Dale Gribble DeLay manipulated the law any way he could for over 20 years. He fathered the political system now being used to try to end-run any successor he may have chosen. The problem is not whether the dems are acting as he acted-the problem is the law itself. As Dale did, so we can expect those who have to play on Dale’s playground to do. Remodel the playground.

It’s disingenuous to say that what the democrats are suggesting is that the person who won the primary be the candidate in the election, when they very well know that that candidate has retired/resigned. It would be darkly humorous for democrats to force Delay out of retirement and then have him beat them in the election. If this country wasn’t as ridiculously polarized as it is, we would all agree that the best thing for the country would be for Delay to go away permanently and just put someone else on the ticket, but that doesn’t seem possible, does it?

What prompted me to post originally, however, was the hypocrisy of democrats pulling the exact same stunt in New Jersey (substituting the candidate that won the primary, yada, yada…) and then, without the slightest trace of embarassment, complaining when republicans tried to do the same in Texas. It was actually worse in New Jersey as in that case it was a coldly calculated maneuver by a sleazebag who was clearly losing the election, which is not the case with Delay (except for the sleazebag part, of course).

The Dems aren’t suggesting that the election be held without a republican opponent. They are suggesting that the republican who won the primary, as election law clearly dictates, should be the candidate in the general election.

How some people miss this simple concept is beyond me.

Can you imagine the outcry if republicans dared to suggest that a race be held without a democrat opponent? The cries of disenfranchisement and electoral fraud would sound across the nation.

Until then, who has actually done the clever thing is strictly a matter of perspective . . . and preconceived ideas.

So when you think about whether Delay should be given an out, consider whether you’d make the same choice if the D’s and R’s were switched.

Personally, I think that Torricelli should have stayed on the ballot, and Delay should stay on the ballot. If the people want someone else, they need to find a way to do it that fits in with the rules – perhaps by writing someone else in.

Of course, if we got rid of primaries, and had instant runoff instead, none of this would be relevant.

The reason? The primaries are over. Who instituted them? Why? Is there really a benefit to the people to narrow all the choices to one person from each of the two parties? No. So screw them. THe primaries are what is robbing this democratic process. In a perfect world, each candidate running for that seat should be on the ballot..but since this primary crap is in place (equally useless and corruptable is the electoral college), then screw the republican camp..and dem camp when this happens to them.

So the Dems should take the “high road”? “Respect the spirit of democracy”? Like Delay and his party did in the primary? A cynical move on their part, knowing full well that he was in legal trouble. He won the primary. I have to wonder if the retirement was known beforehand. I think it was. And if this is correct…to hades with them.

The Dems are using a legal technicality to avoid facing serious competition in November. Similar GOP transgressions may make that tactic understandable, but it doesn’t make it right.

Besides, there is nothing sacrosanct about a primary. It’s essentially an internal party function. Nothing compels the GOP to select its candidates using a primary; they could simply appoint them, or draw straws, or annoint the winner of a hot-dog-eating contest.

Ballot rules exist to ensure that candidates are a) qualified and b) serious, and that they c) file in a timely manner to ensure the smooth operation of the electoral process, adequate time to print ballots, etc.

Laudable goals all, but they do not overshadow the reason we have elections in the first place. As a matter of principle, a person ought to be able to declare their candidacy on election day. Practical concerns prevent that, but the principle remains. Here in early July, there is no practical obstacle to removing DeLay and substituting another candidate for the November race. So we should allow it.

Because our loyalty to democracy should be deeper than our loyalty to party, or our reverence for electoral bureaucracy.

If the people in Texas don’t have a choice, they may place the blame on the man who intentionally set this situation up, not the people who went into court to say, “Excuse me, but this is BS.”

Also, I concur with the thoughts above that if Dems take the “high road,” we will get stomped on. We can then continue to take the high road and be proud of ourselves for that, but I suspect Repubs will use that against us too – calling us whiny wimps or something along those lines. Until Repubs cease to be aggressors and bullies, constantly on the offensive, pushing the limits – I don’t see how Dems can cease to defend themselves and try to hold the lines. As I see it, Dems are constantly having to fight just to keep the rights and freedoms we have in this country. We get screwed because we are always playing by Repub’s rules in Repub’s games. We let them control the debate, and all we are left with is to defend ourselves. At the very least, we need to continue to defend ourselves. It would be nice if we could start taking back some power as well.

Oh and Renee, I have a fresh pot of joe brewing, you should wake up, stop watching FOX, and come on over and give it a good strong whiff. I think it’s sad that Delay and the TX Republicans had to perpetrate such terrible gerrymandering to preserve their TX majority that even our current conservative Supreme Court had to find it illegal.

My parents live and vote there (although my mother, for one, cannot stand Tom DeLay).

Their neighbors actually used to use Mr. DeLay as their pest control man back in the early 80’s. I don’t think they support him politically but they did say that he made a pretty good bug man!

The GOP will not decide who is on the ticket if DeLay is allowed to remove his name. A small collection of GOP political operatives will decide.

Tom DeLay spit in the face of the primary process when he did what he did. And the Republicans are too dumb to recognize it.

The Republican Party has become the party of the Royalists. “Leave us alone and let us govern, and stop acting like we’re doing it for you.”

He shouldn’t have left his name in the primary to begin with. And shame on the GOP at large for failing to replace him at that time. Now, the Democrats are just holding him to the rules. NOT CHANGING THE RULES AFTER THE FACT, which is what DeLay is notorious for (Texas redistricting, holding house votes open, the list goes on and on).

Sorry, but this isn’t political punditry. This is noise-machinery. Mr. Aqui is not worth the effort of reading his opinion.