Tom Delay's “Moral Issues”

Tom Delay's “Moral Issues”

6 min read
Share ::
House Republicans have done something truly appalling. They’ve knocked down an ethics rule that banned House members from holding leadership positions if they’ve been indicted on felony charges.

They did it on behalf of House majority leader Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas). A number of his associates have already been indicted by a Texas grand jury and he’s expected to take a similar hit in the near future. I strongly urge you to editorialize against this move. What’s astonishing about it is that the Republicans just repealed a provision that they put in place in 1993 when they said they were cleaning up Congress.

This is no mere act of hypocrisy, though. Nor is it just a Beltway issue that’s only relevant in Washington. This is a national moral lapse that cuts to the heart of our government. It’s an utter outrage, and you need to stand up for the public good and shine a spotlight on it.

Tom DeLay has already been rebuked four times by the House Ethics Committee for various violations. It makes people like me—who play by the rules and pay the taxes that provide for Tom DeLay’s salary—even more cynical about politics and American democracy. Just imagine how great Republicans like Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt would react. It’s a disgrace.

Please devote some of your coverage to addressing this dirty move. Have the vision to editorialize against it and play the role of the public watchdog. We, the people, are ultimately the caretakers of our democracy. When politicians fail to govern with dignity, we must stand up, speak out and hold them accountable.

Happy, Happy, Happy

Actually this was a long time coming. I have been envious of conservatives for a long time. I envy their zeal, unity of purpose, but most of all I envy their absoluteness, their implicit, undoubting, unconditional, unquestioning beliefs. It’s yes or no; moral or immoral; up or down; left or right, no straddling the yellow line, no siree bob. “Pick a lane” is their mantra. “You’re either with us or against us.” Don’t give me an argument when a slogan will do just as well.

I am so tired of those democratic liberal sophist politicians who always want to expand on their positions in an issue; they are flip-floppers and we neo-conservatives have no time for them. We want answers we can understand—like responding to any negative question with a snappy response: “Aren’t you better off with Saddam gone” or “No Child Left Behind?” Best of all: “Why do you hate America?” You got to love it. It’s simplistic in its simplicity and it worked. The media and the voters bought it.

From now on, I will listen to talk radio and get filtered news, no more NPR for this reactionary neophyte. I want to read only half a book a year, and condemn that which I don’t understand (the French, stem cell research and gravity). I will no longer visit museums or art galleries or, heaven forbid, the theater (lots of gays in the theater you know). From now on no more PBS: It’s the FOX network for fair and balanced news, and for wholesome family wackiness it’s the WB for me.

I will go to Wal-mart and buy my American flag and a “support the troops” magnetic ribbon for my car. I also have to stop condemning this administration for the egregious mistakes they have made in Iraq (I also have to stop using words like egregious).

I must ask that God Bless America (and only America). I have to lose my concern for others and demand a financial safety net for the wealthy 1 percent of this country. I must disregard those 20,000 or more Iraqi innocent noncombatants whom we have slaughtered in order to set them free. After all they probably deserved it—I mean, them being brown and all. And if we have to kill them in order to save them, so be it.

Hey, this new conservative philosophy is great! No more guilt, shame or responsibility. I can see clearly now my brain is gone, no moral obstacles in my way, its going to be a bright, bright sunshiny day. …

Lefter By The Dozen

[RE: “Ortiz y Pino,” Nov. 11-17] The question posed to Kerry at the debate was whether the tax dollars of a person who believes abortion to be wrong should go towards paying for it. Kerry never answered, but showed his leftist streak by babbling on about how he should not impose his personal beliefs onto the political world, which is exactly what he does. He is pro-abortion and he supports this position politically. Kerry is the poster child for the neo-pro-abortion movement which states, we know that life begins at conception but we don't care, go ahead and slaughter those little babies at will.

Kerry lost because he spent over a year saying that he should be elected because he blew someone's brains out three decades ago. Then, he hired the Clintonistas and simply said the opposite of whatever Bush said (imagine how much trouble he was in that he called Clinton at his hospital bed, I know you just had your chest cracked open, but I'm in real trouble here!). Next, his idealistic and unrealistic utopian dreams and his inconsistencies caught up to him. Lastly, he “got religion” in a shameful display of faithless pandering (separation of Church and State doesn't count when Democrats want money and votes).

With newspapers, TV news, books, ads, commercials, 527s, “documentaries,” dime-a-dozen liberal rags like the Alibi, actors, musicians and foreign leaders on his side. With news organizations putting their pathetic reputations on the line for him. With all sort of accusations and allegations leveled against Bush. With a celebration every time America got bad news—the economy, jobs, casualties (bad news for America was good news for Kerry). He still lost. Americans who cannot have their voice heard in the media still have their say by their vote.

We can only hope that liberal propagandists can keep up their paranoid-conspiracy-ranting-hatred for four more years since their ideas are defeated by their own merit (or lack thereof).

Letters should be sent with the writer's name, address and daytime phone number via e-mail to They can also be faxed to (505) 256-9651. Letters may be edited for length and clarity, and may be published in any medium; we regret that owing to the volume of correspondence we cannot reply to every letter.

1 2 3 455