You are what you eat
Posted by Joshua Claybourn on 18 November 2004 | 26 responses
In the 1994 “Republican revolution” that saw Republicans take Congressional control, they vowed to overturn self-serving corruption that had become commonplace among the prior Democratic majority. Now, in their first order of business after the election, Republicans changed the rules they once supported in favor of keeping Tom DeLay in his leadership post, despite ethics rules previously in place that would prevent it. There is increasingly very little to separate Republicans from the majority they once overturned.
26 Responses to “You are what you eat”
Over time, arrogant moves like this dilute Clinton’s Impeachment and it gives the Democrats a campaign issue for “06. Republicans had better hope there isn’t a smart savvy Democrat version of Newt Gingrich ready to do guerilla warfare in the House chamber. Republicans remember Jim Wright!
There is a lot more to it than this shallow spin. Contrast, for instance, the R rule with the D rule on this matter. There is a lot of difference. What is needed is some sort of new law on prosectorial “discretion”.
Didn’t the old rule allow for him to return to his post if/when vidicated? If you want to be morally superior, you can’t just be when it’s convenient.
To be fair, the man leading the charge to indict DeLay is a partisan Democrat who himself has been charged with some questionable behavior. In all honesty, I haven’t yet put in the effort to separate reality from partisanship here, but I certainly wouldn’t mind if DeLay were replaced. We need GOP Congressional leaders who are above reproach.
Without further DeLay
I’m not quite sure what to make of this, but whatever it is, it’s unsavory and distasteful. Some of Tom DeLay’s henchpersons have been indicted by a Texas grand jury,…
Jason is correct. The rules stipulate he must step down unless he is vindicated.
And thanks for the illumination anonymous (not). [Yes, I just pulled out the early '90s "not" joke, but I think it's high time we bring it back.]
“Republicans had better hope there isn’t a smart savvy Democrat version of Newt Gingrich ready to do guerilla warfare in the House chamber.”
If there is, it’s certainly not Nancy Pelosi. She’s quite nearly as inarticulate as W, and a real pain to listen to. Between her, Kerry, and (what’s his name?) as the Senate leader, the Dems have a serious leadership problem.
Its Harry Reid from Nevada. Oh, and Josh, please don’t bring back the early 90’s. I don’t want to have to dig out my Hypercolors shirt…
Harry Reid from Nevada can’t do jack in the House, given that he’s a senator.
Claybourn, you totally used the correct punctuation and capitalization for the “not” joke…NOT!
(Honestly, putting it in parentheses is soooooo wimpy and ineffective…)
To be really fair, Eric, that particular bit of spin on the D.A. is straight out of the RNC talking points instead of the facts. While it is true that he is an elected Democrat as the D.A. in Austin, the state capital it is also his job to prosecute malfeasance in the state government. In his long career the Democrats have had power in Texas longer than the Republicans. Accordingly he has in fact prosecuted more Democrats on corruption charges than Republicans.
“Jason is correct. The rules stipulate he must step down unless he is vindicated.”
Isn’t this the problem though? It seems to me that the initial rule was proposed to keep corrupt officials from continuing to remain in office (guys like Jim Traficant and the like). The quote from Josh/Jason here sure sounds to me like “guilty until proven innocent”.
Correct me if I’m wrong here, but my understanding is not that the Republicans want to get rid of the rule, just change it to keep questionable characters like Ronnie Earle from unjustly taking someone’s job away based merely on accusations. The new rule would still call for corrupt offenders to be removed from office, but the difference is the committee would have 30 days to review the evidence to determine if it warrants a removal from office.
Jim–as I said, I’ve yet to sort out the facts from the partisanship for myself. If you would kindly provide a citation for your claim that Earle has prosecuted more Democrats than Republicans, that would help me in my endeavor. (But if it’s from a left-wing web site, I reserve the right to take it with a big grain of salt.)
B4 you can contrast the R rule with the D rule you must find the D rule. Hint: there is no d rule. So, half a glass beats an empty glass every time.
Well, it’s not like a Republican could have prosecuted Delay, given that Earls is the only one in the state who handles these cases. I don’t know about his questionable conduct, but his numerous awards and accolades as a prosecutor are a matter of public record.
Furthermore, whatever happened to the morals of the people who went after Bill Clinton? Guilty or innocent, it just looks bad for Delay to stay in office.
“Guilty or innocent, it just looks bad for Delay to stay in office.”
That is quite a disturbing statement. I shudder at the thought of living in a world where all anyone has to do is accuse me of something and I lose my job.
Eric, you didn’t ask me for the source personally, but since I have it I’ll supply it.
Online reprint of a Houston Chronicle Op-Ed piece from 2003.
The El Paso Times also ran a similar story, although I can’t find that one linked to online.
“The new rule would still call for corrupt offenders to be removed from office, but the difference is the committee would have 30 days to review the evidence to determine if it warrants a removal from office.”
Ah, I find such naive positions so cute. The “committee” is a leadership committee comprising Repub hitmen who, not needing the 30 days to review, have already publicly declared the DA to be a runaway rogue.
People, the guy has prosecuted 3 times as many Dems as Reps AND he has been backed as being one of the 10 best DAs by a nationwide organization of his peers. So, trolls, drop the pretense, ain’t gonna work, wouldn’t be prudent.
Nash,
Don’t waste the keystrokes. As long as the farm subsidies keep rolling in, the estate tax stays on the chopping block, and marraige is protected from homosexuals, I think the good hoosiers of ITA are more that willing to turn a blind eye to the ‘details’ of Republican governance.
“As long as the farm subsidies keep rolling in, the estate tax stays on the chopping block, and marraige is protected from homosexuals”
uh, yeah, cause that’s what we’re all about. Screw gays! Give the rich more money! Pay farmers not to farm! It’s in our mission statement, isn’t it?
Oh, wait: It’s much easier to respond to unrealistic caricatures than it is to actually deal with reality. I keep forgetting that unfortunate fact. Indeed, if the *very post that this discussion is linked to* hadn’t taken a counter-GOP hyper-partisan line, you might have some intellectual credibility!
I don’t recall the R platform being that they wished to be given any more money. It would be more accruate, I think, to suggest that they wanted to keep more of what they had earned under the ruberic that Caligula was despised by the prostitutes of Rome for stealing one day’s earnings per week whilst democrats have been fond of 90% marginal tax rates.
Well, here’s one quote from Earle himself which might make it quesionable, but I’ve never heard anyone, including DeLay be able to factually refute it: “The only people I antagonize more than Republicans are Democrats,” Mr. Earle said later. He said the record showed he had prosecuted 12 Democratic officials and 4 Republican officials, although for much of his time in office, he acknowledged, Republicans were on the outs. “We prosecute abuses of power,” he said, “and you have to have power to abuse it.”. This quote was from an article in the New York Times. This is from an article on Earle in the San Antonio paper: ‘Earle’s most public defeat occurred in 1994, at the hands of another prominent attorney, Dick DeGuerin, who represented Republican U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison when she was acquitted of charges of official misconduct and records tampering.
Ten years later, Texas’ senior senator hasn’t forgotten or forgiven.
“I know he prosecutes for political purposes. He did it to me. And I think it is a very dangerous thing to criminalize politics,” she said of Earle.
Another prominent Earle target, former Democratic House Speaker Gib Lewis, agrees.
In 1991, Earle obtained an indictment against Lewis on charges he received an illegal gift from a politically connected law firm. In a plea agreement, Lewis pleaded no contest to two misdemeanor ethics code violations, paid a $2,000 fine and retired from politics.
“He has his own motives for prosecuting, and that may not have much to do with the law,” said Lewis, now an Austin lobbyist. “I have bitter feelings toward the criminal justice (system) and Mr. Earle. He cost me $400,000 in lawyer’s fees … and I think he picks and chooses what he wants to prosecute and who he does and does not prosecute.”
Earle says he does not look at party affiliation in deciding whom to go after. In the current investigation, he said, “I firmly believe that the future of democracy is at stake.”
“Hell, sometimes you got to saddle up, like it or not. Even though I wanted to retire, and had already decided to do that in 2002, I’ve just got to keep my eye on that tree on the pasture’s far side.”‘.
While it doesn’t address how many of each party he’s prosecuted it’s telling that you have one person of each party criticizing him.
PhaedrusThat is quite a disturbing statement. I shudder at the thought of living in a world where all anyone has to do is accuse me of something and I lose my job.
There is a bit of a difference. Delay would have only had to step down if an indictment had been handed down. Thats not just some random accusation. And on your work comment, unless you work in a right to work state (Illinois is not a right to work state, I had a friend get fired from an HR post for writing a memo on improving efficiancy), you can lose your job for pretty much anything, and you very well might over a federal indictment. I find the larger issue that in this case its just inconvenient for the Republicans to live up to their own standards, so they change the rules midstream.
Powerline has more insight on this matter in their 11/18 post. Joke’s on Josh? However, how would one distinguish R Pork from D Pork? Consider the difference between the parties is that of Tweedledee and Tweedledum. Meanwhile, what ethics rules did democrats ever follow in the past 50 years?
Paul,
I think you protest a bit much… When you actively support and then vote for these people, you share responsibility for their actions. I for one am tired of watching hypocritcal convervatarians offer the occasioanal mealy-mouthed caveat to Republican mismanagement and corruption, then happily line up to support more of the same whenever the opportunity presents itself.
That would be the definition of ‘intellectually dishonest’.
-Mark
A Steve: “Guilty or innocent, it just looks bad for Delay to stay in office.”
Me (to Steve):“That is quite a disturbing statement. I shudder at the thought of living in a world where all anyone has to do is accuse me of something and I lose my job.”
Jason (to me): “There is a bit of a difference. Delay would have only had to step down if an indictment had been handed down. Thats not just some random accusation.”
I would just like to point out that what you are saying, Jason, is in direct contradiction to what Steve said, which suggests that Delay should leave office regardless of whether or not an indictment is handed down, which is the remark that I was directly responding to.