WSJ Slashes Tom DeLay's Throat

[Pangloss]

The Wall Street Journal, in today's official editorial, has finally thrown in the towel on Tom DeLay. As you may know, the Journal is one of the few strongly conservative editorial voices in the mainstream print media (the Washington Times and the New York Post are the other two "big" names that leap to mind, but the Journal really has the most clout). They do a very good job of offering counterpoint on their op/ed pages, but their official opinions are always strongly conservative. Because of those alternate voices (it's quite a popular thing for well-known liberals and moderates to write op/eds for the Journal), the "Opinion Journal" is one of my regular stops on the Internet. (http://www.opinionjournal.com -- one of the two places on the Internet worth registering for, IMO, the other being the NY Times)

 

(The Journal, by the way, is where Bernard Goldberg slit his own throat rather spectacularly, accusing his own network of media bias, leading to his ouster at CBS News and a new career as a writer. But it's amazing how many famous people of leftward persuation have written op/eds for the Journal. Former presidents often write for this page. I think it has just become generally accepted that it's a conservative paper, but as I said, they are extremely consistent about offering liberal op/ed of extremely high quality, very often. Much like the way the New York Times offers conservative op/ed.)

 

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006479

 

It requires registration to view, so I'll quote some highlights below. You can also get a login name and password from http://www.bugmenot.com.

 

The key thing here is that they're basically saying DeLay is f*cked. Look for this to more or less mark the end his career. When the Wall Street Journal throws in the towel on a conservative politician, you pretty much know it's over. It's also a pretty good run-down and general summary of the issue, in terms of what exactly he did and why it's a problem.

 

 

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.

...

Finally, there are the junkets, three in particular.

 

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.

 

(It's worth noting that they don't say anything about DeLay using Terri Schiavo as a distraction. That's probably because the Journal supported the parents rather vociferously. They were almost as ardent about it as Fox News Channel.)

[Dave]

He sounds like a really nice guy. It's such a shame that his career is ending.

 

Or not.

[Pangloss]

Wow, I kinda pushed the vicious button with that subject line, didn't I? I came back to the board and just noticed that someone had started a really mean-spirited thread about Tom DeLay, and then remembered it was me! (hehe)

 

I must be channeling Al Franken today or something. (grin)

[Phi for All]

I must be channeling Al Franken today or something. (grin)

I've been piping AirAmerica through your computer while you sleep. You still keep your laptop next to the bed, right? mwahaha

 

I think we should start (or join) a non-partisan, grass-roots voter shockwave through the political system, calling for a major denouncement of DeLay's sort of tactics, which are probably more mainstream than we realize. Don't let it become a rallying point for any one party, make it more of a citizen awareness campaign. We provide links to congressional offices and samples of form letters for people to endorse. We shoot for the moon, asking for total political reform, knowing that we will ultimately achieve only two goals: a) politicians will curb the corruption for a year or two, and b) we will raise the awareness level of a few thousand more voters. [/rabble rousing]

[In My Memory]

He's not dead yet! But he's really kicking and screaming to stay alive, according to the Washington Post - GOP Pushes Rule Change to Protect DeLay's Post:

House Republicans proposed changing their rules last night to allow members indicted by state grand juries to remain in a leadership post, a move that would benefit Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) in case he is charged by a Texas grand jury that has indicted three of his political associates, according to GOP leaders.

Does anyone remember when that gay marriage ban posed unintended consequences (such as disqualifying unmarried heterosexual couples from domestic abuse)? I think this action is just another case of speedy legislation, and by the time the consequences come to bite the Repubs in the back, the damage will irreparable. I dont think its a smart move for the Repubs to kick the ethics committee to the curb - they are simply digging their own grave.

 

What did Mr. DeLay do by the way? Apparently, something very unethical:

The proposed rule change, which several leaders predicted would win approval at a closed meeting today, comes as House Republicans return to Washington feeling indebted to DeLay for the slightly enhanced majority they won in this month's elections. DeLay led an aggressive redistricting effort in Texas last year that resulted in five Democratic House members retiring or losing reelection. It also triggered a grand jury inquiry into fundraising efforts related to the state legislature's redistricting actions.

Oh my, that is unethical.

 

The WSJ has slit DeLay's throat, but they didnt pour gasoline all over DeLay to prepare for his own fall in a fiery ball of shame - DeLay did that himself.

 

Apparently, Richard Hastings is in place to take Tom DeLay's position when he retires. I cant say I'm truly relieved with that news.

[TimeTraveler]

I'm going to stray off-topic for a second Pangloss, I hope you don't mind. I won't let it become a thread hijacking though!

 

Phi,

 

We shoot for the moon, asking for total political reform, knowing that we will ultimately achieve only two goals: a) politicians will curb the corruption for a year or two, and b) we will raise the awareness level of a few thousand more voters. [/rabble rousing]

 

You seem to think political reform is necessary but unrealistic right now on a major level. What do you think would make it a realistic possibility and how might that be achieved? Just curious to learn more of your views on things, we seem to share alot of the same types of opinions.

[Phi for All]

You seem to think political reform is necessary but unrealistic right now on a major level. What do you think would make it a realistic possibility and how might that be achieved?

Political reform is NEVER unrealistic on any level. I just happen to believe in the rolling boulder theory. It is difficult to sway public opinion in a major way just as it is tough to alter the course of a huge boulder rolling down a hill. The best you can hope for (without upsetting everything, good and bad) are small, gradual changes which alter its course favorably.

 

Personally, I think many of our governmental systems and procedures have been in place so long that everybody involved in them knows exactly how much they can get away with. It's unfortunate that the same process that allows for efficiency also breeds corruption.

 

It's easy to get mired in systems that help and hinder at the same time. Take the budget process. It encourages departments to spend up to the budgetary limits (or more) to justify the same money (or more) for next year. Often funds are spent unnecessarily but the alternative, rewarding managers for cutting expenses, usually means more money for the manager at a cost to departmental service quality.

 

I'm still wrestling with this one, tbh. Part of me thinks we should push gradually for change and part of me thinks that will benefit those who look for exploitable areas. Maybe we need to turn Wash DC upside down and shake it vigorously. Whatever scum is still clinging afterwards MUST be evil.

[TimeTraveler]

I'm still wrestling with this one, tbh. Part of me thinks we should push gradually for change and part of me thinks that will benefit those who look for exploitable areas. Maybe we need to turn Wash DC upside down and shake it vigorously. Whatever scum is still clinging afterwards MUST be evil.

 

Yeah gradual change might not be effective enough, and it seems we are gradually changing in the wrong direction. A u-turn, or major shake up seems necessary. Maybe a civilian owned and operated watch dog organization to keep our government honest, however our government could probably take control of that gradually by buying it off and using it to their benefit. Seems our goverment is becoming a corporation where money is king and the perception of law and order can be purchased. America Inc.

[Phi for All]

Seems our goverment is becoming a corporation where money is king and the perception of law and order can be purchased. America Inc.

Let's get one thing clear here, though. It's not the government's fault that it is being used by corporate greed. Most politicians are voting with the PACs and lobbyists only because the PACs and lobbyists are the ones communicating on a daily basis with them. The PACs and lobbyists are getting OUR representation in government because they are the ones asking for it, not us. If voters did the same thing, believe me, politicians would drop big business just to stay in power.

 

Which is more valuable to the politician, voting a certain way to help promote their projects or voting a certain way in order to stay in office? Millions of emails daily from constituents telling a Congressperson to vote YES or lose voter support come election time would change the way things are done in a heartbeat.

 

Corporate greed counts on our apathy.

[TimeTraveler]

Let's get one thing clear here' date=' though. It's not the government's fault that it is being used by corporate greed. Most politicians are voting with the PACs and lobbyists only because the PACs and lobbyists are the ones communicating on a daily basis with them. The PACs and lobbyists are getting OUR representation in government because they are the ones asking for it, not us. If voters did the same thing, believe me, politicians would drop big business just to stay in power.

 

Which is more valuable to the politician, voting a certain way to help promote their projects or voting a certain way in order to stay in office? Millions of emails daily from constituents telling a Congressperson to vote YES or lose voter support come election time would change the way things are done in a heartbeat.

 

Corporate greed counts on our apathy.[/quote']

 

I agree completely. And I think many activists and protesters are really trying to hammer this point. But, it falls on deaf ears a majority of the time because the stereotype put on activists and protesters, mainly by the media. So how does information become widely known and understood?

[Pangloss]

Well put Phi.

 

TT, you just blew by something really important at 80mph. You agreed with Phi that special interests are too dominant in Washington, and then went on to try and tell us that special interests are trying to hammer this point home. Are you not aware that those "activists and protesters" are special interests?

 

Why would you view them as being any different from corporate lobbyists?