With DeLay Indicted, will 2006 Resemble 1994 — or 1998?
In the wake of Tom DeLay’s indictment on one count of criminal conspiracy, Democrats are crowing. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi sees a “culture of corruption” in the GOP while even some conservatives fear that the current Republican Congress resembles the Democratic Congress of 1993-94, the last one where Ms. Pelosi’s party had a majority in the House.
Some Democrats (and even a few Republicans) believe that they can use the corruption charge against the GOP and so regain the majority they had enjoyed for all but four of the sixty-two years prior to 1994. That year, Republicans ran against the Democrats’ liberal and spendthrift policies, their corruption and abuse of power and put forward a positive reform agenda, The Contract with America. They won a majority in the House (and the Senate) and have had uninterrupted control (of the House) ever since.
While I’m no fan of Tom DeLay, I believe the charges that Travis County (TX) District Attorney Ronnie Earle leveled against him are baseless, a political vendetta by a prosecutor who routinely indicts his political adversaries. Earle’s political indictments rarely result in conviction. But, the focus on DeLay should remind us how far House Republicans, under his leadership, have strayed from the conservative reform agenda which brought them to power just over a decade ago. Ankle Biting Pundits observes:
Clearly the Congressional GOP has lost much of its bearings, and is turning into the 1992-1993 version of the Congressional Democrats. And the question arises, what’s the point of having a majority if that majority doesn’t stand for anything useful? If the result is more of the same spending binges, nonchalance on the issue of illegal immigration, an expansion of the welfare state (i.e. Medicare Modernization Act), and the lack of backbone when it comes to cutting taxes permanently and reforming Social Security, then what have we really won?
(HT: Instapundit & Polipundit‘s Lorie Byrd.) Unlike that last Democratic Congress, however, there is already grumbling within the majority ranks. Under the leadership of Indiana Republican Mike Pence, the House Republican Study Committee [RSC] has “proposed “budget options” that would cut spending by as much as $102 billion in one year.”
The RSC’s “Operation Offset” calls for Congress to offset costs of the recovery from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita with cuts in other federal programs. With his zeal to hold the line on federal spending, Pence resembles Newt Gingrich in the 1980s and 90s, when the future Speaker challenged the leadership of then-minority House Republicans to press for reform. That is, just like the 103rd Congress, the last with a Democratic Majority, the impetus for change in the 109th remains in the GOP, even though our party now holds a majority.
The next few months will be crucial for the GOP. If congressional Republicans can continue their record of accomplishment while holding the line on spending and cutting and/or eliminating wasteful federal programs, they will prove their worth and so give conservative voters a reason to come out and vote to keep them in power. But, if they don’t, it could be 1994 all over again, particularly if Democrats next fall do as the GOP did eleven years ago and offer a positive agenda in their campaigns.
Or, it could be the Democrats’ 1998. That year, Republicans thought they had won the lottery when Americans learned that President Clinton had lied under oath in his testimony in Paula Jones’ sexual harassment suit against him. Instead of promoting reform as they had in 1994, congressional Republicans ran against Clinton, his dishonesty and corruption. Not having anything to vote for, many Republicans stayed home that fall. Democrats made unexpected (and nearly unprecedented) gains in the House.
In 1998, the GOP learned that just running against corruption is not enough. So far, the Democrats don’t seem to have learned that lesson. Gloating over DeLay’s indictment and already running against GOP corruption, today’s Democrats resemble the Republicans of 1998. That could change.
The next few months could give us a clue as to whether 2006 will resemble 1998 or 1994. If House Republican Leaders work with Pence and the RSC and take seriously their suggestions for budget cuts, Republicans could pick up a few seats and make it possible to keep their hold on Congress for years to come. If, however, Republicans continue with Tom DeLay’s pork-barrel politics, we could see a repeat of 1994, only with the Democrats throwing out a spendthrift majority. But, in 1994, the Republicans had a positive message for change. And today’s Democrats’ only agenda seems to be to attack President Bush and any policy he proposes.
Let’s hope House Republicans follow the lead of Mike Pence and rediscover the spirit which animated The Contract with America so our party can once again become the party of reform. And as we cut the size of government, we help fulfill the legacy of the greatest American president of the second half of the twentieth century, Ronald Wilson Reagan.
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com
UPDATE–The Wall Street Journal reaches a conclusion similar to my own:
The real danger for Republicans now isn’t ethics; it is that, like those 1994 Democrats, they seem to have grown more comfortable presiding over the government than changing it.The path back to public approval, and re-election next year, is to return to their principles. Respond to the economic damage of Katrina by making energy exploration and production less burdensome. Help sustain the current expansion by making the Bush tax cuts permanent, repealing the death tax as they’ve promised for years and taking a stab at larger tax reform. If Social Security is too daunting, then turn to health care, by passing free-market reforms that lower the cost of insurance so employers can give larger wage increases instead of paying ever more for health care. And restore Medicaid to the program for the poor that it was designed to be instead of a middle-class subsidy for long-term care.
52 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Nothing will come of the indictment. It will be just like Hutchinson all over again. Everybody will see that Earle has nothing and it won’t go anywhere.
The whole point was to get DeLay off of his position and cast doubt, even for a little while. Earle’s not looking for justice. If he were, he would have let it alone like his associates told him to do.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 30, 2005 @ 3:38 am - September 30, 2005
Like you, I have never much cared for DeLay. He is far too oily of a politician. But he is slickly presenting the indictment to the base as a political attack by a liberal democrat, aided by the left-wing media. Because the base despises the left-wing media, he could get traction there.
Byron York has an interesting piece on Ronnie Earle. Apparently, in addition to extorting bribes from corporations in return for dropping indictments, he’s been taking a film crew into Grand Jury proceedings. Gee, nothing says “public integrity” like bringing a film crew to record your exploits.
Comment by V the K — September 30, 2005 @ 5:53 am - September 30, 2005
On the other hand, it’s entirely possible that Karl Rove arranged for the indictment in order to distract attention from the Bush Administration’s failure to find Natalee Holloway.
Comment by V the K — September 30, 2005 @ 7:17 am - September 30, 2005
OMG!
An actually relevant thread.
What will become of this blog?
Let us pray for a slight yet dynamic shift back to the middle.
Comment by chandler in hollywood — September 30, 2005 @ 9:14 am - September 30, 2005
Clearly the Congressional GOP has lost much of its bearings, and is turning into the 1992-1993 version of the Congressional Democrats.
======================
Which means they are individuals representing the best interests of their home districts unencumbered by WH lock step goose stepping.
Thank God it is finally happening.
The downside is that it will get more of them reelected.
The culture of corruption and cronyism, it has a nice ring to it.
Comment by chandler in hollywood — September 30, 2005 @ 9:20 am - September 30, 2005
It –the Congress (House & Senate)– under Republican leadership reminds me of the adage: Power corrupts. Whether it was their failure to lead on SS reform, trim spending, fix the pro-tax culture in the fed govt, or push federalism to a meaningful constructive result, this Congressional leadership on the Republican side has failed miserably.
The Speaker is looking and sounding more like Tip O Neil everyday, and some of the Republican leadership antics make Lloyd Bensen, Jim Wright, Dan Rostenkowski, Robert Torricelli, and Jim Traficant look like boy scouts on jamboree.
Where’s the Newt when we need him? How did the “conservative movement” get lost in the shuffle of office suites in Congressional buildings? Power corrupts.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — September 30, 2005 @ 10:02 am - September 30, 2005
GayPatriotWest, why do you “believe the charges that Travis County (TX) District Attorney Ronnie Earle leveled against him (DeLay) are baseless”? Is it because you don’t think the action charged in the indictment actually occurred, because you don’t think that action’s illegal, or because you don’t think DeLay had any involvement in it?
Comment by Queer Patriot — September 30, 2005 @ 12:05 pm - September 30, 2005
QP, I believe they’re baseless because there’s not much there there. As legal analyst Barbara Comstock puts it, “Ronnie Earle has a history of using his office for attacks on his political and personal enemies.” He indicted Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, but the case was dismissed even before the trial began. Having read the indictment, Mark Levin “can’t find a single sentence tying Tom DeLay to a crime.” In his press conference on Wednesday, Earle did not provide concrete answers a question about Mr. DeLay’s role in the conspiracy nor did he offer any proof of Mr. DeLay’s conspiracy.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — September 30, 2005 @ 12:20 pm - September 30, 2005
Horsehockey. Earle has prosecuted 12 democrats and 3 republicans — which might be taken as evidence that democrats are more corrupt than republicans, but certainly puts the lie to the insinuation that he’s just a partisan hack. Earle’s explanation for the discrepancy is that “you have to have power to abuse it.” Oh yeah, he’s really partisan. Furthermore, if he were on an anti-Republican jihad and wanted to file a baseless allegation, he could have done it at any time…how about right before the last election? No, sirs, he waited until they found incontrovertible evidence before they went after this guy, I’m sure of it. Oh, you might also want to add, it’s not Earle that does the indicting: it’s a grand jury of DeLay’s peers.
Comment by Andy — September 30, 2005 @ 2:04 pm - September 30, 2005
Let us pray for a slight yet dynamic shift back to the middle.
Q: Why did the moderate centrist chicken cross the road?
A: To get to the middle.
The culture of corruption and cronyism, it has a nice ring to it.
Yes, Jim Wright, Ross Perot, the TANG documents…
Oh, I’m sorry… you WERE referring to the Texas Democratic Party, weren’t you?
Uh, weren’t you?
Comment by Frank IBC — September 30, 2005 @ 2:32 pm - September 30, 2005
Backatcha, Andy.
Earle is working in a historically very Democrat county – how could he not indict Democrats? Big red herring you raised there.
Maybe your Kos/DNC/MoveOn talking points people can give you answers to these real questions:
- why doesn’t the indictment actually charge DeLay with something? (Indictments are supposed to….This one doesn’t)
- why did Earle boast of the indictment at a partisan fundraiser in 2004? (do you think part of his job is to boast of partisan indictments, to raise money for one of the parties?)
- why was Earle’s previous indictment of Kay Bailey Hutchinson such a total crock?
- when will Hillary be indicted for her egregious campaign finance violations?
To be clear: I don’t care if DeLay lives or dies. (Not a Republican here.)
I just don’t like indictments reaching the level of such cheap partisanship. America is (or should be) a place where the law isn’t so blatantly partisan.
Comment by joe — September 30, 2005 @ 2:33 pm - September 30, 2005
Horsehocky, Andy?
I said that he uses his office for attacks on his political enemies. And one can have political enemies in his own party. Remember that Mr. Earle has been in this business for sometime and the Republicans only recently gained dominance in Lone Star politics.
OK, you say he has “incontrovertible evidence,” then why doesn’t it show up in his indictment, what didn’t he mention it in his press conference?
Comment by GayPatriotWest — September 30, 2005 @ 4:34 pm - September 30, 2005
Hey Andy!
Why don’t you ask Chumpler or Moron.org how many grand juries “of his peers” did it take to finally get this weak indictment?
Why wasn’t Pelosi indicted?
What happened to the Ethics Committee investigation that the liberals were demanding a few months ago?
#11
I think that fundraiser was in May of this year rather than 2004.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 30, 2005 @ 5:54 pm - September 30, 2005
I could care less what happens to Delay but what is a concern is the Republican party seems to have taken steps backwards.
With Bush doing nothing with this Iraq mess, lousy inital response to Katrina, record deficits, and an OPEN Border the Republicans seem to be the Keystone cops.
With key Republicans in trouble now or in the past (Rove, Bush, Delay, Lott, & Frist the American will no longer look to the Republicans to lead.
So far the Republicans have lead us down a path that have given us nothing but pork filled bills, debt, and over 1800 soldiers dead in a country that don’t even want us in there.
2006 will be a year of change for politicans.
Comment by Andrew — September 30, 2005 @ 5:58 pm - September 30, 2005
Won’t it also depend on the Democrats? I mean, they thought “We Hate Bush” was a winning platform in 2004. Do they think “We Hate DeLay” will work in 2006?
It’s like Democrats had a legitimate criticism in 2004 when they talked about Bush spending recklessly. However, the argument was undercut when their nominee proposed $2.5 trillion in additional spending beyond what Bush wanted to spend. It will be hard to make the corruption thing stick when Pelosi, Reid, and many others are apparently far from clean themselves.
Comment by V the K — September 30, 2005 @ 6:00 pm - September 30, 2005
Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — September 30, 2005 @ 6:01 pm - September 30, 2005
With key Republicans in trouble now or in the past (Rove, Bush, Delay, Lott, & Frist the American will no longer look to the Republicans to lead.
Let’s not forget that these were manufactured by the liberals.
BTW, when will Dingy Harry be indicted? Anyone? Anyone?
Chumpler, do you at least have an answer for this?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 30, 2005 @ 6:39 pm - September 30, 2005
#10
Jim Wright’s misgivings look absolutely PRISTINE, quaint, compared to the current Republican Congress.
Comment by chandler in hollywood — September 30, 2005 @ 7:26 pm - September 30, 2005
#18
I didn’t think you would answer the questions. Rather, you seem completely content with spinning instead.
Add to that the fact that you don’t want to be bothered with the details of the corrupt liberals in Congress, do you?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 30, 2005 @ 8:04 pm - September 30, 2005
I love how the Republicans here are convinced they’re immune to the public’s wrath over their party’s culture of corruption. As one of you put pretty well above, you’re just like the Dems of ’93-’94 — you don’t see it coming. Which is fine by me.
Comment by Queer Patriot — September 30, 2005 @ 9:07 pm - September 30, 2005
No. 11, writing “To be clear: I don’t care if DeLay lives or dies. (Not a Republican here.)” The really funny thing in that is you actually think your disclaimer meant something after everything else (pro-Repug, anti-Dem) you had to say in the very same post. Well, at least you’re transparent.
Comment by Queer Patriot — September 30, 2005 @ 9:47 pm - September 30, 2005
Andy-
“Furthermore, if he were on an anti-Republican jihad and wanted to file a baseless allegation, he could have done it at any time…”
He did. The sixth grand jury finally gave him an indictment. Which gives you a hint how likely he is to convince a jury “beyond a reasonable doubt” when he couldn’t convince the first five grand juries to a “preponderance of the evidence” with no defense lawyers making arguments.
Comment by Clint — September 30, 2005 @ 10:26 pm - September 30, 2005
#8
Before joining the Department of Justice, Ms. Comstock served as director of research and strategic planning at the Republican National Committee and was responsible for developing and managing the research operations utilized for the Bush 2000 campaign.
==================================
Ok, she sounds neutral enough.
Comment by chandler in hollywood — September 30, 2005 @ 10:48 pm - September 30, 2005
Ronnie Earle is a political hack and it’s unlikely his flimsy charges against Tom Delay will get very far in a trial court. But Earle has done the Republican Party a favor by knocking the sleazy Delay out of his House leadership post. If common sense prevails — and I often wonder whether there’s any common sense among House Republicans — Delay won’t be restored to the majority leader post.
David Brooks, the New York Times’ conservative op-ed columnist, has an excellent column telling of Delay’s rise to power and how his sleazy brand of partisanship has poisoned relationships in the House and corrupted the principles of Republicanism.
I have felt ever since the House Republican majority arrogantly tried to intervene in the Terri Schiavo tragedy that it’s likely the GOP will lose control of the House in 2006.
Comment by Jack L. Allen — October 1, 2005 @ 12:43 am - October 1, 2005
I have heard/seen much bad about DeLay as well. Earle’s indictment of him sure looks like a win-win for the Republicans!
Why? Either it helps the House Republicans dislodge a King of the Lobbyists they otherwise couldn’t dislodge, and maybe get back to their 1994 Contract With America principles……..Or…….It’s yet another sick partisan overreach by the liberals that will blow up in the liberals’ faces when its emptiness is revealed…….Or, most likely outcome of all, both.
The quality of the liberals I find most endearing is their cluelessness about “strategery” and how they are constantly shooting themselves in the foot. So they are doing here.
There is simply no outcome to this (based on current information) that can’t help the Republicans, on balance, for 2006.
But it will take the Democrats a very, very long time to realize that. They will see it only in retrospect (after the 2006 elections give them nothing).
Comment by joe — October 1, 2005 @ 1:21 am - October 1, 2005
#20
I love how liberals spooge themselves over nothing. Do you actually think that if you point your finger at DeLay and say “culture of corruption often enough the people will forget all about the corrupt liberals?
Good luck with that one.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 1, 2005 @ 2:22 am - October 1, 2005
No. 26: yes. See, we’ve even got you repeating it for us.
Comment by Queer Patriot — October 1, 2005 @ 8:17 am - October 1, 2005
#26
Well, no because you rise to the litany of Chappaquidic, blow job, habitat for humanity.
Comment by chandler in hollywood — October 1, 2005 @ 12:20 pm - October 1, 2005
How can anybody stomach such hypocrisy. Ms Pac Man hereself , Nancy Pelosi is being investigated for doing the same thing. The only antidote to Senate corruption is term limits.
Comment by republichick — October 1, 2005 @ 1:05 pm - October 1, 2005
WSJ has a good take on all this: http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007330
A few extracts:
“…the four-page indictment isn’t much…[Earle] has a history of indicting political enemies, Democrat and Republican, on flimsy evidence that didn’t hold up in court. In the mid-1980s, he indicted Attorney General Jim Mattox, a rival of his ally Ann Richards, on bribery charges. Mr. Mattox was acquitted and won re-election.
“In 1993, he indicted Kay Bailey Hutchison, who’d just been elected to the U.S. Senate, on charges of misconduct and records tampering. Mr. Earle was forced to drop the case even before it went to trial…
“As for political motive, Mr. DeLay has earned the wrath of Democrats by beating them time and again at their own game. His re-redistricting of the Texas Congressional delegation…his fund-raising and arm-twisting…
“…Our [own] disagreement with the Majority Leader is that, as the GOP cemented itself in power, he let incumbency become more important than the principles that elected him…Mr. DeLay [passed] a giant new Medicare entitlement that will bedevil taxpayers and Republicans for decades…His ethics problems developed because he stood by as former aides and cronies made themselves rich as influence peddlers by invoking his name…”
Again, I can’t see how this isn’t a win-win for the Republicans.
First, they can actually brag about ethics, because it was they, the Republicans, who made the rule that indicted House leaders must immediately step down. (Democrats never had such a rule.) And because Pelosi, Hillary, etc. have done worse campaign finance crimes than DeLay.
Second, an albatross around the Republicans’ necks (DeLay) has conveniently been shot down, without them having to do any painful in-fighting.
And finally, since Earle is in the end a partisan hack engaged in a clear over-reach and abuse of power, the affair is destined to blow up in the Democrats’ faces.
A triple win for the Republicans, as this thing plays out.
Comment by joe — October 1, 2005 @ 1:42 pm - October 1, 2005
No. 30, great example of “whistling past the graveyard”.
Comment by Queer Patriot — October 1, 2005 @ 5:25 pm - October 1, 2005
#31
What is it about libs losing again that you can’t understand?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 1, 2005 @ 6:52 pm - October 1, 2005
That’s the problem…..
You keep saying: “Winning or losing” per party. We all win…or…we all lose. Don’t you understand that?
How about America? Newt was never like this and it worked to help solidify the country, even during a split of parties.
Comment by monty — October 1, 2005 @ 8:19 pm - October 1, 2005
#27
The difference is that I’m not hoping like hell that everybody ignores the corruption of Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy, Schumer, Kerry, the two N.M. treasurers etc. We could also add Trafficant and Condit etc.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 1, 2005 @ 8:57 pm - October 1, 2005
TGC,
I guess that covers it.
Comment by monty — October 1, 2005 @ 9:17 pm - October 1, 2005
#34
As a Nevadan, an knowing the investigation that goes on when someone works for the Nevada Gaming Comission, I would be interested in your expose of corruption concerning Harry Reid. In fact, Harry was instrumental in busting a bribery ring in Las Vegas as documented by the FBI.
Comment by chandler in hollywood — October 2, 2005 @ 11:26 am - October 2, 2005
One question about the “culture of corruption.” Has a single Bush Administration figure been actually convicted or found guilty of anything?
Comment by V the K — October 2, 2005 @ 5:18 pm - October 2, 2005
Referring to No. 37: Isn’t it a little early for that boast Vlad? The indictments, arrests and resignations are only beginning.
Comment by Queer Patriot — October 2, 2005 @ 5:40 pm - October 2, 2005
Tell ya what, QowPie. I’ll make a bet with you. If Tom DeLay is convicted on the conspiracy charge, or if Karl Rove is convicted of whatever it is you think he did in the Plame game, I’ll pledge never to post at GP again if you will similarly pledge that if Tom DeLay is not convicted of the charge, and if Karl Rove is similarly exonerated of breaking any law in connection with Plame, you will also pledge never to post at GP again. Deal?
Comment by V the K — October 3, 2005 @ 7:52 am - October 3, 2005
LOL
Comment by joe — October 3, 2005 @ 12:13 pm - October 3, 2005
Vlad, why do you seem so intent on stifling QP’s opinion? You’re presumably a big boy. Can’t you take it?
Comment by Queer Patriot — October 3, 2005 @ 10:37 pm - October 3, 2005
With DeLay Indicted, will 2006 Resemble 1994 — or 1998?
=========================================
Shouldn’t that be GayPatriot updated to:
With DeLay Indicted TWICE , will 2006 Resemble 1998, 1994 or 1974?
Comment by chandler in hollywood — October 4, 2005 @ 1:05 am - October 4, 2005
I’ll take #41 to mean QP thinks the chances of an actual conviction are pretty slim.
Comment by V the K — October 4, 2005 @ 6:16 am - October 4, 2005
And the whole Vlad the Impaler thing is dead sexy. What with the metaphorical impaling and all.
Comment by V the K — October 4, 2005 @ 6:38 am - October 4, 2005
It IS sexy, isn’t it Vlad. We all need to get something out of these exchanges other than endless bickering, eh?
Re: actual conviction…haven’t a clue (though the money laundering charge of yesterday seems an accurate way to describe the $190,000 back and forth).
Comment by Queer Patriot — October 4, 2005 @ 8:32 am - October 4, 2005
And the whole Vlad the Impaler thing is dead sexy. What with the metaphorical impaling and all.
Comment by V the K
===========================
One killer prick to another.
H@@@
Comment by chandler in hollywood — October 4, 2005 @ 8:59 am - October 4, 2005
It is a shifty transaction. So, how come Ronnie Earle isn’t going after an identical $70,000 transaction the Texas Democrats made on the same day? Kind of odd.
Comment by V the K — October 4, 2005 @ 9:07 am - October 4, 2005
So, how come Ronnie Earle isn’t going after an identical $70,000 transaction the Texas Democrats made on the same day? Kind of odd.
Comment by V the K
========================
Is it possible the money went out of state and stayed out of state?
No, THAT couldn’t be possible.
Comment by chandler in hollywood — October 4, 2005 @ 12:32 pm - October 4, 2005
No. 47, glad we agree. Answer to your question: don’t know. Give him a call and ask.
Comment by Queer Patriot — October 4, 2005 @ 2:01 pm - October 4, 2005
#46. No, it isn’t.
Comment by V the K — October 4, 2005 @ 3:43 pm - October 4, 2005
#48. No, it isn’t
Comment by V the K — October 4, 2005 @ 3:44 pm - October 4, 2005
#50
&
#51
Is so.
Comment by chandler in hollywood — October 5, 2005 @ 7:55 pm - October 5, 2005