BCT Editorial – 4/21/05

This page was last updated on April 21, 2005.

Power failure; Editorial; Beaver County Times; April 21, 2005.

This is the second editorial within 10 days telling us “it’s not about Tom DeLay” but does nothing but bash Rep. DeLay. I believe it’s part of a strategy to convict Rep. DeLay in the press by constantly repeating allegations and innuendo without actually presenting any evidence. Indeed, the editorial even admits Rep. DeLay “most likely has stayed within the law.”.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“The problem with House Majority Leader Tom DeLay is not that he has done anything illegal.

“Although he has stretched the envelope and has made a farce of Congressional ethics - do you know how hard it is to do that? - DeLay most likely has stayed within the law when it comes to his position in Congress.”

[RWC] The editorial makes no attempt to list the alleged violations and provide proof of their veracity. Why?

“The problem with DeLay, though, is that he is starting to look and sound a lot like one of those power-hungry, special-interest-driven Democrats who ruled Congress prior to 1994.”

[RWC] I guess Democrats are no longer “power hungry” and “special interest driven.”

“DeLay is merely getting a taste of his party’s own medicine. In arguing that he stayed within the letter of the law, he deserves to have the same amount of scorn heaped on his head as Vice President Al Gore did with his ‘no controlling legal authority’ campaign calls from the White House and the Buddhist temple fund-raiser in Los Angeles. (Isn’t it amazing how legal technicalities are the first refuge of those who mock others for using them?)

“A columnist for The Economist has noted that DeLay’s duplicity and the GOP’s support for him represent a threat to the party. ‘The Republicans took over Congress in 1994 in part because they skillfully used attacks on individual politicians to suggest that Democrats were soft on corruption,’ the columnist wrote. ‘The Republicans are vulnerable to exactly that treatment.’”

[RWC] As a reminder, “columnists” write opinion pieces, not news stories. Essentially, this editorial’s author is quoting another opinion piece for corroboration.

Mr. DeLay has requested an investigation by the House Ethics Committee but Democrats are resisting. I’m sure the editorial’s failure to mention this fact was an honest oversight on the part of the author – not.

Let’s look at the “Republicans are vulnerable to exactly that treatment” opinion. What the editorial fails to note is that Democrats were in control when illegal – not just unethical – activities took place. Majority Leader Jim Wright (D-TX) had to resign in 1989 because he was caught illegally skirting House rules on outside income. Let’s not forget the House Bank and Post Office scandals during 1990 – 1993. Again, these weren’t minor ethics violations. Both scandals resulted in felony convictions and prison time.

It’s hard to see how “Republicans are vulnerable to exactly that treatment” when the editorial admits “DeLay most likely has stayed within the law when it comes to his position in Congress.”

“That is not that far-fetched. Reports out of Washington say some Democrats don’t want DeLay to step down, that he is of more value to them as a symbol of the GOP’s absolute power in Congress corrupting absolutely.”

[RWC] I guess the author has a different definition of “absolute power” than I.

Make no mistake; Democrats want Rep. DeLay gone because he’s effective. If Democrats thought they could prove wrongdoing, you can bet they’d want a real investigation of Rep. DeLay ASAP. Instead, Democrats are blocking an investigation.

Why? I believe the answer is simple. As long as there is no formal investigation, Democrats can continue to make allegations without proving anything. The idea is to have a “trial by old media” in an effort to bring down Rep. DeLay. Democrats can change my mind by providing proof of illegal activity or activity that violates House rules.

Remember, the issues most of the old media scream about the most have been shown to be common and legal practice in the House. For example, we’re supposed to believe Rep. DeLay did something wrong by paying his wife and daughter for running his campaigns. Most outlets fail to note approximately 50 other representatives employ relatives on their campaign staffs. It would be wrong only if the relatives didn’t do the work for which they’re paid. Democrats also want us to believe this was tax dollars. The wages were paid from Delay’s campaign PAC.

Was it wrong for JFK to appoint his brother Robert to the post of Attorney General?

Regarding travel paid by third parties, this is completely legal as long as the third party is not a lobbyist. Indeed, records for the last four years show House Democrats took 54% of these trips despite being in the minority. Further, the top five House “trippers” were Democrats, as were nine of the top 10. Regarding taxpayer funded trips, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) spent more than six times as much on foreign travel as Rep. DeLay.

“As we have argued before, the problem is not DeLay per se. He is merely a symbol for the Augean stable of power and money that Congress has become. If we simply focus on DeLay and overlook the environment in which he was bred, this scandal will be much ado about nothing, even if he falls from power.”

[RWC] Believe this paragraph and I have a bridge to sell you.

If the object of this and the previous editorial were really generic congressional ethics problems, the editorials would have included a current Democrat example for balance. (Al Gore doesn’t count because he’s out of office.) Instead, the editorials constantly attack Mr. DeLay but try to convince us it’s not about DeLay.