T Nation

Delay's Days Dwindling?

You know it’s bad when WSJ op/ed wants you out.

“Whether Mr. DeLay violated the small print of House Ethics or campaign-finance rules is thus largely beside the point. His real fault lies in betraying the broader set of principles that brought him into office, and which, if he continues as before, sooner or later will sweep him out.”

and David Brooks last week in the NYT.

it appears there’s a right wing conspiracy to get rid of Tommy boy, but then Tom complained of a vast left wing conspiracy last week:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/22/politics/22cong.html?

Tom’s got quite a list of ethical problems, and when it comes to science, well Toms’s just nuts, but unfortuntely he’s also a bit of hypocrite:


And DeLay is among the strongest advocates of keeping the woman, who doctors say has been in a persistent vegetative state for 15 years, connected to her feeding tube. DeLay has denounced Schiavo’s husband, as well as judges, for committing what he calls “an act of barbarism” in removing the tube.

In 1988, however, there was no such fiery rhetoric as the congressman quietly joined the sad family consensus to let his father die.

“There was no point to even really talking about it,” Maxine DeLay, the congressman’s 81-year-old widowed mother, recalled in an interview last week. “There was no way [Charles] wanted to live like that. Tom knew ? we all knew ? his father wouldn’t have wanted to live that way.”

Doctors advised that he would “basically be a vegetable,” said the congressman’s aunt, JoAnne DeLay.

When his father’s kidneys failed, the DeLay family decided against connecting him to a dialysis machine. “Extraordinary measures to prolong life were not initiated,” said his medical report, citing “agreement with the family’s wishes.” His bedside chart carried the instruction: “Do not resuscitate.”

On Dec. 14, 1988, the DeLay patriarch “expired with his family in attendance.”

Just waiting for RNC attack poodle Hannity to bail on Delay…

Boy, you sure took the WSJ editorial out of context…
Not that I usually believe what you post anyway, but that’s just killin’ the deal dude!

And as for the bit about his father…there’s quite a bit of difference.
You know it, I know it, and all the maggots in the media know it.
But if they can hammer The Hammer they’ll hammer away.

[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
Boy, you sure took the WSJ editorial out of context…
Not that I usually believe what you post anyway, but that’s just killin’ the deal dude!

And as for the bit about his father…there’s quite a bit of difference.
You know it, I know it, and all the maggots in the media know it.
But if they can hammer The Hammer they’ll hammer away.
[/quote]

You mean the difference of someone being a vegetable, and not having a living will? Except those aren’t differences.

And what’s out of context, Did you read the op-ed? Even after it misleads on Ronnie Earle (partisan democrat?) see:
http://www.tpj.org/page_view.jsp?pageid=571&pf=1
and
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:XYZImxPDTlQJ:www.elpasotimes.com/stories/borderland/20040306-89802.shtml+“Earle+says+local+prosecution+is+fundamental+and+points”&hl=en
It concludes with my cut and paste!

sorry Joe, you don’t seem to believe anything that’s not really nutty! I’ll try to put some kooky things in here next time.

Here’s the whole WSJ editorial from yesterday’s edition – BTW, I think most economic conservatives would find it hard to argue the main point, and would also argue that the majority in general has started to spend like a bunch of drunken sailors on shore leave.

Smells Like Beltway
March 28, 2005; Page A16

By now you have surely read about House Majority Leader Tom DeLay’s ethics troubles. Probably, too, you aren’t entirely clear as to what those troubles are – something to do with questionable junkets, Indian casino money, funny business on the House Ethics Committee, stuff down in Texas. In Beltway-speak, what this means is that Mr. DeLay has an “odor”: nothing too incriminating, nothing actually criminal, just an unsavory whiff that could have GOP loyalists reaching for the political Glade if it gets any worse.

The Beltway wisdom is right. Mr. DeLay does have odor issues. Increasingly, he smells just like the Beltway itself.

Here is the abbreviated rap sheet against Mr. DeLay. First, we have the imbroglio with the House Ethics Committee, which last year rebuked him on three occasions. Among his sins: He offered to endorse outgoing Representative Nick Smith’s son in a GOP primary if Mr. Smith would vote “yes” on the Medicare prescription-drug bill. (Mr. Smith declined the offer; his son lost the primary.) Mr. DeLay has since changed Committee rules so that it can no longer launch investigations on a party-line basis, and by packing the Committee with loyalists.

Next, there is the Texas business. Ronnie Earle, the district attorney for Travis County (which contains Austin), last year indicted three DeLay associates involved in his Texans for a Republican Majority political action committee for money laundering and illegal campaign contributions. Mr. Earle also will not rule out a possible indictment of Mr. DeLay himself.

Mr. Earle, a partisan Democrat, has a record of making suspect accusations: In 1993, he indicted newly elected Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison on evidence so weak the case was never brought to trial. The indictments of Mr. DeLay’s associates came just six weeks before November’s elections; Mr. Earle’s primary aim, it seemed, was to derail Mr. DeLay’s ultimately successful efforts to achieve the first Republican majority in the Texas delegation to the U.S. House since Reconstruction. Still, the “odor” stuck; last year Mr. DeLay had to fend off a stiff challenge from a complete unknown to keep what otherwise would have been his safe seat.

Finally, there are the junkets, three in particular. In December 1997, Mr. DeLay visited the Northern Marianas Islands in the company of lobbyist pal Jack Abramoff, now under investigation by the Senate Finance Committee, who just happened to be representing the garment industry there. Mr. DeLay later led a legislative effort to extend the Islands’ exemption from U.S. immigration and labor laws.

In May 2000, Messrs. DeLay and Abramoff took a $70,000 trip to the U.K. (including a golf outing to the St. Andrews course in Scotland) in the company of two House colleagues and some staff and spouses. Depending on which account you believe, Mr. DeLay’s expenses were picked up either by an outfit called the National Center for Public Policy Research, on whose board Mr. Abramoff then sat, or by Mr. Abramoff directly, who later charged the trip to his clients, the gambling Mississippi Choctaw nation. Under House rules, members are not allowed to have their travel expenses covered by a lobbyist.

In August 2001, Mr. DeLay and several House colleagues (including four Democrats) visited South Korea on a trip sponsored by the Korea-United States Exchange Council, which has close ties to former DeLay staff chief Ed Buckham and was registered as foreign agent just days before the trip. House rules forbid members from traveling at their expense, but it is unclear whether Mr. DeLay or his colleagues were aware of the Korean Exchange Council’s status at the time of their departure.

Taken separately, and on present evidence, none of the latest charges directly touch Mr. DeLay; at worst, they paint a picture of a man who makes enemies by playing political hardball and loses admirers by resorting to politics-as-usual.

The problem, rather, is that Mr. DeLay, who rode to power in 1994 on a wave of revulsion at the everyday ways of big government, has become the living exemplar of some of its worst habits. Mr. DeLay’s ties to Mr. Abramoff might be innocent, in a strictly legal sense, but it strains credulity to believe that Mr. DeLay found nothing strange with being included in Mr. Abramoff’s lavish junkets.

Nor does it seem very plausible that Mr. DeLay never considered the possibility that the mega-lucrative careers his former staffers Michael Scanlon and Mr. Buckham achieved after leaving his office had something to do with their perceived proximity to him. These people became rich as influence-peddlers in a government in which legislators like Mr. DeLay could make or break fortunes by tinkering with obscure rules and dispensing scads of money to this or that constituency. Rather than buck this system as he promised to do while in the minority, Mr. DeLay has become its undisputed and unapologetic master as Majority Leader.

Whether Mr. DeLay violated the small print of House Ethics or campaign-finance rules is thus largely beside the point. His real fault lies in betraying the broader set of principles that brought him into office, and which, if he continues as before, sooner or later will sweep him out.

ANd here’s an op-ed that appeared in the WSJ last THursday:

Have Things Gone Sour in Sugar Land?

By JONATHAN GURWITZ
March 24, 2005; Page A15

SAN ANTONIO – Drive down U.S. Highway 59 from downtown Houston, and you take a sociological journey from the city’s old, urban center to the picturesque suburbs of neighboring Fort Bend County. You also embark on a political odyssey, from the traditional precincts of the Texas Democratic Party to Sugar Land, the home of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.

The recent swirl of ethics charges surrounding Rep. DeLay plays just about the same here in Texas as it does anywhere else outside the Beltway. “Tom was stupid for messing with corporate money,” a prominent Houston GOP leader told me, referring to allegations that a political action committee founded by Mr. DeLay may have violated state law by misusing corporate donations. “If he’s not careful, he’ll end up like Gingrich.”

The damage done by more recent charges regarding funds for trips abroad remains to be seen. But for the lion’s share of Mr. DeLay’s supporters in Texas, the ethical charges against the majority leader amount to little more than a partisan witch-hunt by a Democratic district attorney in Austin, Ronnie Earle, and the Democratic leadership in Washington – the not-so-unexpected result of unseating six congressional incumbents.

When Mr. DeLay won election to the Texas House of Representatives in 1978, he was the first Republican to win county-wide in Fort Bend since Reconstruction. GOP victories were so scarce in Texas at the time that a meeting of Republican elected officials in most counties could take place in a phone booth.

Mr. DeLay was part of a small group that brought together Republican politicians from across the state to strategize about transforming themselves into a governing majority. It seemed then like an impossible dream.

They called their conclaves Camp Wannameetagop, reflecting the unlikely prospect that the small number of Republican officeholders would ever encounter each other under normal circumstances. Former legislator and Bexar County Judge Cyndi Taylor Krier was an attendee of those early meetings. Mr. DeLay, she recalls, was known for his “ordinariness.” Like his experience as a foster parent, his advocacy for abused children and his small business roots, Rep. DeLay’s down-home ordinariness is at odds with his ominous Capitol Hill reputation as “The Hammer.”

By the time the 77th Legislature began its work in January 2001, the political landscape in Texas bore little resemblance to the Wannameetagop days. Republicans had swept every statewide race in three consecutive elections, held a majority in the Texas Senate and were four seats short of a majority in the House.

Most importantly for Mr. DeLay, Texas offered the potential of eight more Republican congressional seats in the decennial redistricting process: two from population growth and six at the expense of Democrats.

Rather than redraw the map to reflect Texas’ new political reality and dispatch some of their congressional friends in the process, House Democrats lamely handed redistricting to a three-judge federal panel. The panel, which evaluated districts with respect to the Voting Rights Act rather than politics, essentially kept in place a contrived Democratic majority that resulted from the 1991 redistricting map, a monstrosity whose principal architect was former Rep. Martin Frost of Dallas.

Mr. DeLay’s solution was Texans for a Republican Majority, the political action committee that raised and spent $1.5 million to deliver a Republican majority in the Texas House, and which lies at the heart of the ethics imbroglio.

After two abortive efforts by Democrats to block redistricting by fleeing the state and three special legislative sessions, Mr. DeLay’s long journey reached the political promised land in 2003 – a redistricting plan that changed Texas’ congressional delegation from a 17-15 Democratic majority to a 21-11 Republican majority in last fall’s election.

Mr. DeLay’s central role in the redistricting fight, a source of outrage for Democrats nationwide, was perfectly understandable to Texas Republicans. Undoing the travesty of the Democrat’s 1991 redistricting plan was a political reckoning long overdue.

Mr. DeLay’s ultimate authority derives from the voters of Texas District 22, which includes parts of Fort Bend, Harris, Galveston and Brazoria counties. An untold story of the last general election was his surprisingly weak performance against attorney Richard Morrison, a political novice. While Mr. DeLay won 63% of the vote in 2002, he garnered only 55% last November, a narrower margin than Republican candidates in races above and below him on the ballot.

Changing demographics and, ironically, new boundaries that make the district slightly less Republican partly explain the results. But another explanation comes from GOP voters troubled by the ethics complaints. Fort Bend Republican County Chairman Eric Thode says the election reflected the barrage of media attacks on the majority leader. “Some Republican voters threw their votes away, but they didn’t throw DeLay away.”

Some Texas Republicans, meanwhile, remember the 1994 Contract With America and the pledge by Rep. DeLay and a new GOP leadership to restore accountability and fiscal responsibility to Congress and end its cycle of scandal and disgrace.

Measured in terms of profligate spending and a malleable ethics process, the Republican majority today is not so different from the Democratic majority it replaced. The ordinary idealism required to transform an opposition minority may not square with the extraordinary exercise of power in a ruling majority.

Political figures are rarely as good or as bad – or as simple – as conventional wisdom and the media tend to portray. Tom DeLay is no exception. To retain the loyalty of his Republican colleagues and his district’s voters in the future, he’ll need to restore some of the ordinariness that distinguished him in the past.

Mr. Gurwitz is a columnist and editorial writer for the San Antonio Express-News.

Lumpy why did you change your name to 100meters? Is that supposed to be an improvement? I don’t get it.

He likes 100meters better…Lumpy always reminded people of the old “Leave It To Beaver” TV show. Either that or he thought to many didn’t like his old liberal views under “Lumpy.” Then again, we don’t much like his old liberal views under 100meters.

By the way is this thread set up to bash conservatives? If so I will have to register a complaint with vroom. :slight_smile:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
He likes 100meters better…Lumpy always reminded people of the old “Leave It To Beaver” TV show. Either that or he thought to many didn’t like his old liberal views under “Lumpy.” Then again, we don’t much like his old liberal views under 100meters.

By the way is this thread set up to bash conservatives? If so I will have to register a complaint with vroom. :)[/quote]

Still don’t know about Lumpy, but I can say this isn’t a conservative bashing thread. I started it because I think there’s a trend starting on the right to distance itself from Delay before 06 rolls around, I could be wrong about that point, others could post their views, some may even want to defend Delay, etc.

more op/ed on delay:

http://www.cincypost.com/2005/03/18/thomas031805.html

…It is always baffling that history seems to help very little in avoiding the political pitfalls that are everywhere in government. DeLay and his one-time mentor, former Speaker Newt Gingrich, rose to their stations by challenging the fast and loose behavior of those who had been running the institution for 40 years. Democratic Speaker Jim Wright, another Texan, fell – a victim of his own questionable habits and book deals. Americans ultimately responded to all the examples of Democratic arrogance and questionable ethics and turned the Congress over to the Republicans. They embraced Gingrich and DeLay and company, who swept in with a contract of promised improvement.

So what happened? Those who had aimed so high and were so brutal in getting there suddenly found themselves targets, helped along by their own misuse of power. It took only a few terms for Gingrich to repeat the ethically challenged mistakes of Wright and be forced to resign and for DeLay to become as autocratic and insensitive to the minority, and often his own troops, as a succession of Democrats had been to his party. It is not an unfamiliar scenario. The Pilgrims fled religious persecution only to practice it here.

What is annoying in the current situation is how undisguised the use of force has been. Nothing seems to be too brazen to produce shame. Well, that’s not quite accurate. A move to protect DeLay’s job should he possibly be indicted was even too much to swallow for many Republicans and was abandoned.

and this:
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%7E417%7E2770615,00.html

…DeLay is becoming a major distraction to the Republicans’ legislative agenda. How long will it be before they realize that DeLay, a political enforcer so powerful he’s nicknamed The Hammer, isn’t worth the ethical stain on GOP integrity?

As DeLay fends off investigators in Texas and Washington, Hefley continues to oppose the rule change. It’s awkward for a GOP stalwart who calls himself “very partisan,” but Hefley has always provided credibility to the congressional ethics process, and we’re glad he hasn’t given up the fight.

Hopefully soon Delay will be back to being the Orkin man.

Whatever becomes of Delay, getting the Congressional districts redrawn in Texas was a great accomplishment. It is going to help a lot of minorities (especially in the Valley) who in the past really could only choose between the least corrupt Democrat to represent them.

He may go down in flames, but at least he accomplished something huge before blew up.

I wonder if there’s not a pattern emerging wrt strong Republican leadership? Does any one remember Newt’s public crucifixion? The press hated him. The press wouldn’t let him take a shit without reporting on it. Delay’s getting the same treatment.

What is it about strong forceful Republican leadership that scares the bejeezus out of the press?

The more the press takes pot-shots at Delay, the more I think he’s right.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
I wonder if there’s not a pattern emerging wrt strong Republican leadership? Does any one remember Newt’s public crucifixion? The press hated him. The press wouldn’t let him take a shit without reporting on it. Delay’s getting the same treatment.

What is it about strong forceful Republican leadership that scares the bejeezus out of the press?

The more the press takes pot-shots at Delay, the more I think he’s right. [/quote]

It has to do with “Conservatism.” Matters not if it’s a person in the form of Newt Gingrich, or a group like the NRA. If you are conservative the press will hunt you down…for whatever reason they can find.

It’s a biased liberal press (for the most part)…yep.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
rainjack wrote:
I wonder if there’s not a pattern emerging wrt strong Republican leadership? Does any one remember Newt’s public crucifixion? The press hated him. The press wouldn’t let him take a shit without reporting on it. Delay’s getting the same treatment.

What is it about strong forceful Republican leadership that scares the bejeezus out of the press?

The more the press takes pot-shots at Delay, the more I think he’s right.

It has to do with “Conservatism.” Matters not if it’s a person in the form of Newt Gingrich, or a group like the NRA. If you are conservative the press will hunt you down…for whatever reason they can find.

It’s a biased liberal press (for the most part)…yep.
[/quote]
I think it has more to do with radicalism or perhaps blatant hypocrisy, or maybe just unethical behavior. I guess you forgot about Newt’s extreme lack of ethics huh? Or that his party pushed him out? So still no bias in the media, Newt’s ethics sucked,and the media noticed, and Repubs quivered and shaked and let ol’ Newty go and that makes the media biased. Hilarious.

DeLay Quietly Steps Out of the Schiavo Spotlight


“Tom is doing everything backwards from the way I’d be inclined to do it,” said one Democrat, Jim Wright, a fellow Texan who himself was forced out as speaker of the House in 1989 after failing to surmount challenges to his ethics. “He seems to want to keep hostility at an agitated level.”

Some Democrats have begun drawing parallels between Mr. DeLay and another Republican who eventually became a weight on his party, former Speaker Newt Gingrich.

“The public is beginning to sense a whiff of extremism in the Republican leadership in the House and the Senate,” said Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. “If it continues, it could prove very detrimental to them and good for us.”

It is not just Democrats who share that view. In a regular e-mail commentary he distributes, former Senator Dave Durenberger, Republican of Minnesota, wrote, “If I were a Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate in Minnesota in 2006, I would make DeLay the issue in the campaign right now.”

more interesting is Danforth’s op/ed on returning to republican roots…
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/30/opinion/30danforth.html?

…When government becomes the means of carrying out a religious program, it raises obvious questions under the First Amendment. But even in the absence of constitutional issues, a political party should resist identification with a religious movement. While religions are free to advocate for their own sectarian causes, the work of government and those who engage in it is to hold together as one people a very diverse country. At its best, religion can be a uniting influence, but in practice, nothing is more divisive. For politicians to advance the cause of one religious group is often to oppose the cause of another.

Take stem cell research. Criminalizing the work of scientists doing such research would give strong support to one religious doctrine, and it would punish people who believe it is their religious duty to use science to heal the sick.

During the 18 years I served in the Senate, Republicans often disagreed with each other. But there was much that held us together. We believed in limited government, in keeping light the burden of taxation and regulation. We encouraged the private sector, so that a free economy might thrive. We believed that judges should interpret the law, not legislate. We were internationalists who supported an engaged foreign policy, a strong national defense and free trade. These were principles shared by virtually all Republicans.

But in recent times, we Republicans have allowed this shared agenda to become secondary to the agenda of Christian conservatives. As a senator, I worried every day about the size of the federal deficit. I did not spend a single minute worrying about the effect of gays on the institution of marriage. Today it seems to be the other way around.

The historic principles of the Republican Party offer America its best hope for a prosperous and secure future. Our current fixation on a religious agenda has turned us in the wrong direction. It is time for Republicans to rediscover our roots.

No, but what is hilarious is your viewpoint on this topic. If it has to do with “radicalism” then how come we don’t see the press going after the liberal extreme groups? Because the press is liberal and will only go after one of their own when they smell blood and view “the story” as being more important than their own political stand. It happens, but it’s very rare.
The press: 80% registered democratic and they usually put a liberal slant on everything that they do! Don’t want to admit it do you? Funny stuff :slight_smile:

[quote]100meters wrote:
I think it has more to do with radicalism or perhaps blatant hypocrisy, or maybe just unethical behavior. I guess you forgot about Newt’s extreme lack of ethics huh? Or that his party pushed him out? So still no bias in the media, Newt’s ethics sucked,and the media noticed, and Repubs quivered and shaked and let ol’ Newty go and that makes the media biased. Hilarious.[/quote]

A supporter of the Clinton-era, a member of the same party as ‘Sheets’ Byrd, and ‘Rosty’ Rostenkowski is attempting to lecture the right about ethical behavior ands radicalism? Pardon me while laugh my ass off.

Quick question on this radical thing - Which Senior Senator blurted out the ‘N’ word on a national Sunday news show recently? Hmmmmmmmm?

What is it that DeLay has done that is unethical? does it compare to Jim Wright’s misgivings as SOH? Or Rostenkowski’s? But you ignorantly ignore the criminals and murderers of your own party to cast doubt on the right?

My friend, you have lost it in a fever of partisan kool-aid chugging.

G

You do understand the word hypocrisy? That would refer to conservatives coming to clean up dirty dems, and in record time getting dirty themselves. Sometimes Rainjack, it pays to read.

More Delay Doom and Gloom:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7336386/

…Plus, not all of the Red Media is so friendly anymore. Say what you want about The Wall Street Journal editorial page, but they are consistent in their minimum regard for ethical mores in Washington. And ominously for DeLay, the page has begun to view him as an example of what?s wrong with the capital. If that machine produces an ?odor,? as the Journal editorial writers put it, it doesn?t absolve DeLay that ?he smells just like the Beltway itself.?

[quote]100meters wrote:
You do understand the word hypocrisy? That would refer to conservatives coming to clean up dirty dems, and in record time getting dirty themselves. Sometimes Rainjack, it pays to read. [/quote]

I do understand hypocrisy - 51% of the american people voted against it last November.

They are ALL crooks. Campaign finance reform is a joke. It does not slow the corruption, but it does create more opportunity to catch the crooks.

I actually enjoy seeing these guys go down no matter their party affiliation.

While the mainstream press sharks certainly circle faster when it is Republican blood in the water, I can’t complain too much. Next time a Democrat screws up FOX News will nail him!