Assault on DeLay is all about sleazy liberal politics

ScreamingEagle

Gold Member
Jul 5, 2004
13,399
1,707
245
http://www.dcexaminer.com/articles/2005/04/14/opinion/op-ed/22oped13lessner.txt

It has become increasingly clear in recent days that the hysterical Democratic attacks on House Majority Leader Tom DeLay are part of a coordinated effort to strike down conservative leaders in and out of Congress. The left's campaign also is designed to whip up the liberal base and raise funds for the same "outside" organizations that attacked President Bush and Republican candidates last year. Many of these groups are lavishly funded by international financier George Soros.

The feverish attempts to demonize Tom DeLay are nothing new. In the months leading up to the 2000 election, the Democrats filed a bogus racketeering lawsuit against him, which was ultimately dismissed with prejudice by a federal judge. Last summer, Democrats again attacked Tom DeLay with bogus allegations the House Ethics Committee quickly dismissed (deferring another matter at DeLay's request.) The Democrats have no message and no vision for America. So they attack Republican leaders in a desperate attempt to block progress on the GOP agenda - lower taxes, a modernized Social Security system, constitutionalist judges and a strong military.

Many of the recent news "scoops" that have been running on the front pages of major newspapers are little more than rehashed accusations that have appeared elsewhere. Despite sensational headlines and hyper-inflated allegations, these stories fail utterly to provide evidence of any wrongdoing by Tom DeLay.

Example 1: Last week's story in The New York Times breathlessly reported that DeLay had employed family members to work on his campaigns and for his political action committee. This story was so old it had whiskers. It was first reported in the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call in 2003.

Other news outlets dutifully followed the Times and created the impression that DeLay had put family members on the public payroll. In fact, no taxpayer money was involved. Nor was it in any way illegal or unethical for DeLay's privately funded PAC to employ his wife and daughter. The Times reported that DeLay's PAC paid his wife and daughter $500,000. This is only $50,000 a year each for the past five years, a solidly middle-class income and certainly a lot less than the editors at The New York Times earn.

Example 2: The Washington Post recently published a page-one "expose" about the financing of a 1997 trip to Russia. ...Every year, dozens of members of Congress and staff participate in such trips financed by nonprofit organizations. This is perfectly legal, normal and even routine.

Example 3: The Post published a story alleging impropriety in Tom DeLay's traveling to Korea under the auspices of a group that was a registered foreign agent. The fact is that the group was registered as representing a foreign interest only after the trip was arranged and approved by the House Ethics Committee. DeLay had no prior knowledge of this development.

Soros, who never tires of losing and throwing good money after bad, has spent $3 million on the so-called "Ethics Coalition," a collection of leftist interest groups that exist solely to smear Republicans and create the atmospherics of scandal surrounding the GOP Congress in general and Tom DeLay in particular. The "Ethics Coalition" consists of Democracy 21, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, Common Cause, Public Citizen, Public Campaign, Center for Responsive Politics, and the Campaign Legal center. Most of these are subsidized by Soros for the purpose of attacking Republicans. While these organizations purport to be non-partisan watchdogs, in fact they almost never target ethical abuses by Democrats.

The Democrats never will forgive Tom DeLay for his efforts in redrawing congressional districts in Texas that cost them six seats in the House (which incidentally undid past Democratic gerrymandering and brought Texas' delegation into line with the overwhelming majority of voters in the Lone Star State). Democrats despise DeLay because he is a tough, principled conservative and an effective majority leader who is successful in driving the Republican agenda though the House. Unable to win elections, and bereft of anything positive to offer the country, the Democrats and their Soros-funded allies have become little more than a pack of seething scandalmongers.
 
I believe we can thank newt gingrich and the GOP party 'at that time' for the grand lessons of politics of personal destruction. :thewave:
 
ScreamingEagle said:
http://www.dcexaminer.com/articles/2005/04/14/opinion/op-ed/22oped13lessner.txt

It has become increasingly clear in recent days that the hysterical Democratic attacks on House Majority Leader Tom DeLay are part of a coordinated effort to strike down conservative leaders in and out of Congress. The left's campaign also is designed to whip up the liberal base and raise funds for the same "outside" organizations that attacked President Bush and Republican candidates last year. Many of these groups are lavishly funded by international financier George Soros.

The feverish attempts to demonize Tom DeLay are nothing new. In the months leading up to the 2000 election, the Democrats filed a bogus racketeering lawsuit against him, which was ultimately dismissed with prejudice by a federal judge. Last summer, Democrats again attacked Tom DeLay with bogus allegations the House Ethics Committee quickly dismissed (deferring another matter at DeLay's request.) The Democrats have no message and no vision for America. So they attack Republican leaders in a desperate attempt to block progress on the GOP agenda - lower taxes, a modernized Social Security system, constitutionalist judges and a strong military.

Many of the recent news "scoops" that have been running on the front pages of major newspapers are little more than rehashed accusations that have appeared elsewhere. Despite sensational headlines and hyper-inflated allegations, these stories fail utterly to provide evidence of any wrongdoing by Tom DeLay.

Example 1: Last week's story in The New York Times breathlessly reported that DeLay had employed family members to work on his campaigns and for his political action committee. This story was so old it had whiskers. It was first reported in the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call in 2003.

Other news outlets dutifully followed the Times and created the impression that DeLay had put family members on the public payroll. In fact, no taxpayer money was involved. Nor was it in any way illegal or unethical for DeLay's privately funded PAC to employ his wife and daughter. The Times reported that DeLay's PAC paid his wife and daughter $500,000. This is only $50,000 a year each for the past five years, a solidly middle-class income and certainly a lot less than the editors at The New York Times earn.

Example 2: The Washington Post recently published a page-one "expose" about the financing of a 1997 trip to Russia. ...Every year, dozens of members of Congress and staff participate in such trips financed by nonprofit organizations. This is perfectly legal, normal and even routine.

Example 3: The Post published a story alleging impropriety in Tom DeLay's traveling to Korea under the auspices of a group that was a registered foreign agent. The fact is that the group was registered as representing a foreign interest only after the trip was arranged and approved by the House Ethics Committee. DeLay had no prior knowledge of this development.

Soros, who never tires of losing and throwing good money after bad, has spent $3 million on the so-called "Ethics Coalition," a collection of leftist interest groups that exist solely to smear Republicans and create the atmospherics of scandal surrounding the GOP Congress in general and Tom DeLay in particular. The "Ethics Coalition" consists of Democracy 21, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, Common Cause, Public Citizen, Public Campaign, Center for Responsive Politics, and the Campaign Legal center. Most of these are subsidized by Soros for the purpose of attacking Republicans. While these organizations purport to be non-partisan watchdogs, in fact they almost never target ethical abuses by Democrats.

The Democrats never will forgive Tom DeLay for his efforts in redrawing congressional districts in Texas that cost them six seats in the House (which incidentally undid past Democratic gerrymandering and brought Texas' delegation into line with the overwhelming majority of voters in the Lone Star State). Democrats despise DeLay because he is a tough, principled conservative and an effective majority leader who is successful in driving the Republican agenda though the House. Unable to win elections, and bereft of anything positive to offer the country, the Democrats and their Soros-funded allies have become little more than a pack of seething scandalmongers.

I've heard some vague comments on the news implying that Bush and Delay aren't quite on the same page either. I've thought that if Bush stepped in with some support for Delay is may defused the catterwalling a little but as far as I know he has reamined silent about the matter.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
I believe we can thank newt gingrich and the GOP party 'at that time' for the grand lessons of politics of personal destruction. :thewave:

If I remember correctly it was Newt Gingrich who was wrongfully hauled over the coals by the Democrats (much like DeLay) in their inimitable style. :whip:
 
ScreamingEagle said:
If I remember correctly it was Newt Gingrich who was wrongfully hauled over the coals by the Democrats (much like DeLay) in their inimitable style. :whip:
wrongfully? weren't alot of people, both sides, hauled over the coals? And I admit, I didn't pay that much attention to it at the time, but wasn't newt the initiator of said political raking?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
wrongfully? weren't alot of people, both sides, hauled over the coals? And I admit, I didn't pay that much attention to it at the time, but wasn't newt the initiator of said political raking?

I think it's what they do now instead of the good old fashioned "Roman way" of removing people they didn't like.
 
dilloduck said:
I've heard some vague comments on the news implying that Bush and Delay aren't quite on the same page either. I've thought that if Bush stepped in with some support for Delay is may defused the catterwalling a little but as far as I know he has reamined silent about the matter.

I'm beginning to think that Bush is far more to the left than many of us would wish. It makes DeLay appear to be one of the ever-shrinking group of true conservatives. Why does Bush allow him to just hang-out there to dry? It just makes me admire DeLay all the more.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
wrongfully? weren't alot of people, both sides, hauled over the coals? And I admit, I didn't pay that much attention to it at the time, but wasn't newt the initiator of said political raking?

To a certain extent, but at least there were substantial reasons for attacking the Clintons.
 
It is also my understanding that the House Ethics Committee that SHOULD be the ones handling this, is not even holding meetings. Guess to make sure Delay is tried in the media ?
 
ScreamingEagle said:
To a certain extent, but at least there were substantial reasons for attacking the Clintons.
but those reasons weren't proven before the attacks began. So who's to say that after a while these things about delay will be proven?
 
dilloduck said:
It is also my understanding that the House Ethics Committee that SHOULD be the ones handling this, is not even holding meetings. Guess to make sure Delay is tried in the media ?
no, the ethics committee cannot hold a meeting on this because there are a few democrats holding up the rule changes the committee wishes to make to protect delay.
 
ScreamingEagle said:
I'm beginning to think that Bush is far more to the left than many of us would wish. It makes DeLay appear to be one of the ever-shrinking group of true conservatives. Why does Bush allow him to just hang-out there to dry? It just makes me admire DeLay all the more.


Just heard a clip of Bush strongly supporting Delay and demanding that the Ethics Committee meet to hear his side of the story.
 
dilloduck said:
It is also my understanding that the House Ethics Committee that SHOULD be the ones handling this, is not even holding meetings. Guess to make sure Delay is tried in the media ?

The Dems are pushing to change the House Ethics Committee rules.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Democrats intend to renew pressure on House Republicans to recast ethics rules, officials said Monday concerning a dispute that has accompanied criticism of Majority Leader Tom DeLay.

Officials said Rep. Alan Mollohan, the senior Democrat on the ethics committee, hopes for a midweek meeting of the panel during which he can press for a reversal of the rules put into effect over the winter.

Under the new rules, enacted on a near party-line vote, no ethics committee investigation can begin without a bipartisan vote. Democrats argue that was done so Republicans could protect DeLay, who was three times admonished by the panel last year and has come under fresh scrutiny since then.

Republicans say they changed the rules to mend a system that produced automatic, open-ended investigations. Under the old rules, an investigation was automatic unless the committee voted to stop it.

http://staging.hosted.ap.org/dynami...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2005-04-11-18-45-01

Maybe Bush is supporting DeLay more than I thought:
In Texas, meanwhile, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said President Bush considers DeLay a friend.

"The president looks forward to continuing to work closely with the majority leader to get things done on behalf of the American people," said McClellan who was at Bush's ranch with the president. "We support the work that he's doing."
 
ScreamingEagle said:
The Dems are pushing to change the House Ethics Committee rules.



Maybe Bush is supporting DeLay more than I thought:
So who exactly is essentially filibustering the ethics committee?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
but those reasons weren't proven before the attacks began. So who's to say that after a while these things about delay will be proven?

There was substantial evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the Clintons. Is there any current substantial evidence of any wrongdoing by DeLay? I haven't seen any.
 
ScreamingEagle said:
There was substantial evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the Clintons. Is there any current substantial evidence of any wrongdoing by DeLay? I haven't seen any.
substantial? not enough for an indictment for sure. but I'd say good cause for the texas investigation, even if it IS done by a 'crackpot AG'.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
substantial? not enough for an indictment for sure. but I'd say good cause for the texas investigation, even if it IS done by a 'crackpot AG'.

There sure are a lot of "foreign" politicians intersested in Texas issues for this to be merely a state matter.
 
dilloduck said:
There sure are a lot of "foreign" politicians intersested in Texas issues for this to be merely a state matter.
yeah, sure are. one would also wonder why a US congressman delved into state political PACing. but hey, what do I know.
 

Forum List

Back
Top