Posted on 09/28/2005 7:44:37 PM PDT by Lando Lincoln
Tom DeLay has been indicted in Travis County, Texas, for conspiracy to violate campaign finance laws. Two DeLay political associates had previously been indicted. Under House Republican Party rules, DeLay immediately lost his position as majority leader, and the Associated Press has reported that Speaker Dennis Hastert has chosen Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier to replace him.
This is very bad news for House Republicans. DeLay has been astonishingly effective in rounding up majorities for legislation supported by the Republican leadership and the Bush administration. He is well liked by many members. I don't know how this case will turn out and cannot assess the validity of the charges. The Associated Press reports that "DeLay has denied committing any crime and accused the Democratic district attorney leading the investigation, Ronnie Earle, of pursuing the case for political motives." I don't think that possibility can be dismissed. Earle is a liberal Democrat, and in 1993 he brought criminal charges against Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, then comptroller and now U.S. senator; most of the charges were dismissed by the judge before trial, and the remaining charges were withdrawn. The case was summarized as follows by the Austin Review: "Earle's politically motivated indictment of Senator Hutchinson on charges that she used state funds to run her senatorial campaign made even his own supporters cringe. The charges were dismissed when Earle refused to present evidence at trial." The quotation is from the Captain's Quarters blog; the original is apparently no longer available online.
Democrats will surely charge that DeLay's indictment, that of White House procurement official David Safavian, and that of Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff show that George W. Bush's Republican Party is laced with corruption. I think that's obviously a stretch–both parties at various times have been much more scandal smirched than today's Republicans–and I think that the DeLay indictment in time may prove to be no more valid than that of Senator Hutchison, who has been re-elected by wide margins twice since the case against her was dismissed. But in the meantime, this is bad news for the Republican Party and gives every Democratic House challenger a talking point.
The House Republican rule that requires indicted leaders to step down was inspired by the indictment of then Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski when Democrats still had a majority in the House. After last November's election, the Republican leadership, anticipating a possible DeLay indictment, tried to repeal the rule but after considerable protest reinstated it. I think that was a wise decision. It's not seemly to keep a top party leader in office after he has been indicted–however flimsy the indictment may ultimately turn out to be.
Is Ronnie Earle abusing his prosecutorial discretion, as he pretty clearly did in the Hutchison case? Our system of criminal justice gives a lot of discretion to prosecutors, who are chosen in partisan elections in most states or by partisan process as in the selection of United States attorneys. One of the good things about America is that the large majority of prosecutors, from both political parties, do not abuse this discretion in the pursuit of political goals. I've known a lot of prosecutors of both parties, all of whom took their responsibilities and their duty to be fair very seriously. But I've never met Ronnie Earle.
As I said in another thread:
"Ronnie Earle punched the hornet's nest. He better suck it up and take the stings like a man."
I was laughing so hard my sides hurt when I saw that too.
I don't think you have to worry too much about that. This will, in the end, backfire on the Democrats, because it will fire up and energize the GOP base.
Bottom line: All politics is local. Republicans aren't going to suddenly vote for a Democrat just because Tom DeLay was indicted by Ronnie Earl.
Frist needs to get his questions resolved within a couple of weeks; DeLay will take care of himself.
What is the dollar amount of the tax cuts that are in effect today?
Kyoto is dormant, not dead.
When did drilling start in Alaska? (When did construction start on new refineries? When did the Justice Department begin to look at breaking up the anti-trust collusion between big oil, refinery capacity and the retail gasoine market?)
What evidence do you have that Roberts isn't Souter?
Don't mention the flood of illegals Bush has brought in with his direct encouragement.
Bush's numbers are at historic lows because of his weak leadership on the war and his refusal to seal the borders. His blatant refusal to name a clear conservative while stepping over Scalia to name CJ hasn't helped his numbers, either. To date, Bush has not discouraged one penny of socialist spending. (Even his father discouraged 13 billion.) What do you wanna bet the replacement for O'Connor is another unknown?
Keep it up, Southack...you make a fugly cheerleader for Bush.
I just hope Tom DeLay CONTINUES TO BE AS ACTIVE behind the scenes in getting the agenda passed. That will tick the DemocRATs off even more than if he was in the leader position.
DUer?
My visceral reaction to this slug Ronnie Earle has perhaps led me to some overly graphic language.
I admit that I'm not overly familiar with DeLay's career and history which is the reason why I say I'm not a fan of his. I simply don't know enough about him.
I do know what a scumbag this Ronnie Earle is, though.
Mr President, please introduce Janice Rogers Brown to the world, pay backs are a bitch
=====
LOL...I was talking with someone just last evening about that very thing. I've wanted the president to nominate Janice Rogers Brown from the beginning, so "pay-back" isn't entirely my motivation, but I want it even more so now that they are trying to do this to Tom Delay. Janice Rogers Brown or Edith Jones would be just wonderful. These liberal dimwits do so hate a true, and effective, conservative.
He didn't run for election or re-election on a "seal the borders" pledge...so his standing today has nothing to do with that issue.
In fact, that issue has so little public popularity that it is unlikely to become an election issue in 2006 or 2008, either (well, outside of 3rd party "conventions").
What you are doing is confusing your own personal views and feelings with national views and feelings...a mistake that will not let you predict any aspect of the future.
Pick a candidate who made "sealing the borders" his top policy position in 2004 or 2002 after 9/11 or even back in 2000 and then note how few national votes he or she won.
And then after noting the above, you'd be well-served to see how many additional border patrol officers President Bush deployed, anyway. Ditto for how many additional miles of 12 foot tall steel border fences he had erected over the stout opposition of Greens who sue at every step to block all border fence construction.
BTW: You are probably one of the few people that knows where my tagline came from.
$1.3 Trillion for the 3 income tax cuts. More still for the dividend tax cuts. More again for the repeal of the Estate Tax (AKA "death tax"). $40 Billion more for the energy tax cuts this year.
"Kyoto is dormant, not dead."
Kyoto expires in 2010. It's dormant through 2008 **because** the GOP controlls the political agenda (contrary to what some posters ignorantly claimed).
If you think that "dormant" Kyoto can be revived between January of 2009 (debates, political shifts, enactment, enforcement) and 2010, then make your case.
I suspect, however, that you will simply punt and claim that some new treaty is always possible. Yeah, as if we don't know that fact.
But we control the political agenda as evidenced by Kyoto being "dormant" or dead. That's my point.
He was appointed to prominence by President Reagan and promoted to Judgeship by President Bush. He is a friend of the Federalist Society...and his wife is the biggest life-long pro-life activist in Washington.
He clerked for and was personal friends with our Conservative Chief Justice Rehnquist, too.
Likewise, he was attacked by rabid leftists such as MoveOn, Howard Dean, DU, Daily Kos, and Senator Kennedy.
Pity that you question him likewise...
I just want to mention that Barone does a very good job of being thorough here.
You should be a fan of his. DeLay is one of the few Republicans with balls to tell it like it is. That's why the Rats hate him. He doesn't bend over for them, and he doesn't care what the NY Times editorial board thinks about him.
I think you read my post wrong. I was laughing at the poster in #7, who is the one who made that particular, "I'm no fan of DeLay", remark.
Look at my tagline. I'm a hugh fan of Tom.
But what about all three of Bush's cuts, the cuts for individuals enacted in 2001 and 2003, and the business tax cut enacted in 2002? In raw dollars, Bush wins. Tempalski's tables show that Reagan's 1981 cut was estimated to average $111 billion per year during its first four years on the books, while Bush's three cuts average a combined total of $160.4 billion annually during the comparable four-year period.
But Bush loses when inflation is taken into account. A dollar today is worth much less than a dollar in 1981. And Reagan's cut is 12% larger than Bush's combined cuts in "real" dollars (dollars adjusted for inflation) according to Tempalski's tables, again comparing four-year averages for both tax cuts.
Kyoto is dormant, not dead.
The unspun truth.
When did drilling start in Alaska? (When did construction start on new refineries? When did the Justice Department begin to look at breaking up the anti-trust collusion between big oil, refinery capacity and the retail gasoine market?)
There is no drilling in Alaska. There are no new refineries planned. He did end boutique fuels for...two weeks.
What evidence do you have that Roberts isn't Souter?
No evidence, just faith.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.