Tom DeLay's House of Shame

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2005-10-02 03:39pm

Newsweek wrote:Tom DeLay's House of Shame
Congress has always had its share of extremists. But the DeLay era is the first time the fringe has ever been in charge.
By Jonathan Alter
Newsweek

Oct. 10, 2005 issue - A decade ago, I paid a call on Tom DeLay in his ornate office in the Capitol. I had heard a rumor about him that I figured could not possibly be true. The rumor was that after the GOP took control of the House that year, DeLay had begun keeping a little black book with the names of Washington lobbyists who wanted to come see him. If the lobbyists were not Republicans and contributors to his power base, they didn't get into "the people's House." DeLay not only confirmed the story, he showed me the book. His time was limited, DeLay explained with a genial smile. Why should he open his door to people who were not on the team?

Thus began what historians will regard as the single most corrupt decade in the long and colorful history of the House of Representatives. Come on, you say. How about all those years when congressmen accepted cash in the House chamber and then staggered onto the floor drunk? Yes, special interests have bought off members of Congress at least since Daniel Webster took his seat while on the payroll of a bank. And yes, Congress over the years has seen dozens of sex scandals and dozens of members brought low by financial improprieties. But never before has the leadership of the House been hijacked by a small band of extremists bent on building a ruthless shakedown machine, lining the pockets of their richest constituents and rolling back popular protections for ordinary people. These folks borrow like banana republics and spend like Tip O'Neill on speed.

I have no idea if DeLay has technically broken the law. What interests me is how this moderate, evenly divided nation came to be ruled on at least one side of Capitol Hill by a zealot. This is a man who calls the Environmental Protection Agency "the Gestapo of government" and favors repealing the Clean Air Act because "it's never been proven that air toxins are hazardous to people"; who insists repeatedly that judges on the other side of issues "need to be intimidated" and rejects the idea of a separation of church and state; who claims there are no parents trying to raise families on the minimum wage—that "fortunately, such families do not exist" (at least Newt Gingrich was intrigued by the challenges of poverty); who once said: "A woman can't take care of the family. It takes a man to provide structure." I could go on all day. Congress has always had its share of extremists. But the DeLay era is the first time the fringe has ever been in charge.

The only comparison to DeLay Co. might be the Radical Republicans of the 1860s. But the 19th-century Radical Republican agenda was to integrate and remake the South. The 21st-century Radical Republican agenda is to enact the wish list of the tobacco and gun lobbies, repeal health and safety regulations and spend billions on shameless pork-barrel projects to keep the GOP at the trough. Another analogy is to Republican Speaker Joe Cannon, who ran the House with an iron fist a century ago. But Cannon had to contend with Progressive Republicans who eventually stripped him of his power. DeLay's ruling radical conservative claque remains united, at least for now.

Comparisons with fellow Texan Sam Rayburn fall short, too. Rayburn was respected on both sides of the aisle for his rock-solid integrity. He and most other House speakers carefully balanced their support for corporate interests like the oil depletion allowance with at least some sense of the public good. And they had to share much of their power with committee chairmen. Today, seniority is much less important. Chairmen are term-limited (six years) or tossed if they displease DeLay. And this crowd views "the public interest" as strictly for liberal pantywaists.

How have they succeeded? A new book, "Off Center: The Republican Revolution and the Erosion of American Democracy," by Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson, explains how the GOP is simply better than the Democratic Party at the basic blocking and tackling of politics, including the exploitation of cultural and religious issues. The authors argue that even if DeLay goes down, the zealotry and corporate shilling will continue as long as the GOP controls the House. Consider DeLay's temporary replacement, Missouri Rep. Roy Blunt. The Washington Post reported last week that Blunt is respected by Republican members in part because he has "strong ties to the Washington lobbying community." That's a qualification for office?

The only reason the House hasn't done even more damage is that the Senate often sands down the most noxious ideas, making the bills merely bad, not disastrous. What next for the House of Shame? If DeLay's acquitted, he'll be back in power. If he's convicted, his proteges will continue his work. Reform efforts by fiscal conservatives determined to curb their borrow-and-spend colleagues are probably doomed. The only way to get rid of the termites eating away the people's House is to stamp them out at the next election.

These people are a fucking cancer on our country. I hope they get bitch-smacked to Hell in 2006.

darthdavid · Post by **darthdavid** » 2005-10-02 03:58pm

If I were less cool headed I'd be in washington kicking him in the nads already.

Metatwaddle · Post by **Metatwaddle** » 2005-10-02 04:07pm

I've tried to stay loyal to the Democrats because their ideology so closely matches mine, but HOW THE HELL can they just let Tom DeLay and company walk all over them? This guy does not deserve to be in office, and he certainly doesn't deserve to be the fucking majority leader!

The Grim Squeaker · Post by **The Grim Squeaker** » 2005-10-02 04:16pm

Thus began what historians will regard as the single most corrupt decade in the long and colorful history of the House of Representatives. Come on, you say. How about all those years when congressmen accepted cash in the House chamber and then staggered onto the floor drunk?

The drunk bit make's it worse than our record breaking c.politicians

, mama miah.

Vendetta · Post by **Vendetta** » 2005-10-02 04:17pm

Because the Democrats couldn't find their own arse with both hands, a road map, and explicit directions.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2005-10-02 07:29pm

he certainly doesn't deserve to be the fucking majority leader!

He's not, anymore.

The Spartan · Post by **The Spartan** » 2005-10-02 07:38pm

HemlockGrey wrote:
he certainly doesn't deserve to be the fucking majority leader!
He's not, anymore.

Isn't that only because Senate rules require that he step down from that position while under indictment?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-10-02 07:40pm

HemlockGrey wrote:
he certainly doesn't deserve to be the fucking majority leader!
He's not, anymore.

No, but the fact that he was ever allowed to hold that position in the first place tells you a lot about the Republican Party. It is the party of extreme right-wing religious fanatic assholes, and all of the Republitard apologist bullfuckery in the world won't change that. If you're a raving misogynist fundie anti-environmental anti-science asshole, the Republican party is the party for you.

Lord Zentei · Post by **Lord Zentei** » 2005-10-02 07:47pm

The Spartan wrote:
HemlockGrey wrote:
he certainly doesn't deserve to be the fucking majority leader!
He's not, anymore.
Isn't that only because Senate rules require that he step down from that position while under indictment?

House rules.

Jason von Evil · Post by **Jason von Evil** » 2005-10-02 07:57pm

Darth Wong wrote:
HemlockGrey wrote:
he certainly doesn't deserve to be the fucking majority leader!
He's not, anymore.
No, but the fact that he was ever allowed to hold that position in the first place tells you a lot about the Republican Party. It is the party of extreme right-wing religious fanatic assholes, and all of the Republitard apologist bullfuckery in the world won't change that. If you're a raving misogynist fundie anti-environmental anti-science asshole, the Republican party is the party for you.

Hell, the guy who replaced him is apparently one of the 13 most corrupt members of the House, according to some group. Link.

Granted, probably not the most unbiased source.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2005-10-02 07:57pm

No, but the fact that he was ever allowed to hold that position in the first place tells you a lot about the Republican Party. It is the party of extreme right-wing religious fanatic assholes, and all of the Republitard apologist bullfuckery in the world won't change that. If you're a raving misogynist fundie anti-environmental anti-science asshole, the Republican party is the party for you.

Well....yeah.

The Spartan · Post by **The Spartan** » 2005-10-02 07:58pm

Whoops... yes, you're quite right, House rules.

Something else to keep in mind is that this is not Delay's first run in with this sort of thing. He's been having ethical charges raised against him since 1993, IIRC.

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2005-10-02 07:59pm

Darth Wong wrote:
HemlockGrey wrote:
he certainly doesn't deserve to be the fucking majority leader!
He's not, anymore.
No, but the fact that he was ever allowed to hold that position in the first place tells you a lot about the Republican Party. It is the party of extreme right-wing religious fanatic assholes, and all of the Republitard apologist bullfuckery in the world won't change that. If you're a raving misogynist fundie anti-environmental anti-science asshole, the Republican party is the party for you.

And if you are a far left, custard headed, soft on crime, soft on defense, big government, asshole, the Democratic party is the party for you. The problem is that you can point to rabid extremists on both sides. In neither case are they representative of the majority of the members of those parties.

Now, I will concede that the Republican party has become dominated by the religious right to an unconscionable degree. This is a trend I loathe. I would really, really really like to see moderate Republicans take power back from the religious fundies who are becoming dominant, just as I would like to see Harry Truman style democrats take back power from the George McGovern style democrats in their party. Unfortunately, both parties seem to be moving inexorably farther to their respective extremes, and I don't know whether or not this trend will be reversed any time in the foreseeable future.

The Republican party has also apparently abandoned fiscal conservatism. The current administration and congressional leadership spend money like a drunken sailor. Some increase in expenditures are naturally to be expected since we have the war to pay for, after all, but government spending has exceeded all reason. Bush started with a budget surplus, and is now running a huge deficit. And the Republican leaders in congress approved his budgets. Quite aside from his indictment, Tom DeLay needs to be removed for other reasons, which include being an intolerable spendthrift. Tom DeLay is just another politician who got to Washington and ultimately became more interested in hanging onto power and position than he was in sreving his constituents, or standing up for the principles he espoused.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-10-02 08:18pm

Perinquus wrote:And if you are a far left, custard headed, soft on crime, soft on defense, big government, asshole, the Democratic party is the party for you.

Only a blithering idiot would think that somebody whose only crime is being too "soft" on undesirables is as bad as the aforementioned sociopath.

SecondToDie · Post by **SecondToDie** » 2005-10-02 09:05pm

Perinquus wrote:And if you are a far left, custard headed, soft on crime, soft on defense, big government, asshole, the Democratic party is the party for you.

So do you actually believe that bullshit is true or are you just using hyperbole?

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2005-10-02 09:28pm

Remember folks: Someone who isn't sufficiently 'tough' on something is just as bad as an actively dangerous person. And if the loonies are a fringe group instead of, oh, the most powerful men in Congress? Hey, that is just as bad!

Apologism.

Lord Zentei · Post by **Lord Zentei** » 2005-10-02 09:36pm

SirNitram wrote:Remember folks: Someone who isn't sufficiently 'tough' on something is just as bad as an actively dangerous person.

Yes - if that someone's duty is to be in charge of things, I would say that this is in fact the case.

And if the loonies are a fringe group instead of, oh, the most powerful men in Congress? Hey, that is just as bad!

Fortunately, the left wing loons are not in charge of the Democratic party. Unfortunately the Democratic party is not coordinated and so cannot reach out to enough moderates. So on this point we agree.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2005-10-02 09:40pm

Lord Zentei wrote:
SirNitram wrote:Remember folks: Someone who isn't sufficiently 'tough' on something is just as bad as an actively dangerous person.
Yes - if that someone's duty is to be in charge of things, I would say that this is in fact the case.

If that person was say, top prosecutor in NYC, they shouldn't be 'soft', no. But then again, we're not talking about anything like that, are we? We're talking about Congress. I think we can safely say the scaremongering of being, say, 'soft on crime' would amount to less objective harm done than, say, the Iraq invasion and occupation.

Just as an example.

And if the loonies are a fringe group instead of, oh, the most powerful men in Congress? Hey, that is just as bad!
Fortunately, the left wing loons are not in charge of the Democratic party. Unfortunately the Democratic party is not coordinated and so cannot reach out to enough moderates. So on this point we agree.

At it's core, the bleated response 'But the Democrats are..' and assuming it's just as bad is a Fallacy; somewhere between Golden Mean(Because you do assume both are the exact same level of unreasonableness), and Tu Quoue, because you assume the other guy is just as objectionable as you are.

Lord Zentei · Post by **Lord Zentei** » 2005-10-02 09:55pm

SirNitram wrote:
Lord Zentei wrote:
SirNitram wrote:Remember folks: Someone who isn't sufficiently 'tough' on something is just as bad as an actively dangerous person.
Yes - if that someone's duty is to be in charge of things, I would say that this is in fact the case.
If that person was say, top prosecutor in NYC, they shouldn't be 'soft', no. But then again, we're not talking about anything like that, are we? We're talking about Congress. I think we can safely say the scaremongering of being, say, 'soft on crime' would amount to less objective harm done than, say, the Iraq invasion and occupation.

Just as an example.

Well, yes. I was mostly thinking of the general case.

As an aside, though (hopefully not to derail) I would think that a commited legialature is crucial in the long term task of crime fighting. (1 Certainly they are important in civil defense overall (Katrina and NO leevies, all that). Although ironically as far as this debate is concerned, it was under Clinton that crime rates went down.

And if the loonies are a fringe group instead of, oh, the most powerful men in Congress? Hey, that is just as bad!
Fortunately, the left wing loons are not in charge of the Democratic party. Unfortunately the Democratic party is not coordinated and so cannot reach out to enough moderates. So on this point we agree.
At it's core, the bleated response 'But the Democrats are..' and assuming it's just as bad is a Fallacy; somewhere between Golden Mean(Because you do assume both are the exact same level of unreasonableness), and Tu Quoue, because you assume the other guy is just as objectionable as you are.

Quite. Such a claim would require contrasting the evidence for badness in the two groups.

- - - - - - -

(1 No, I mean the other kind of "commited".

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2005-10-02 10:06pm

Lord Zentei wrote:
SirNitram wrote:
Lord Zentei wrote: Yes - if that someone's duty is to be in charge of things, I would say that this is in fact the case.
If that person was say, top prosecutor in NYC, they shouldn't be 'soft', no. But then again, we're not talking about anything like that, are we? We're talking about Congress. I think we can safely say the scaremongering of being, say, 'soft on crime' would amount to less objective harm done than, say, the Iraq invasion and occupation.

Just as an example.
Well, yes. I was mostly thinking of the general case.

As an aside, though (hopefully not to derail) I would think that a commited legialature is crucial in the long term task of crime fighting. (1 Certainly they are important in civil defense overall (Katrina and NO leevies, all that). Although ironically as far as this debate is concerned, it was under Clinton that crime rates went down.

Stop your evil commie lies! Demmycrates are always soft on crime!!!!

While committed legisature is a vital gear in the machine, crime-fighting is something I do, actually, feel requires more work on the State level than the Federal, if only because each State faces unique crime problems; hell, each city does. Much like how Federal-level gun control is applying a sledgehammer to a fly, it's just a bad move in a large number of cases.

Yes, I feel Federal-level gun control is bad, despite being a gun control advocate. Why? Because I'm aware that culture, availiability, and the unique problems of different locales means that the needs are different. There's a world of difference between a ganger in NYC and a vet in West Virginia, for example.

Fortunately, the left wing loons are not in charge of the Democratic party. Unfortunately the Democratic party is not coordinated and so cannot reach out to enough moderates. So on this point we agree.
At it's core, the bleated response 'But the Democrats are..' and assuming it's just as bad is a Fallacy; somewhere between Golden Mean(Because you do assume both are the exact same level of unreasonableness), and Tu Quoue, because you assume the other guy is just as objectionable as you are.
Quite. Such a claim would require contrasting the evidence for badness in the two groups.

But sadly, such will not occour anytime soon in a serious, logical debate, I suspect.

- - - - - - -

(1 No, I mean the other kind of "commited".

Oh, they're committed. To raising their own pay.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2005-10-02 10:11pm

Perinquus wrote:And if you are a far left, custard headed, soft on crime, soft on defense, big government, asshole, the Democratic party is the party for you. The problem is that you can point to rabid extremists on both sides. In neither case are they representative of the majority of the members of those parties.

<snip>

The difference is that the Democratic party isn't controlled by its extremists. So enough of this tu quoquo bullshit.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-10-02 10:17pm

The Democratic party voted overwhelmingly to give the President unilateral authority to declare war on whomever he wanted. The last Democratic president brought in the DOMA, NAFTA, and social spending cutbacks. Only in fringe-nut land could the Democratic party be considered radical leftists, but of course, Perinquus appears to live in fringe-nut land. I wonder what the weather is like there.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2005-10-02 10:26pm

Darth Wong wrote:Only in fringe-nut land could the Democratic party be considered radical leftists, but of course, Perinquus appears to live in fringe-nut land. I wonder what the weather is like there.

No idea, but if it's bad, you can rest assured that it's the liberals' fault.

Ryoga · Post by **Ryoga** » 2005-10-02 10:57pm

Darth Wong wrote:Only in fringe-nut land could the Democratic party be considered radical leftists, but of course, Perinquus appears to live in fringe-nut land. I wonder what the weather is like there.

They piss down your back and tell you that it's raining.

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2005-10-02 10:58pm

Darth Wong wrote:The Democratic party voted overwhelmingly to give the President unilateral authority to declare war on whomever he wanted. The last Democratic president brought in the DOMA, NAFTA, and social spending cutbacks. Only in fringe-nut land could the Democratic party be considered radical leftists, but of course, Perinquus appears to live in fringe-nut land. I wonder what the weather is like there.

Go fuck yourself you arrogant goddamn asshole son of a bitch. It's so easy, so safe to goad people when you are thousands of miles away and safe from any consequences.

Point out a radical leftist who doesn't vote democrat across the board in every single election, and maybe then I will concede that that type of person doesn't find a home in the Democratic party. Apparently, for all your intellec, you are burdened with a severe reading comprehension problem. You seem completely unable to see words I write such as: "In neither case are they representative of the majority of the members of those parties." I concede right there that such people do not make up the mainstream of the democratic party. But apparently, according to you, I think that all Democrats are fringe left peaceniks. Fucking learn to read.

And of course, you also appear to be inexcusably ignorant of how popular sentiment can be whipped up, and how politicians can bend before political winds. No matter how opposed to military action many Democratic (and even some Republican) congressmen and senators may have been, the country was howling for blood in the aftermath of 9/11. A great number of politicians - Democrat as well as Republican - may have been afraid of losing their seats if they were perceived as doves at such a time. I know this will come a great shock to you (this is sarcasm, by the way - I feel constrained to point this out to you in light of your aforementioned reading comprehension problem) but politicians often sacrifice their principles for the sake of staying in office. Or are you really so stupid as to believe that Democrats are all noble idealists who would never sacrifice their principles for something as crass as political manuevering.