![]() | This page 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. |
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?
"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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
--
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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?
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
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
There is discussion of Dan Quayle attempting to use connections to get the Indiana National Guard to avoid service in Vietnam. I am unsure what the relevance is to the article. The next two sentences talk about DeLay's service record during Vietnam, but the citation is empty. Should these things be taken out?
Justdelegard 19:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to take it out. I'm not sure if it's vandalism or if it's something that was accidentally inserted. Knightw 00:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Also the paragraph after it has no lead in as to why the article is talking about Delay's claims of military service. I've not heard of anything about such claims so I can't make an appropriate edit. Knightw 00:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't something about his renomination by the GOP be here? Kashami 04:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Kashami 02:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
The wording of the article implies that Mr. DeLay acquired this nickname in college, whereas the source clearly states that he got this nickname after graduating, during his career as a Texas State Legislator: "Later, as a Texas state legislator from 1978 to 1984, DeLay had a reputation in Austin less as a lawmaker than as a partyer and playboy known as "Hot Tub Tom." He roomed with other fun-loving male legislators at a condo they dubbed "Macho Manor.""
Scanning over this article, I seem to find most of it accurate and well sourced. I'm moderatly concerned however, that it doesn't seem to have a list of any of Delay's accomplishments. Bills he's headlined, inititives taken. etc etc. etc. I don't like the man much myself, but surley he's done something good in his life. Or did I just miss them/they never existed?-- Tznkai 21:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
First - If I had said that anyone who disagreed with me is a blind partisan than I would apologize, but I didnt so I wont.
Second - Time to go to school. A whip or majority leader is judged in political science by the amount of legislation passed that the leadership wants passed and by how much party unity that leader or whip can get on a percentage of votes. These statistics are measurable. There is a reason that DeLay was called "The Hammer" and it is because he was exceptionally good at this task. So your statements require correction. It is not subjective and it is not POV, however in spite of the facts, you are entitled to your opinion. Bachs
I fail to see the relevance of mentioning Diebold voting machines in a primary where the winner got 62% of the vote. Should we mention every single district that used such machines (and I'm sure there are many hundreds of them)? If there are reasonable allegations of funny business, then put it out there. But a mere mention of the company that supplied the machines, with nothing more, in a vote where the nearest challenger got less than half than that of the winner, strikes me, at best, as irrelevant. -- Sholom 15:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone have any info on the Majority Whip Office shooting of 1998? Should be included in the article. Thanks.
I am *very* glad Tom DeLay is out!
I remember protesting his illegal fundraising caper on Gov'ment property (a $500 plate dinner at U of Houston - Clear Lake). While ~500 protested outside in a 'free speech zone', 5 of my friends (members of the LaRouche Youth Mv'ment) went inside, bypassed the guards, went up to the second floor balcony, and as soon as DeLay tried to talk we sang at a very loud cadence this poem made by my friend Chris: (note, this was *years* before virtually any of you heard of the Abramoff casino scandals...
Tom DeLay you are a stinker Tom DeLay you are a stinker, Gonna throw you in the klinker. You're a crook, you dirty schnook, Lyndon LaRouche will throw the book
At you for corporate donations Casino cash from reservations, Big money from Bacardi rum. So now just go to jail and suck your thumb.
O Tom, you know you know that no one ever could Be born again in Colson's brotherhood. Bad guy, you lie Now tell the truth: You're NO DAMN GOOD!
So Tom, go pack your bags today; Leave Washington, be on your way Improve Texas, Congress, without DeLay!
I just can't believe he isn't in Texas any more either :-) Now that's what I call casting out your representatives who so thoroughly abuse your trust. Sorry; I've waited and pined for this day for almost 1/2 a decade, ever since I first started voting. After participating in some 23 protests and actions against DeLay I am very glad it's all worked out :-)
— HopeSeekr of xMule ( Talk) 03:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Major Re-Write Needed -- imho. First off, the lede is kinda long, and 3/4 of it is on stuff that's happened since 2005. And it doesn't include DeLay's major role in securing Clinton's impeachment, the K Street Project, his multiple censures from the ethics committee. This article has, embedded in it, a nice capsule summary of his highlights. I could take a whack at it, but I wanted to announce here first, hear some others' thoughts, etc. -- Sholom 13:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Dont mugshots usually have a booking number and date on them? Delay's mugshots dont ever show a number though? Have they been sanitized?
There have been a few edits today (April 4, 2006 — date on which DeLay formally announced that he will resign his Congressional term before it ends) that change the intro from "politician" to "Former" politician. DeLay is still a politician, he is still an elected official; he is no longer a candidate in the 2006 Congressional election. Therefore "former" is not appropriate — as has also been discussed above. I am removing this edit with a reference in the edit to the Talk page. — ERcheck @ 20:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Can someone more knowledgeable than I convert the rest of the inline html citations and book references into references? I'm especially not sure what to do with the links to the government documents and with the various citations of The Hammer. Thanks. NatusRoma | Talk 07:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I removed the following text from the article:
First, voting in line with the positions of then National Right-to-Life Committee and against those of NARAL means voting on specific legislation. Because this legislation did not come up in 2005, it did not factor into either group's rating of DeLay's voting record. Second, making the contrast between DeLay's vote on this bill and his pro-life beliefs is original research. Third, assuming that DeLay's support for sweatshop labor equates with support for abortion is POV. NatusRoma | Talk 03:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I think there needs to be a bit more information about the Saipan sweatshop legislation, particularly Delay's statement to the clothing manufacturers that they are a "shining beacon of hope" blah, blah, etc. This is a major scandal and perhaps the most damning thing this man has ever done. If there is one act in his career that will guarantee him eternal torment, this is it. If it was important enough to air on 20/20, it deserves more than a cursory mention here.
From Biography and early political career:
From Defense of Dan Quayle :
So which is the authoritative truth? Did he get suspended from Baylor for a semester and voluntarily go to Houston, or was he expelled from Baylor? (Which implies that he was banned?) Anyone know for sure? KWH 10:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
"The Hammer" should not be contained within DeLay's full name. A nickname should only be included in the bolded name of an article's subject if that nickname is both what the subject is commonly known as, and is not clearly derived from the subject's full name. For example, if DeLay were always referred to as "Larry" in the media, it would be appropriate to write Thomas Dale "Larry" DeLay. However, DeLay is not called "Larry", or "The Hammer", but "Tom", which is an obvious abbreviation of Thomas. Therefore, there is no need for "The Hammer" to be part of the bolded name. NatusRoma | Talk 17:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. I feel that "The Hammer" is an integral part of Tom DeLay's hard hitting, conservative politics. There have been no name Republicians in the House of Represenatatives that have been known to call him "The Hammer" under threat that he would destroy their lives if they forgot his "real" name.
The introduction states He was also a driving force behind President Bill Clinton's impeachment in 1998. Shouldn't it read the attempt to impeach Bill Clinton ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unmitigated Succes ( talk • contribs)
Indeed. He was impeached; he was acquitted, which means 'not guilty.' It was an insult to the Constitution, however, that Clinton was ever impeached; impeachment should be for crimes which endanger the country. Getting oral sex from an intern and lying about it did not threaten the United States; in fact, impeaching him threatened the United States. Dave 20:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davesilvan ( talk • contribs)
The article says that the consumption of Cuban cigars is illegal. However, it's legal to consume any Cuban cigars that were purchased before the embargo. Am I missing something here? -- Demonkey36 06:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
(A) "legal" is an absolute; "perfectly legal", while dramatic, is redundant.
(B) You're correct (mostly) - Cuban cigars purchased and brought into the US before Feb 7, 1962, are legal. (By "kind of" - I mean that consumption is not the actual issue - importation and possession are the key issues.
(C) It is now illegal to for a US citizen to consume (that is, smoke) a Cuban cigar anywhere in the world. It was not illegal when DeLay was photographed in Jerusalem smoking a $25 Cuban cigar.
The interesting point is that DeLay has LONG railed against Cuba, and been a strong supporter of the embargo against Cuban products. I'm not going to spend the time supporting that here - just Google it, it's there.
Compare to Carrie Nation, had she been photographed guzzling whiskey. Or Donald Rumsfeld, smiling and shaking Saddam Hussein's hand. (Oh - wait - that happened. Never mind.) Or Jim Bakker, evangelical Christian leader, confessing to an adulterous.... oh, hell. >;-)
So - for an obviously polarizing figure such as DeLay, to smoke a Cuban cigar - legally or not - IS a relevant, newsworthy, and NPOV detail. It's going back in. It's not POV. It IS relevant.
Deal.
DeLay has long been a supporter and a leading proponent of the embargo. Therefore, if a reputable source has published a photo showing him in a hypocritical situation, it is certainly noteworthy. Please do not delete well referenced information. -- Baba gump 18:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |
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?
"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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
--
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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?
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
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
There is discussion of Dan Quayle attempting to use connections to get the Indiana National Guard to avoid service in Vietnam. I am unsure what the relevance is to the article. The next two sentences talk about DeLay's service record during Vietnam, but the citation is empty. Should these things be taken out?
Justdelegard 19:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to take it out. I'm not sure if it's vandalism or if it's something that was accidentally inserted. Knightw 00:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Also the paragraph after it has no lead in as to why the article is talking about Delay's claims of military service. I've not heard of anything about such claims so I can't make an appropriate edit. Knightw 00:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't something about his renomination by the GOP be here? Kashami 04:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Kashami 02:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
The wording of the article implies that Mr. DeLay acquired this nickname in college, whereas the source clearly states that he got this nickname after graduating, during his career as a Texas State Legislator: "Later, as a Texas state legislator from 1978 to 1984, DeLay had a reputation in Austin less as a lawmaker than as a partyer and playboy known as "Hot Tub Tom." He roomed with other fun-loving male legislators at a condo they dubbed "Macho Manor.""
Scanning over this article, I seem to find most of it accurate and well sourced. I'm moderatly concerned however, that it doesn't seem to have a list of any of Delay's accomplishments. Bills he's headlined, inititives taken. etc etc. etc. I don't like the man much myself, but surley he's done something good in his life. Or did I just miss them/they never existed?-- Tznkai 21:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
First - If I had said that anyone who disagreed with me is a blind partisan than I would apologize, but I didnt so I wont.
Second - Time to go to school. A whip or majority leader is judged in political science by the amount of legislation passed that the leadership wants passed and by how much party unity that leader or whip can get on a percentage of votes. These statistics are measurable. There is a reason that DeLay was called "The Hammer" and it is because he was exceptionally good at this task. So your statements require correction. It is not subjective and it is not POV, however in spite of the facts, you are entitled to your opinion. Bachs
I fail to see the relevance of mentioning Diebold voting machines in a primary where the winner got 62% of the vote. Should we mention every single district that used such machines (and I'm sure there are many hundreds of them)? If there are reasonable allegations of funny business, then put it out there. But a mere mention of the company that supplied the machines, with nothing more, in a vote where the nearest challenger got less than half than that of the winner, strikes me, at best, as irrelevant. -- Sholom 15:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone have any info on the Majority Whip Office shooting of 1998? Should be included in the article. Thanks.
I am *very* glad Tom DeLay is out!
I remember protesting his illegal fundraising caper on Gov'ment property (a $500 plate dinner at U of Houston - Clear Lake). While ~500 protested outside in a 'free speech zone', 5 of my friends (members of the LaRouche Youth Mv'ment) went inside, bypassed the guards, went up to the second floor balcony, and as soon as DeLay tried to talk we sang at a very loud cadence this poem made by my friend Chris: (note, this was *years* before virtually any of you heard of the Abramoff casino scandals...
Tom DeLay you are a stinker Tom DeLay you are a stinker, Gonna throw you in the klinker. You're a crook, you dirty schnook, Lyndon LaRouche will throw the book
At you for corporate donations Casino cash from reservations, Big money from Bacardi rum. So now just go to jail and suck your thumb.
O Tom, you know you know that no one ever could Be born again in Colson's brotherhood. Bad guy, you lie Now tell the truth: You're NO DAMN GOOD!
So Tom, go pack your bags today; Leave Washington, be on your way Improve Texas, Congress, without DeLay!
I just can't believe he isn't in Texas any more either :-) Now that's what I call casting out your representatives who so thoroughly abuse your trust. Sorry; I've waited and pined for this day for almost 1/2 a decade, ever since I first started voting. After participating in some 23 protests and actions against DeLay I am very glad it's all worked out :-)
— HopeSeekr of xMule ( Talk) 03:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Major Re-Write Needed -- imho. First off, the lede is kinda long, and 3/4 of it is on stuff that's happened since 2005. And it doesn't include DeLay's major role in securing Clinton's impeachment, the K Street Project, his multiple censures from the ethics committee. This article has, embedded in it, a nice capsule summary of his highlights. I could take a whack at it, but I wanted to announce here first, hear some others' thoughts, etc. -- Sholom 13:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Dont mugshots usually have a booking number and date on them? Delay's mugshots dont ever show a number though? Have they been sanitized?
There have been a few edits today (April 4, 2006 — date on which DeLay formally announced that he will resign his Congressional term before it ends) that change the intro from "politician" to "Former" politician. DeLay is still a politician, he is still an elected official; he is no longer a candidate in the 2006 Congressional election. Therefore "former" is not appropriate — as has also been discussed above. I am removing this edit with a reference in the edit to the Talk page. — ERcheck @ 20:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Can someone more knowledgeable than I convert the rest of the inline html citations and book references into references? I'm especially not sure what to do with the links to the government documents and with the various citations of The Hammer. Thanks. NatusRoma | Talk 07:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I removed the following text from the article:
First, voting in line with the positions of then National Right-to-Life Committee and against those of NARAL means voting on specific legislation. Because this legislation did not come up in 2005, it did not factor into either group's rating of DeLay's voting record. Second, making the contrast between DeLay's vote on this bill and his pro-life beliefs is original research. Third, assuming that DeLay's support for sweatshop labor equates with support for abortion is POV. NatusRoma | Talk 03:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I think there needs to be a bit more information about the Saipan sweatshop legislation, particularly Delay's statement to the clothing manufacturers that they are a "shining beacon of hope" blah, blah, etc. This is a major scandal and perhaps the most damning thing this man has ever done. If there is one act in his career that will guarantee him eternal torment, this is it. If it was important enough to air on 20/20, it deserves more than a cursory mention here.
From Biography and early political career:
From Defense of Dan Quayle :
So which is the authoritative truth? Did he get suspended from Baylor for a semester and voluntarily go to Houston, or was he expelled from Baylor? (Which implies that he was banned?) Anyone know for sure? KWH 10:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
"The Hammer" should not be contained within DeLay's full name. A nickname should only be included in the bolded name of an article's subject if that nickname is both what the subject is commonly known as, and is not clearly derived from the subject's full name. For example, if DeLay were always referred to as "Larry" in the media, it would be appropriate to write Thomas Dale "Larry" DeLay. However, DeLay is not called "Larry", or "The Hammer", but "Tom", which is an obvious abbreviation of Thomas. Therefore, there is no need for "The Hammer" to be part of the bolded name. NatusRoma | Talk 17:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. I feel that "The Hammer" is an integral part of Tom DeLay's hard hitting, conservative politics. There have been no name Republicians in the House of Represenatatives that have been known to call him "The Hammer" under threat that he would destroy their lives if they forgot his "real" name.
The introduction states He was also a driving force behind President Bill Clinton's impeachment in 1998. Shouldn't it read the attempt to impeach Bill Clinton ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unmitigated Succes ( talk • contribs)
Indeed. He was impeached; he was acquitted, which means 'not guilty.' It was an insult to the Constitution, however, that Clinton was ever impeached; impeachment should be for crimes which endanger the country. Getting oral sex from an intern and lying about it did not threaten the United States; in fact, impeaching him threatened the United States. Dave 20:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davesilvan ( talk • contribs)
The article says that the consumption of Cuban cigars is illegal. However, it's legal to consume any Cuban cigars that were purchased before the embargo. Am I missing something here? -- Demonkey36 06:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
(A) "legal" is an absolute; "perfectly legal", while dramatic, is redundant.
(B) You're correct (mostly) - Cuban cigars purchased and brought into the US before Feb 7, 1962, are legal. (By "kind of" - I mean that consumption is not the actual issue - importation and possession are the key issues.
(C) It is now illegal to for a US citizen to consume (that is, smoke) a Cuban cigar anywhere in the world. It was not illegal when DeLay was photographed in Jerusalem smoking a $25 Cuban cigar.
The interesting point is that DeLay has LONG railed against Cuba, and been a strong supporter of the embargo against Cuban products. I'm not going to spend the time supporting that here - just Google it, it's there.
Compare to Carrie Nation, had she been photographed guzzling whiskey. Or Donald Rumsfeld, smiling and shaking Saddam Hussein's hand. (Oh - wait - that happened. Never mind.) Or Jim Bakker, evangelical Christian leader, confessing to an adulterous.... oh, hell. >;-)
So - for an obviously polarizing figure such as DeLay, to smoke a Cuban cigar - legally or not - IS a relevant, newsworthy, and NPOV detail. It's going back in. It's not POV. It IS relevant.
Deal.
DeLay has long been a supporter and a leading proponent of the embargo. Therefore, if a reputable source has published a photo showing him in a hypocritical situation, it is certainly noteworthy. Please do not delete well referenced information. -- Baba gump 18:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)