Should DeLay resign

Published: April 24, 2005
We are not optimistic, or naïve, enough to call it a trend yet, but there have been signs that some sensible Republicans are starting to realize that the Senate majority leader, Bill Frist, and the House majority leader, Tom DeLay, are vastly overreaching any plausible electoral mandate in their quest for one-party control of every aspect of government and their demands for mute party fealty.

The most striking example was in the Senate, where a few Republicans are starting to resist President Bush's latest demand for unquestioning approval of a high-level nominee who is clearly unsuitable for the job he has been given.

Last week, at a tense meeting of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator George Voinovich of Ohio shocked fellow Republicans by suddenly holding back his endorsement of John Bolton as United Nations ambassador, as evidence mounted of Mr. Bolton's being a bullying ideologue who tried to intimidate intelligence analysts into conforming to his preconceived conclusions on major issues of national security.

It was particularly encouraging that Senator Voinovich was swayed by the arguments of two Democratic senators, Joseph Biden of Delaware and Christopher Dodd of Connecticut. That sort of reasoned, bipartisan debate had become an endangered species in Bill Frist's Senate, where the committees charged with vetting presidential nominees have been turned into rubber-stamp bodies.

After Senator Voinovich forced a delay in the vote on Mr. Bolton, we learned that former Secretary of State Colin Powell had been quietly warning Republican senators that Mr. Bolton had a bad history of dealing with people who disagreed with him. And another Bush appointee, the former ambassador to South Korea, told the committee that Mr. Bolton had, to put it charitably, misled its members in one part of his testimony.

In the House, a member of the pioneer class of the Gingrich revolution, Walter Jones of North Carolina, felt strongly enough about doing the job to which he was elected to join the Democrats' call for an effective bipartisan ethics committee to look into complaints about Mr. DeLay's authoritarian behavior and exploitation of Washington's lobbying industry. "People at home want to know why the ethics committee isn't working," Mr. Jones explained. He poignantly echoed the resolve expressed by Mr. DeLay 10 years ago when power was fresh and he vowed to tell voters when their representatives were "feeding at the public trough, taking lobbyist-paid vacations, getting wined and dined by special interest groups."

Mr. Bush is still sticking with Mr. Bolton and Mr. DeLay. But Republican concerns undercut his attempt to paint the criticism of both men as partisan. The fast-emerging question for him and the other Republicans is, when they will realize that nothing in the American system provides for the party that wins an election to do whatever it wants, no matter what objections are raised by the minority party or even some of its own members? The point is not lost on American voters: primal party loyalty is no substitute for effective, democratic government.

why did you and other dems hammer on Zell Miller when he did the same thing at the RNC before the election?....Why is that?

Not speaking for every 'dem' the reason i didn't applaud miller is simply because I disagreed with what he had to say.

Still unwilling to state why you tarred Au with that brush, Mysteryman?

AU,WHY is he the wrong person?
The allegations against him are all over 10 years old,and the person making the charges remained silent that whole time.
WHY?

Also,if you seem to be saying that a persons past matters,why does it?
How does a persons past matter today?
Are we to judge a person today,and stop them from getting a job,based on what they did in the past?
Does a persons past matter that much?
Where do we draw the line about a persons past?

Should an ADMITTED rascist and murderer be allowed to be a Senator?
Should a man that killed a young woman be allowed to be a Senator?
Should a man that ADMITS to committing war crimes allowed to be a Senator?
Should a woman that was involved in huge controvewrsy and possible land fraud be allowed to be a Senator?

Do you see my point?

mm writes:

Quote:

AU,WHY is he the wrong person?
The allegations against him are all over 10 years old,and the person making the charges remained silent that whole time.
WHY?

Also,if you seem to be saying that a persons past matters,why does it?
How does a persons past matter today?
Are we to judge a person today,and stop them from getting a job,based on what they did in the past?
Does a persons past matter that much?
Where do we draw the line about a persons past?

Should an ADMITTED rascist and murderer be allowed to be a Senator?
Should a man that killed a young woman be allowed to be a Senator?
Should a man that ADMITS to committing war crimes allowed to be a Senator?
Should a woman that was involved in huge controvewrsy and possible land fraud be allowed to be a Senator?

Do you see my point?

About the only point I see is that facts don't matter much to you.

Bolton allegations are NOT all over 10 years old. Powell was not Sec of State 10 years ago.

"killed" is now the same thing as an accident? in what sense?
Admitted to "war crimes"? ROFLMBO.. that is too funny..

ALLEGED land fraud. and nothing ever came of the millions spent to investigate.

Don't you think Bolton should be investigated at least as much as all the other instances you bring up?

DTOM,
I was not mentioning Dean at all.
Also,I applaud ANY politician that puts his principles first,and wish all of them would.

But,when the dems call the repubs that do it mavericks,and applaud and laud them,I find it curious.
Especially since they hammered on Zell Miller for doing exactly that.
It seem amassive contradiction to me.

Yes,killed is the same thing,especially when that senator made 16 long distance calls to his aides and lawyers BEFORE he reported the accident.Especially when instead of going to a house less then 200 yards away for help,he supposedly made a swim that an olympic swimmer cant do.

Killed is tha same because he KNEW she was alive and did NOTHING to help her.
To me,that means murder.

Kerry admitted to war crimes during the campaign,or do you not remember that?

Byrd was an ADMITTED member of the Klan,and was the leader in W.Va of the klan.
As the leader,he either approved of,took part in,or ordered EVERY crime committed by the klan during his leadership.

Hillary tok part in the whitewater scam,even if she had a small part.
She was involved in the Rose Law Firm fiasco,and went so far as to "lose" the billing records.
They were miraculously "found" in the WH living quarters,the day after the subpoena expired.
Why is that?

My point is,if we decide that a persons past matters,then these people do not belong in the Senate.If a persons past doesnt matter,then why are the dems so hot to nail Bolton?
Either a persons past matters or not,you cant have it both ways.