Maybe if we could get DeLay to intervene in another private family matter…

May 17, 2005

As much as I’d like to believe otherwise, it seems the ethical and legal scandals surrounding Tom DeLay still aren’t quite cutting through. DeLay is clearly better known than he was a year ago, but according to the latest study from the Pew Research Center, the public remains largely unaware of DeLay’s ethical and legal difficulties.

Thus far, the controversy surrounding House Majority Leader Tom DeLay has attracted far less attention than the 1997 ethics case involving former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. Only about three-in-ten (29%) are following news about the ethics complaints against DeLay very or fairly closely. In January 1997, fully twice as many (58%) paid at least some attention to news that Gingrich had been charged with violations by the House Ethics Committee.

With so little attention to this news story outside the Beltway, it is not surprising that half of the public is unable to make a judgment about whether or not DeLay is guilty of violating the ethical standards of the House. Of those who have an opinion, a 31% plurality believes he is guilty of violating House rules. Those following the story at least fairly closely think DeLay is guilty of ethics violations by better than a two-to-one margin (61% vs. 24%).

So the good news is the people who are paying attention are the ones who know DeLay is corrupt. The bad news, few are paying attention. The overall percentage of Americans who say they’re following DeLay’s scandals closely is just 8%, while an additional 21% say they’re following the matter “fairly closely.” In contrast, a combined 58% said they were following the ethical charges surrounding Newt Gingrich in a similar poll taken in 1997.

Really, what did Newt have that DeLay doesn’t? A funnier name? More published books?

I’m open to suggestion, but it’s hard to see what more Dems can do to generate more interest in DeLay’s scandals.

Newt is a publicity hound. He was always on TV, ranting about this and that. You didn’t want to get between him and a camera. So people knew who he was.

DeLay, on the other hand, seems to understand that he’s charmless and thuggish and stays off TV as much as possible, working in the background. The Schiavo thing was a rare change from this strategy.

  • … the public remains largely unaware of DeLay’s ethical and legal difficulties.

    I think you’d have had a complete and meaningful sentence if you’d simply left off “of DeLay’s ethical and legal difficulties.” Today’s brain boxes seem nearly impenetrable.

  • It’s always depressing to be reminded of how willfully uninformed so much of the American public chooses to be. But thankfully DeLay’s future rests with the people of his one small district in Texas, not the entire population of the U.S.A. If the Dems can mount a hard-hitting and effective campaign in Sugar Land, Mr. DeLay will be gone from the national scene in spite of the ignorance of the general public. That’s a big “if”, I grant you, but I’ll take my silver linings where I can find them.

  • Newt was Speaker of the House, a much more recognizable position to most Americans compared to majority leader. Third in line and all that. Plus, what Brian said.

  • Does anybody know how this is playing in his Texas district? I know his approval rating there has fallen, but I haven’t come across any recent polls or articles on how Texas voters feel about this.

  • With a little more reflection, I do have a suggestion.

    Americans generally only sense scandal when there’s sex involved (e.g., Clinton/Monica, Newt diddling his future wife and dumping his ill one, poor old Wilbur Mill’s hoochie-coochie dancer). By contrast, I rather think many Americans regard DeLay as “clever” or “hard working” or even “born again” … and where’s the scandal in any of that? As Edwin Edwards said, “The only way I can lose this election is if I’m caught in bed with either a dead girl or a live boy.”

    DeLay’s behavior really is pretty trivial in the wider and more life-threatening context of the sewer which flows continuously from the current White House gang. Again, no sex … no scandal. Except in the minds of we few fools who read, care about the Constitution and our fellow man, etc.

  • The thing for Dems to do is to keep working this: good grief, talk about your immediate gratification types!

    I personally would miss no chance to refer to the bush-delay administration, or the bush-delay policy on tax-cutting, or the bush-delay spending cuts aimed at the poor, or similar matters.

    Repetition!

  • Megadittos howard. The single biggest rhetorical weakness of the democrats is lack of reptition. People are busy, lazy, distracted, and (a lot of them) stupid. You have to repeat stuff over and over and over and over and over or it never sinks in. It’s not difficult but it’s boring.

    The dems will talk for a little bit about DeLay and then move onto something else. Instead of talking about him every third sentence or so, over and over and over, which is what the republicans would do.

    • Comments are closed.