Tuesday, October 11, 2005

Another Republican in Trouble With the Law


10-11) 02:19 PDT DALLAS (AP) --

U.S. Rep Kevin Brady was arrested and charged with driving under the influence while in South Dakota, according to a published report.

The Texas Republican was pulled over by a state trooper Friday night for a problem with the tail lights of his vehicle, The Dallas Morning News reported.

If convicted of the misdemeanor charge, Brady faces up to $1,000 fine and a year in jail, Clay County Sheriff Andy Howe said.

GOI: Not a good time to be a Texas Republican right now or a Republican period for that matter.

---End of Transmission---

11 comments:

Chris said...

Poor guy. WWJD?

crimnos said...

Man, it's like the whole party is cursed. I feel the slightest bit bad for feeling schadenfreude.

The slightest bit.

Zen Unbound said...

YES. Schadenfreude does start to become a problem. Or would, if it felt more like the American people were noticing that the Republicans, in their complete breakdown, were trying to tell the American people "We stink. Don't ever vote for any of us again, you fools!"

Instead, 39% of Americans continue to approve of Bush's job performance. I find that percentage amazing -- not that it is so low, but that it is so high! If it were 5%, I wouldn't understand why it was so high!

james said...

MJ and Crimnos:

Yeah, I am kind of feeling bad for the guy. A DUI is shameful for anyone but A Congressman SHOULD know better. Apparently this guy doesn't have a clue.

Tom:

I too am AMAZED that 39% of Americans STILL support Bush!! SCARY!! I'm a hardcore liberal and even I did not approve with Clinton during his troubles. Blind loyalty is absurd in regards to ANY official.

Underground Logician said...

Fallacies abound in our land because the truth cannot be tolerated. It doesn't sell as well as fancy rhetoric, and it is very dangerous for those who seek to obfuscate it. As is this case here, you prefer hasty generalizations, over-generalizations, and ad populum appeals because you know people respond more to this type of rhetoric than logic; it's a lot easier (you don't have to think) and a whole lotta fun (emotions are great, eh?)! What you and your readers will be tempted to do now is enter into a tirade of ad hominem attacks (which is a fallacy) against me. Fallacies always are persuasive because they appeal to the emotions; they NEVER prove ANYTHING true. Never. Emotions rule in this country; thinking is forced to take a back seat.

Why don't you do some REAL induction, James, and list all the DUI's committed by all politicians, Repubs or Dems, from state and federal branches of governement. With this cross-section, proper analysis can then determine which of the two parties has a tendency toward drinking problems. Then you can make your silly hypotheses as to why. Then, you might have some credibility.

As to Bush's approval rating...do you make a moral equivalency between Bush and Clinton? Clinton is a proven liar...Bush is labeled as a liar. Same things? What is scary is not that 39% of Americans support Bush, is that 61% of the country is so gullible with the type of thinking that's happening on this blog!

Don't get me wrong...politics is not the cure-all for humanities ills, but like Socrates, I see a huge deficit in human understanding of which is being created, promoted and taken advantage by our Sophist-rich media. It is abhorrant and repugant to see the idiocy growing at such an alarming rate, all because our media is making billions in advertising dollars to promote what they call the news. Phooey! This is nothing but total and complete dereliction of their duties to communicate the truth. To them, truth is relative, which means, they are more interested in selling perceptions. This blogsite is, unfortunately, a product of their dereliction.

crimnos said...

Logician,

I’m not one to go on the offensive on someone else’s blog, but for someone who loves logic and abhors emotion, you sure seem to be able to get your hate on.

Your first paragraph is amazingly long on big words and ad hominem attacks (which are a fallacy, and quite ironic for you to use), but short on real meat. If I understand your argument correctly (which is difficult because you’ve obfuscated it with a lot of Logic 101 speak), you’re saying that, because James reported on a DUI for a Republican Senator, that he’s making a hasty generalization? (oh, and please, let’s not debate the pedantic nature of including hasty generalizations and over-generalizations in the same list.) Are you debating the fact that this man has been arrested? It seems to be a fact, public knowledge, and really beyond debate.

Or are you challenging James to think deeper and research all politicians for DUIs? I fail to see how that is his responsibility; a newsworthy item occurred, and he reported on it. We’re not somehow bound by some fairness doctrine, where we have to back up every statement we make to make sure everyone understands that human beings do these kinds of things. I think it should be implied, and I also don’t see anywhere where anyone suggested that only Republicans drink and drive.

The fact is that it’s hard to attack your statement because there’s no real statement there. There’s some vague strawman about Americans and the media loving emotion and hating logic and how we’re all somehow deficient, even though you fail to establish credible logical fallacies.

And please, don’t go there with the equivalency argument between Clinton and Bush when you use the same irrelevant arguments for equivalency in the previous paragraph. I’m not even going to debate the merits of someone who is supposedly logic-based ignoring all the evidence for Bush lying in the lead-up to Iraq; it would just be circular and accomplish nothing.

In short, your entire post appears to be a red herring, all lashing out and attacking (emotion, tsk tsk) straw men of the basest nature. The one point you might have – that the media is derelict in its duties – is so non-specific and geared toward your chosen straw man that you might not have even made it all. If you want to talk about peddling perception, how about the perception you’re trying to peddle?

Girl on the Blog said...

I agree with you on "Not a good time to be a Texas Republican right now or a Republican period for that matter." The eye of America is on all Republican's just as it was when Clinton was in office...all eyes were on the Democrats.

If you were talking about a Democrat in this entry... I do believe Underground Logician wouldn't be saying a thing... he is entitled to his opinion as are you... I side with you :)!

War of the Politics:
Republicans vs Democrats... LOL!

Girl on the Blog said...

TOTALLY AGREE with crimnos...

james said...

UL:

I would NEVER for a moment try to suggest that Republicans commit more drunk driving then Democrats.

Underground Logician said...

Crimnos:

"Not a good time to be a Texas Republican right now or a Republican period for that matter."

Help me understand, doesn't this statement look like a hasty generalization? It is. And, in a liberal rich media, there is never a good time to be a Republican if you take good to mean everybody loves you and thinks you're swell.

Now, identifying it as such is hardly ad hominem, and explaining why there is so much of it, or more accurately, conjecturing as to why so much of it abounds in our land is hardly ad hominem.

I, on the other hand, wish to bring some objectivity back into this liberal mix (which is not ad hominem, James admits to being liberal). If you wish to know between the two groups, conservatives or liberals, who deserves to be in power, and the test is the presence of corruption, then do it right. Find out how many of the Repubs and Dems have been found guilty of crimes and misdemeanors, NOT JUST ALLEGATIONS and INDICTMENTS!

Anybody can raise an allegation. The presence of an allegation is NOT PROOF of a crime. An indictment is the ruling that there is sufficient evidence for the case to GO TO TRIAL. It is not a guilty verdict. So the liberal democrats raise unproven allegations and then cry corruption; a willing, entertainment craved and gullible public eats it up.

Now, if you wish to demonize a group (which is a rhetorical device based on hasty generalization), then by all means keep doing what you have been doing. However, if you are an honest observer and enquirer into the truth, you won't mind if the findings will prove you wrong, or confirm your suspicions. You need to know if conservatism is the cause of the rampant corruption that seems to be flooding our institutions. If so, and if it is as detrimental as being portrayed, then it will show itself across the board. And if we have identified the source of the contagion as conservatism, then we eliminate it for the betterment of our nation. Sounds patriotic, right? Anything for the good of our country, that's what I say.

The next step is how do you morally justify the use of the guillotine? Oops, we jump ahead! Let's do one thing at a time. There will be more than enough blood for everyone.

Pretty good for not using very many big words, eh Crimnos?

crimnos said...

UL,
It seems I may have misjudged you, and I do applaud you for having the courage of convictions to come back and clarify your position. You gain some esteem in my eyes, which probably doesn’t matter to you, but I want to say it anyway.

I don’t have a problem with the statement because it can pretty much be shown to be true. Texas Republicans and Republicans in general are struggling right now; there’s a preponderance of stories to be covered, from the DeLay indictment to the Plame Investigation to Coingate to even this small potatoes arrest. I know you could make the argument that it’s a matter of perception, but in politics perception is so often reality that they might as well be one and the same. I do have to admit I now understand where you were coming from with the statistics on drinking problems in both parties. I think there was a communication problem in your previous post which made it look like anger.

I also reject the contention that the media is heavy on liberals. From my perspective, the media is neither heavy on liberals or conservatives – it is heavy on businesspeople, and businesspeople will follow where the money leads. Right now there is money in covering the misfortunes in the Republican party; during the better part of the 90s and until recently, it was covering the misfortune of the Democratic Party.

My reference to you making an ad hominem attack was in you assailing James for following emotion rather than logic; it’s simply not relevant to what he was saying, as well as untrue. I also thought there was more than a whiff of the old “conservatives drive like this” (logic) and “liberals drive like this” (emotion) argument, but I wasn’t going to call you on it because it wasn’t overt.

However, I will grant you that there is a great deal of ad hominem on BOTH sides of the fence. I’ll even give an anecdotal example because I’m not bothering to research this for a blog comment; if I want to research it, I’ll post it in my own blog. Last night when I was in the gym Fox News was on, and they showed a shot of Ronnie Earl leaving a courthouse. Next to his name was a (D) designation. What is the relevance of Earl’s political affiliation when he has prosecuted more Democrats than Republicans? It’s an ad hominem that has nothing to do with the subject and serves only to distract and confuse those who are not informed. I’m sure you could probably point out such a thing on the “liberal” side of the fence, so I’m not going to argue it. There’s a lot of this going on, and I think it’s wrong on both sides.

I think it’s a faulty premise to base the worthiness of a Party on something as simple as who is more corrupt, and I don’t think that’s what James was saying, but I’ll play along. If James was making that argument, then yes, it would serve his argument to research such a claim. Fortunately, that’s not what he was saying.

Anybody can raise an allegation, huh? Interesting how allegations suited you when you were talking about Clinton, who was never convicted, but not when it comes to Bush. Double-standard much? This just sounds like a more intelligent version of DeLay’s Ham Sandwich defense.

Also, here’s a hint: an indictment requires a bit more than unsubstantiated allegations. There is a higher burden of proof in a criminal trial, I will admit, but it’s hardly a minor thing to be indicted. The ham sandwich defense is, frankly, beneath you, from the strength of thought you display.

I absolutely would not mind being proven wrong; I’m not a zealot by any means. I have logically thought through my positions and have defensible reasons for believing what I believe. I concede that I may be partially or completely wrong, and would be willing to retool my beliefs if they were proven wrong, so you have nothing to worry about on that part.

And no, I don’t believe Conservatism is the cause of the rampant corruption at all; in fact, I’m a reformed conservative and understand the good points of the ethos. It’s a bit of a two-headed monster. First of all, I don’t think the DeLays, Bushes, and Frists of the world represent true conservatism. Where’s the love of small government? Where’s the love of liberty and individual rights? All I see is an overburdening system that is determined to intrude into the lives and rights of average Americans everywhere, so there’s that point to consider. There’s also the point of considering the corrupting influence of big business on our lawmakers, and that happens on both sides of the aisle.

I think this corrupting influence combined with the blatant self-interest of our elected representatives is bringing our nation to its knees, and the people seem content to sit by while it goes on. THAT is what I rail against; it just so happens that the Republican party has a majority stake in this system. I know it’s often said, but I promise you that I would also expose Democrats who do the same. There are Democrats that I loathe.

Conservatism has its place, and I think it’s essential that there be a voice and some power for conservatism in our nation. I would never eliminate Conservatism, as Liberalism can just as easily lead to the big government abuses that we’re seeing now, in the name of protecting rather than purifying.

I do like the little poke about the guillotine, though, which shows a simplified understanding of the viewpoints presented here and in other liberal blogs. We’re not out to kill you guys; we just want to bridge the gap.

And yes, that was much more straightforward, and appreciated.