Poor you!

I have to admit, I haven't much followed the Tom Delay scandals. I'm sure its very possible that he is guilty of something... and if so, I won't be crying that much if he is brought down. (But these recent fundraising questions sound a lot like the Clintons' behavior, BTW)

The simple fact of the matter is that Delay is the man most responsible for a Texas redistricting that guarantees Republican control of the U.S. House for decades to come.

This is a central reason why he is so hated and pursued by the left... and so easily given the "benefit of the doubt" by some grateful people on the right. (notice that I said "benefit of the doubt", not "free pass"... there is a difference)

Either way, no future punishment of Delay (rightly or wrongly) will change what he did for Republicans.

Maybe he should just retire and be done with it because few Republican politicians will ever have the sum total of their entire life's work add up to this much of a contribution to their causes as what Delay did by this redistricting. (and this last paragraph is not partisan... if the tables were turned and it were a Democrat... the same exact thing could be said about that Democrat)

Delay's been hated for years. Five seats out of 470-odd seats is not enough to give Republican's control of the House for "decades to come." That's all they got was five seats. Indeed, they've taken secure seats and mixed them all up with blue areas. He may be the victim of his own success.

He's always been slimy. Plus the redistricing is pure politics and bad policy.

The redistricting is just one more thing for him to be hated for. He plays fast and loose with the fundraising rules and has done so for decades. He's a shining example of what's wrong with this country.

The previous districting didn't favor Democrats?

I'd love to see federal legislation, if it were possible, to take districting out of the hands of politicians (see Cali Governor's proposal).

Delay should be prosecuted if and when he has committed a crime. And he should resign if that were to happen. I don't care if he's around or not. But just because folks don't like him, well that's not enough to run him off. --s

As I am sure you are aware, the tradition in this country has been to have one redistricting per 10 years in each state. In fact, it has been that way for all states up until the TX move by DeLay. Strong policy arguments favor this plan. Restricting the political slugfest that is redistricting to once-a-decade creates legislatures more involved in doing the people's work. What DeLay did was throw that out the window for simple, bare-knuckles partisan advantage. He wanted more seats for his friends. This is bad policy.

Is it enough to run him off? Never! Nor would the Hammer feel the pressure to resign if criticized for this.

But turns out that he's been playing fast and loose with the law. It appears that he violated Texas law while doing all of this. We don't want our leaders doing that. If he has broken the law, he should be pressured to resign.

"What DeLay did was throw that out the window for simple, bare-knuckles partisan advantage. He wanted more seats for his friends. This is bad policy."

Did or did not the previous districting unfairly overrepresent Democrats? Yes.

Was Delay's involvement in helping to shape redistricting legal? Yes.

--s

Legal, yes. Good policy, No. Unfairly overrepresent Democrats? Isn't that what redistricting is about? I highly doubt that Tom Delay has now created a "fair" redistricting.
What's your opinion on other types of redistricting such as that proposed by Arnold?

I'm for Arnold's proposal.

But Arnold's proposal is supposed to stop people like DeLay from doing what he did. How can you support both?