This is cool, you have to try it. I guessed 21088, and this game guessed it! See it here - http://www.funbrain.com/guess/

You do realize that the age of consent in many states is 16, that in Canada it is 14, and that in some states (e.g. Alabama), you can get married at 14? Tell me how a person should be allowed to marry but not to vote.

No, my argument is not a slippery slope. It is based on solid data we have about cognitive development by age. You're pretty set by 16, you don't gain much from there to 18.

In Mass, there are strict limits on the driving of 16 year olds (Actually the first six months of ANY juveniles liscence)and talk of raising the driving age to 17 and a half.

And your argument can be continued downward. If 16 why not 14 if 14 why not 10. 16 is just as arbitrary as 18.

Voting isn't something anyone is "legally responsible" for. Can we go back and prosecute everyone who voted for Nixon? We let 16 year olds drive--something which is far more dangerous (42,000 Americans die each year in car accidents). There's no good reason why they shouldn't be able to vote.

Virtually all the criticisms people have made about 16 year olds could be made by adults double and triple their age.

The Buckley v. Valeo definition of speech is nonsense. Money is not speech. It is not even speech plus action, it is simply action. With a sane Supreme Court there is no 1st amendment problem banning PACs or limiting campaign spending and fundraising. We'll see what SCOTUS says about Vermont's strict limits shortly.

What's the problem with public financing? If you like Canada's system, THAT's what it is! Look at the clean election laws in states like AZ, ME and VT. They are quite popular there, increase citizen participation, and crowd out undue influence from wealthy special interests. The people know their elected officials behave as they do because it's what they believe in or what they think will best help their constituents; no chance for Abramoff-style corruption. Restoring confidence in the system would go a long way to improving participation in it. And THAT is a compelling government interest that would survive any fair test the courts might impose.

I won't argue that at all. Total agreement.

The exact same thing could be said of 18 year olds. Drawing such lines is inherently tricky, so it makes little sense to draw so many of them. There should be one age at which one becomes an adult in the eyes of the law, and thats IT.

Part of my problem with 16 year old voters is they are (Ok Im generalizing here) too ideological in their ideals. They have no true concept of money and how paying too much in taxes can hurt a family's income.

There are just too many things teenagers are unaware of that a high school civics class does not prepare them for.

Also I'm not sure that they had truly formed their own opinions on subjects and are highly suseptible to just being another vote for their parents to cast.

And also how suseptible they are to the media. Adults have learned to dig into every ad spot to find the right mixture of truth and fiction.

Sandwich

I have to go with Dan on this one. While the point is taken about the rest of the voting age public, which may or may not exercise discretion and responsibility in voting, they are legally responsible for their own actions. A 16-year old is, in most things, not, their parents are (I do agree about the drinking age thing but I would contend that no one under 21 should be drafted into the army or pay taxes until they finish college- which should be a right in this country). And Dan made no mention of 16 year olds being too stupid to vote, just not ready for the responsibility.

Banning PAC's and limiting contributions runs into Constitutional problems regarding free speech. I agree that there needs to be some common sense inserted into what constitutes political speech. I mentioned a week or so ago that when you mention a candidate by name or show their face in your chosen media, that would constitute political speech in an attempt to influence the process and could therefore be restricted.

Public financing is iffy, there are some plusses and minuses but I like the Canadian system. Definately free TV.

You know what? I've seen people in their 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s who are too stupid or ignorant to vote. What about the mentally disabled? What about people with dementia or Alzheimer's for example? We don't let that get in the way of *their* right to vote. Nor should we. You can't just tell me 16 and 17 year olds are stupid; you have to show me how they're any worse than the adults we let vote already. I don't think you can do that. We have a better chance of instilling civic participation in people at 16 than we do at 18.

It's typical that US laws are schizophrenic on when you become an adult. I've written about that on the drinking age in particular. Canada lowered its drinking ages to 18 and 19 a decade before the US raised theirs to 21. Here in Quebec the drinking and voting ages are both 18. In British Columbia you have to be 19 to drink and 19 to buy cigarettes. What about movie and TV ratings? Lots of movies rated R or NC-17 in the States are merely 13+ or 16+ here. It gets very murky very fast.

Party blackmail? What exactly is that? Do you realize that parties are weaker and less important in the US than in any other democracy in the world? The parties have virtually no discipline over their members at all. Politicians don't depend on campaign funding from their parties because they don't get much from them. And parties don't decide who to give money to, or how much, on the basis of how closely a politician tows the "party line" (which doesn't exist) anyway. This is simply a myth held by the ignorant. Wherever you live, I'm sure there is a good college or university that offers political science classes.

"But I personally think that no law is better than a bad law."

Which is why we used to have a constitution and separation of powers....

Why is having an automatic coalition a good thing? Thats just a recipe for bad legislation via party blackmail.

We have a bill that 49% of the House hates. Of the other 51%, one third of them are simply voting along party lines because they will not get funding from the Party if they don't. So a bill most of congress doesn't really like gets passed because the Party whip says "Take one for the team...or else"

Same situation, more parties:
Legislation has to be changed because a block of congressmen didn't like it. That sounds like it would lead to better government.

With more parties there is also more checks and balances. If the party in control only has 40% of the vote, the parties would have to compromise.

But I personally think that no law is better than a bad law.

Gravy: I couldn't agree more.

Agreed on the multi-party system. I just spent 2 years in a parliamentary Democracy where the two ideological opposite parties formed a coalition in an unsuccessful attempt to strangle the middle of the road party. The ruling coalition is ineffectual because to preserve their coalition they really can't do anything except dispense pork. Instead of pork-barrel politics it is pork barrel government, which is much worse. Now this isn't always the case, but there are definitely drawbacks to multi-party systems.

I think Republicans try so hard to appease the far right because the voting blocks that make up the far right, like religious fundamentalists, are extremely motivated voters. If you feel God wants you to vote for George Bush, then you're damn well gonna get out and vote for George Bush.

On voting age, I've met 40 year olds who aren't ready to vote. We should have one age at which a person becomes an adult in every sense. It's absurd that you can buy a gun or die in a war before you can drink a beer. Driving, voting, renting a car, firing a gun. Once reaching a certain age, everyone, man or woman, black or white, should be treated exactly equal in the eyes of the law.

"While the right to assemble has been used as a basis for rights of political parties, it does not guarentee parties the right to hold primary elections at public expense. While free speech may be protected, political speech can be regulated. But I do not see how the idea of a national primary interferes with the right of assembly, even should it be proper to apply to the situation."

I do agree that if they want to hold primaries, it should be at the parties' expense and not the public, but that notion runs completely counter to the regulation of political speech portion of your next paragraph (why have them fund the elections but limit funding on the campaigns? If the objective of campaign finance is to level the playingfield and let the ideas come out, then why not level the primary electoral system, too?). In my scenario, I was limiting the example to the two parties, but the same would apply if you add ten more third party candidates, give each of them 2% and chip away from the count for the other parties, you still end up with the same results.

Too many people like to bad mouth the two party system, but it's really one of the great strengths of our system. You want to know what a true multiparty system looks like, look at Israel. No one has ever had a majority of the Knesset, and as a result their government cannot get anything accomplished because majorities are reliant on fringe third parties who call for a no confidence vote whenever the main party makes a bold move. It's a recipe for even more gridlock and would make us more beholden too oddball third parties than we are now (The Republicans can ignore the Religious Right at times because they are firmly part of the party, but if the system made them a coalition partner and easier to bolt the party when they didn't get their way, Republicans would have to do more than just pay lip service to them.

If you don't like where the two parties are right now, register with one of them and push for change within the party that is closer to your view. That's what every major coalition within a party has had to do all along. You don't need to agree with everything they say (I'm a very strong Democrat, but I have disagreements on the party in terms of campaign finance, trade, and some other issues), but in the current system you can chage the direction of the party with the nomination process and internal political activism (that's one reason the Democrats are in the situatin they're in right now, they're reworking their platform given various inputs from all over the party).

Gravy,

On topic Long posts are totally OK.

I lean Rep and I live in Mass. Not sure I want Romney as Pres. I would support the Romney that was elected as Governor of MA. However, the person he has become while trying to appease the religious Right is totally unacceptable to me. Once again I wonder where it is written that the Rep candidate must appease the far right.

Sandwich,

I love your points with the exception of the 16 yr voting age. While I have seen some exceptionally bright 16 year olds, by and large I just don't see the vote for them. Frankly there are 18-21yr olds that I personally don't think are ready to vote.

Many states are reviewing whether we should even allow 16 yr olds to drive, and voting is even more responsibility than that...

And your initiatives would make it easier for independents to get elected.

Although rather than base it on previous elections vote percentage, it should reflect current party memberships (with an independent pool for independents).

Yes, states should be forced to allow voting by mail, aka absentee voting for everyone. Oregon's turnout jumped since instituting this, and with 25-50 initiatives typically on the ballot there, the book is too long for most people to hover over in a booth all morning.

The whole purpose of primary elections is for members of a specific political party to choose their nominee for a given office. If you register as an independent, you give up the chance to vote in primaries. Tough! If you want to vote in a party's primary, register as a member of that party. In some places like Ohio you can even change your registration every election. Registering as an independent confers no benefit on you. I have no sympathy for complaints from independents about their inability to vote in primaries.

Voter turnout is not really the biggest thing we should be fousing on, but here are some things that should be done to increase it:

*Lower the voting age to 16.
*Abolish voter registration (like ND) or institute same-day registration (like MN).
*Reduce the number of elections and number of elected offices. (Do Ohioans really need to vote on the county coroner?)
*Declare Election Day a federal holiday. It's more important and defining than Independence Day anyway. Far too many people don't have a chance to vote on a regular workday.
*Consider 24 hour voting or multi-day election days.
*Mandate free TV and radio airtime for candidates.
*Ban PACs.
*Drastically limit campaign spending.
*Ban campaign contributions from any entity other than individuals.
*Limit campaign contributions to $100 per candidate per year.
*Publicly finance campaigns. Each candidate demonstrating a minimum threshold of support (e.g. 5%) gets the same amount of money per voter in the state or district. In Canada, parties get $1.75 for each vote they got in the last federal election. This encourages people to vote for their party or candidate even if they have little chance of winning, because they know their vote will result directly in more funding for their party's next campaign. Canada hit a record low turnout of 61% in 2004, the same year US turnout hit 60% for the first time since the 1960s. In 2006, Canadian turnout--in the middle of winter--was 65%. The system works.

Dan,

I should have said national and state (especially in larger states). I think it's much easier for candidates to win elections partly based on personality in larger scale elections. This might be why it's fairly common to see governors or senators of a different party than most voters in their states (Arnold, Romney, etc.) whereas in congress this is a little more rare. It's hard to imagine my extremely conservative district (CA-04) going democratic, even if there were a charismatic, popular person running for the office.

I'm not talking about you in this instance, but I do think that swing voters often times vote on personality, or as has been mentioned, a certain issue. You may not have proved my point by mentioning Gore and Kerry, but I definitely had them in mind. Gore seemed like a cyborg, and Kerry just seemed fake with his "Reporting for Duty" shtick, among other things. Bush seems more human. Of course his "regular guy" act is completely absurd, but I bet he actually thinks he's just a plain old guy from Texas, and so he comes off better.

I'm not saying that Personality is the only issue, but I do think it's a big issue, especially for people who are undecided or really don't see that much difference on issues between the reds and blues. I agree with Democrats on most issues, so I would vote for the Democrat almost no matter what.

In terms of who's likable, I think Bush until the last year or so was perceived as the kind of guy most centrist or rightist people wouldn't have minded having a non-alcoholic beer with, and I think that was one of his major selling points. I happen to think that's crap.

I think Edwards is a likable candidate, and he's famous for being able to connect with his audience and likewise seem like a regular guy. There are other factors, of course, and he'll be smeared as a trial lawyer.

Romney is another. People have been mentioning him as a presidential candidate for '08 since the Utah Olympics, and not because of his political stances.

Obama. Very charismatic and likable.

Sorry this is so long.

Got it! That is what threw me.

RMill,

Not sure I understand you completely by proportional voting. Nothing wrong with One man one vote.

Put 10 names on the ballot if 10 people have a significant national interest. Person with the most votes still wins.

I think you misunderstood the following statement:
"And who says we can only choose 2 candidates from the general"

Sorry this should have said "And who says we can only choose 2 candidates FOR the general". Still only 1 vote. Just more than 2 names on the ballot.

While I realize there are frequently green party and liberterian and the occasional independent on ballots, they are seldom on EVERY ballot in the country.

Michael

While the right to assemble has been used as a basis for rights of political parties, it does not guarentee parties the right to hold primary elections at public expense.

While free speech may be protected, political speech can be regulated.

But I do not see how the idea of a national primary interferes with the right of assembly, even should it be proper to apply to the situation.

Gravy,

That speaks to the fact that we are isolated into voting blocks which are easier to manipulate via polling and media. Widening the target search from 21% to 31% will necessitate a broader approach to issues. It may not seem like much (21% to 31%) but it represents about 29 million people nationwide.

Dan,

You seem to be touching on the idea of proportional voting. This has been offered as a way to enfranchise more voters, which could conceivably increase participation but carries a variety of problems. First, the one man one vote concept. And winner take all is very ingrained in our society (not saying right or wrong- just an observation). It also drastically complicates balloting (and we have seen enough ballot problems already to last a lifetime). I once estimated that a typical ballot for Cuyahoga County (Cleveland) would quintuple in size and require at least triple the number of ballots where districts would overlap. Election costs would increase by approximately $3 million in a busy year and about $1 million in off years. We can't even pay for the proper implementation of HAVA yet (it's is already costing an additional $3 million here) plus on-going maintenance costs.

Agreed that we are tired of voting against.

But please tell me he didn't anger the latino community just because he endorsed the white candidate.

Texax has early voting - two weeks before an election you can go to a number of polling places and vote - Tuesday is our primary run-off - I voted today - in all we have 4 days of early voting for a run-off - what is the excuse for not voting? There is none - two whole weeks to vote and you cannot find the timd?

People are disconnected from the politicians - they are tired of voting against the other person -

until we restore trust into the process people will not vote - if they cannot find time to vote over a two week period they will never find the time to vote

PS. speaking out can make a difference - after our now former Chair of the Texas Democratic party endorsed the white candidate before the primary for US Senate, and then managed to anger the entire latino community - he was forced to resign on the eve of the primaries - there is hope if we speak out

Bobby Wightman-Cervantes

Michael,

Several flaws in your statement:

"Parties allow for like minded people to come together to select a candidate who best represents them"

With the current two party system, there is very little resemblance between a right wing conservative and a moderate or between an ultra liberal and a centrist. Do the candidates selected truly represent the party as a whole?

Why are you limiting your field to just Dems and Reps??? Why not open the field to look at ALL candidates. The fringe candidates would attract some of the vote.

"[S]o the general election would be between two Republicans"
And who says we can only choose 2 candidates from the general? Why not every candidate getting more than a 10% vote?

Why would people need to declare a party affiliation? Why couldn't someone stand up and say : 'I am X, this is what I believe.'

"[G]iving more power to the party bosses to whittle down the field before the election"

Wouldn't this then reduce the power of the party bosses?

Well at least we agree that we are being sold what we are buying.

And IMHO Congress IS considered the local level. There is only 1 national level position.

I don't know about the personality thing. We haven't had a presidential candidate that really had a personality since Clinton.

I don't think Kerry, Bush or Gore really had any personality. Perhaps that proves your point, perhaps not. Lets get a really charismatic person on the ticket and see if they win by a land slide.

BTW: since we agree the local (re: congressional) ballots are going to be decided by pork, lets go where we disagree.

Who would you consider to be particularrly likeable (and why please).

Sad that you think our selection of president is a middle school popularity contest. Sadder that I can't really refute you.

The simple reason for not having a national primary is the first amendment guarantee of freedom of association and the basic reasons for having parties in the first place. Parties allow for like minded people to come together to select a candidate who best represents them to allow for a better chance at winning in the general election. Let's say you have an open primary with seven candidates, two of which would be Republicans and five of which would be Democrats (or switch the numbers to suit your partisanship). If all split the vote, the two Republicans would hav 20% each, and each Dem would have 12%, so the general election would be between two Republicans, even though the overall election had 60% voting for Dems and 40% for Republicans. The end result of this system would be either another tier of primaries, or giving more power to the party bosses to whittle down the field before the election, and I don't like either of those prospects.

But how are we supposed to know that they're not relying on polling? Because of what they say? President Bush constantly says he doesn't look at polls, but his actions would speak otherwise. No matter what stances someone takes, the other side will always paint it as purely political, or out of the ideological mainstream.

If people voted more based on their beliefs than I think Politicians would act more according to ideology. Instead the people on whom elections swing tend to vote on personality or likability on a national scale, and based on pork on a local level, and so politicians pander to that.

They say in a Democracy the people get the government they deserve, and I really think it's our fault rather than that of the politicians. If we're buying, there will always be someone selling.

Unfortunately,

Issues people consider important are only talked about, never acted upon.

For some reason, politicans are afraid to stand up and say: this is what I stand for. Instead they stand up and say: Look at what he did. I would never do that.

We need candidates willing to proclaim their intentionswithout regard for polling. Any politician that relies on a poll is not to be trusted to perform the duties the way we chose them to perform them. They will change their tune the first time the polls go one way or the other. Whatever happened to having a personal belief system?

In response to RMill on electronic voting, the reason it hasn't been implemented is two-fold: 1) There is no money in it; and 2) the established parties have no interest in mandating a system that will changes established voting patterns.

And the arguments in favor of certified, password-verified, and encoded voting on a secure site: Convenience, accuracy, and historical interest. We are able to read the WaPo blogs and comment to each other from our homes and offices. The underlying infrastructure (security systems, etc.) exist because there was a market for it, paid by user subscriptions and page advertising.

We can buy stocks, apply for mortgages, file our taxes, transfer cash, sell our homes, and auction our household goods freely and securely from our own desks or even a local coffee shop. Yet, to vote, we must (typically) go to a certain building on a certain day to complete a ballot either physically or on an unfamiliar (and presumably secure) computer and wait for hours (or sometimes weeks) while the results are confirmed. The system is archaic, but will not be fixed without a public outcry or a leader willing to mandate it.

RMill,

I for one am in favor of abolishing the primaries, or at least consolidating them under a single set of federal rules (for federal elections).

Living in Mass, as an independent, I cannot vote in the primaries to help choose the person I think will do the best job. Thus the R candidate is chosen by the religious right on a wacked out platform (to be ignored later).

I don't see why I should be forced to choose one party or the other in order to become involved in selecting the people who are my only 2 choices (realistically speaking).

Why do we spend so much time wondering who will get the R or D slot on the ticket. Why not just open the ticket to whomever and have a national primary to narrow the field down to a more manageable number.

Casey,

Thanks for the list. I agree with a lot of that but we could argue the finer points for weeks. Unfortunately, the reasonably people on these boards are not the sort of people that are candidates in elections.

I think web-voting would be too susceptible to hacking. The machines are at least, self contained units and in Ohio (or at least Cuyahoga County) we insisted on a paper printout. The only problem is that you don't get to keep your receipt. This would introduce other problems (namely, see I voted like you wanted, right here on my receipt, where's my $20).

At least when you mail-in a ballot, it becomes a federal offense to tamper with it, which is more protection than we have at the booth under any system.

What I would like to see them move to is that everyone gets a voter registration card that acts as your key to open the electronic voting system. You have your own pin number and it can be photo and signature protected like credit cards.

The breakdowns are most likely to remain human. Did you check the ID and signature? But how is that different than it is now?

RMill: like the weekend voting idea. However, the R's know that suppressing democracy is in their best interests as only the more dedicated (read: religious right) will vote. What about Web voting? I'm amazed that I can spend thousands of dollars on-line without any instance of fraud (knocking on wood now) but that I cannot vote on-line because of fear of fraud. What, as if the current process is totally impervious to manipulation (Ohio Guy and Larry to chime in here)? I don't see how a digital voting machine without any paper trail is better than an on-line vote with a bar code feedback that I could print out.

I would also create an non-partisan, independent Commission on Primary Elections, similar in construct to the Debate Commission.

If parties wish to hold primaries in states, using public dollars, it should be regulated like we regulate the public airways.

While I do not favor the idea of a national primary and still believe that while New Hampshire is not representative of the entire country, the New Hampshire primary is valuable in another way.

Anyone who has been there during the Primary, can see a Governor, US Senator or members of the US House in coffee shops and on street corners soliciting votes like they were running for City Council. This is the only place where, hand to hand retail politics takes place for a candidate for President. The humbling experience lasts only a few months but has a centering (to some degree) effect on the politician. I would hate to lose that.

Obviously the passage of the US Constitution did little to ameliorate the effects of parties (or factions) but merely limited the violence experienced in other societies (no small feat).

The question, however, remains as to exactly how to control the effects. Individuals will claim they serve in Congress for the greater good of the nation as a whole, yet as they act in concert, this is becoming less and less the case.

The seemingly intractable two-party system, the methods now used to select candidates and exclude representation of certain populations, to manipulate information and isolate voters, and the legal protections provided parties over citizens in the voting process are not easily overcome.

A third party? A new constitution? Not likely.

I feel the solution is much more basic than that. Isolation of voting blocks, in part, means that they (those in power)know who votes and when and how often. They control the means over the process themselves and bend it to suit the needs of their party.

When victory can be achieved by appealing to a mere 21% of their contituency (when you exclude non-citizens, children, non-registered voters, non-voting citizens and needing half of whats left plus one), the narrowing interests play a larger role.

Why does Congress have historically low approval? Only 21% of Americans voted them into power. How do we change the equation?

Every citizen is automatically eligible and registered to vote when they turn 18. No fault absentee voting nationwide and two-day, weekend voting polls.

Now 21% becomes 31% needed for victory. It also introduces new voting habits which are less predictible than those established now. And where does that next 10% come from? The narrowcast does not work as well and a broader approach is needed to ensure capturing a larger independent middle. Bad news for professional consultants, good news for America.

We have abandoned our right to be a moving target for politicains, painted a bullseye on our backs that even Dick Cheney could hit.

A modest and probably temporary solution and one that will effect both parties equally, but I believe necessary for the preservation of our union.

Gee what happened? Did God pull his/her endorsement?

Now we get to hear DeLay blame everything on the media and liberals and go on talk and cable shows extolling the dangers that would unfold if Dems took over the House.

You know, real disasters like some sort of oversight of the president.

The friend of popular governments, never finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate as when he contemplates their propensity to the dangerous vice of [factions].

The instability, injustice and confusion, introduced into the public councils, have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have every where perished.

The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them every where brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society.

A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders, ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions, whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mututal animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other, than to co-operate for the common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind, to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivilous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriemndly passions, and excite their most violent conflicts.

It is vain to say , that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these interests, and render them subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm: nor, in many cases, can such an adjustment be made at all, without taking into view indirect and remote considerations, which will rarely prevail over the immediate interest which one party may find in disregarding the rights of another, or the good of the whole.

The inference to which we are brought is, that the causes of faction cannot be removed; and that relief is only sought in the means of controlling its effects.

James Madison, in defense of the passage of the Constitution of the United States, The federalist Papaers #10, 1787

Yes,Democrats do have corruption problems(now William Jefferson in LA), but I wouldn't call it "equally" bipartisan. The Democrats never had a K street lobbying effort or abused Conference Committees, or kept House votes open for hours to change the results of a major vote. (When Democratic Speaker Jim Wright in the 1980s once kept a vote open for an additional ten minutes, the Republican Minority Whip, Dick Cheney, said it was the lowest form of behavior he had ever witnessed in the House of Representatives). In other words, the Republicans engage in a more systemic form of corruption, which is to manipulate the rules, and break them if necessary, in order to retain their majority. Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson argue this in their new book from Yale University Press, entitled OFF CENTER: THE REPUBLICAN REEVOLUTION AND THE EROSION OF AMERICAN DEMOCRACY.

I think the very nature of politics in Washington leads to corruption in all but a very few. It doesn't matter what party they are a member of. Power corrupts. When the probes into corruption are completed, if done with all due diligence, the amount of theft and corruption in the nation's capital will rival the Grant administration as the worst in American history. This is indeed another sad comment on America's legacy.

"I refuse to allow liberal Democrats an opportunity to steal this seat with negative personal campaign," DeLay said in a videotaped statement released after he informed House Republican leaders of his decision on Monday." (Thomas Ferraro, Reuters 04/04/06)

"Steal"? A Freudian slip? I doubt it. More likely just indicative of the mindset of the people in power in the curent government. They believe that they have a Divine Right to their positions. They are so sure of themselves in their sanctimony that they don't "lose" elections; an election can only be "stolen" from them.

Is it any wonder that politics has gotten so down and dirty?

These people continually remind me of a quote from John Casey's Spartina, "I'm not Rich, I'm privileged!" [Except that we know that a lot of these people have indeed become rich along the way.]

As a Virginian, I'm not worried about DeLay living here. He'll just slink back and forth across the Potomac to K Street every day. Except for when he's in Huntsville or Lewisburg; or both, if we're lucky.

RMill makes an important point about the corruption - it is both sides of the isle - until we take a stand that it will stop regardless of its source then smiling over Delay is just wrong - the reality is - he has yet to be convicted.

It is time to clean up Congress - this will not happen until the Dems are willing to clean their own House - if the Dems were to clean their own House would that not then force the Republicans to clean their House -

NOt going to happen - politics are rotten

Bobby WIghtman-Cervantes

As a member of Congress, DeLay already had a residence in Virginia. Hardly a nefarious plot.

And as far as Silent Cal is concerned, keep goading and prodding for Dems to reveal their strategy to early because R's have no record to run on that will win them anything at this point (Maybe the U.S. EPA relaxing pollution standards (leaked yesterday) for major polluters from 5 tons per year to 25 tons per year will win them corporate donations but not votes).

And while this may or may not be good news for taking TX 22, it should be good fodder for the overall corruption piece across the country (like OH 18- Ney won't fold if indicted? If his mentor tucked tail, how long can he hold out. Spotlight will burn brightly on him now).

And as gleeful as some may be at the demise of DeLay's House career, don't crow to loudly as the Roll of Shame is long on the other side of the aisle (Rostenkowski, Hubbard, Oakar, Savage, Reynolds, etc.) and throwing stones now can boomerang when all is said and done. Dems are not entirely clean on this one either and other shoes can drop between now and November.

This is why I do not want the Dems to rely upon the corruption thing alone in advancing their case when the time is right.

I suppose it is not polite to revel and gloat when a man has stumbled onto hard times. But then again, during the Clinton impeachment scandal, didn't DeLay say something like, "I think that the idea of not kicking a man when he's down is total BS."

This couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.

Did anyone read new Majority John Boehner's effusive praise of Tom Delay in reaction to his resignation announcement. For one thing, he complimented Mr. Delay's integrity. What does this say about the new Majority Leader? To me clearly, it says new Republican leader, same Republican corruption.

Good riddance to bad rubbish! Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Hurray for the Federal Prosecutors!

Delay is far from done. He leaves Texas to go to Virginia. Texas laws I am sure are diffrent from Virginia's laws. He didn't just throw a dart at a map and say that's were im going to go. The Snake has got something up his sleave besides having a diffrent Republican run for office in Texas. Look out Virginia! The Snake salesman is coming to town.
I only hope he gets a Federal indictment and conviction and can't practice politics ever again. But rest ashured he will find a way to the Money and Power. He is an addict. He can't stay away.

Question: Can DeLay move out of the state if he is under indictment in Texas? He can change his official residence but Texas law says he must move out of the state. There is a legal difference as far as residence qualifications are concerned.

Casey,

Delay's attorney can ask the court to allow him to move to Virginia - Earle will oppose the Motion-

Here is the upshot - in a case wherein the political process was abused to allow more Republicans to win, Delay will now ask a judge to allow him to move to Virginia so as to insure a Republican can win his seat -

Funny how Tom has learned nothing - the question is, will the judge allow Delay to use the courts in this case to manipulate yet another election.

BObby Wightman-Cervantes
www.balancingtheissues.com

The comment below was from me:

We like intelligent and thoughtful comments or questions that have at least a passing relationship to actual facts.

We like reading books, not banning them.

We like the constitution, just the way it is.

We like science and the arts.

We like reason and logic and respect for humanity.

We like a world-view that includes people other than Americans and Christians.

We like that activities involving God or sex lives are none of your business, or the government’s either.

We like the concept that healthy people are a boon to society, not a burden.

We like education and we'd like to see more of it happening regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, gender, or ability to pay.

We like a decent living wage for a day's work.

We like the truth. And we'd like to hear some of it from our government sometime.

And,

We like peaceful coexistence to the extent that it is feasible and reasonable. Even with you.

Posted by: Silent Cal | April 4, 2006 08:11 AM

Cal, here is a short but by no means exclusive list of the things we democrats like and are in favor of:

We like intelligent and thoughtful comments or questions that have at least a passing relationship to actual facts.

We like reading books, not banning them.

We like the constitution, just the way it is.

We like science and the arts.

We like reason and logic and respect for humanity.

We like a world-view that includes people other than Americans and Christians.

We like that activities involving God or sex lives are none of your business, or the government’s either.

We like the concept that healthy people are a boon to society, not a burden.

We like education and we'd like to see more of it happening regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, gender, or ability to pay.

We like a decent living wage for a day's work.

We like the truth. And we'd like to hear some of it from our government sometime.

And,

We like peaceful coexistence to the extent that it is feasible and reasonable.

Even with you.

Not for nothin' but...

Has anyone bothered to explain how it is that indicted felon Tom DeLay, who would currently be residing in the Fort Bend County Jail had he not posted a $100k bond, can up and decide to move his place of residence to Virginia?

Hmmm. DeLay runs a tough and disciplined primary and wins. He appears on stage saying that he shall be the Christian rock on which a better nation shall be built. He is obviously "all in" as far as his re-election goes. Then Tony Rudy (former Deputy Chief of Staff) plea bargains and is formally announced to be naming names. Three days later DeLay SLAMS on the brakes so hard it will take a month to pry the faces of his campaign staff off the inside of the windshield. Coincidence? As they say (even in Texas), where there is smoke there is fire. I think Ronny Earle is the least of the Hammer's problems. Coming to a front page near you, Tom "Hard Time Hammer" DeLay.

RONNIE EARLE AND KAY BAILEY ARE NEXT

Justice has been served - maybe justice will noW be an option in Texas -

The thing is, if you believe in justice then Ronnie Earle needs to resign next along with Sen Kay Bailey Hutchison -

Ray Hutchison black mailed Ronnie Earle into effectively dropping the criminal charges against the Senator( see original Dallas Morning News article) http://balancingtheissues.com/hutchisontrial.pdf -

the blackmail related to the misuse of 100 thousand dollars by Ronnie Earle in aid of Ann Richards campaign against Clayton Williams -

http://balancingtheissues.com/QUORUMREPORT.pdf (the Quorum report was faxed to me by Ray Hutchison on the eve of the criminal trial against Kay Bailey - his home fax number remains imbedded on the top of the original document I received from Ray )

- how I came to be involved is not important - what is important is Ronnie Earle blew the case because he was being blackmailed

It is time for Ronnie Earle to step up to the plate and tell the truth- and then resign -

If he were a true Democrat he would do this so that Radnofsky could win the Senate race - (anyone who knows my writings knows I have a very low opinion of Democrat Radnofksy)

Justice is funny - the Republicans have what they need to bury earle but will not use it becasue it will expose Hutchison - the Dems will not use it to destroy Hutchison because it will destroy Earle

Politics is rotten at its core

Bobby Wightman-Cervantes
www.balancingtheissues.com

I don't think this means that his district will stay Red. This will definitly lower GOP turnout in the general election. Who are they going to nominate? If it isn't Steve Stockman he will run anyway as an independent, and if it is how many hard core Delay supporters will vote for him? Also this will be a HUGE boost for the Democrats that have fought long and hard to get Delay out of office. They can smell blood in the water and aren't going to quit now. Also don't count out Lampson he is a former representative with the cash needed to take the seat back.
I look at this as a major victory for the progressive movement. Groups like Democracy for America have been on Delay's case for three years now and it finally paid off.

Umm, about this 'message' thing: haven't the D's been talking about the R's "culture of corruption" until they are blue in the face? Doesn't this kinda sorta PROVE that? And if you argue that this is not a message isn't YOUR message "hey, corruption is OK with me!"

I am reminded of the willful ignorance of R voters in 2004 when they posted that they didn't know what Kerry stood for when his website was just a few keystrokes away.

Re Delay: "Richard Cullen, DeLay's attorney, said yesterday evening that his client's decision to withdraw was "not connected to the criminal investigation." "

And Nixon's resignation was not connected to the Watergate burglarly.

The fact that they are telling such a Big Lie is totally appropos of Delay's 'style' of 'governance.' Delay wouldn't give up this seat unless you pried his cold, dead fingers from around it. He was obviously willing to gut this out in the fall (effects on fellow Republicans be damned) and hope that the voters would forget. However, the scandal has now publicly reached into his office. We're waiting for the other shoe to drop. There are undoubtedly more lies ahead. What is Tony Rudy telling prosecutors right now? Where will Delay serve his prison sentence?

I'm sure that if some wag started selling Ronnie Earle voodoo dolls on Faux News they'd make a killing.

Wise move on Delay's part. Its times like now I really wish the Dems had an actual message.

Intrepid Liberal's post is revealing: Democrats have no platform themselves to run on. They are for nothing. That is perhaps the only reason Republicans still have a shot at winning this fall.

Its all the LIBERAL MEDIA'S FAULT! Hahaha. He deserves every year of time behind bars that he will eventually get.

Not a good day for Democrats. DeLay's seat was a possible pickup in a conservative district. He was also a poster boy and rallying point to focus on re corruption. Well, at least we still have Kathleen Harris for the time being in her Florida Senate race.

http://www.intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com

My hope is that all of the indictments & investigations continue. Losing a House seat is not nearly enough for the misdeeds to which he's been accused.

x Newt
x Livingston
x Delay

NEXT!

I have spent the last six years repeating the sentence "Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse..." and it always does. Finally, a little ray of sunshine.

They are all corrupt - every last one of them

That's what's so wicked cool about them.

Congress sucks

Something tells me there is a lobbying job not too far in the future for Tom DeLay.

JK about congress. Actually I think they're wicked cool.

Over the last six years or so I've become so accustomed to being confirmed in my worst fears and constantly disappointed by politics, that it's almost miraculous to be so pleasantly surprised.

Tom Delay has been like an old case of herpes on the genitalia of this country (congress). He keeps popping up. I can only hope that this is the cure. But somewhere deep inside I don't believe this. It's too good to be true

Good riddance. He is finished politically. The guy tried to hide behind religious conservatives and the pro-life movement in order to enrich himself and his friends. He became drunk with power and completely corrupt. He can blame the left all he wants for his demise, but he has no one to blame but himself, because he became just as corrupt as the people he criticized before he achieved his power. What a disgrace.