Should DeLay resign

The press shows its bias
Linda Chavez (archive)

April 13, 2005

Tom DeLay is in a heap of trouble -- or so the media would have you believe. For weeks now, the front pages of the Washington Post and New York Times have hammered away at the House majority leader for a series of supposed transgressions. Some editorial staffer at the New York Times went so far as to try to persuade former Republican Congressman Bob Livingston to write an op-ed calling for DeLay to step aside for the good of the party, according to columnist Robert Novak. But what exactly is it that Tom DeLay is alleged to have done? After hundreds of hours of investigative work by the nation's biggest news organizations, the evidence of any actual ethical -- much less legal -- breach is pretty thin. Now contrast the media coverage of l'affaire DeLay with, say, the admission by former Clinton National Security Adviser Samuel "Sandy" Berger that he stole and destroyed classified documents that might have shed light on the Clinton administration's failure to take seriously the threat posed by al Qaeda. No wonder conservatives are a little paranoid about media bias.

Like many members of Congress and their staffs, DeLay has taken trips overseas paid for by third parties. Frankly, I think this is a lousy practice. If members or their staffs need information that can only be gleaned through traveling abroad, then the government should pick up the tab. My guess is there would be fewer trips, but so what? These trips have earned the term "junkets" for good reason. But DeLay is hardly the only member who has taken the largesse of groups trying to influence government.

The congressional ethics rules require these trips to be paid for by so-called 501(c)(3) groups, named for the tax code section that grants them exempt status. But it's silly to suggest that such groups aren't seeking influence (I should know, I've headed up several such organizations over the last 20 years). While they may not be lobbying Congress directly, such groups advocate public policy positions that can only be helped by close association with powerful senators and congressmen. Since money is fungible, it is often difficult to track whether such groups are really providing conduits for corporations or other prohibited groups to pay for the trips indirectly by making tax-deductible contributions to the policy group that then pays for the trip -- which is what the Post has tried to tar DeLay with.

In the most recent charge, the media have accused DeLay of going on a trip to Russia paid for by the National Center for Public Policy Research, which allegedly received donations second- or third-hand from Russian energy interests. So far, there's no proof that DeLay knew about, much less approved, these contributions. He might be guilty of keeping bad company -- lobbyist Jack Abramoff, currently under criminal investigation for some of his activities on behalf of Indian gaming interests, was on the Russia trip and may have ginned up the contributions that paid for it -- but at the time DeLay took the trip, he had no way of knowing how unsavory his companions were. The best way to prevent such abuse would be to prohibit any third party from paying for trips, period. But I don't see many Democrats advocating drastically changing the rules.

Which brings me to my second point. Why is it that the DeLay story has so dominated the media when the story of former Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger's amazing guilty plea produced barely a footnote? The New York Times covered the story April 2 on page 10 with fewer than 600 words. And no one in the national media has seemed very interested in exploring why Berger stole and destroyed highly classified documents. "His motives in taking the documents remain something of a mystery," the usually inquisitive Times noted blandly. The Los Angeles Times (which at least put the story on page 1) ventured this guess as to why Berger took scissors to some copies of the stolen memos but not others: "Berger was notorious for having a desk that looked like it had been hit by a hurricane, and his defenders seemed to be suggesting he had held onto some copies and cut up others in order to avoid losing them." Yeah, right.

Could it be that maybe, just maybe, the hand-written notes in the margins of some documents might have made Berger or Bill Clinton look bad? You can bet if the documents had something to do with a trip by Tom DeLay, there would be 100 reporters assigned to find out.

http://www.benningtonbanner.com/Stories/0,1413,104~8676~2813819,0.html#

Maybe the Democrat outlined in the above post can resign along with DeLay.

"WASHINGTON -- Rep. Bernard Sanders used campaign donations to pay his wife and stepdaughter more than $150,000 for campaign-related work since 2000, according to records filed with the Federal Election Commission.
Jane O'Meara Sanders, his wife, received $91,020 between 2002 and 2004 for "consultation" and for negotiating the purchase of television and radio time-slots for Sanders' advertisements, according to records and interviews."

or maybe, as your post seems to suggest, Bernard Sanders' misuse of funds can be used to excuse DeLays'. That's the standard M.O. right? :wink:

woiyo wrote:

http://www.benningtonbanner.com/Stories/0,1413,104~8676~2813819,0.html#

Maybe the Democrat outlined in the above post can resign along with DeLay.

"WASHINGTON -- Rep. Bernard Sanders used campaign donations to pay his wife and stepdaughter more than $150,000 for campaign-related work since 2000, according to records filed with the Federal Election Commission.
Jane O'Meara Sanders, his wife, received $91,020 between 2002 and 2004 for "consultation" and for negotiating the purchase of television and radio time-slots for Sanders' advertisements, according to records and interviews."

or maybe, as your post seems to suggest, Bernard Sanders' misuse of funds can be used to excuse DeLays'. That's the standard M.O. right? :wink:

Pipe Down, DeLay

If Sanders is found to have misused his funds and is guilty of a crime, he should be held accountable in the same fashion as DeLay.

This isn't a difficult concept.

Mystery,

We didn't respond to your post positively b/c you are effectively stating that all crimes, all ethical breaches, and all transgressions should be handled in the exact same manner. This is a strange idea.

If DeLay had been caught doing ONE thing, he wouldn't be in so much trouble. TWO things. THREE things, FOUR, FIVE, for God's sake. He's got something like ten allegations of misconduct and ethical violations, and that's just this year; last year he was 'admonished' three times.

This is a difficult guy for you people to be defending...

Cycloptichorn

Sheesh, quit being so dense, Mysteryman.

Your screed of 'offenses' committed by Democrats is exactly what I was talking about. Each and every one of those 'offenses' should be dealt with differently, because they are an individual case.

Tell me, do you know the difference between something that is illegal and something that is an ethical violation?

Cycloptichorn

Now,shouldn't ALL ethics violations be treated the same.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Sheesh, quit being so dense, Mysteryman.

Your screed of 'offenses' committed by Democrats is exactly what I was talking about. Each and every one of those 'offenses' should be dealt with differently, because they are an individual case.

Tell me, do you know the difference between something that is illegal and something that is an ethical violation?

Cycloptichorn

Yes,I do know the difference.
I just posted some illegal acts,AND some unethical acts,by Dems in Congress.
Now,shouldn't ALL ethics violations be treated the same.
After all,there are not different sets of ethics for Dems and Repubs,are there?

So,when you can clean house of all the ethics violators on the Dem side of the aisle,then you can worry about the repub side.
By ignoring the ethics violations on the dem side,you set yourself up for a charge of hypocrisy.

Quote:

Now,shouldn't ALL ethics violations be treated the same.

No. Should all legal violations be treated the same?

I am not ignoring ethics problems on the Dem side whatsoever. I have consistently stated that those who are found guilty of violating the ethics rules of the House should be punished for doing so. How you can take that to mean that I am 'ignoring' ethics violations is beyond me.

Cycloptichorn

mystery, haven't you noticed that there are republicans coming out against delay? some are "hinting" that he should leave.

mystery, haven't you noticed that there are republicans coming out against delay? some are "hinting" that he should leave.

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

mystery, haven't you noticed that there are republicans coming out against delay? some are "hinting" that he should leave.

Again,I am NOT defending DeLay.
I am saying that the same standard should be applied to EVERYONE,not just a few.