Tom DeLay is resigning

Woo Hoo!!!

 

"I refuse to allow liberal Democrats an opportunity to steal this seat with a negative personal campaign"

Best line!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Apr 4 2006, 10:33 AM) [snapback]234700[/snapback]</div>

Ya, beats "Have previous engagement with Buba at the big house"



:lol: :lol:

 

Was beginning to think I'd never see the day, that Delay would run and get re-elected. Remember Mayor Barry in DC?

Truth is stranger than fiction.

 

Other than being a very effective congressman, explain to me what he did wrong Big Bald One.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(imntacrook @ Apr 4 2006, 12:33 PM) [snapback]234758[/snapback]</div>

Ahm, does bribery, money laundering, and taking of illegal campaign contributions (for starters) count?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tleonhar @ Apr 4 2006, 02:40 PM) [snapback]234800[/snapback]</div>

...and this differentiates him from most other politicians how?

:lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Apr 4 2006, 01:47 PM) [snapback]234803[/snapback]</div>

He got cought... :lol:

 

some oligarchs get caught...

and will use any political ideology to maintain their satus quo

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(imntacrook @ Apr 4 2006, 12:33 PM) [snapback]234758[/snapback]</div>

September 2004: Grand jurors in Texas indict three DeLay associates Jim Ellis, John Colyandro, and Warren RoBold in an investigation of alleged illegal corporate contributions to a political action committee associated with him. The investigation involved the alleged use of corporate funds to aid Republican candidates for the Texas legislature in the 2002 elections.

September-October 2004: DeLay is admonished by the House ethics committee on three separate issues. The committee chastised DeLay for offering to support the House candidacy of Michigan Republican Rep. Nick Smith's son in return for the lawmaker's vote for a Medicare prescription drug benefit. The panel said DeLay created the appearance of linking political donations to a legislative favor, and that he had improperly sought the Federal Aviation Administration's intervention in a Texas political dispute.

March 2005: Media reports spur Democrats to question DeLay's relationship with lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who is under federal investigation. Delay has asked the House ethics committee to review allegations that Abramoff or his clients paid some of DeLay's overseas travel expenses. DeLay has denied knowing that the expenses were paid by Abramoff.

September 2005: Ellis and Colyandro are indicted on additional felony charges of violating Texas election law and criminal conspiracy to violate election law for their role in 2002 legislative races.

Oct 3, 2005: A grand jury in Texas issued a second indictment against Representative Tom DeLay, accusing the Texas Republican and two aides of money laundering in a $190,000 transaction that prosecutors have described as a violation of the state's ban on the use of corporate money in local election campaigns.

November 2005: Former DeLay aide Michael Scanlon pleads guilty conspiring to bribe public officials, a charge that stems from the government investigation of work he and his former partner, lobbyist Jack Abramoff, did for Indian tribes. The investigation continues.

December 2005: A judge dismisses the conspiracy charge but refuses to throw out the more serious allegations of money laundering, dashing the congressman's immediate hopes of reclaiming his House majority leader post and increasing the likelihood of a criminal trial next year.

March 31, 2006: Tony Rudy, a one-time aide to DeLay, pleads guilty in Washington to conspiracy and promises to cooperate with a federal investigation of bribery and lobbying fraud.

 

Just a little Republican housecleaning, part of a Rovian plan we'll see orchestrated over the next few months. By the time Rove gets fingered by Fitzgerald, the strategy will all be in place, anyway.

Next: a reshuffled White House staff, accompanied by a couple of new Cabinet members. And some more helpings of "good ol' boy".

The one element of Rove's strategy for the campaign trail that mystifies me---but must resonate with someone, because they keep using it---is dismissing your Democrat opponent as "angry". Why does that work? Because it paints him/her as a sputtering but ineffectual person who really has nothing constructive to say? Because it seems to ward off, in advance, all strong criticism? I just don't get it.

Wouldn't you be angry if your proctologist kept his/her finger in your butt for five years?

 

Hey, Manny, long time no see. Good to see you back on PC!

Most of them are slippery enough not to get caught.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bigbaldcuban @ Apr 4 2006, 09:37 AM) [snapback]234732[/snapback]</div>

http://www.noticias.info/asp/aspComunicado...id=141918&src=0 :lol:

 

How is losing a campaign now defined as stealing?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Apr 4 2006, 10:28 PM) [snapback]235067[/snapback]</div>

Taken from the RNC website? No bias there I'm sure.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tleonhar @ Apr 5 2006, 12:25 PM) [snapback]235409[/snapback]</div>

Come on tleonhar read a little further.

Wildkow

p.s. HINT: Look at the bottom of each qoute.