Where's Your God Now Tom Delay pII

Watch The Money

Is there an honest politician or judge from Texas???

Dem donations get judge tossed from DeLay case

AUSTIN, Tex. - In a courtroom victory for Rep. Tom DeLay, the judge in the campaignfinance case against the former House Republican leader was removed yesterday because of his donations to Democratic candidates and causes. The ruling came after a hearing - presided over by a semiretired judge - in which DeLay's attorneys argued that state District Judge Bob Perkins' political donations created the appearance of bias. Perkins, a Democrat, has contributed to candidates such as John Kerry and the liberal advocacy group MoveOn.org.

"The public perception of Judge Perkins' activities shows him to be on opposite sides of the political fence than Tom DeLay," defense attorney Dick DeGuerin argued.

Perkins had declined to withdraw from the case. He could not be reached for comment.

DeLay was forced to step down as House majority leader after being charged with funneling corporate campaign contributions to GOP candidates for the Texas Legislature. Texas law forbids the direct use of corporate money for campaigning.

DeLay denies the charges.

DeLay is accused of violating the law. The Judge is accused of being a Democrat-- maybe the same as a criminal in DeLay's eyes, but there's still only one person in this case who's actually accused of violating the law.

Now, if we want to go to a system where judges are chosen by their political party, fine by me. I'll be requesting Green Party judges for all my cases.

It's deeper than that. The real problem is campaign financing. Delay crossed the line. BFD. For every Delay there are another 500+ on the Federal level doing the same but not getting caught. Remember how much time Clinton spent fundraising? Lincoln bedroom? Gore with the Chinese? Bush and pals. Now we have judges buying politicians and anti-Bush organizations. Always the same. Nothing will ever change until someone has the balls to place spending caps.

twist wrote: Clinton crossed the line. BFD. For every Clinton there are another 500+ on the Federal level doing the same but not getting caught.

OK then. Too bad DeLay and company didn't see it that way. But they insisted that the law is the law, so it seems kind of self-serving for them to believe that violations of the law are no big deal when they are the criminals.

Myabe I should have used Willie Horton, the way Bush the First did. What do you think?

twist wrote: Now we have judges buying politicians and anti-Bush organizations.

Erm, he donated to his party, and you're making it out to be the first time a judge has ever done that. Regardless of what the President-- any President-- will tell you, Judges usually, but not always, belong to the same Party as the President that appoints them. Yes, Judges belong to political parties. Yes, Roberts is a Republican, and Ginsburg is a Democrat. The Supreme Court that decided the 2000 election? Split along party lines. Any guesses about how each Justice voted in the poll booth? Or any guesses about which party each of these Justices donated too? Any guesses about how the rest of the judiciary votes and donates? Or is this one, lone Texan the only Judge who donates to his party?

twist wrote: Always the same. Nothing will ever change until someone has the balls to place spending caps.

I think the amount of money spent to buy-- erm, win-- office is obscene. I believe, however, that spending caps only apply to access to federal funding, because the Supreme Court has decided that donating money is a form of free speech and is protected by the first amendment. So everybody in the U.s. has free speech, but some have significantly more of that free speech than others.

And this all gets back to DeLay's crime-- there are no limits on how much you can raise, but there are limits on what you do with the money you raise. He violated the law, and suddenly, because this criminal is a high-ranking Republican, criminal behavior is no big deal. But perjury about a BJ-- way out of bounds. Mind, it's only perjury about a BJ that is cause for a multi-million dollar investigation and an impeachment trial-- if the criminal is a Democrat. Perjury about compromising our national security? That falls under the BFD category-- if the criminal is a Republican.

Clinton diod no time for perjury. OK to lie about sex with an intern and a fine cigar, is it?

Now what?