I wrote earlier — and disapprovingly — about a suit filed by Texas Democrats to keep Tom DeLay's name on the ballot.
Well, get this: they won.
The Texas Republican Party must keep Tom DeLay's name on the November election ballot, even though the former congressman has dropped his re-election bid, a federal judge ruled Thursday.If that decision stands — and a Republican appeal is almost a certainty — it would all-but-guarantee that Democrat Nick Lampson will take over DeLay's seat come November.DeLay, the former House majority leader who resigned from office June 9, won the Republican primary for his district in March but decided against re-election a month later.
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. Sugar Land voters deserve a choice in November.
Article comments
1 - Dave Nalle
One could argue that this is simply DeLay reaping what he sowed
Which would be fine if it was Delay who was suffering, but it's the disenfranchised voters of his district who are being punished though no fault of their own, and that's just not right. It's rather disheartening to see that the democrats will sink to the same level of partisan chicanery when they have the negative example of Delay literally staring them in the face.
Dave
2 - gonzo marx
in the macro sense...it gets back one seat out of the gerrymandered 5...
in the Ethical sense, the Dems should claim they won legally, and then insist they have a Primary
let the voters decide
we will see how it Plays out, but that's my take on it
and i fucking despise DeLay in ways that even i won't type
for what it's Worth...
Excelsior?
3 - JP
Honestly, if you're concerned about Democracy, DeLay should have been "allowed to leave" a LOOOONG time ago.
4 - Mr. Real Estate
Okay, but what happens if DeLay wins, even though he isn't running?
5 - Dave Nalle
We force him to serve in a clown suit?
Dave
6 - Les Slater
These are THE two parties.
What a farce.
7 - John Pettit
It was proven in Court that dear 'ol BugSpray DeLay had decided well before the March primary that he would NOT seek re-election in November. He chose to go through with the primary for purely selfish reasons. After being forced to step down as Majority Leader, contributions to his legal defense fund dried up almost completely. In order to stay out of prison he will need megabuck$ for his dream-team of defense attorneys, and he discovered that he could convert his campaign fund to that purpose if he quit before the November elections. So he continued the farce of raising funds for a campaign he had no intentios of pursuing. Remaining in the primary gave him the cover to continue soliciting campaign contributions while actually spending nothing on it. He had between 4 and 5 million dollars when he 'moved' to Virginia. That is now below 1 million courtesy of his lawyers charges. The giant cockroach disenfranchised the voters of the Republicon Party to keep himself out of prison which is WHY the Democrats won. Do they gain an advantage? Of course, but that is a fortunate side effect of BugSpray screwing his own constituents, NOT the reason the judge refused to allow a replacement on the November ballot hand-picked by BugSpray and friends.
Had the Democrats tried to do this on the basis of how it would have benefitted them politically they would have been slapped down like a mosquito. The Texas Republicon Party SHOULD have forced BugSpray out BEFORE the primary. Instead they colluded with the master of corruption to corrupt the political process and shaft their own voters. It was the correct decision on both a legal and moral basis and that is the bottom line.
8 - Nancy
Heh heh ... How nice to sometimes see connivers hoist with their own petards - in this case, the TX GOP & their dear buddy, Tom. Good for the judge; and good for the Dems - for once.
9 - Mohjho
Nice comment John.
I will file it under my "put that in your pipe and smoke it" folder.