Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Republicans

Journal pudge's Journal: Tom DeLay 27

Journal by pudge

I don't really care about Tom DeLay. But the recent NY Times piece about his family members getting paid by his campaign and PACs really boiled my blood.

The story was completely irrelevant and had no business ever being published. The story was trying to show that DeLay did something wrong by paying family members to work for his campaign and PACs. But there is nothing remotely wrong with it, in any way. It is not illegal, unethical, or immoral. It is perfectly acceptable.

It was a hatchet job, intended specifically to make DeLay look bad without actually showing him doing anything wrong. And it's a great example of why so many people don't trust or like the media. The Times could go a long way toward improving its image by disavowing the story and firing the reporter who wrote it.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Tom DeLay More

Tom DeLay

Comments Filter:
  • Where were these hit pieces on LBJ when he was buying votes in Texas as a congressman? Who has ran an piece on where the money comes in and goes out of the Kennedy racket in the northeast. Hell Dan Rostenkowski and Jim Trafficant were defended even after convicted, but be damned if Delay isn't the antichrist for being a politician. The voters in his district seem to like him, what business does the NYT or ABC have in poking around him. Shouldn't they be investigating their own Senator Clinton's shady mo
    • Bringing up LBJ is just funny, clearly the standards of behavior and journalism have changed since the 50's.

      "Senator Clinton's shady money trail"

      Do you have some actual evidence is is this just another smear to cement what "everybody knows?"

      "The voters in his district seem to like him, what business does the NYT or ABC have in poking around him."

      So only the Houston Bugle (or whatever paper they have) should write about him? No, any man who can get the President to cut his vacation short is worth nationa
      • I don't deny DeLay is news. I just deny this information is news, in Houston or anywhere else, unless his supporters themselves decide it is: that is, those that say "I gave DeLay money and am upset that he is spending it on his wife." That might be newsworthy, highlighting perhaps a need for more expansive or accessible disclosure. Other than that, I see no newsworthiness in this at all.

        Someone asked me, "You think his supporters would be happy to know that he paid those types of salaries to his wife/d
        • I like the idea that you can become independently wealthy by being married to someone running for office. What would she make on the open market? What would he have to pay someone else to fulfill the duties she performed other than being his wife. Nepotism (or anything that looks like it) has a way of annoying people. Take the case of Orrin Hatch's son. He is proving that you can get wealthy if your daddy is a senator and you decide to become a lobbyist working for media companies. He has access to po
          • I like the idea that you can become independently wealthy by being married to someone running for office. What would she make on the open market? What would he have to pay someone else to fulfill the duties she performed other than being his wife.

            I really hope you don't think that's very interesting.

            Nepotism (or anything that looks like it) has a way of annoying people.

            Which is, of course, the real point. As H2G2 says, "to summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem." To exand slightl
            • Which is, of course, the real point. As H2G2 says, "to summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem." To exand slightly on that summary: people think nepotism-or-anything-that-looks-like-it is a problem because the media and political hacks say it is a problem, and therefore it becomes a problem, even though it isn't.

              And because of the extra scuritiny that politicians receive, it would be a good idea for them to avoid the mere appearance of impropriety, just to avoid trouble such as this. Ah

              • And because of the extra scuritiny that politicians receive, it would be a good idea for them to avoid the mere appearance of impropriety, just to avoid trouble such as this. Ah, the price they must pay for a life of power!

                As I said to extra88: *what* appearance of impropriety? What has he done that looks like it might be illegal or unethical or immoral, and according to what rule of law or ethics or morality?
                • My point was that people will interpret the situation as nepotism. People consider that to be unethical. There was a minor scandal a few years ago about sports figures setting up charities and then paying their mothers (or other family memebers) six figure salaries to run them. In reality these family members really weren't doing any actual work. I have no idea/memory if anything fishy was happening or not, but it seemed to me that the problem was more one of perception than of anything illegal going on
                  • My point was that people will interpret the situation as nepotism. People consider that to be unethical.

                    And my point is that this is why the NY Times reporter, and perhaps editor, should be fired, because they printed this story while knowing -- or being too stupid to know, which is just as bad -- that there was nothing wrong with it, but that people would take it to be wrong, even though it isn't.
              • I am an idiot that can't turn off the italics.

                The second paragraph in the above post is mine:

                And because of the extra scuritiny that politicians receive, it would be a good idea for them to avoid the mere appearance of impropriety, just to avoid trouble such as this. Ah, the price they must pay for a life of power!

        • If I can risk going semi-off-topic, my religious tradition includes the proviso that one does not muzzle the ox while it is treading, that the workman is worthy of his hire, and that the ones who do not work shall not eat. The teaching is that one serving deserves to be paid, though payment is not mandatory. So it's no great leap for me to go from, "We can pay our preacher so he can devote his full time to this work," to "A politician can pay his wife so she can devote her full time to campaigning." She

      • LBJ is relevant, he is a known dirty politician from Texas who was powerful in the US House and eventually became president. All that is different from him and Mr. Delay is A) Delay has a R after his name, and B) Delay hasn't been caught.

        Clinton has a long trail of people indicted and in prison from her deals, start with Webb Hubble and end with David Rosen [wnbc.com]
        • Did you really mean to assert that DeLay is a dirty politician who hasn't been caught yet?

          Thank you for the Rosen link, that's very informative. I'll note that I see the NY Times (searching their site, I'm not taking the time to read the articles via Lexis/Nexis right now) also has articles about the Rosen case so they're not ignoring her problems.
          • I tend to think most politicians are slimy bastards, but you are innocent until proven guilty in this country.

            As for the Rosen matter, it has been buried, the cable outlets aren't picking up on it, even Fox is taking a hands off approach, perhaps waiting to unleash during a race? But be damned if DeLay isn't being railroaded by everyone not named Limbaugh or Hannity.
  • How come Repubs on the hill cry in their beers and gnash their teeth about "activist judges" until it suits them and then gnash their teeth when they can't get a judge to go against laws on the books and help "the cause"?

    Of course, I am referring to DeLay calling out the State and Federal Judges that refused to follow his will and saying that they "will answer for their behavior."

    The guy's a whack-job in my book.

    To your point about the article, his actions may be legal (I don't know), but the prices for
    • I have no problem with veiled threats against the judiciary. They have power over the judiciary, as per the Constitution, and have a right to exercise that power. Judges, including the SCOTUS, sometimes make similar threats against Congress.

      That's not to say I agree with the the object of a specific threat, etc. But eh. It bugs me that people think the Congress has no business standing up to the judiciary. They do.

      To your point about the article, his actions may be legal (I don't know), but the pric
      • My guess is that he is going down. He's becoming a problem for the GOP's agenda so I don't see many swimming out to save him for fear of being pulled down with him. We'll see though. Like I said, the guy is made of teflon.

        ...to everyone who knows how these things work

        Since I am too dumb to understand how these things work, Pudge, why don't you clue me in.

        • My guess is that he is going down. He's becoming a problem for the GOP's agenda so I don't see many swimming out to save him for fear of being pulled down with him.

          Maybe. If so, they way it is happening is extremely unfortunate, because the left is abusing the process and lying to bring him down. If he deserves to be brought down, fine, but the way it is happening is extremely unfortunate.

          It's why I had a lot of sympathy for DeLay changing the ethics rules so that a mere inidictment would not force him
      • Also, I don't care about the threat. I just think it is funny that DeLay and the Republican Congress were calling for Judicial Activism in the Schiavo case. When the case had been lost in court case after court case, they send it up one more time with the implicit message that they wanted a different result.

        And then, when they don't get the correct result, they scream "Judicial Tyranny".

        I just find it funny... and I do think he is out in left (erm... right) field...

    • Selection of judges per district is a random process, done by a computer system. The Judge that was selected by that system happened to be one that President Clinton appointed (for the recent case in Florida). However, most federal judges are actually appointed by Republican Party presidents. I can paste in some hard stats if you care to see them, but I have to compile my data first. Also, there are so-called activist judges that were appointed by republican presidents.

  • Well (Score:2)

    by sulli ( 195030 ) *
    I will agree with you that this is less important than, for example, endorsing threats against the Federal judiciary.

    • Re:Well (Score:2)

      by pudge ( 3605 ) *
      I am not saying it is "less" important. I am saying it is entirely UNimportant. Privately, I would think and hope that most on the left would be angered by this story too, because it threatens the credibility of all the other attacks on DeLay.

      Oh now I get it, it's becoming clear ... Karl Rove is behind it. :-)
  • I assume you're referring to this article:
    Political Groups Paid Two Relatives of House Leader [nytimes.com]
    By PHILIP SHENON April 6, 2005

    Not everyone agrees with you that nepotism in politics is ok and others are cited, saying as much. The fact that it is controversial (and public) makes it newsworthy. A journalist could write a more general article about nepotism that doesn't concentrate on a single politician but this particular journalist is essentially on the "Delay beat" right now so he's going to write about the
    • Not everyone agrees with you that nepotism in politics is ok and others are cited, saying as much.

      This is not "nepotism in politics," in the commonly understood sense, it is nepotism in 100% private organizations: his election campaign and PACs. If these were government jobs, that would be entirely different.

      And those who disagree are just wrong. They cannot point to one law, ethical practice, or anything else that says this is wrong. And who says it is wrong? Only one person in the article said this

      • This is not "nepotism in politics," in the commonly understood sense, it is nepotism in 100% private organizations: his election campaign and PACs. If these were government jobs, that would be entirely different.

        I am just a foreigner, so maybe you can explain this to me. Here in Canada people can get a tax deduction for contributing to the election campaigns of politicians. Americans also qualify for tax deductions for political contributions, don't they?

        If Americans get a deduction for political c

        • Americans also qualify for tax deductions for political contributions, don't they?

          No.

          If Americans get a deduction for political contributions, and a politician uses that money to pay a salary to his family members, can you argue that this is private money?

          Yes, I can.

          Ordinary Americans help subsize the tax deductions on those kinds of political contributions, Why doesn't that make those funds public funds?

          Because that is not the proper way to view such things. Just because you get a tax deduction
  • It gives the appearance that DeLay has found a way to "skim" funds off his campaign -- something that *IS* unethical/illegel. He can hire family members to do "stuff", pay them handsomely, and then the money stays "in the family", rather than 'wasted' on his campaign.

    Now, this isn't some NEW "loophole" he discovered. JFK did it. It goes WAY back.

    Does it mean DeLay is REALLY skimming off campaign funds? Hardly. But since he's a polarizing figure and he's done something that can be twisted a bit, he's a

Slashdot Top Deals

"I have five dollars for each of you." -- Bernhard Goetz

Close