The Attacks on Tom DeLay
By Erick Posted in Elections — Comments (24) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
"The DeLay attack has never really been about Tom DeLay."
Several bloggers, including me, have made the point that DeLay knew or should have known he would be Enemy Number 1 for the Democrats and, therefore, should have been extra careful. Media reports of family members getting paid by PACs and other stories are not helpful. But, credit where credit is due, the Democrats have taken on a good strategy.
Should the Democrats attack President Bush at this moment they would be seen as sore losers. Having lost the election to a vulnerable President and to have suffered crushing defeats in the Senate and lost, primarily through redistricting efforts, seats in the House, the Democrats could only hurt themselves by appearing spiteful. It is one thing to attack the President on policy issues, it is entirely something else and inappropriate to attack him in general to the masses (I'm not considering partisan attacks made to the base).
Read on . . .
Instead, what the Democrats have done is rather smart. Tom DeLay is arguably the most effective Republican in the United States Congress. He is generally feared among the GOP, which breeds latent resentment and also breeds a loyal following of soldiers who will do what he wants. Under DeLay's leadership of the Republican Caucus, more often than not, Republicans can marshall together the needed votes to push the President's agenda forward. DeLay is also seen as rather conservative and is able to push the conservative agenda forward.
The media, always willing pawns in scandalmongering, have played into the hands of the Democrats. Having ample stories about DeLay's alleged ethics problems, the Democrats have been able to target DeLay in a way that they cannot target the President. And, DeLay has played accomplice, though involuntarily, by giving off the appearance of scandal. Being lazy, the media has taken the Democratic spoon feeding of seemingly unseemly actions by DeLay and, energized on scandal in a time of scandal drought, run vigorously after DeLay. The GOP has been put in a defensive position -- appearing to defend a corrupt politician (note: I'm not saying he is corrupt, just that he is being painted that way) -- and it is harder to sell to the media while in a defensive position.
Politics can be a lot like football. When the ball gets thrown to one person all the time and that person is able to move the ball down the field, it is rather smart to concentrate on tackling that guy and, if his leg should get broken in the process, oh well. Right now DeLay is extremely effective at moving the Republican football and the Democrats are concentrating their efforts on tackling him and, hopefully, breaking his leg in the process to get him off field. Doing so would throw the GOP into chaos at a critical time on several issues, including social security.
The GOP needs two strategies to defeat what is really a Democratic plot to throw the GOP off its game -- DeLay just happens to be the instrument of that plot. The GOP first needs to go on serious defense, if DeLay can be defended, and attack Democratic leaders for the same thing. If this gets turned into an "everybody does it" story, it will seriously mitigate damage done to DeLay and the GOP. If DeLay really has acted improperly, the GOP needs to both discipline DeLay and provide a succession plan. Make the transition to someone else smooth and quick.
No one really cares about Tom DeLay except partisans. Most people have never heard of Tom DeLay. But, if the Democrats can keep stories in the media about a corrupt Republican leader -- and the media loves to keep scandals alive -- the GOP will have a harder time putting out its reform message.
The DeLay attack has never really been about Tom DeLay. It's been about drowning out the GOP's talking points with a story of alleged impropriety by a member of the GOP. Scandal is more fun to cover than social security reform and, as a result, the President's agenda gets pushed to page two while Tom DeLay stays on page 1.
Update [2005-4-6 10:56:19 by Erick]: See also David Frum's take in which he points this out:
The [New York] Times story is sourced to - and is packed full of quotations from - a series of groups whistled up by George Soros for almost the exclusive purpose of attacking DeLay. (You can read some of the details here.) Maybe the Times should be alerting its readers to the true identity of those sources of these shocked-and-appalled quotations? Or even balancing this bought-and-paid-for expertise with comments from some genuinely disinterested and impartial observers?
« Question and answer time: the Wes Clark thing. — Comments (50) | The Anonymous Republican Memo on Schiavo
Was It A Fake? — Comments (21) »
The Attacks on Tom DeLay 24 Comments (0 topical, 24 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Was one of the reasons (along with rise of hardcore right wing christianity and the Iraq war) that I became a democrat in the first place, after being a libertarian-leaning independent.
The guy is crooked, and has been for years, and he never even particularly bothered to hide it. You all would do well to get rid of him, and as quickly as possible.
have to defend him unless he goes willingly, because part of the reason that he IS majority leader is that he spread the wealth around. I'm sure there are a lot of dirty hands in the GOP caucus (as there were on the other side of the aisle when they Dems were in charge -- politics is a dirty business).
And his grandstanding on the Schiavo case probably bought him a measure of support amongst the radical right of the party.
It would be best for you guys if he went (as I said in my other post), but I have a feeling he won't go down without an ugly intra-party fight.
For the advice. Now, if you don't mind - those of us who chose to remain Republicans will just talk amongst ourselves.
Because I'm personally invested in the legal system. Rather a difference, to my mind, but it stems more from how I'd see the system of justice seen than anything else.
With that said, while I'm resigned to a certain level of corruption in government, I'm not prone to excuse it.
Tom Delay is one of the reasons I became a Republican. That along with the incessant hate being spewed by the left. Just couldn't take being associated with the hate filled left anymore.
In case anyone is interested the Captain nukes the NYSlimes article today.
There is also a news story of how Pelooser is taking kickbacks from her fundraisers. But who cares, she is a hate filled Dem so no problem.
The hate filled left is just doing what they do -- spew hate. Can't win on the issues, gotta do something.
Oh yeah, what was it Dean said about Republicans again?
I was never a republican, but I did vote for Bush I in 92, and I was a big Gingrich supporter. I just thought you guys went off the rails with the whole whitewater thing and switched sides.
I'll probably switch again when the Democrats get out of control.
now whether you think it was ethical or smart may very well be another matter.
Erick,
And WHY are there, as you put it, "ample stories about DeLay's alleged ethics problems"? Just today's stories about the guy's corruption:
- $500,000 to his wife and daughter in just the last 4 years?
- Trips paid for by, among others, Russian lobbyists?
- Free corporate planes full of lobbyists going to Las Vagas for huge parties?
- Associates indicted for money laundering?
And you respond to this by attacking the SOURCES without looking into the charges themselves? As a Democrat I say keep it up, defend the guy. But as a person I have to say, watch out where this kind of associaton can lead -- be careful what you defend because it could rub off on you.
is that nothing you mention is an allegation of wrongdoing. At most they are allegations of stuff you don't like.
Let's face it, if having associates indicted was an offense Bill Clinton would be doing life without parole.
- I mean, actually try to demonstrate that Delay has not been involved in scandal, dishonor, and corruption?
I think it's his accusers who have to do the hard work of proving the case against him. The Press and the Left may operate on a presumption of guilt where Republicans are concerned ... but that ain't how it works in the real world.
Not a single person from the Clinton administration was found guilty of anything, except one had overbilled clients years earlier. Wow. (And Clinton got a blow job.) That's it -- that's the whole result of the years and millions of dollars of investigations.
But now we have a huge structure in place to PREVENT investigations of any members of the Republican Party. We even have people removed from the House Ethics Committee for daring to look into things.
It is obvious what that means. It means there is corruption, and they are keeping the public from finding out. There is nothing else that could mean.
You should not be supporting those who would block the oversight responsibilities of Congress ad the rest of the government. This Congress has blocked EVERY SINGLE effort to look into all kinds of serious accusations, from the missing $9 billion in Iraq, to the Plame investigation, to Haliburton contracts, to Delay's money from lobbyists, to every other thing that should be looked into. When that kind of impunity is in place, corruption MUST result - and you know it.
Over the years several Democrats in Congress were found to have some level or other of corruption. Wright was selling books and keeping the cash. Rostenkowski was doing various things that were bringing him and his family money. Good riddance to them. They shouldn't have been doing that stuff - those kind of things are corrupt.
Associates. Not administration. Associates.
How about: Jim Guy Tucker? Web Hubbell? Jim and Susan McDougal? Not indicted but convicted felons.
I'm sure Michael Moore will investigate all of your concerns. Give him a call.
Hubbel was who I meant - he had overbilled clients.
Jim Guy Tucker, a past Gov. of Arkansas. What did he had to do with Clinton?
McDougals were not convicted of anything, and were not associated with Clinton anyway.
Can you come up with anyone associated with the Clinton Admin. who did anything wrong? ANYONE? It was a clean Admin. Compare that to what we see going on.
Question for you - why are the Republicans blocking -ANY- oversight of potential corruption. Can you think of even a single hearing this COngress has conducted looking into anything the government does?
You KNOW what that means. When people are free to get away with things, they will try.
Jim McDougal died in prison, Susan McDougal just got out a year or so ago. They were his business partners. In you mind that may not be an association but to the average human it is.
The point is they were all Clinton associates. They are now convicted felons. So if you are going to persist in your rather senseless guilt by association attack on DeLay in absence of any evidence be consistent.
And again. Try reading sometime. No one but you has said jack about the Clinton administration.
of Pelosi hating anyone. Before you slander others, you may want to look in the mirror.
Partisan - absolutely.
Agressive - certainly.
Hate filled - you've had too much Koolaide.
Susan McDougal was never convicted of anything. Starr had her held in contempt because she wouldn't change her story.
They were not "his business partners." Clinton invested in a real estate deal and McDougal embezzled from him.
And I was respinding to a statement about the Clinton Admin.
So, why do the Repubicans refuse to allow ANY oversight of the government?
The were his business parters. Look it up.
She was convicted of fraud. Look it up. (I assume they have Google where you live)
No one has mentioned the Clinton Administration but you.
Jim McDougal Convicted on 18 Counts, Susan on 4
On March 4, 1996, the trial of United States v. James B. McDougal, Susan McDougal, and Jim Guy Tucker commenced before Judge George Howard, Jr. of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. On May 28, 1996, the jury returned guilty verdicts against all three defendants. James B. McDougal was convicted on 18 felony counts: one felony violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (conspiracy); two felony violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (wire fraud); one felony violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344 (bank fraud); three felony violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (mail fraud); one felony violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1006 (false bank entries); three felony violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1014 and § 2 (false loan applications); four felony violations of 18 U.S.C. § 657 and § 2 (misapplication of bank funds); and three felony violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1006 and § 2.Susan McDougal was convicted on four felony counts: one felony violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341; one felony violation of 18 U.S.C. § 657 and § 2; one felony violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1006 and § 2; and one felony violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1014 and § 2. Jim Guy Tucker was convicted on two felony counts: one felony violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 and one felony violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341.
McDougal, Clinton, McDougal, and Clinton received insider loans, larger than standard commissions, the help of the wife of the governor in hearings before state regulators, etc. Whitewater Development was the company name of their big slush fund.
Timeline here
Mike Espy, Laura Tyson, Henry Cisneros, some convictions never happened because the witnesses would (and did) rather do time waiting for Clinton's 11th hour pardons than testify.
Vince Foster's death overshadowed the fact that he was the one who pencil-whipped Whitewater's tax records into the appearance of conformity.
Vernon Jordan found a job for a witness in a civil rights trial so she wouldn't testify against Clinton.
On Jan. 19, 2001, the day before he left office, Clinton agreed to a five-year suspension of his Arkansas law license and his paying of a $25,000 fine to the Arkansas Bar Association. Although not a 'criminal conviction' this is a result of serious misconduct.
the presumption of innocence plays into the dems hands. The dems don't want Delay gone right now...that would take the issue away from them. Instead, they want him to stay in power and keep right on being Tom Delay because they know that a high profile Tom Delay acting as he acts is far better for them than no Tom Delay. The worst thing that could happen for the dems would be for the house republicans to quickly remove Delay from power. If he is still majority leader in 16 months...he will be the poster boy for republican excesses in the mid-term elections (barring any other huge issue popping up between now and then).
is that people have never heard of this guy, except for us political junkies. And the first look alot of people are getting are allegations of corruption and unethical behavoir. He's actually the best target ever. Strong Republican leader who isn't known by the public, good or bad, he has no base of grass roots defense. i.e. People won't automatically say all the charges are BS and instantly dismiss them.(If that makes any sense)
You have to look below the surface to see that some of the charges really aren't THAT strong, but they are based on facts that require a bit of investigation to find the truth (and even then it's not all that clear). I think his dealings with Abramoff and a few of his political manuevers make him look dirty although he may only be skirting unlawful or unethical behavior. You know the saying, "Lie down with dogs..."
All of the "charges" and allegations against DeLay, once you actually examine them, are not scandalous at all. But the sum of them, dragged out over several months, makes it seem like he is shady all around.
I really want there to be a final showdown kind of deal, where he either goes down in shame, or he takes down his critics. One or the other. I am sick of the insinuations and rumors.
There's no reasoning with some liberals. You didn't even add water to the Kool-Aid, just snorting it straight up.
that the GOP should play defense. Delay has many IOUs to cash in, and so I imagine the defense will be robust.
Of course, you have to wonder where all the dirt on Delay is coming from.
A question though: is anyone going to mount a factual defense of Delay on the merits? I mean, actually try to demonstrate that Delay has not been involved in scandal, dishonor, and corruption? There's a high standard after all, I think it was Thomas who pointed out that even something as small as a $250 donation should be returned if there's the slightest hint of impropriety.