MyDD :: Tom Delay Cuts and Runs <s>Won't Run Again</s>

Tom Delay Cuts and Runs Won't Run Again

by Matt Stoller, Mon Apr 03, 2006 at 10:25:26 PM EST

Discuss.

Update: Chris Bell, who is running for Governor of Texas, deserves some credit for this. He filed an ethics complaint against Delay in 2004, and received a great deal of ire from fellow members. The complaint led to Delay's admonishment, which helped in his downfall. Individual members can make a difference.

Update #2: This is probably the first Abramoff-connected cowardly Republican to slink away from the voters, not the last.

And Hugh Hewitt is a genius now isn't he?

A Texas prosecutor with a history of abuse of his office, Ronnie Earle, has indicted Tom DeLay. Earle is a sort of Jim Garrison without the integrity. Soon to follow: Giant MSM coverage, show trial, acquittal and exoneration, DeLay's return to Majority Leader for another 20 years.

I can't wait to read Hugh's next coloring book, Painting the Map Red.

Update #3 (Chris): I want to re-emphasize something I noted in the comments. This is much bigger and more important than any one seat could ever mean. It does not matter whether or not DeLay can be replaced on the ballot (he can). It does not matter whether we win or lose this seat, because in a district this red we could have only held it for one term anyway. The point is that the corrupt former majority leader of the Republican House has cowardly cut and run from his own district. He surrendered in the face of his own legal troubles, and was too frightened to face the voters of his own district. Even on primary night last month, he hid under a pile of lobbyist's coats in D.C. because he was too scared to face the voters.

And this is the man that every Republican in congress once voted as their leader, a scared, cowardly, corrupt, surrender monkey who has now literally cut and run from his home district rather than face the music from voters. That is the modern Republican Party, and the conservative movement for you in a nutshell. Who cares about one congressional election. One of the four or five most important cogs in the Republican political machine has been permanently removed.

Tags: Tom Delay (all tags)

Permalink :: 37 Comments :: Post a Comment

Good riddance (none / 0)

I'm sure, though, that DeLay isn't going to support Steve Stockman. I wonder who they can drag out with enough money and name recognition to be a serious threat in November.

by JRyan on Mon Apr 03, 2006 at 10:30:43 PM EST

One more cockroach (none / 0)

exterminated from the house.

by Sam Loomis on Mon Apr 03, 2006 at 10:30:46 PM EST

Hmmm... (none / 0)

Lampson has tons of dough, but without a corrupt Republican to run against, not sure any Dem can win the TX-22.

Wonder who DeLay will choose as his successor. Pointing out that he ran int eh primary, and then dropped out alter would point out to voters that he subverted the Demcoratic process in order to handpick his successor, instead of letting the voters decide.

But good riddence. Losing DeLay will hurt Republicans, and help America, much more than any single House seat ever could.

by Chris Bowers on Mon Apr 03, 2006 at 10:33:22 PM EST

The GOP may be fucked in TX-22. (3.00 / 1)

According to this post's analysis, if the nominee drops out after the primary, a party no longer has a candidate on the ballot unless the nominee dropped out because of "catastrophic illness".

Swing State Project: Campaign & Election News - Covering Key Races Around the Country

by HellofaSandwich on Mon Apr 03, 2006 at 10:46:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That is an uphill battle (none / 0)

Plus, unless the GOP veers wide away from a DeLayican, it's gonna be hell running a write-in campaign as DeLay's man.

Maybe the GOP is setting up some sort of "The Independents won Texas" argument.

Next we'll see Kinky Friedman win.

Then they'll say, "See? The public still doesn't want Dems."

by jcjcjc on Mon Apr 03, 2006 at 11:05:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Or maybe not. (none / 0)

The law may be more confusing than it first seemed...

Swing State Project: Campaign & Election News - Covering Key Races Around the Country

by HellofaSandwich on Mon Apr 03, 2006 at 11:05:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Or maybe not. (3.00 / 1)

byzantine election law? I'm shocked- SHOCKED! to discover that there's gambling going on in this establishment!

by Lucas O'Connor on Mon Apr 03, 2006 at 11:14:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hmmm... (3.00 / 4)

Lampson has more than 2 million in the bank. I live on the NASA side of TX-22 where I can tell you outside of the administration NASA did not support Tom nearly as much as they did Nick.

This is now Nick's race to lose. He's a strong candidate and this district is not as red as many of you are mkaing it out to be.

Either way, I'm getting a new rep this year.

by Trowaman on Mon Apr 03, 2006 at 11:00:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

TX 22 (3.00 / 2)

Yeah I am not sure where the idea comes in that TX-22 is too red to win. The old TX-22 would have been to tough for Lampson to crack...but the reformed TX-22 with its growing Asian American population is great news for the Democrats.

Yet the real tinfoil hat potential here is that DeLay intends to resign in May so that John Roberts and Sam Alito switch sides on the redistricting case and reinstate the old TX 22 map. That would screw Lampson...who would lose the chance to run in his old stomping grounds and assuredly win.

by risenmessiah on Tue Apr 04, 2006 at 12:09:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: TX 22 (none / 0)

I was gonna say...my impression was that Delay was so damned assured of his own infallibility that he gave himself one of the more competitive districts in the state just to "take one for the team" more or less. Leaves it relatively ripe now that he'll be on his way to what Office Space so eloquently described as a federal, pound-me-in-the-ass prison.

by Lucas O'Connor on Tue Apr 04, 2006 at 12:42:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: TX 22 (none / 0)

....and 'cuz the Democrats were never going to run a top tier candidate against him, even if the whole district turned Democrat.

Still, that smiling mug shot is going to come back to haunt the right.

by risenmessiah on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 04:07:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tom Delay Resigns (3.00 / 1)

I'd rather he stay in and lose. He's an asshole. Chris Matthew's sounds like a right-wing dittohead....oh wait. I wish someone would tell Scarborough to shut up. Yup, McKinney is a racist/bad congressman, but he treats DeLay like god, while McKinney is trash. Hypocritical.

Philly Liberal

by Airb330 on Mon Apr 03, 2006 at 10:35:40 PM EST

Scarbrough on Delay: He never lied to me once... (3.00 / 1)

Well if thats true that you are witholding information from an investiagation and should be questioned at least. Either that or you didn't ask anything important.

Running the Davis, Nelson Klein team in Florida.

by Liberal on Mon Apr 03, 2006 at 10:56:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tom Delay Resigns (3.00 / 1)

He didn't resign from what I heard, he just decided not to seek re-election.

What I'm most interested to see is where all of his money ends up going.

by Lucas O'Connor on Mon Apr 03, 2006 at 10:50:13 PM EST

Re: Tom Delay Resigns (3.00 / 1)

more specifically, keep track of where it goes because it'll be a noose for whoever takes it.

by Lucas O'Connor on Mon Apr 03, 2006 at 11:54:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tom Delay Resigns (none / 0)

This is bad news but not surprising. It can't be fun to be a regular House member after having been the powerful Maj Ldr.

Lampson's job just became much tougher.

by John Mills on Mon Apr 03, 2006 at 10:50:55 PM EST

Re: Tom Delay Resigns (none / 0)

I got to tell you, I'm a little shocked. Even if he is a weasel, I still cannot believe he didn't hold out until the end. Just goes to show I even underestimated what wussy this guy is.

There has to be some real bad legal issues flying in his direction that we don't already know about. I mean, real bad. He wouldn't have dropped out based on the information known thus far.

by Eric11 on Tue Apr 04, 2006 at 12:51:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tom Delay Won't Run Again (3.00 / 1)

This is a win. Period. A win for the country most of all. Ding, dong, the wicked witch is dead.

by howardpark on Mon Apr 03, 2006 at 10:54:08 PM EST

A Win (3.00 / 2)

Agreed. I would like Nick Lampson's chances to be better, but I don't want even a 50% chance, or any chance, of DeLay being in Congress next year. He has to go.

Oh, and lest you're wondering, Assrocket at Powerline came through with a splendidly wingnutty response to the news:

DeLay was an effective leader, albeit too liberal in recent years. It's possible, of course, that he did something wrong along the way. But there is no evidence of that in the public domain... As far as we can tell at the moment, DeLay appears to be yet another victim of the Democrats' politics of personal destruction--the only politics they know.

Powerline is truly the gold standard of wingnuttery.

by maestroanonymo on Mon Apr 03, 2006 at 11:23:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tom Delay Won't Run Again (3.00 / 1)

Tom Delay (R-Abramoff) bows out. I must remind myself that schadenfreud is a bad thing. But not as bad as a hired killer headed for the crossbar motel.

http://kittenstomper.blogspot.com/

by Oilfieldguy on Mon Apr 03, 2006 at 11:11:58 PM EST

Re: Tom Delay Won't Run Again (none / 0)

"But not as bad as a hired killer headed for the crossbar motel"

Please elaborate. TIA

McCain is defining Obama, and Obama is neither defining himself, nor McCain. This is awful.

by jgarcia on Mon Apr 03, 2006 at 11:28:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tom Delay Won't Run Again (none / 0)

Crossbar motel refers to prison.

http://kittenstomper.blogspot.com/

by Oilfieldguy on Mon Apr 03, 2006 at 11:36:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tom Delay Won't Run Again (none / 0)

Hired killer refers to his previous occupation as an exterminator. ie pest control.

http://kittenstomper.blogspot.com/

by Oilfieldguy on Tue Apr 04, 2006 at 12:15:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Delay to RESIGN (none / 0)

AP story says Delay will resign in May or June, necessitating a special election which will allow for a Republican candidate to run on equal footing with Lampson.

So Lampson is not a sure in but Delay is a very sure out. This is a HUGE victory against corruption, petty little dictators, the Rethugs, and a real ***hole.

Kudos to Chris Bell. He deserves serious support in his race simply on the basis of successfully taking down Delay when no one else had the guts or the imagination to do so.

by Thaddeus on Mon Apr 03, 2006 at 11:50:10 PM EST

Re: Delay to RESIGN (3.00 / 1)

gimme the link to Bell's site and I'll send him something. You're RIGHT. We need Democrats with BALLS like Chris Bell. And we should reward that.

McCain is defining Obama, and Obama is neither defining himself, nor McCain. This is awful.

by jgarcia on Tue Apr 04, 2006 at 12:14:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Delay to RESIGN (none / 0)

http://www.chrisbell.com/

by Matt Stoller on Tue Apr 04, 2006 at 12:21:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Delay to RESIGN (none / 0)

btw

Love the Simpsons reference whether intentional or not.

"Even on primary night last month, he hid under a pile of lobbyist's coats in D.C. because he was too scared to face the voters."

by adamterando on Tue Apr 04, 2006 at 08:55:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tom Delay Cuts and Runs Won't Run Again (3.00 / 1)

I thought that Delay (R-Abramoff) controversial Texas redistricting placed Texas-22 into a republican vulnerable position. Delay, falling victim to his own hubris, gerrymandered TX to protect others. The Hammer was bulletproof and needed no such 'safe seat.' Hammer, meet nail.

http://kittenstomper.blogspot.com/

by Oilfieldguy on Tue Apr 04, 2006 at 12:26:09 AM EST

Actually... (none / 0)

He didn't "literally" cut and run, Chris.
He "figuratively" cut and run.

Invest in nature

by NCDem on Tue Apr 04, 2006 at 01:11:34 AM EST

Who says he can be replaced? (none / 0)

Chris, where are you getting the information that DeLay can be replaced? Common sense seems to tell me that where there is a will, there is a way...but my (obviously unexpert) reading of the TX election law seems to indicate that DeLay can't be replaced. Can you point me to different information?

Perhaps I'm reading the wrong section or not reading or applying the proper definition but:

145.035 provides for died, ineligible, or withdrawn candidates to take their name off the ballot

145.036(a) provides that political parties can fill a vacancy in nomination for a candidate who dies or is ineligible

145.036(b) provides that an executive committee make a replacement nomination for a candidate who withdraws ONLY if one of three conditions is met:
The candidate must withdraw because of a catastrophic illness diagnosed within two months of the primary
OR
"no political party that held primary elections has a nominee for the office sought" by DeLay
OR
the candidate has been elected, appointed to, or become the nominee for another elective office.

Chris, can you help address where you read that the above section isn't applicable to this? I imagine TX election code is entirely complex and it's entirely possible I'm missing a huge disclaimer but what I found seems to be controlling authority and, if so, seems to spell out pretty clearly there can't be a replacement. What am I missing?

"for with a country, as with a person, what is a man profited if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" ...lbj

by JasonCGW on Tue Apr 04, 2006 at 02:50:55 AM EST

Re: Who says he can be replaced? (none / 0)

DeLay is changing his residency to Virginia, thus making him ineligible.

I gather that will allow the (R)'s to replace him on the ballot. Or do the special election thing.

Karl in Drexel Hill, PA

by KB on Tue Apr 04, 2006 at 09:19:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who says he can be replaced? (none / 0)

That's what I was thinking, too....but moving to Virginia doesn't make him ineligible for office.

The Texas law that I read is subordinate to "federal or state constitutions...that prescribe exclusive eligibility requirements." And the U.S. Constitution provides exclusive requirements for Office, Texas law to the contrary notwithstanding.

And, according to the Constitution, DeLay moving to Virginia does not yet make him ineligible for his Texas Congressional seat.

"No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen." U.S. Constitution, Article I Section 2. [emphasis added]

"be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen" is the only requirement that is specifically limited to "when elected."

By moving to Virginia, Tom DeLay does NOT become ineligible for his Texas House seat...not until Election Day, at least.

So even if he changes his registration, leaves Texas in a parade, and settles down in VA...he's still eligible to run.

...or am I just crazy?

"for with a country, as with a person, what is a man profited if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" ...lbj

by JasonCGW on Tue Apr 04, 2006 at 11:37:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who says he can be replaced? (none / 0)

You're just crazy. :-)

No, he can't be elected in TX once he's a resident of VA. That means he's ineligible to be elected in TX once he moves to VA.

IANAL, but that's how I'd interpret it. And I did read it in reporting this a.m. that DeLay expects the change of residence to force a new name onto the ballot.

Karl in Drexel Hill, PA

by KB on Tue Apr 04, 2006 at 11:46:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who says he can be replaced? (none / 0)

I might be crazy, but I'm on pretty solid ground with that residency interpretation methinks.

Powell v. McCormick explicity states that the U.S. Constitution provides exclusive eligiblity requirements to U.S. House and Senate seats. (And the Presidency and Vice Presidency.)

Under that same interpretation, Alan Keyes was permitted to be nominated in Illinois...since he had until Election Day to become an "Inhabitant" of Illinois.

Under that same interpretation, Hillary Clinton was permitted to run for election in New York even though, when she began, she wasn't a resident of NY.

I'm sure some lawyers will address this issue but I'm nearly positive that the act of moving to Virginia does NOT make Tom DeLay constitutionally ineligible for election to his Texas district until Election Day.

Perhaps something could be made of intent....as in, he doesn't even have the intent to be an Inhabitant when elected?

But, according to the text of the Constitution, the interpretation of Powell v. McCormack, and the recent history of Keyes and Clinton...I'm right on that point.

"for with a country, as with a person, what is a man profited if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" ...lbj

by JasonCGW on Tue Apr 04, 2006 at 12:01:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]