Redstate

Especially when the 'leakers' are your own kind.

The new battle cry of the Democrats?

Delay for President in '08.

Should DeLay be forced out, the race for his seat could be interesting.  All the big guns in Houston politics would jump at the chance to replace him.

And apparently, many of them aren't at all ashamed about trying to push things along.

Paying family members may be legal, but should it be?  It sounds rediculously stupid to me.  What would stop all politicians from just hiring their spouse to be a "spokesperson", send them to one speaking angagement at your church, and pay them $5 milllion, then retire and call it a day?  Delay's and others' actiona in this regard may fulfill the letter of the campaign finance laws, but surely not the spirit of the law.  I guess you cannot legislate a conscience.

but I don't see it happening.

Now, before y'all go nuts, let me clarify.

Candidates for Congress don't just spring from whole cloth. Typically they've been running for office or active in public life for a long, long time - going back to that race for county supervisor.

The spouse, or brother, or best friend often plays the role of manager in those first couple races - or even more likely, they play the role of advisor, keeping the consultant sharks away from the candidate.

Frankly, it often comes down to trust. There's a lot of money to be made in politics and much of it by people you'd not like to have dinner with. From the candidate's perspective - having someone with complete and total loyalty (not to mention smart) run your political operation is a valuable - sometimes invaluable asset.

So - no problem with family members for me. We'd not frown if a family business employed both husband and wife.

of Congress. However I do think he's fast becoming a liability in his leadership role. A quiet, non-controversial (but competent and efficient) guy, in the mold of Dennis Hasturt, would be a better idea these days.  The GOP has taken control of the House and its hold is fairly secure. It should put its bomb-throwing minority party days behind it.

Mike, with all due respect...

I'm having a hard time believing that if it was revealed in 1993 that Bill Clinton had paid his wife and daughter $500K from his campaigns for "services to the campaign", that you would not be screaming bloody murder.

Or more currently, Hillary Clinton paying Bill Clinton and Chelsea $500K over four years for working on her Senate campaigns.

Am I wrong?

If the family member is doing work that justifies the payment, probably no problem (yes, I realize that that is subjective).  

But if the family member is working in a sinecure capacity, and is not really earning the money, isn't this just a way of turning campaign contributions directly into personal wealth?  Maybe I'm just naive about the way things work, but that doesn't sound so good.

Especially when you contradict it by screeching about how I'd have a different position if it were Clinton.

For the record - you don't see me harping about Barbara Boxer.

I'm asking, not screeching.  

If you tell me you would not have a problem with Hillary doing the same, I'd believe you.

Chill...

"I'd have a hard time believing.."

If I write something about candidates or campaigns in general, you can save the presumption that I'd flip based on the candidate.

Except John McCain. He gets no quarter from me.

When PAC money goes to a spouse, and then becomes community property or is used to benefit the married couple, any penny not earned is unvarnished bribery.  Not that varnished ("legalized") bribery isn't abundant, but this looks particularly transparent.

Because otherwise, this is pretty run of the mill stuff. I suppose we can get a clerk of the works involved, but that seems a bit much, all things considered.

Funnelling money to consulting firms owned by relatives doesnt' sound too cool either, but just giving it to your wife seems pretty blatant.

 Did you read how ARMPAC described Mrs. Delay's contributions?

"Mrs. DeLay provides big picture, long-term strategic guidance and helps with personnel decisions."

Pretty weak.  Maybe it's not a sinecure, but it sure sounds like one.

after calling the last election 'the most important of our lives" - republicans are going to be unable to get anything done - even with both houses of congress and the white house...

Well, if there are timesheets, that would be a good start in establishing that Mrs. DeLay actually did some work for this money.  Are there?

Salary employees usually don't have timesheets. Even lawyers just have chains around their neck and billing programs.

"The issue here is not the truth"

Nice try, but the truth is precisely what is at issue.  Delay did, or did not, break the law and/or violate House ethics rules.  His critics say it "smells like" he did.  His supporters say it doesn't matter what it smells like, it matters what the facts are.

So, the issue at hand is whether he did, or did not, break the law or the rules.  You say you know personally that he's clean as a whistle.  Sorry, but that isn't gonna be good enough for the rest of us.

If he broke the law or the rules, he should go, period.  If he did not, but through a habit of coming a little too close to the line for everyone's comfort, conservatives support him at their own risk.  If it turns out that every accusation is completely without basis, and that his accusers have manufactured them from whole cloth, he'll be a martyr and a hero.

So, we'll see how it turns out.

In the meantime, I can think of noone in professional politics, news organizations, blogland, or pretty much anywhere else that has the moral standing to call for a moratorium on criticism of Tom Delay on grounds of fairness or moderation.  Least of all Delay himself.

As an aside, I will observe that the laundry list in your penultimate paragraph sounds like more than enough reason to show him the door, but YMMV.

Cheers -

Having been both a candidate a campaign employee I wholeheartedly agree.




The test of course is whether it looks like corruption.  If it does, throw the guy out.  (not referring to DeLay)

I agree with some of what you say.  The revelation of the truth enters into to the issue, even though it is enmeshed in partisan considerations.

But I think you are being too optimistic here:

If it turns out that every accusation is completely without basis, and that his accusers have manufactured them from whole cloth, he'll be a martyr and a hero.

Smear campaigns can work. If DeLay is weakened enough politically by false accusations, he'll have to move out of the limelight to protect his party.    

Of course, it seems likely that there is at least some basis to some of the accusations. A fair question would be how many other politicians could be fairly accused of the same things, but have not been attacked as DeLay has.  

The "business as usual" defense has some validity. But if political "business as usual" results in public scandal when attention is called to it, some reform may be in order.

See the letter.




In defense of the source however, I think you misrepresented what he said.  

The issue is not the truth because the intent is to bleed DeLay and lies and innuendo work just as well as truth.

For my part, I hope the truth comes out, and that's it.

the accusations are all lies, correct? Delay is squeaky clean, correct?

Tell me, is this a lie? innuendo?

the post you'd see that was neither stated nor implied. Big "if", I know.

I think anyone with even a hint of common sense could see what the objective is regardless of the truth or falsity of the charges.

Of course we know what the objective is, but that's pretty much irrelevant if it's true now isn't it?




And I give you a classic line from Intolerable Cruelty:

                                   REX

                         ...Well, my wife has me between a

                         rock and a hard place.

                                     MILES

                         That's her job. You have to respect

                         that.

you're the one who wrote "lies and innuendo work just as well as truth". If that were true, why bother with lies and innuendo? after all, the equivalence goes both ways.

Your defense of delay is predicated not on a factual basis of the claims, but innuendo against the accusers. Since you refuse to mount a factual defense, relying only on RedState's secretive "sources" (whose track record, let's be frank, has not been good), one wonders just what you're afraid of.

I'm sure that you have a handy excuse to explain why your double standard for ethics is reasonable.

I could have missed it, but I don't think the source was quoted as a defense.

because if you've read my posts I haven't offered a defense of DeLay beyond the fact that no one has offered an allegation beyond "he's doing crooked stuff". Ergo, your post is pretty much nonsense.

But in response to the only accurate part of your post you bother with lies and innuendo when you don't have facts. Somewhat like your post it would seem.

this is a witch hunt.

• In truth, the most monotonous of campaign activities could be misconstrued by the public (and by pundits who've never managed a campaign) as being (forgive me for the pun) foreign.  In fact, Teddy Roosevelt once wisely compared politics to making sausage...
• For example, did you know political operatives actually try to turn out ONLY those voters who are favorable to their side?  Scandalous... I mean, shouldn't we try to get-out-the-vote for everybody???  I can see the headline now: "DeLay admits to actually trying to win!"  Now, that would truly be ridiculous -- but (because both are so common) no more ridiculous than the accusations that he actually (Gulp) paid his family to help with his campaign.
• Never mind paying the spouse... Now, thanks to campaign finance reform, you can actually pay the candidate for campaigning.  (You can only pay a candidate a reasonable amount.  For example, if you were earning $100,000 in your private life, you could be compensated that amount by your campaign.)  Some argue that this is, in fact, a good reform because it means that you don't have to be a millionaire -- with the ability to go a year without collecting a paycheck -- in order to afford to run for office.

Tom DeLay is the most effective conservative in America.  Liberals are mad at him -- and sick of losing.  Their only outlet for revenge is to get DeLay.  The sad part is that some on our side will not defend him.

That I absolutely despise DeLay.  But, if he falls, it should be for something real (i.e., actual corruption) or because his constituents figure out that, though he can fundraise and pork it out with the best of them, he's a crappy Representative.  It shouldn't be because he happens to pay his wife as a campaign consultant (or the like).

By the way, I'll grant anyone that DeLay's arrangement with his wife smells a bit.  But not everything that smells has actually gone bad.  Like limburger cheese.

See my comment above.

"If DeLay ultimately goes, it seems clear to me that it will be for none of the ethical reasons that most of the people I know actually care about -- the fact that he broke the bounds of ethical governance to pass the Medicare bill; the fact that he attempted to twist the ethics rules for no one's gain but his own; the fact that he has lied to conservatives' faces and sold them out behind the scenes"  -

Whatever. You cannot bring the SOB down, if he changes the ethics panel and replaces a Republican no less with another Republican that is friendlier to him. As for, Mr. Earle; he has gone after crooks - whether democratic or republican - in fact more democrats by a bigger than 2 to 1 margin. I am sure conservatives weren't whining when he was bring charges against democrats. It just so happens that Delay is republican,  are you saying that if Mr Earle was republican he would look the other way?

If being conservative - means be truthful then go after ALL the crooks regardless of politics.

-jason

Bring some sources next time.

You cited nothing that is a defense against a) violating ethics rules or b) getting indicted (if he does).  

Tom DeLay is the most effective conservative in America.  Liberals are mad at him -- and sick of losing.  Their only outlet for revenge is to get DeLay.  The sad part is that some on our side will not defend him.

1. Most effective: Tell President Bush that.
   
2. Their only outlet: Even if it's true it shows we shouldn't have one so ethically compromised as a leader.
   
3. Sad: What is your sad is your complete inability to mount a defense that relies on substance rather than just attacking what you perceive as non-loyal Republicans.
   

I'm mixing a couple-three metaphors here, but I mean that it smells bad when you're about fifty feet away.  When you get up close -- like you did in your post -- you can tell that there's nothing there.

I agree that it's perfect legitimate -- perhaps even wise -- to employ family members on campaigns.  But I'm equally convinced that average person, who has never worked on a campaign and probably will spend about ten seconds thinking about on this story, wouldn't initially see it that way.

Or perhaps he could bring a decent stab at sentence and paragraph structure.

If you're (and by "you", I mean observer) not close enough to actually understand the issue - I'm not terribly concerned about explaining it. What I am is sick and tired of this idea that - OMG, if there's a whiff of something, we ought to pass a law to make sure you can't do that. Cripes.

E.g., McCain-Feingold.  (Mitch McConnell earned by eternal respect for braving the polls and being the only reasonable person in the room.)

all you want Matt, but the charges aren't baseless.  There are definitely some questions that need to be answered, and since I'm an unapolegetic Democratic partisan, I hope they get the answers.  But I agree, his removal should be based on the truth and not on falsities.  

Also, saying Democrats are sore losers isn't really a good argument IMO, because alot of these allegations were being brought up before the 2004 election.  The Democratic sharks may be moving in now because of politics and the publicity, but well, that's politics.  A party that has no power in the Executive or Legilative branches has to play hardball to be effective.  Attacking what many politicos have called a pretty arrogant and mean man is not a bad choice to make.  

And another thing to consider is he may be effective because he skirts the rules.  Or maybe he's just that good.    

is that we are in a war.  Sure, it's a culture war -- but it's a war, nonetheless.  Big decisions are being made.  Decisions like: Do we want a "culture of life" or a "culture of death?"  Now (as is the case in the war on terror) the fact that the stakes are high doesn't mean that our side can break the rules.  Far from it.  

However, I've noticed there are some Americans who are outraged by Abu Ghraib; yet don't bat an eyelash when it comes to atrocities committed by terrorists.  Likewise, I've noticed there are some conservatives who are drooling over the chance to get DeLay, but don't seem too concerned about stopping liberals.  This is the political version of the, "Hate America First" crowd.  Instead, it's the, "Hate Republicans First" crowd.  

I'm not sure how your response relates to either krempasky's stylistic post or mine.  ;-)

do required some sort of formal verification that the person was at work during the time period they are being paid for.

But ever salaried job I've ever been in has had no such system in place.

Where have you been working?  I've never even had a salaried job that required even a contract, much less attendance verfication.

Perhaps he is referring to the reporting that has to be done for various state and federal reporting for payroll, worker's comp, state unemployment, etc that assumes salaried employess work a certain number of hours.  In Oregon, where I reside, for a salaried worker that is considered full-time the assumed hours are 173.33 or 176.  I can't recall exactly, but it a number like that.  Half time workers are figured at half that and so on.

Were the family members paid as employees or as independent contractors?  67K or so a year is nice work if you can get it, partucularily if they don't work full time.

But while Delay is not the leader of the Party, he is certainly the most conservative guy in the leadership.

most about politics today.  Doesn't it compromise yourself and your ideals if you support a dirty politician simply because he is on your side?

Now--before you flame back at me, I meant that as a hypothetical.  I have no way of knowing whether or not DeLay is 'dirty' other than what is reported in the press.  My point is simply that treating politics like a sport where you support your guys simply because they are your guys just belies the principles that you fight for.  

What do you stand for if you support corruption in the name of your principles?

A campaign or re-election fund.  That's not how it works, people.

Earle = it's not enough to say "He's gone after Dems as well."

Closer inspection will show you that Earle's gone after Democrats... who happen to be his political enemies.  This is Texas, remember?

But can we save the "we're in a war" speeches for, umm, actual wars.

It's not a war over DeLay.  It's a shouting match, and it's mostly between partisans.  Baseball is more dangerous -- and, in some respects, more consequential.  Republicans will survive the loss of DeLay if he goes, just as Democrats will survive (and maybe even improve) if DeLay remains in place.

(Nor is there a culture war or a war on drugs for that matter.  Well, at least outside of Iraq (the former) and Columbia (the latter).)

Football - definitely.

Baseball - nah.

"Except John McCain. He gets no quarter from me."

What is this thing Conservatives have against war heros?

ColOmbia.

(still smarting from being called on this myself.)

My bad.  Apparently, I had South Carolina on my mind.

jk...  funny comment.  I personally don't like DeLay at all, but if the people in his district are dumb enough to keep sending him back to Congress, who am I to complain?

The problem is that his being efficient will be enough reason for the New York Times and its handmaidens in the Democrat Party to declare him/her "controversial", "arch-conservative", "theocrat", etc.

In other words, should he prove to be competent and efficient, he would have 75 ethics charges filed against him everyday and the Times would print innuendous stories about him being overheard to say "keep the whites and the coloreds separate" while "forgeting" to add that he was in a laundromat with his ten year old son at the time.

Unless, of course, they build a career on being mealy mouthed, self-serving scumbags that will sell out any principle to get more camera time.

Re: But ever salaried job I've ever been in has had no such system in place.

How do they know if you even worked? Or when you took a sick day or a vacation day?

I just got moevd up to salary, but I still have to swipe the time clock each day to show I was in. At other salaried positions I had to submit (usually online) a detailed time report for each day I worked.

I can't believe that any serious business would not want to keep at least some basic tabs on its employees like this. (Obviously a campaign is not a real business and is not looking to turn a profit or gauge worker productivity so I could understand if the Delays did not have to report on their time.)

"to declare him/her "controversial", "arch-conservative", "theocrat", etc."

Honestly, don't you think he brings some of that on himself?

Guess you were asleep at the wheel for bankruptcy reform, class action reform, the rise of a new government in Iraq...

I can't believe you just said that.  I mean just because he served his country honorably he doesn't get a free pass to run the country into the ground just to fuel his ego?  I don't know who you are any more krempasky.  Where's the hero worship?

Come on guys, if your going to rally the wagons, pick a more worthy recipient. When you have to go after more than one of your own people and nueter the ethics committee to protect someone, then perhaps you should think twice. Whether DeLay is corrupt or not it looks really bad. (not a regular red state person-I'm responding to a comment solicitation after reading your story)