Delay resigns

[one-eyed-fatman]

He no longer holds the power. He resigned from the top post.

[Mark S.]

Indeed!

Here's the news bulletin:

DeLay Surrenders Leadership Post
WASHINGTON, Jan. 7, 2006(AP) Embattled Rep. Tom DeLay decided Saturday to give up his post as House majority leader, clearing the way for new leadership elections among House Republicans eager to shed the taint of scandal, two officials said.

These officials said DeLay, R-Texas, was preparing a letter informing fellow House Republicans of his decision. These officials spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they did not want to pre-empt the formal announcement.

DeLay is battling campaign finance charges in Texas and was forced to step aside temporarily as majority leader last fall after he was charged in his home state. He has consistently maintained his innocence and said he intended to resume his leadership post once cleared.

His about-face came amid growing pressure from fellow Republicans who were concerned about their own political futures in the wake of this week's guilty pleas by lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

Missouri Rep. Roy Blunt, the party whip who temporarily has filled in for DeLay, was expected to run for majority leader.

Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, a former member of the leadership, is also likely to run.

Elections are likely the week of Jan. 30, when lawmakers return to the Capitol.

DeLay intends to remain in Congress, these officials said, and plans to seek a new term in November.

DeLay acted hours after a small vanguard of Republicans circulated a petition calling for leadership elections and citing DeLay's legal problems as well as his long

[Waldo]

Righty so too.

I await a liberal reply to this that tells us this proves that he is in fact guilty.

[one-eyed-fatman]

Has nothing to do with guilt. He's being forced out of that position by his own people. Come election time his own people will turn on him again and elect a new leader (probably Micheal Fjetland (R) ).

[mgeoffriau]

Well...it might have something to do with being guilty...we just don't know yet.

But I do agree that whether he's actually guilty or not, there's absolutely no way that the Republican Party would allow him to stay in that position. Trent Lott is still bitter about the White House turning its collective back on him over the Strom Thurmond comments. It's very difficult to recover from political missteps, real or imagined, because neither party can afford to lose ground.

[bd]

The Republicans didn't kick Delay out for what he did, they kicked him out for getting caught.


Those are neocon morals and ethics. The ethics of the right wing christians, the "bring integrity back to the whitehouse crowd", The moral majority.

The hypocrites.

Don't get caught.

That's the bottom line.

bd

[mgeoffriau]

Wow. What a wonderfully libelous and defamatory generalization about a rather large segment of the population. Particularly nice of you to name my religion as well.

[NewXD40fun]

Originally Posted by bd

The Republicans didn't kick Delay out for what he did, they kicked him out for getting caught.

Those are neocon morals and ethics. The ethics of the right wing christians, the "bring integrity back to the whitehouse crowd", The moral majority.

The hypocrites.

Don't get caught.

That's the bottom line.

bd

This is too easy to refute.


If he got “caught” and was charged with Criminal Conspiracy, then how come the Texas judge threw out those charges? Liberal hypocrisy in action.

He was charged with campaign money-laundering, but hasn’t even been tried yet. He is innocent until proven guilty, as opposed to liberal hypocrisy.

Delay stepped down from the majority leadership position to comply with the Ethics Rules of the House Republican Conference.

The Republicans did not “kick” him out, Tom Delay obeyed their self-imposed ethics rules.

bd’s liberal interpretation of the facts are to be expected.

For liberal hypocrites, the charge is the bottom line, not the truth.





Tom

[one-eyed-fatman]

The Republicans did not “kick” him out, Tom Delay obeyed their self-imposed ethics rules.

Those were his two options, he chose the later. The repubs would of kicked him out if he had not resigned. The only reason they would have kicked him out is because they are trying to cover their asses and keep their jobs. You may see the demo's doing the same thing soon.

Bout time someone started cleaned out the DC barn. It was really getting full of it.

[NewXD40fun]

Tom Delay’s only option was to obey the Republican’s ethics rules. Only a Liberal would whine and cry and attack the law instead of obeying it. Only a liberal would play the would-have, could-have, maybe game.

The Republicans did not have to “kick” him out because Tom Delay obeyed the rules.

"It ain't over", as liberals are apt to say.



Tom