On my blog, I wrote a while ago -- disapprovingly -- about a suit filed by Texas Democrats to keep Tom DeLay's name on the ballot.
http://midtopia.blogspot.com/2006/06...s-bye-bye.html

Well, get this: they won.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...v=rss_politics

If that decision stands -- and a Republican appeal is almost a certainty -- it would all-but-guarantee that Democra Nick Lampson will take over DeLay's seat come November.

The reason DeLay resigned when he did was so he could help handpick his successor -- without having to go through that messy piece of intraparty democracy known as a primary. So on one level the Dems have merely foiled one last shady maneuver by the Hammer.

But the extended legal dispute also keeps the GOP from naming a replacement, thus delaying their ability to start campaigning and raising funds. So it's a strategic move by the Dems as well.

One could argue that this is simply DeLay reaping what he sowed: an emphasis on hardball partisanship, regardless of the cost to the nation. It might be considered poetic justice for him to be beaten into the ground with his own favorite weapon.

But that's what everyone disliked about DeLay; Democrats do themselves no favors by emulating him. They need to rise above it and show that they really are different, and that they really do repudiate DeLay and everything he stands for.

So I stand by my earlier position: The Dems should drop the suit and let the Reps name whatever replacement they want. Democracy is not served when a contest is essentially reduced to a one-party race because of legal technicalities. Sugarland voters deserve a choice in November.

__________________
Man up.

I gets mighty aggravating when the voters are no more than an afterthought. That's the way I felt when Newt resigned shortly after being reelected. Political maneuvering should be done before running for office. Once you win, it's a contract, IMO.

__________________
Do you know what it's like to fall in the mud and get kicked... in the head... with an iron boot? Of course you don't, no one does. It never happens. It's a dumb question... skip it.

Well, if you have to resign for personal reasons, okay. But doing it as part of a political calculation is akin to disenfranchising voters. Much like switching party affiliation right after taking office.

__________________
Man up.

As long as the personal reasons are not known to the candidate before he runs for office, I'd be OK with that. Ooooops. I think we agree again. We'll have to watch that.

__________________
Do you know what it's like to fall in the mud and get kicked... in the head... with an iron boot? Of course you don't, no one does. It never happens. It's a dumb question... skip it.

I can't help it if you're a closet liberal.












(....3.....2.....1.....)

__________________
Man up.

Attached Images

nagasaki-001.jpg (50.8 KB, 2 views)

__________________
Do you know what it's like to fall in the mud and get kicked... in the head... with an iron boot? Of course you don't, no one does. It never happens. It's a dumb question... skip it.

http://www.offthekuff.com/mt/archives/007533.html

"The Democrats argued that DeLay's move is a sham to circumvent state election laws.

Under the law, the Republican Party could not have replaced DeLay if he had simply withdrawn from the campaign after winning the party's nomination. But state GOP Chairwoman Tina Benkiser testified that she ruled DeLay ineligible after he wrote her a letter saying he was moving to Virginia and she was presented with copies of his Virginia driver's license, voter registration and state tax documents.

Judge Sparks seemed skeptical.

He noted that the Constitution establishes no residency requirement for a candidate of Congress. He questioned how a state party official can rule a candidate ineligible because they moved during the campaign when there is no residency requirement until a person is elected.

The judge also said he considered DeLay's actions a "de facto withdrawal."

Sparks questioned why DeLay's staff, which prepared the letter stating his plans to move to Virginia, sent a draft to Benkiser several days before sending a final version.

The judge suggested that lawyers for DeLay and the Republican Party could have taken weeks to prepare a rationale that would allow the GOP to replace DeLay on the ballot.

I really don't see how anyone can look at the facts and conclude that DeLay's actions were anything but a deliberate choice, and that he made that choice after studying the law and finding a loophole that he then proceeded to drive a truck through. I mean, what motivated him to leave at this time? I've not seen any suggestion that his decision to retire and move to Virginia was in any way time-dependent. Was there a job opening that wouldn't wait until next year?"

Sparks is a pretty good judge. He's ruled consistently against kook environmental cases. Bush I appointed him. Based on the facts, I believe Sparks ruled correctly. Unlike demos, Republicans rule based on the facts, not political ideology.

__________________
"Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival."
Winston Churchill

How is DeLay any different from Robert Torricelli? Remember ol' Bob Torricelli? Allow me to refresh your memory.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLI...rricelli.race/

TRENTON, New Jersey (CNN) -- Buffeted by scandal and trailing in the polls, Sen. Robert Torricelli, D-New Jersey, announced Monday he was dropping his bid for re-election -- a move that could prove pivotal in Democratic efforts to maintain control of the Senate.

The withdrawal from the race, just five weeks before the midterm elections, complicates Democratic efforts to hold onto the Senate. Republicans need just one more GOP senator to wrest control of the chamber from Democrats.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLI...rricelli.race/
Dems pick Lautenberg to replace Torricelli

TRENTON, New Jersey (CNN) -- Gov. Jim McGreevey announced Tuesday that former Sen. Frank Lautenberg would replace scandal-tainted incumbent Robert Torricelli as candidate for the U.S. Senate seat in the November elections, after Torricelli's sudden withdrawal from the race.

Earlier in the day, the state Supreme Court agreed to hear a Democratic petition to name a new candidate for Torricelli's seat after a lower court stopped the printing of ballots to reflect his sudden withdrawal.

Lautenberg emerged as the leading contender to replace Torricelli on the November 5 ballot after another choice -- U.S. Rep. Frank Pallone -- said he would not enter the race due to family reasons, Democratic sources said Tuesday evening.

Shall I solve this riddle for you? The NJ courts are driven by political ideology and Texas US Judge Sparks is not.

__________________
"Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival."
Winston Churchill

Lautenberg won the election and is now a US Senator. Now, which party has the most blood on their hands, hmmmm? Hint: it starts with a "d" and they lost control of the Senate anyway.

__________________
"Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival."
Winston Churchill

There's a minor difference between Senators and Reps, in that Senators nominally represent the state, not the citizenry. Which is why the governor appoints a replacement. If a Rep goes down, they usually hold a special election to replace him -- or leave the seat vacant, as they're doing with DeLay.

But more to the point, my response would be the same in both cases: deplore the tactic, but allow it. There is simply no compelling reason to disallow it.

Here in Minnesota, Sen. Paul Wellstone died in a plane crash shortly before the 2002 election. Former VP Walter Mondale took his place on the ballot. That was acceptable, too. Norm Coleman won anyway, but at least voters were offered a choice.

__________________
Man up.