28 September 2005

DeLay indictment

The internets are ahumming with the long-delayed indictment of . Here's what some of the blogerati are saying:

From DC Media Girl: Think of Rome as you’re contemplating the fate of Tom DeLay and his recklessness and hubris, and how his lack of self-control has led him to today’s fall from grace.I was out tonight among rightwing true believers, and not surprisingly the spin is going at full speed: The prosecutor is partisan, this indictment is the result of jury shopping, the prosecutor is partisan, the Kay Bailey Huthison case was thrown out of court, and oh by the way, the prosecutor is partisan.

I heard this too. Should the fact that the prosecutor has convicted far more Democrats than Republicans make a difference here?

But judging from his Fox news appearance, ever-feisty DeLay won't just lay down and die. From Just inside the Beltway, after a witty comparison of the DeLay appearance on Fox with a Monty Python skit, JS adds:

But how "fair and balanced" is it to give DeLay 20 minutes of airtime with no one but kissass Hannity lobbing the questions? I'm all for letting the Hammer have some time to get his side of the story out to the public, but this was a bit much. Let's see if Fox gives Ronnie Earle 20 minutes with Colmes without a rebuttal from Hannity. Not likely.

Nashville Truth, as is his wont, surprises us by taking the moral highground: While I do not believe that Congressman Delay has violated any law, I do believe that he has behaved in an unethical manner and that he exemplifies everything that is wrong with the current American system of politics. I do not like Political Action Committees. I understand that PAC's and special interest groups are a part of our system that may not ever go away, but I do not like them. I especially do not like Congressmen or Senators running their own PAC's that happen to employ their wife and/or children. To me, paying my wife with money that I am not allowed to touch is just a clever way of stealing. I realize that Tom Delay is not the only elected official who does this sort of thing, but it does not matter.

Bravo. There's really a weeks worth of blogging in this excerpt. We should all sack all of this pack of insiders regardless of party affiliation. Why can't we just have normal people represent us? Who votes for these politicians making all their secret deals over games of golf and expensive champagne. Let's fire the whole bunch, and I don't care what political party they belong to.

Unfortunately, much of the conservative chatter has consisted of inconsistent partisan banter like that found on Part-time Pundit's site: That’s not to say that he’s innocent, but it is to say that the Democrat’s plan to power is not to beat Republicans at the polls, it’s to invent charges against them. Call it the Rush Limbaugh treatment.

This doesn't make sense. If "he's not innocent," the charges weren't "invented." Lacking any logical lodestar to guide us, we're left to read between the lines. I assume John is saying that all these politicians smell of corruption anyway, so we should just plug our noses and get on with our lives. My rejoinder would be that if they're all corrupt, hopefully they'll all indict each other so we can replace them with better people. We hire these people to represent the citizenry, right? I'm not too happy to hear that companies are paying money for political favors and that these payments are being hidden from public view. I'll be very happy to watch DeLay get fried. Even plutocracies need to take a break once in a while.


Glen Dean said...

Thanks Karlo. You know I also think we should abolish the 17th amendment. Right now, US Senators are more in line with Special Interest Groups than they are their own state's constituents. You can not hardly get rid of an incumbent Senator. During his term or terms, he ammassess such a war chest, that he is unchallengable (Not sure thats a word, but what the hell). Return the power to elect Senators to state legislatures and at least then he will be accountable to those legislators.

Glen Dean said...

Abolish is a bad word. I should have said repeal.

Karlo said...

I agree. I'd like to see us get back to having regular citizens temporarily occupy high offices. If we rotated people in and out of offices, it would make it more expensive for special interests to buy people (since they'd have to turn around and do it again 4-6 years later). I'd also like to see fewer wealthy businessmen assuming high offices. These people already have the networks in place to exploit.

delftsman3 said...

"I'd like to see us get back to having regular citizens temporarily occupy high offices."

Something we wholeheartedly agree on Karlo. Term limits would go a long way toward that goal.

And not to sound like a broken record, so would the Fair Tax plan.

We can agree that pacs can be counterproductive to true democracy. Pacs get their money being lobbyists; lobbyists recieve money for being capable of influencing a politition to manipulate the tax code in their client's favor. Get rid of that capability, and the paks collapse.

Thinking that higher level buisnessmen and community leaders won't be the majority in serving in government is unrealistic, and to some extent counterproductive, we need people experienced in making large organization decisions to have the government function at all.

The only way to come close to what you envision is to make every citizen eligible to be inducted as a legislator by lottery,condicted at regular intervals; with the proviso that they would be legally responsible for any malfeasence in office should it be able to be shown that the majority of their actions were harmful to the public good.