Thank you for kind e-mails wishing me well. I do feel better this evening. I'm sure the kind thoughts helped. Please visit Mikey Likes It! for Mike's view on this evening's news.
"Former GOP Majority Leader Tom Delay to Resign" (Democracy Now!):
Republican Congressman Tom Delay has announced he is resigning and will give up his House seat within the next few months. The former House Majority Leader has been one of the most powerful -- and controversial -- Republicans on Capitol Hill. DeLay announced his resignation just days after a former top aide, Tony Rudy, pleaded guilty in connection to a lobbying scandal involving Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Last November, Delay's former press secretary Michael Scanlon also plead guilty to related charges. Delay was up for his re-election but polls showed he would likely lose. Last year Delay was forced to give up his position as House Majority Leader after he was indicted on criminal charges of conspiracy to violate Texas election laws. Federal investigators have also probed Delay's personal dealings with Abramoff. DeLay's wife worked for the lobbying firm Alexander Strategy Group which had close ties to the Republican lobbyist.
Tom DeLay. What can you say? That he turned self-interest into a major cash cow? That he helped further the distrust in the government by his close relationship with lobbyists? (His heavy petting?)
C.I. phoned last night to check on me (saying, "If you hadn't answered on the first ring, I would've hung up"). We spoke of my cold and of Tom DeLay which had just started making the news. This was our consensus so equal credit to both. (I would note which was C.I.'s and which was mine, but it all blurred because I was feeling so sick.)
Tom DeLay gave the Democrats a gift. They won't take it. They don't have the strength, guts, fortitude, whatever to run with the gift.
DeLay has proclaimed he was under attack and blamed Ronnie Earl for his problems, as opposed to his own actions. His decision to step down smells of guilt. It will smell of guilt to voters.If the Dems want to take back the House, Tom DeLay is the what needs to be cited. But already Sheila Jackson Lee and Howard Dean have made noises about being non-partisan and taking the high road.
DeLay didn't get drunk at a party and embarrass himself. His problems are a direct result of what he did in his elected role. For Dems to act as thought DeLay's problem is some sort of personal issue is a mistake. His actions made him the poster boy for bad government.
I live on the east coast, far from Texas. People today were talking about Tom DeLay more than anything since a sport's scandal. Regardless of where you live or how little you pay attention to the news, you know Tom DeLay. I had no idea he was that well known, but he is. Democrats make a huge mistake by not making an issue out of DeLay's official conduct in elected office.
"Nine U.S. Troops Die in Deadliest Day of Year" (Democracy Now!):
In Iraq, the deaths of nine U.S. troops were announced on Monday making it the deadliest day of the year for the United States. 13 U.S. troops have already died this month, nearly half the number who died in all of March.
When will the press learn that Operation Happy Talk is a momentary wave that always is followed with a larger, harsher wave of reality?
The chaos and violence never stopped. But there was an attempt over the weekend to speak of fatalities being down -- with little effort to note that today's wounded suffer serious problems or to note how high the figures were for the wounded.
To me, the latest wave of happy talk read as though the message was: "Less Americans being killed, so quit worrying." That was a false reading on the status for American troops; however, it was also offensive since violence and chaos is always reality for Iraqis living in the "liberated" Iraq.
Rebecca called this evening. She and I were both mentioned by C.I. today. I hadn't read the piece that bothered C.I. so Rebecca read it to me. I have no idea what that woman was attempting. It appeared she was channeling Democrats in Congress who have lost the spine to fight. As the woman listed "sensible ideas" regarding abortion, I seriously questioned her committment to abortion rights. I found her column offensive and destructive. Did she express her feelings or those of the Democratic Party?
If she was being a mouthpiece for the Democratic Party, let me be clear that I avoid reading cheerleading magazines for Democrats. There are a number of those. Some of them were behind Joe Lieberman in 2004 (for the Dem nomination for president). If you're giving up your independence, you really aren't much of a reporter.
Maybe the woman wasn't? If so, she needs to set out of her hermatically sealed world because the rights she's willing to give away, the 'protectionist' measures she's supporting, are not items I can agree with.
I think it's really sad that a woman who says she's pro-choice would write something like that. It's pro-choice in the same way that Joe Lieberman is a Democrat -- in name only.