss and reach a consensus. A style like Limbaugh's, where he TELLS the audience, is much more likely to be popular with conservatives.

B) The conservatives were trhe first one to latch onto the talk radio format, and as such there were many more conservatives than liberal hosts. With Rush being numero uno, the audience which tunes in for him is likely to be looking for the other hosts to be similar. As a result, liberal talk radio hosts are likely to be the only liberal in a station of conservatives. The conservatives won't tune into them, and the liberals won't go near the station to find out they are there.

This is why Air America offers not just individual hosts to plug into conservative radio stations, but a whole package of hosts, to draw the liberals in. Whether it works or not is open to question-it took Rush years to gain any popularity. It is likely time is necessary for Air America to become popular as well.
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 May, 2005 11:49 pm
timberlandko wrote:
kw, the market was there - it existed. When product was supplied, it was snapped up. The product did not create the market, the market demanded the product.


Look. In 1953, nobody was calling out for rock and roll, since it had not come into existance yet. In my opinion, a market is a group of people who consciously want something. Well, the teenagers could not have wanted rock, it wasn't in existance yet.

When rock came along, only then did the teenagers decide they wanted it.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 May, 2005 11:54 pm
And I find it amazing some folks don't understand talk radio is just preaching to the choir. The people who listen to talk radio - left or right - listen to it because its what they want to hear - same as folks who listen to rap or latin or rock or classical or big-band listen to that because thats what they want to hear. And thats precisely the same dynamic which is driving the circulation figures of old-line newspapers and the ratings track of Big 3 Network News. The Market is speaking. Some folks don't want to hear what The Market is saying.
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 May, 2005 11:58 pm
All in all, I find the idea that talk radio does not sway voters hard to believe.

Throughout history, orators have been swaying people in one direction or another. Here, the entire AM dial has been taken over by orators seeking to sway people to one side. How can they not have an effect? Of course they must.

Can you imagine what would happen if one political party was able to get people on the voting line to talk to one of their spokesmen for five minutes before voting?

Think that would change the electoral outcome? Of course it would.

Yet, the entire AM band is chock full of conservative spokesmen, and it is not supposed to have an effect at all? Please...be real.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Should DeLay resign
  3. » Page 16
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/16/2025 at 06:01:17