Redstate

You're just wrong Matt.  Every piece of your diary makes sense, but you've missed the forest for the trees.  Not to mention the fact that you've insulted some very good conservative Republicans with impeccable credentials in the process.




Unfortunately, I'll have to play the Thomas Card for now and get back to this later today.

But I know that I, as a general rule, agree with Matt's premise - that we ought not take our marching orders from the left, nor allow them to make our personnel decisions for us.

And in this case, yes, I think DeLay ought to be defended - IF ONLY - to ensure that we're not flat-out discouraging any conservative to take a leadership role after DeLay.

Well I can't defend my own since it is a) poor form and b) requires identification, but I'd be curious to see which category you think trevino falls in? an appeaser? a dilatant [sic]? or politically naive?




Of course, maybe he doesn't believe that raising the issue of what a debacle DeLay has caused is tantamount to being anti-DeLay, but I took it to mean that he does.

When Newt Gingrich was under fire, many conservatives claimed that to not support Newt was to support the liberals after his hide.  The argument then, as now with DeLay, was that Newt was the face of the Conservative movement and his defeat would deal a death blow to the movement.

Simple question:  Was the Conservative movement more  powerful then (when Newt was under fire), or is it more powerful now?

The Conservative movement will survive Tom DeLay's ouster just fine. If he's corrupt, he needs to be taken down. And the overwhelming evidence suggests he is corrupt.

But from a purely political perspective, making Tom DeLay the face of the GOP in general and conservatives specifically seems like a recipe for disaster.

and a damn good political gladiator, and that's why I want him taken down a few notches.  Becuase you're right Matt, as a Democrat I think he's playing politics in a way that our boys haven't caught onto yet, and he's bludgeoning us with it (I mean, c'mon, he's called the Hammer for a reason).  His ethical standards are a bit below the norm, though, which makes him an easy target.  But realize what you're saying Matt, politics can get dirty, but usually the great politicians get their hands dirty to lift up their countrymen (and I admit, to help themselves along, too).  Not so much to only boost their own party and nothing else.  And quite frankly, I don't agree that his ideas or his ideology are good ones, and I think he's more of a partisan operative than a legislator.  If he gets taken down for playing too dirty only in the interest of his party, I'd have to say, good riddance.  

I have no clue how playing golf in Scotland is being dirty pursuing the interests of the party.

to Republican interests, escorts you and your family and pays for the whole thing it's not considered, shall we say, on the up and up.

I'm glad my first diary posting was so non-controversial.  I'd like to address a few points:

• A few folks have said that, "If DeLay is corrupt, he should go down."  I purposefully didn't address that point because there are no serious allegations that there was any wrong doing.  My premise (and I stick to this) is that DeLay is being attacked because he is effective.  Period.  So the real argument is whether or not conservatives should abandon him for PR reasons.
• The Gingrich analogy is a false one.  Gingrich made himself a "lighting rod" by seeking publicity.  You couldn't turn on the TV without seeing him -- his name ID was at like 95 percent.  Conversely, DeLay has become a lighting rod -- not thru self promotion -- but by increasing Republican seats.  As such, I believe our defense of him should be more vigorous.
• Lastly, I certainly do not intend for this posting to personally attack any single person.  Let me say that I greatly admire the good work Redstate does.  And as I stated, "A lot has been written" about this subject.  And that's entirely true.  However, I will risk offending some in order to defend great Americans like Tom DeLay and Morton Blackwell.  

that the relationship/trip violated House ethics rules or Federal lobbying rules?

I think he has a pretty good article on the subject - but I think he gives too much credence to the garbage accusations in Texas.

If foreign junkets were illegal, we might get our wish - reduced traffic around the beltway, and no laws passed at all, since there'd be like 12 members of Congress left.

I don't believe there's any laws on the books about such things.  McCain-Feingold doesn't even cover that as far as I know.  And I'm not saying he should be indicted for a trip like that, but he could be stripped from House Republican leadership status.  From what I've gleaned from this whole thing, most of the allegations about the dealings in Texas are BS, but many things associated with his actions in Washington seem to be true.

extensive and exhaustive House rules governing any possible activity you may have with a lobbyist or contributor.

That's why I'm asking if you are contending that DeLay's contacts with the purported lobbyist broke the rules?

"A Member, officer, or employee of the House of Representatives shall not accept gifts (other than personal hospitality of an individual or with a fair market value of $100 or less) * * * in any calendar year aggregating more than * * * $250, * * * directly or indirectly, from any person (other than from a relative) except to the extent permitted by written waiver granted in exceptional circumstances by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct pursuant to clause 4(e)(1)(E) of rule X."

So, yeah, I'm saying he broke House Ethics rules.  He's saying he was not aware of any money recieved by a lobbying firm for the trip.  That's for someone else to decide besides me, I don't know the hardcore details or even have access to them, but from what I understand and see in this case, he broke the rules.  

That is spelled incorrectly.  Should be dilettantes -- A dabbler in an art or a field of knowledge.

Just trying to clear up what you meant.

The following members were along for the ride:

Reps' McDermott; Earl Pomeroy, D-N.D.; Eni Faleomavaega, D-American Samoa; Michael Honda, D-Calif.; Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla.; Ander Crenshaw, R-Fla., and John Carter, R-Texas.

Additionally, aides for other members attended.  For example, an aide to Nancy Pelosi was on that particular trip.  All said and done, more than 2 dozen members were involved.

Why doesn't the press ever mention this?  

is and ought to be the face of the GOP. Mr. Delay is a grandstanding egotist if he thinks he's more important than the president.

I honestly didn't know that, I'll have to look more closely at the situation.  And this is why I come on here, I'd rather get facts than a choir.

Tom DeLay either broke the law and/or House ethics rules or he did not.  It is by no means certain that he did not.

If he broke the law or the ethics rules, he should pay the price.  If that means conservatives lose an effective political operator, that's too bad for you.  Choose your leadership more carefully next time.

If you all want to lash yourself to Tom Delay's mast, you may find yourself going down with his ship.  If that seems like a worthwhile exercise to you, mazel tov.

Cheers -

and I found this: "The trip to Britain by the DeLays previously attracted notice because Abramoff submitted an expense voucher to Preston Gates seeking a reimbursement of $12,789.73 to cover expenses for meals, hotels and transportation incurred by the DeLays, the Hirschmanns and a former DeLay chief of staff -- lobbyist Ed Buckham -- who also went on the trip."  

It comes from the washingtonpost.com website...www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/ wp-dyn/A28252-2005Mar11?language=printer.

I'm thinking the reason they don't mention the others is because the trip wasn't a violation, who paid for it was.  Honestly, I haven't seen any reports of the other attendees you mentioned.  Can you throw me a bone and tell me where there might be some info on that.

It is by no means certain that he did not.

Similarly it is by no means certain that he did. What annoys me even more is that quite a few other Representatives went on the same trip with him, with some aides representing their bosses, Nancy Pelosi's included.

But the Left and their friends in the Press are trying to push the GOP to dump DeLay without him actually being proven to have done anything wrong. At this point I can only conclude that it's only because he has handed them defeat after defeat after defeat.

Matt's not advocating that we lash ourselves to Tom DeLay ... just that he deserves the benefit of the doubt. We shouldn't throw him overboard just because y'all on the Left and your friends in the Press have already convicted him without a trial.

What with the New York Times now virtually point-blank accusing John Cornyn of advocating the murder of judges, we can't afford to be nothing less than hard-assed.

At firth blush, it does seem as though Tom DeLay is being held to a standard that other Congressmen are not be held to.  Certainly DeLay is not entitled to the job of Majority Leader.  But the fact that the Left doesn't like DeLay is not an adequate reason for removing him.  

One way to hold Tom DeLay accountable is to allow him to go before the voters every two years, both in the Republican primary and in the general election.  The fact that DeLay has been a reasonably effective political operator should not be ignored in this discussion either.  

Newt Gingrich was accused of violating the ethics rules of the House because Gingrich offended the Leftish values of socialism and moral nihilism.  We should not allow the Democrats to continue, as they have in the past, to abuse the ethics system of the House as a means of punishing politicians with whom they disagree.  

If the Democrats want to get rid of Tom DeLay, let them try winning elections outside of San Francisco and New York City.

from National Journal's Hotline, March 14, 2005:

"Within the last week alone, a slew of news stories have documented a growing body of evidence that ethics rules governing congressional travel may have been violated" by DeLay, Reps. John Carter (R-TX), Ander Crenshaw (R-FL), Tom Feeney (R-FL), Mike Honda (D-CA), Jim McDermott (D-WA), Bob Ney (R-OH), Earl Pomeroy (D-ND), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (D-FL), Del. Eni Faleomavaega (D-AS) and aides, "including those working for DeLay, Pelosi and other Members."

The liberals are attacking him because he's effective.  Period.  

Wrong.  They are attacking him because the attacks are effective.  Why are they effective?  At least some of them are grounded in undeniable facts.  




First, Tom DeLay has violated house ethics rules.  The posters (here, here) that say "it is not certain" are simply not aware of the facts. As far as the new charges go it would be correct to say that there has been no finding of violations, but he has violated the rules.


Second, Tom DeLay has disgraced the caucus by allowing (pushing?) the changing of a) ethics rules and b) ethics committee membership.  Does no one remember 1993-1994?  We claimed to hold ourselves to a higher standard.  


Third, he may be indicted.  If he is, he must go as leader.  Why? Not for the underlying conduct but for the fact of the indictment.  Regardless of what lawyers may know about how easy it is to get an indictment or what conservatives may believe about the substance of the allegations the indictment itself is deadly to our credibility.  If he can beat the charges than more power to him, but he shouldn't be one of our standard bearers in the house until he has cleared his name.




I'll (hopefully) respond to the ad hominem portion of your diary later.