Talk:Tom DeLay/Archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Contents

Removing current event tag

A person is not a current event. If they were, articles on all living people would need current event tag. 2005 Tom DeLay indictment is a current event. Anyone object to me taking it down?

  • Although you're correct that a person is not an event, DeLay is playing a primary role in a number of ongoing events, and this article is subject to rapid change. So, I object. Maybe we can generalize the template a bit, though. NatusRoma 23:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I strongly agree to taking off the tag and disagree to the above comment. Many people are playing a primary role in a number of ongoing events. How come George W. Bush doesn't get tagged? - 65.49.229.183 02:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I must say, your example illustrates your argument extremely well. I suppose that someone like DeLay might merit a tag when his prominence is greater than usual. George W. Bush is always important, and his level of importance almost never changes to the point that his article needs a current event tag. By contrast, Tom DeLay is only occasionally very prominent, and because of this, when he is very much in the public eye, he merits a current event tag. At present, DeLay doesn't merit a current events tag, though that will probably need to be replaced when DeLay's trial begins. NatusRoma 08:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Mistake?

"DeLay has declined to comment on a report in the The New Yorker that he is estranged from much of his family, including his mother and one of his brothers. [3]"

But then the link leads to an article by the New York Times not The New Yorker. Seems to be a mistake to me.

No, it was right the way it was, because of all the convolutions here. The New Yorker ran an article with this statement about the estrangement. Later, a reporter for the New York Times was interviewing DeLay and asked him to comment on the New Yorker article. DeLay declined to comment, and the Times reported that response of his. Here's the full passage from the Times:
When asked about a recent New Yorker profile which said he is estranged from much of his family, including his widowed mother and a brother who has done jail time, he said, "I'd rather not talk about that."
We need to link to the Times as the source for DeLay's refusal to comment. Once we're linking to the Times story, which summarizes the relevant point of the New Yorker article, we don't need a separate link to the New Yorker. JamesMLane 10:39, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

How are we progressing toward NPOV tag removal?

It's been about a month since there's been any specific criticism of the content of this page. How close are we to removing the NPOV tag from the article? What else should be done? NatusRoma 06:31, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I think the tag was put there correctly at first and checks of the past history will show, but as the article stands now, I think it the tag should be removed. I'd like to hear any justification for why this article is still tagged as such. Calicocat 12:22, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
After nearly two weeks without objection, I have removed the tag. May this article remain NPOV. NatusRoma 05:23, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ethics investigations, notes and comments

The Noodle Incident

Lighten up. People are working on the article when they can, in whatever way they can. The make typographical errors, misspell words, and may be less comfortable with proper grammar than yourself. This does not mean that users are less welcome. Your comments after editing a few small passages were anything but kind. Rkevins82 04:22, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

ethics investigations / ethics committee

this article does not mention anything about the congressional investigations of DeLay's ethics. It does not include how rules were changed to protect Delay. Please add such information to this article. Kingturtle 07:31, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I have added paragraphs on the ethics committee admonishments, but there is still nothing about the rules changes.--RichardMathews 17:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Indictment

To be fair, I edited the mention of the indictments, with Delay's response to them. [1]

Here's how it looks:

"DeLay was indicted (pdf file) on charges of criminal conspiracy by a Travis County, Texas grand jury on September 28, 2005. Delay characterized the charges as "one of the weakest and most baseless indictments in American history" and called the prosecutor behind the indictment a "partisan fanatic."[1] Per Senate rules, he has temporarily resigned from his position as House Majority Leader (see below)."Big Daddy 20:24, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Ouch! It looks like someone reverted my fair edit almost instaneously. (And without comment either. How uncivil!) I'll put it back in, but I'm counting. That's one...Big Daddy

Here's how it currently looks. I made sure to note that it was DEMOCRATIC opponents who are always accusing Delay of things. "Well known for his consistent stances on both foreign and domestic policy, Democratic opponents have long accused Delay of ethical misconduct, corruption, and illegal activies. On September 28, 2005 Delay was indicted on charges of criminal conspiracy by a Travis County grand jury. Delay characterized this action as "one of the weakest and most baseless indictments in American history" and called the prosecutor behind the indictment a "partisan fanatic."[2] Per Senate rules, he has temporarily resigned from his position as House Majority Leader (see below)." Ps I've notice a lot of other very UNFAIR and uncivil charges made against Delay in this article, as well as an extraordinary amount of cheezy inneundo. That makes me glad I discovered this page as I'll be sure to be back and help correct some of these deficiencies. You see, even a Grand Jury Indictment can have a silver lining! Big Daddy 20:42, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

It is not only Democrats who are accusing DeLay. He was admonished three times by the Ethics Committee, each time on a unanimous vote. That does not include the count related to the charges in the indictment. On that count, the Ethics committee chose to defer action until while criminal charges were being investigated. That count is thus still before the committee. --RichardMathews 17:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

O.K., you really need to stop believing Rush and O'Reilly. Yes, Ronnie Earle is a Democrat, he is an elected prosecutor. In his tenure, however, he has prosecuted 15 cases regarding Texas election law. 11 of those he indicted were Democrats. Yet, you say, he's only going after Hot Tub Tom for because he's a Right Winger <sarcasm> Sure, I totally believe you </sarcasm> He's prosecuting the man because he BROKE the law. Texas, by the way, has very few election laws. He broke them. He accepted money from a corporate sponser, mailed the check to the RNC, who laundered the money for him. Grand Jury finds these facts to be true. Of course, in fairness, he has not been convicted, so the article must include the word "alleged." Autopilots 21:10, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

To be fair, the grand jury did not find those facts to be true, they found that there's probable cause to believe they are true. Different things. Yes, I believe the guy is dirty as Newark, New Jersey, but he is still "innocent" until proven guilty.

On the other hand, blaming this on a "fanatic prosecutor" is silly, given the grand jury involvement. Heh. — ceejayoz ★ 21:31, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
You're right, I'm sorry. The grand jury did not find these facts to be true. They found that there was enough evidence to indict and move the case to trial. Autopilots 21:42, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Why are there uncontested quotes from DeLay in the top section? Clearly, his side of the story should be included, but why in the introductory paragraph, where there's no balancing evidence (for example a link to Ronnie Earle's WP article, which shows him not to be what most people call a partisan fanatic). Jtwdog 23:31, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Autopilot wrote: "O.K., you really need to stop believing Rush and O'Reilly." No actually, you need to quit making personal attacks. Got it? Good. Now, to those who are wondering where the balance is? That's what I put in and that was reverted now two times. The charges are pdf'd in the opening paragraph. Delay's comments balance those. Now I'm gonna put it in again in accordance with Wik's rules I'm using notable legit sources. If it's taken out again, it will be a violation of wik's 3rr rule. (And when it comes to the man whose article you're working on...please, if you don't have something nice to say about someone...don't say it at all:) Big Daddy 01:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Originally, I was going to state that it wasn't a personal attack, as I wasn't directing it towards anyone in particular. However, looking over the posts under the section of indictment, I see that all of the posts before mine were yours, which would seem to indicate that I was directing the comment directly at you. I will not apologize for the comment, as I see it as more of POV issue (as nothing those 2 individuals I mentioned can be NON-POV, nor, for that instance, anything I say on a U.S. politician's page, albeit Talk: or otherwise, which is why I will never make an edit to a politician's page) than a personal one. However, I do apologize for the apparent context for which you took said comment. Autopilots 03:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, that's not much of an apology, but I'll take it. lol! Just so you know, the gist of what made your attack personal was the inference that I'm so gullible I just believe whatever some talking head tells me. It had nothing to do with the names of the talking heads or your perception of their partiality. Anyway, despite the fact that your attack was so wrong at so many levels, I do appreciate you being conciliatory and think it wise to just let bygones be bygones. I'm not spoiling for a fight either, just asking for fairness. Big Daddy 04:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I could very easily ruin the spirit of wikipedia by argueing, and am appreciative of your truce. Perhaps we'll cross paths sometime on a more appropriate forum. Then, hopefully, I can control my temper enough on these subjects so we can have a rational debate. Autopilots 04:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I noticed that someone added this line: " He is the first House leader in over 100 years to be indicted." Presuming that checks out, it's a good addition. To bring balance however, I will be adding a line (unless someone beats me to it!) about many of the other ethically challenged predecessors of Delay - Gingrich, Convicted felon Dan Rostenkowski, Jim Wright who resigned two years after taking the post amid charges of unethical conduct etc.etc Big Daddy 02:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

That sounds good for the "Majority Leader" section, but not for the lead. NatusRoma 04:56, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
How dare you suggest something reasonable like putting facts in the lead, clarifications in the body! Clearly, you have a political motive, or something. Please make that change, or if you already have, consider this support for it. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm not so sure that something like the first House Leader in xyz time to be criminally indicted needs balance. Not everything in this world is warm and fuzzy and, um, "balanced," and that includes this NPOV article. I'm sorry, but when you're the one and only, you're the one and only. I think that attempting to offset that with fork-to-spoon comparisons (both silverware, but different utensils) would actually upset NPOV, not establish it. I third the motion that these clarifications should be reserved for the main article. Perhaps a historical section is in order to place DeLay in context.
To BigDaddy: while it's clear that you're politically motivated here - we ALL are - please check yourself in addition to everyone else. I realize that you feel DeLay doesn't deserve the negative treatment, but if the man turns out to be a criminal, something of which he has now been publicly and officially accused, he's a criminal and you won't be able to change it or make that look better through additions to the article. --Southpaw018 13:31, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
If he turns out to be a criminal there will be something called a "trial", a mechanism for generating more Wikipedia source material. If someone gets a parking ticket, should that be prominently listed in their Wikipedia article before the validity of the violation is determined? (SEWilco 16:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC))
The validity of a violation is determined BY indictment... if you are indicted then it's 'valid'. You may still be found not guilty, but you can't say there is nothing to it. What you are suggesting is the equivalent of claiming that Clinton's impeachment shouldn't have been prominently listed until the Senate voted to remove him from office (which, of course, they didn't). DeLay is facing potential prison time... he's the highest ranked US public official EVER to be indicted... it deserves prominent mention. --CBDunkerson 16:48, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Just to add to this, the political ramifications of the indictments alone are reason enough to list them prominently. Congressman DeLay has been forced to step down from a senior position, and a highly charged partisan battle looks to be on the cards. Whether people like it or not, it's a highly significant event that could change the course of US politics, especially with the 2006 midterms coming up. Comparing these indictments to a "parking ticket" is clearly not applicable.195.92.40.49 11:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I added the link to DeLay's defense under "External Links" and the quote at the bottom in "Reaction to indictments". Whether you like Hannity or not, I thought that DeLay's personal view of the charges against him was relevant to the section. Littleman TAMU 19:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The Defending DeLay link is good: the external links section is very unbalanced. However, I removed the Hannity quotations, because the article already contained two quotations from DeLay denouncing the indictments. NatusRoma 21:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I think the quotation should be added back, but have not done it yet. My reason is that it adds DeLay's assertion that the law he was indicted under did not exist at the time. The other two quotations do not mention this, nor does the CNN article. I also don't think that there should be a limit of quotations where we say that the section already has two or three or however many quotations so it doesn't need anymore. I think the retitling of the defending DeLay section fits well. Littleman TAMU 21:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Cuban cigars

I have reverted the re-insertion of the section on cuban cigars because, at present, it violates WP:NOR. If there's evidence of an existing controversy here, I'd be glad to see the section in the article, but in its present form, it's original research. NatusRoma 00:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm no fan of Tom DeLay, but this appears to be a complete non-issue. He did something that wasn't illegal. There are most likely thousands of politicians who are for the Cuban embargo but have smoked a Cuban cigar at one point or another. This deserves mention why? Even as hypocrisy it's pretty weak. —Cleared as filed. 13:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

CREW report

I commented out:

In September 2005, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington named DeLay one of the thirteen most corrupt members of Congress CREW report.

from the end of the article. I think mention of this report might be a good idea, as it is named after DeLay, but the above information is technically false, since the report names 13 further Congressmen ("Beyond DeLay") who have possible ethics issues, and does not itself include information on DeLay. I just can't come up with a good way of reformatting it right now. Lusanaherandraton 09:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Merging Texas financing and Texas redistricting

It is hard to separate the Texas campaign financing issues from the Texas redistricting issues. Currently, some discussion of redistricting is under Accusations of misconduct in Texas fundraising and Grand Jury Indictment and some is under Accusations of misuse of federal investigative agencies. These should probably by combined into one section.--RichardMathews 17:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

NPOV tag invoked re. intro

The charges against DeLay may or may not be proven true eventually, but there is a substantial lack of balance in the intro of this article, much less the body.

Proposed balance:

DeLay has publicly denied the charges, saying that they are partisan and thus politically motivated. [3] The charges originate from the District Attorney of Travis County, Ronnie Earle, a Democrat who has prosecuted political foes, conservative Democrats and Republicans alike, including U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison.

Mr. DeLay's attorney Steve Brittain said that DeLay was accused of a criminal conspiracy in a campaign finance scheme along with two associates, namely John Colyandro, former executive director of a Texas political action committee formed by DeLay, and Jim Ellis, the head of DeLay's national political committee. Attorneys for Colyandro and Ellis have filed to have the proceedings moved out of Travis County in order to obtain a fair trial. [4]

BTW...this isn't the sort of thing that should be determined by 'votes'. Wikipedia is notoriously (and ever more so) left-leaning. If Wikipedia doesn't want to just fade into just another left-wing blog, the content of this intro should be determined by what's honestly balancing to this article.--66.69.219.9 16:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

You are the only one who believes that three paragraphs about this one event is appropriate for the intro. The intro is currently factual. We do not need most of the information you have included. The information regarding Travis county expands on Delay calling it biased, and thus is appropriate for the body. "Political foes" is POV. You do not need to quote DeLay's lawyers to determine what he was accused of, and his accused co-conspirators and various motions in his trial are appropriate not in the into, but the body. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
You're clearly biased against presenting the facts as known, and have no one backing you up. Leave the NPOV up until people have a chance to comment. Being left doesn't make you 'right.' Thank you. --66.69.219.9 16:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
You fail to address any of the points I brought up. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
The intro as you've concocted it slanders DeLay and only gives lipservice to his very deserved defense; the man is charged, not convicted. Re. the "political foes" comment -- I have some flexibility on those two words, but not so much with respect to yanking the entire section you've deleted. BTW, The Wall Street Journal speaks (as does Ronnie Earle) of his having "a history of indicting political enemies, Democrat and Republican, on flimsy evidence that didn't hold up in court." [5] The fact that Travis County is probably the only one in Texas that would support these charges is highly pertinent. That you don't like those facts doesn't make them less so.--66.69.219.9 16:49, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
I do not disagree that this info should be in the article. You insist that it all go in the intro. Please focus on making the intro the appropriate length. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:53, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

The intro is awful—meandering recentism. I'd suggest slicing it down to half a dozen sentences and moving the details of the recent charge to an appropriate sub-header. I don't see that NPOV tag is necessary. Marskell 16:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

"Recent-ism" is pretty much what this is all about at this point in time. It would be dishonest to give recent events short shrift in the intro, but I have pared it down and removed the NPOV on the basis of the above discussions...but we've got to get some balance into this from the get-go. It is undeniable that there are a great deal of politics involved in this, and you/we/Wikipedia will only look bad if it doesn't set the right balanced tone in the intro.--66.69.219.9 17:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
The intro is even worse now. "Without specifics?" Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
It is well established that there are no specific charges, but rather very general charges of conspiracy. Do some reading and check back.--66.69.219.9 17:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
So, you argue that the sentence "Without specifics, DeLay has been generally accused of a criminal conspiracy in a campaign finance scheme along with two associates, namely John Colyandro, former executive director of a Texas political action committee formed by DeLay, and Jim Ellis, the head of DeLay's national political committee. " is better than the sentence "DeLay has been accused of participating in a criminal conspiracy in a campaign finance scheme along with two associates, namely John Colyandro, former executive director of a Texas political action committee formed by DeLay, and Jim Ellis, the head of DeLay's national political committee."?Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes. Feel free to edit, but the second example doesn't mention that the charges are quite general...as is well-established.--66.69.219.9 17:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
The claim that there are no specifics is not accurate. I've added a summary of the key allegations from the indictment. JamesMLane 02:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I removed the last part of the intro. Read Wikipedia:Lead. Succinct summaries, not unneeded specifics. Oh and Wikipedia:Recentism—one I helped create. Marskell 18:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

And I have restored the NPOV tag for violating the spirit of the above discussion.--66.69.219.9 18:49, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I have violated nothing. I made a good faith change that is absolutely in keeping with Wiki style. Again, read Lead. Marskell 18:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Marskell's edit has my complete unadulterated support. Tossing the kitchen sink in the intro, or trying to delve into the motiviations of people does not. Additionally, you need to read WP:3rr, anonymous IP. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:15, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Two libs don't make a 'right'...but fine, whatever. Go ahead and violate the spirit of NPOV discussions. I'm sure it will bode well for Wikipedia's future...as a web version of....... thumb|Courtesy Cable News Network.


--66.69.219.9 20:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


How you deduce a political viewpoint from a strictly stylistic concern I have no idea and be careful of personal attacks. The point is you are misunderstanding what an intro ought to look like and again I'm not violating the spirit of anything. You are violating Wikipedia Lead. This article does need better balance in the body I agree—when controversies are the meat of something it may indeed have gone off rail. Marskell 19:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Reading the intro as it is now it is NPOV unless you believe that these indictments should not be mentioned at all and as important it reads reasonably well. Don't worry too much about somebody who thinks that a comparison to CNN is an insult (What, CNN is an encyclopedia now?)... --Martin Wisse 09:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Motion to throw out criminal conspiracy to violate election law

The article reported DeLay's motion as if factual, when in fact the article linked gives an alternate interpretation by a criminal law specialist. I've inserted a couple of sentences to try and restore NPOV, but it's not very good - can someone take a look and try to clear up the language? 195.92.40.49 10:01, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Looks like Republicans are preparing to cut the strings on DeLay

This scathing critique of DeLay by conservative commentator George Will forecasts a new strategy - it looks like Republicans will be cutting the strings on DeLay and letting him hang on his own. Will basically excoriates DeLay as a big government big spender here.  BD2412 talk 16:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Major restructuring

I have folded most of the former "Controversies and accusations" subheading into the main narrative in order to bring the article into better agreement with the guidelines at Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Controversy. I have left the indictment and the allegations leading up to it as a separate heading, because it has had such a big impact of his political career of late. It may be preferable to thread some of the material in some of the subheadings, especially in those under "Majority Leader", into the main narrative. I will look into that in the coming days. NatusRoma 05:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


I've tried to subdivide the article a bit further, as it seemed to need breaking up. I think it looks a bit better, but feel free to revert if you don't agree. I definitely think the indictments section is clearer, but I wasn't sure about the use of bullet points. I'll probably take them out soon. 195.92.40.49 15:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

The Warrant

Please don't put the warrant in the lead. It is the lead news story this cycle but it actually means nothing more than the indictment. Some rulings on the points of law would be more interesting. . --Gorgonzilla 00:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Gorgonzilla. The phrase "arrest warrant" grabs headlines, but it is really a proceedural move that follows naturally from the indictment. By the way, I don't think the text of the warrant is important enough to put into the article, but I do find it interesting, so I'm putting it here:
To any sheriff or peace officer of the state of Texas; greetings: you are hereby commanded to arrest
Thomas Dale DeLay and him safely keep, so that you have him before the 331st Judicial District Court 
of Travis County.

The warrant was ordered by Travis County District Judge Bob Perkins. Johntex\talk 22:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

This sure is amuzing. Are you sure that there are no typos? I would think it should say "safely keep him", rather than "him safely keep" --Asbl 15:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Legal documents frequently contain word order that is uncommonly used in more informal speech. NatusRoma 17:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

plea consideration

I removed a sentence and link noting that DeLay considered pleaing guilty to misdemeanor charges in an attempt to save his leadership position. The sentence was calculated to imply that DeLay had indeed committed a crime, not to note a consideration of a plea deal (a common thing in American criminal prosecution). --DDerby-(talk) 08:55, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

How much was he paid for the Bankruptcy revision?

Aren't contributions by company to congress members public? Can we find out and add here how much he was paid to restructure the bankruptcy law to favor credit card companies?

Indicted in 2005, not in 2002

One of the first sentences in this article is potentially misleading ... nothing political, just some unclear writing. It reads

...was indicted in Austin, Texas on criminal charges of conspiracy to violate election laws in 2002 ...

"in 2002" modifies the verb violate, but on a quick read someone could think that the indictment was in 2002.

I'll leave it to someone else to make the change --- this seems to be a pretty sensitive article!!

66.67.121.171 01:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)SN14534

DeLay was indicted in 2005, with the indictment alleging that he broke the law in 2002. I have made this clearer in the lead. NatusRoma 02:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

A seperate page for the legal trouble he's facing?

Seems odd to me, reading this, that fully half the text about Tom DeLay deals with a (relatively minor) criminal charge which is not what made him notable in the world. (He's not exactly Garry Condit), so perhaps it could warrant its own page with just brief mention on here with a See the main article at Tom Delay 2005 Indictment or something? Just an idea Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 01:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The campaign fundraising and the indictments are a big part of what DeLay is known for. The article could perhaps be pared down a bit by removing some of the duplication between the timeline and the rest of the article, but I don't think that it's yet to the point that it needs a separate article. Maybe when his trial occurs. NatusRoma 02:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Mariania islands

What's the deal with child prostitution in the Mariana islands? According to the given source it only mentions sweatshops and sex shops. Btw, I changed it in the article. Garion96 (talk) 18:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Houston Light Rail

Tom Delay was exposed in Spring of 2004 as one of the 'secret' backers of Texans_for_True_Mobility a group designed to kill light rail in Houston, despite his public neutrality on the issue. I am adding reference to this in the Domestic Policy section.

Your link is dead. I'm going to remove the section until you can find a working link. I looked for one, but couldn't find the article on the Chronicle website. There were other stories about the light rail that mentioned DeLay, but nothing about DeLay's public neutrality or "secret" donations made by him. I'm sure it's there, it sounds like something the Chronicle would print, but you'll have to find it.-Littleman_TAMU
Here is a different source for the same info: [6] -Will Beback 05:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, there's already at least one article from there on this page and I'm not terribly confident in it. I'd rather see a Reuters, Yahoo News, CNN, NYT, or other "big name" like the Houston Chronicle. Since the original link was a Chronicle link, I'm holding out for that. I see you added it back now, I still rather have the Chronicle link.-Littleman_TAMU
The article got moved to archives. Here is a link that not only points to the same article but includes snippets [7] Additionally Please see a report from Texans for Public Justice that highlights all Texas PAC spending. Page 6 references the movement of money from DeLay PACs to TTM [8] The 30,000 is also highlighted by this UH student pub [9] and by Molly Ivins blog here [10]. Additionally please sign your comments in the future with 4 tildas. The quick delete coupled with the un-signed comments is a little dubious.Dothivalla 07:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
If you looked at the history of the article, you'd see that I deleted the comments and just forgot to sign my reasons here. I guess it's just easier to assume I have ill intentions rather than look at my previous contributions. It's not like the removal was anonymous. Anyhow, I added the link to the Chronicle article, not sure why you didn't, and added more information about the situation. I tried to de-politicize it by removing the word "secretly" and tried to show both sides of the story.Littleman TAMU 18:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Tony Rudy

DeLay's former chief of staff, Tony Rudy, is identified as "Staffer A" in Jack Abramoff's plea agreement. He's accused, in the plea agreement at least, of accepting bribes to steer through legislation, and of having his wife employed for $500,000. See http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/abramoff/usabrmff10306plea.pdf. We ought to add this in, no? Or, a separate article on Rudy? Sholom 19:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I say have a separate article about that. You might mention it by way of your first sentence above, but we'll have to make sure the discussion stays on the Rudy article. It might be tricky, but it's probably worth mentioning. Littleman TAMU 18:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Is it permissible to simply copy from http://www.disinfopedia.org/index.php?title=Tony_Rudy and then modify? Sholom 21:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

We also want to add a tiny bit here to link it to Rudy. Besides the plea agreement, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/09/AR2006010900952.html is a good source for this. Sholom 04:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Dan Quayle

THis seems to be more about DeLay's military service as opposed to support of Dan Quayle. This seems to paint an association with Dan Quayle that is small at best and certainly not a turnoing point of significant even in his career. I propose we rename this to reflect his military service, rather than anything to do with Dan Quayle.

Image

That picture at the top of the page looks kind of dated. Isn't there a more recent picture, besides the mug shot also used, that can be put there?--Hbutterfly 21:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Cleaning up previously posted paragragh and getting the correct information under Reaction to Indictments Bachs

His main picture looks really grainy and out of focus. Plus its just a really bad picture of him. The mugshot looks better! 129.170.118.55 15:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Kay Bailey Hutchison

Since Kay Baily Hutchison is a part of the section on indictments of associates the time magazine article is appropriate. Natus Roma - your edit is tantamount to article vandalism - so with all due respect, please knock it off. Bachs 02:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Is Kay Bailey Hutchison an associate of Tom DeLay? Is she an officer in ARMPAC or TRMPAC? There is no reason to include her. Respectfully, NatusRoma 05:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

There is every reason to include Hutchison, she is from the Texas Congressional delegation that DeLay is, she was indicted by Ronnie Earle under much the same circumstances as DeLay. Press accounts have often mention both the DeLay and the Hutchison indictments in the same story - Not to mention that the Time Magazine article is TRUE - So please stop removing information in a partisan manner Bachs 05:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

These accusations of partisanship are entirely unfounded. Kay Bailey Hutchison is not an associateof Tom DeLay in the sense that Colyandro and Ellis are. The fact that the two are both members of the Congress from Texas does not make them associates. Hutchison has nothing to do with ARMPAC or TRMPAC, which is what this indictment is about. These are two different cases that took place more than a decade apart. The fact that Hutchison's name is mentioned is because Earle also prosecuted her in a different case years ago. A single mention of the fact that Earle indicted her, as this article already contains, is all that is needed. The TIME article is true, but it is not relevant to this article, because this article is not Kay Bailey Hutchison or Ronnie Earle, but Tom DeLay. NatusRoma 05:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
To clarify: DeLay, Ellis, and Colyandro are associates in the matters of TRMPAC and ARMPAC. To quote from John Colyandro, "Colyandro was indicted September 28, 2005, along with then-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) and Jim Ellis, who runs DeLay's political action committee Americans for a Republican Majority (ARMPAC). All three were charged with 'conspiracy in a campaign finance scheme.'" Consider that the heading "Indictment of associates" comes under the level two heading of "Accusations of misconduct in Texas fundraising and indictments". Because Earle's investigation of Hutchison did not concern campaign fundraising, that investigation is clearly not relevant to the section entitled "Accusations of misconduct in Texas fundraising and indictments". It follows logically that if the investigation of Hutchison is not relevant to the more general heading, it is not relevant to the more specific heading "Indictment of associates". NatusRoma 05:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


Roma, than your problem with it should not be that the Hutchison incident was mentioned, it should have been that it was in the wrong place, but instead of moving the information you deleted it, ....I wonder why..........

All reference to Hutchison is now in Delay and his attorneys reaction to indictments.

It is not repeated - Roma, all of your stated issues have been addressed.

DeLay and his attorney Dick DeGeurin, have stated repeatedly that the prosecutor, Ronnie Earle, has a history of failed incictments against his political enemies, such as Kay Bailey Hutchison(R-TX). Ronnie Earle raided Hutchison's offices at the State Treasury looking for proof of allegations that Hutchison used state equipment and employees on state time to help with her campaign. She was indicted by a grand jury in September, 1993 for official misconduct and records tampering. Senator Hutchison was acquitted, as Earle did not have sufficient evidence to present. Time magazine reported, “Earle amassed thousands of documents as evidence and many thought the new Senator would lose her job. But at a pretrial hearing, the judge and Earle clashed over the admissibility of the documents; fearing he would lose, Earle declined to present a case. Hutchison was quickly acquitted and Earle was portrayed as a fool.” Time, July 14, 2003. Bachs 14:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I have expanded very briefly on the Hutchison investigation, and I have DeLay and DeGeurin as saying that Earle indicts political enemies. Earle's investigation of Hutchison is not what this article is concerned with, so nothing more needs to be said about it in this article. NatusRoma 06:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


Roma - DeLay and his attorney have brought this up in thier reaction many times. In fact they brong it up in almost every interview they do. So pointing this out in their reaction is perfectly appropriate. Stop removing the time magazine article in an effort to whitewash the facts in a partisan manner. Bachs 00:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

  1. The fact that I am removing information irrelevant to this article does not make my edits partisan.
  2. DeLay and DeGeurin clearly do not bring up several sentences about the specifics of Earle's investigation of Hutchison in nearly every interview that they give, nor do they quote the Time article at length.
  3. Even if they did do so, please read Wikipedia:Article size to see why it would in fact be harmful to have such a lengthy description of an unrelated case in this article.
  4. To correct an edit summary of yours, I am a male.
NatusRoma 01:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I moved the discussion. I think you guys need to compromise. Roma has edited some of my submissions down a bit and mostly he got the gist of the information so I've generally left them that way. I'm still debating the Hannity quotation with myself. In this case, I think Roma edited out alot of what Bachs is trying to get across. I think you need to work on a better compromise. I might try to come up with something, but Bachs knows more about the situation so I'm kinda leaving it up to you two. Littleman TAMU 22:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)