Not to change the subject, because I agree about DeLay being an uber-putz, but it seems to me that a lot of the same people who were complaining about everyone trying to attack Bill Clinton ("vast right wing conspiracy," anyone?) suddenly think that's fine and good when it's someone from the OTHER side being ripped and targeted for defeat...

The nature of the accusations has to be taken into account here. DeLay has been rebuked twice in a week by the House Ethics Committee, three of his close associates are under indictment for money laundering, and two other close associates are under investigation by a Senate committee for ripping off Indian tribes. Compare that to the allegations that Bill Clinton ran drugs while the Governor of Arkansas and had Vince Foster murdered, both of which (along with many others) were wild-eyed lies. Surely there's a difference, no?

Maybe, but I guess my point was more that people with strong partisan ties tend to have blind spots where their "team" can do no wrong and the "other team" can do no right.

Speaking of "right," perhaps former House Speaker (and Democrat) Jim Wright would be a better example. I remember a lot of hard-core, party-line Democrats defending Wright on some things that seem pretty indefensible. And yes, plenty of loyal, party-line Republicans have the same blind spots where others are concerned. (I'm sure some wanted Clinton impeached and can't admit that DeLay did anything wrong.)

Admittedly the stuff we *know* Clinton did wrong were related to lying on personal matters that really didn't affect the governance of a nation. But I still think it's wrong for folks to defend him as if he did nothing wrong. Any prominent leader, whether President, House Speaker or House majority leader, needs to demonstrate conduct beyond reasonable reproach. And selective outrage depending on whether one has a "D" or an "R" next to their names has always been one of my pet peeves.

But yeah, just to reiterate, DeLay is a major schmuck and I'd be embarrassed if he represented my district. (Then again, we're represented by Culberson, which at times doesn't seem much better.)

I seriously do need to agree that all the charges agnst Clinton probably got those that love Clinton to love him more with a "They're attacking my guy" attitude and I believe in a Sugar Land to Clear Lake rich white Republican district that's probably the case for DeLay too.

I'm a Republican and I find Delay to be an odious toad. Burn, baby, burn. And get a new haircut. Ask Edwards for advice.

Here's the quote from today's Galveston Daily News on the subject:

"DeLay said that he wasn’t worried about the committee’s findings.

“I’m not concerned at all,” he said. “In fact, I’m very pleased with their findings. They proved, No. 1, that Chris Bell’s charges were frivolous. In fact, he’s being investigated by the ethics committee for filing frivolous charges. They dismissed all the charges that he brought against me.”

Can you believe the balls on this guy? I mean, he appears to be completely delusional.

Admittedly the stuff we *know* Clinton did wrong were related to lying on personal matters that really didn't affect the governance of a nation. But I still think it's wrong for folks to defend him as if he did nothing wrong.

The only problem with this statement is that it assumes there must be something Clinton did wrong that we just don't "know" about! But we all know what happens when we ASS U ME! The only charges the GOP made against Clinton that had any truth to them were (1) he couldn't keep his pecker dry, and (2) he lied about it when they cornered him.

In trying to put those failings on a par with DeLay's corruption, Tim goes on:

Any prominent leader, whether President, House Speaker or House majority leader, needs to demonstrate conduct beyond reasonable reproach.

I suppose that's a matter of opinion, but I think the public's reaction to the Lewinsky scandal shows most of us disagree. The Dems won seats in '98, remember?

Personal failings are nothing to brag about, but they're simply not on a par with public corruption. I see far more hypocrisy in those who would ignore the latter while using the former to try to bring down an opposing party's President, than in those who complain about the latter but not the former.