Some Republicans owe the country an explanation

April 4, 2006

I think Judd is right that seeing [tag]Tom DeLay[/tag] brag about his “K Street Project” now is rather fitting.

“When we took over in 1995, the K Street contributions to elections was 70/30 — 70 percent Democrat, 30 percent Republican. Today it’s 60/40 — 60 percent Republican and 40 percent Republican. That’s a change in culture. Democrats and the left hate that, and they have worked very hard to destroy it.”

Judd added, “While DeLay is gone, the corrupt system he set up — and is so proud of — remains. It’s that system that allowed people like Jack Abramoff to thrive.”

I think that’s right, but it’s only part of the broader dynamic today. DeLay’s [tag]resignation[/tag] is key in ridding Congress of one of its most destructive and least [tag]ethical[/tag] lawmakers, but as DeLay leaves in disgrace, it’s important to note that the culture and infrastructure that remains in place has DeLay’s fingerprints all over it. The [tag]corrupt[/tag] system allowed Abramoff to thrive, but it also allowed Republicans to claim a majority and keep it. Today is as good a time as any to raise the issue of accountability.

We are, as a factual matter, talking about a machine design DeLay designed, built, and oversaw for years. Isn’t now a good time to ask some of those Republicans who empowered DeLay to explain themselves?

When Dems use phrases like “a Tom DeLay [tag]Republican[/tag],” it’s not only an insult, it’s a fairly accurate description of nearly all of the GOP House caucus that has given DeLay power and followed his lead.

When DeLay was found to have violated House Ethics, Republicans defended him. When DeLay was indicted on criminal charges, Republicans supported him. No matter how corrupt his behavior, or reprehensible his rhetoric, or irresponsible his decisions, or indefensible his policies, Republicans stood by DeLay and made him their hero. They took his money, backed his bills, and rewarded his conduct. DeLay was their public face, and few ever questioned the merit of such a bizarre approach.

Even today, DeLay’s colleagues are praising him. House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) called DeLay “one of the most effective and gifted leaders the Republican Party has ever known,” and added that the country “owes Tom a great debt of gratitude for helping lead America in a new direction.”

[tag]Gratitude[/tag]? In this sense, the Republicans are making the Dems’ job easy. DeLay is leaving Congress humiliated, and instead of distancing themselves from him, most of the House GOP is patting him on the back. It speaks volumes about the caucus.

Amen, brother

  • From Slate 12/25/98,

    There is another, less talked about, reason why the ascension of Hastert is alarming. Call it the Front Man Syndrome. Most people would agree that in a well-run democracy, political power ought to be transparent. By this I mean that those who hold nominally powerful jobs ought to exercise correspondingly real power. Title and authority should be directly related. The president should be the most powerful person in the executive branch, the chief justice of the Supreme Court the most powerful in the judicial branch, the speaker of the House the most powerful in the House, etc. This transparency serves democracy, because it enables voters to hold the responsible officials accountable for their actions. You cannot hide. (American politics has not always been transparent. In the golden age of political machines, for example, bosses often occupied ostensibly unimportant jobs and left the glorious titles to their marionettes.)

    But transparency may be a casualty of last week. If Democrats or Republicans fear that their leaders will be subject to personal attack–and they do–then there is a huge incentive for the parties to vest nominal power in squeaky-clean nonentities and hide real power behind the scenes.

    H
    Illustration by Peter Kuper
    astert may be Exhibit 1. “Coach,” as he’s fondly known, has a history of modest service to his party and his district, delivering pork, opposing Democratic health-care bills, etc. Mostly he has been a faithful deputy whip to DeLay, helping “The Hammer” count votes in the service of the conservative cause. DeLay mobilized his whip organization to ensure his deputy’s election as speaker, and Democratic members are already wondering if Coach will be The Hammer’s tool.

    We should not let anyone forget that Hastert is DeLay’s creation.

  • Praising someone leaving in disgrace tends to be the standard response by fellow party members — it’s as if they are eulogizing them after their death instead of bidding them farewell to more lucrative jobs in the private sector — because party tends to always trump principle and pols fear kicking someone while they are down. Good riddance to DeLay — I just hope his move doesn’t mean that his district will end up staying in GOP hands when it was one of the most promising for a Democratic gain.

  • It’s easy to see why Republicans are praising the man. Most of the House GOP owes their seat to Delay’s fundraising prowess and his part in the K Street project. There wasn’t a single GOP House member (or Senator) who turned down Delay’s money before the scandal broke. The House GOP owes Delay everything. They’ll never criticize him publicly because there’s still the chance he could hurt them politically. Even with Delay’s departure, I’m sure his name will still has some value in conservative and corporate circles.

  • Seems like to me if he was a great leader he would be respected on both sides of the aisle like other legit great leaders

    • Comments are closed.