A ‘zero tolerance’ policy on ‘serious transgressions’?

September 1, 2007

I’ve let my subscription lapse on Republican Talking Points Weekly, but it’s pretty obvious that the Powers That Be have a clear message in the wake of the Larry Craig scandal: this shows that the GOP means business.

On Thursday’s edition of “Hardball,” for example, Tom DeLay, who inexplicably has been assigned to defend the Republican Party on issues relating to scandals and corruption, told Chris Matthews, “I’m not defending Larry Craig, if he’s guilty. What I do know is the Republicans, as they have in the past, when you have members that have problems or scandals and they are found guilty, the Republican Party does the right thing and kicks them out.”

The Weekly Standard’s Fred Barnes emphasized the same point in his latest column, arguing that the party is “intent on pushing scandal-plagued members of Congress out of office and far from the media spotlight.”

Republicans are desperate not to have another corruption-driven defeat in 2008. So when House Republican leader John Boehner, whip Roy Blunt, and others in the hierarchy met in a private retreat outside Washington last December, the corruption issue headed their agenda. They adopted a zero tolerance policy. They want no House candidates with corruption problems on the ballot. In 2006, four House members resigned (two later went to jail).

Boehner came up with a vague phrase for the sort of scandal they had in mind. It’s one with “a clear indication of serious transgressions.” In Boehner’s mind, an FBI raid on your home or your wife’s office is such an indication.

It all sounds very nice, but there’s ample reason for skepticism. In fact, this “zero tolerance” talk might make for pleasant-sounding p.r., but I don’t think the party leadership means a word of it.

Consider the scandal sheet Paul Kiel put together the other day, which helped prove that this year is poised to be as shameful for the GOP as last year.

So what’s the tally this year so far? Well, there is, of course, 1) Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID) and 2) Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) with their sex scandals (the attempted restroom tryst and numerous successful hotel room trysts, respectively).

But then there’s the much greater toll of just plain ol’ corruption. 3) Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) and 4) Rep. Don Young (R-AK) are under investigation for their ties to the oil company Veco (though that’s just the tip of the iceberg for Young). 5) Reps. Tom Feeney (R-FL) and 6) John Doolittle (R-CA) have found themselves the focus of a reinvigorated Abramoff investigation (though Abramoff is in prison, he’s still busily cooperating). 7) Rep. Rick Renzi (R-AZ) had his house raided. 8 ) The FBI is investigating Rep. Gary Miller’s (R-CA) land deals.

And then there’s 9) Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) whose land deal with a businessman and campaign contributor became such a scandal that she finally just sold back the plot of land.

There are a couple holdovers from 2006, of course; scandal figures who’ve stuck around and managed to keep a relatively low profile. 10) Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA) is still apparently under federal investigation. And 11) Rep. Ken Calvert’s (R-CA) land deals are still winning scrutiny.

Of these 11, Craig has resigned and Renzi has said he won’t seek re-election. Everyone else — including those whose homes have been raided by FBI agents — remains in good standing among Republicans. Indeed, Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.), one of the more notorious members on the list, announced this week that he will seek a 16th term next year. “I never seriously contemplated not running again,” he said in an interview. If there was an outcry in GOP circles based on their “zero tolerance” policy, it was awfully hard to find.

It gets back to the same point we’ve emphasized again and again this week — Republicans will act swiftly to purge the party’s scandalous members when they won’t suffer political consequences for it. All the other arguments are hot air.

Republican rhetoric doesn’t match their actions? Stop the presses!

Zero Tolerance is a nice slogan like Healthy Forests, Clear Skies, and No Child Left Behind. Who are you going to believe – the Republicans, or your lying eyes?

  • If Craig had not been up for re-election and had had an over-60% approval rating, he’d be in rehab right now, and in 30 days, would be welcomed back with open arms. It’s possible, too, that had be not pled guilty, he’d not have been forced to resign.

    I’m still chuckling over the Tom DeLay as arbiter-of-morality for the GOP, and wonder if someone at MSNBC actually does grasp the concept of irony, and is having his or her own little chuckle.

    What slays me is that the measure for to-purge-or-not-to-purge is purely political and has nothing to do with those old-fashioned concepts of right and wrong.

  • I’m afraid that putting forth Tom DeLay front and center is actually a clever bit of strategizing by the Republicans. If they treat DeLay is a legitimate spokesman, then the media will accept him as a legitimate spokesman. If the media accept him as a legitimate spokesman, then conventional wisdom will come to regard his corrupt activities as just a partisan witch-hunt (because we all know that the Democrats are the bloodthirsty partisans in this country). It’s rehabilitation via the “big lie” technique. And I’m afraid the Democrats may be spineless and disorganized enough simply to let it happen.

  • Of these 11, Craig has resigned and Renzi has said he won’t seek re-election. Everyone else — including those whose homes have been raided by FBI agents — remains in good standing among Republicans. Indeed, Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.), one of the more notorious members on the list, announced this week that he will seek a 16th term next year. “I never seriously contemplated not running again,” he said in an interview. If there was an outcry in GOP circles based on their “zero tolerance” policy, it was awfully hard to find.

    It’s like bein’ a gangsta.

  • The Weekly Standard’s Fred Barnes emphasized the same point in his latest column, arguing that the party is “intent on pushing scandal-plagued members of Congress out of office and far from the media spotlight.”

    Or, at least, “far from the media spotlight”. If that can be taken care of, the other part may not be necessary.

  • Crissa – If DeLay is invited on to “debate” or “balance” a Democrat, the Democrat should point out that DeLay is crooked. Or, presidential candidates (John Edwards and Chris Dodd have been good at this) can encourage people to complain about DeLay being treated like a respectable politician.

    The Republicans have benefited tremendously from mobilizing grass-roots rage at people who don’t tell conservative Americans what they want to hear. The Democratic Party should support groups like Media Matters in their efforts to “work the refs” for liberal causes. Making sure that DeLay stays discredited is part of that.

  • Are you sure he didn’t say “zero tolerance for The Gay”?

    Also, if there’s a worse scumbag out there than Tom DeLay, I have yet to encounter him. Tommie D talking about scandal is like

    –Dick Cheney lecturing about hunting safety
    –Laura Bush sharing her thoughts on safe driving
    –Tom Tancredo speaking about America’s proud immigrant legacy
    –Paul Bremer telling the world about how best to conduct an occupation and reconstruction
    –David Vitter describing the sanctity of marriage

    Feel free to add your own.

  • You have to admit, “zero tolerance” does have a much nicer ring to it than “Oh shit! Not again.“

  • I always understood IOKIYAR. Do I have to change that to IOKUYAGR (It’s OK Unless You’re A Gay Republican)?

    Republicans: Party of Hipocrites

    • Comments are closed.