Buh-Bye Delay! From Taegen Goddard's Political Wire

[Debi]

A Republican Uprising Over DeLay

"The Hotline has learned from three House sources that at least two-dozen House GOPers spanning the ideological spectrum have agreed to sign a letter to House Conference Chair Deborah Pryce (R-OH) requesting new leadership elections in an effort to block Rep. Tom DeLay from reclaiming his post as Maj Leader. A group of members and staffers held a conference call earlier today and plan to hold a second one later in the afternoon as they seek to obtain the required 50 signatures to force the vote."

Meanwhile, in an interview with Reuters, Rep. Ray LaHood (R-IL) said of DeLay, "I would not support him for majority leader."

LaHood was elected in the 1994 Republican sweep and is a close ally of House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL).

Update: The Financial Times confirms the report, saying "rank-and-file Republicans in the House are expected to circulate a petition in the next few days calling for leadership elections formally to replace Mr DeLay, who many fear could become a liability as the November 2006 mid-term elections approach."


http://www.politicalwire.com/

[Vincardog]

1. I am waiting for the push to

replace Comander Bunnypants, who many fear could become a liability as the November 2006 mid-term elections approach."

[Debi]

3. Do you really want the evil Dick in charge?

[Greeby]

5. As if he wasn't already?

:shrug:

[Debi]

8. Agreed - I hope the stress won't be too much on his heart

:wow: (did I just say that?)

[sendero]

6. People keep saying this...

.... so let me just inform you - Cheney is already in charge, and he was from day one.

[Fridays Child]

2. How will the bugman spin this, I wonder.

He'll probably say it was his idea because he wants the House to have a fully focused majority leader, while he concentrates on clearing his good ( :puke: ) name.

[brooklynite]

4. Too bad...

love to keep him around as an anchor on the House GOP members.

[sendero]

7. Whatever justified concerns..

.... you may have about Delay's ethics, he was very, very, very effective in his job. It will be a net loss for the republican party to have him lose this position.

[Debi]

9. I would love to have a Majority Leader as strong as he was (but clean)

It's not that I don't like Pelosi/Hoyer. I just don't see a whole lot of arm-twisting out of those two.

[Peace Patriot]

10. Just had a new thought about all this...

If you were Patrick Fitzgerald, and you had the goods on Dick Cheney (and/or George Bush), would you spring it on them, a) before or after people like Tom Delay and other Bush "pod people" leaders were removed; or b) (another possibility) before or after the 2006 mid-terms during which Diebold and ES&S may permit the Dems to win a few more seats (in order to point away from the secret programming by which they are controlling our elections--and to dampen the election reform movement*)?

A prosecutor has discretion on the timing of indictments (and also on the naming of unindicted co-conspirators). He may not have the goods on them yet, although the Libby indictment certainly pointed to Cheney. Or he may, and he's biding his time.

You can't tell me that prosecutors--even the best of them--don't keep a finger to the political wind (like judges do). They may not be politically dirty, or politically ambitious, but they are certainly aware of the political context in which they have to operate. Also, in the case of Cheney and Bush, no prosecution is possible while they are in office. Any prosecution of them has to arise in Congress as an impeachment proceeding. (Otherwise--in the design of government laid out in our once great Constitution--the executive would be subject to control by the judiciary, and the "balance of powers" would be tilted.) Congress is the only entity that can remove them from office. (I frankly don't know if Congress can put them in jail, after impeachment. But I think that, after impeachment, conviction and removal from office, they are then subject to ordinary prosecution. An impeachment proceeding, however, might taint any future prosecution effort--and might well be designed to do so. Probably the most we can hope for is their removal from office.)



-----

*(Note: A lot of really smart people seem to be dimwitted on the matter of our rigged election system--Bushite corporations controlling the tabulation of our votes with "TRADE SECRET," PROPRIETARY programming code, and virtually no audit/recount controls. So Fitzgerald--and who knows how many others?--may be under the delusion that the Democrats could sweep Congress in 2006. That is just not in the cards; but with so much heat on Diebold right now, they might decide to cool it a bit, in '06, and let the Dems take a few seats. Overall, I think we will be amazed at how much these two thieves and murderers--Bush and Cheney--with (at best) 40% and 20% approval ratings, respectively, are still so much beloved by the "American people" that we give them back a Bushite Congress, if a bit reduced. (And the twits will twitter about a "Bush comeback." Mark my words.) It will probably be a slightly improved political landscape, but with impeachment still very iffy, especially if Bush/Cheney don't actually gnaw prisoners' heads off in public, or whatever awful spectacles they had in mind for us next. However, if it's a strong indictment--which is the only kind Fitzgerald will write--Congress may still be forced to impeach, looking to '08. Even though their buds have control over vote tabulation, they still have to mount an effort to get elected. Diebold and ES&S can't tweak highly lopsided elections--although they're working on it.**)

------------------

** www.tmsfeatures.com/tmsfeatures/subcategory.jsp?file=20051124ctnbk-a.txt&catid=1824&code=ctnbk