<< Previous Post | Main | Next Post >>

COMPARE AND CONTRAST

First, this story from Reuters:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush called embattled Rep. Tom DeLay a strong Republican leader in the House of Representatives and denied he was a political liability for a string of ethics controversies.

"He's been a very effective leader," Bush said of DeLay when asked if he thought the Texas Republican had become a liability to their political party or its agenda.

"We've gotten a lot done in the legislature, and I'm convinced we'll get more done in the legislature. And I'm looking forward to working with him," Bush told the American Society of Newspaper Editors.

Note to the President: Being effective and being corrupt are not mutually exclusive. In fact, the cynic would argue that he has been "effective" precisely because he is corrupt.

But seriously, what kind of defense is that? He's been "effective?" I thought the GOP was supposed to be the party with "morals" and "values?" All that matters is his effectiveness?

Ah, but you're a DeLay defender, so you're going to need some convincing on that corruption thing, right?

How about this from today's Washington Times:

Mr. Hurt: Have you ever crossed the line of ethical behavior in terms of dealing with lobbyists, your use of government authority or with fundraising?
    
Mr. DeLay: Ever is a very strong word. Let me start out by saying, you can never find anything that I have done for personal gain. Period. What I'm doing is what I believe in, I'm doing it the way I believe in it. Yes, I'm aggressive. I'm passionate about what I believe in, and I'm passionate about winning and accomplishing our agenda.

So... I guess it doesn't depend on what the definition of "is" is, it depends on what your definition of "ever" is!

I suppose he does have a valid point. "Ever" is a strong word:

Ever: At any time: Have you ever been to Europe? In any way; at all: How did they ever manage?
But that's just the beginning. Not content to play semantics with the word "ever," DeLay then says "you can never find anything that I have done for personal gain."

So... to translate:

I have at some point in time acted unethically.
But you'll never find out.
And you can't prove it.
So I'm not guilty!

Brilliant!

Nice to see the President standing up for such a stand-up guy!

But hey... While we're at it, let's take a look at some of the other things this "effective leader" has said:

Here, in the same Washington Times interview, and in his own words:

National Editor Ken Hanner: Ten years ago, Republicans won control of the House by running on the Contract with America, which was a blueprint for limited government. Recently, Republicans have championed expansion of federal role in education, huge new entitlement programs, including prescription drugs, and overall increases of federal spending. When did the Republicans become the party of big government?

Mr. DeLay: Well, I hope we can shed anybody's notion that that's where we are headed. First, in full disclosure, I voted against No Child Left Behind. But, that's the president's agenda. And he worked very hard to accomplish that agenda. We will revisit No Child Left Behind, look at its effectiveness and those kinds of issues. I know the president wants to extend it. But I think we have to see if No Child Left Behind is actually working before we talk about extending it.
    I'm not using it as an excuse, because I came here to limit government and reduce the size of government.

Excuse: To explain (a fault or an offense) in the hope of being forgiven or understood; to serve as a justification for.

When Bush came here, the Senate was still the lowest common denominator. And we had to deal with them. Now that sounds like an excuse, and I guess it is. But if you look at the real record, sans the effort to fight a war - and we'll spend whatever it takes to win the war on terror - but if you look at the other spending, it's actually been going down.

The rate of growth has gone from - I'll get you the numbers, but as I can recall - after the first year, in the second year - that's when Bush really had control and provided discipline - the rate of growth was about 5 percent. The next year, it was 4 percent. The next year, it was 3 percent. Last year, on discretionary spending, we increased spending ever so slightly, but you can say we froze discretionary spending.

Hmmm... Interesting. Let's see what the always conservative Cato Institute has to say about that:

Discretionary (or annually appropriated) federal spending grew slowly during the mid-1990s, but has grown rapidly in recent years under President Bush. Mandatory (or entitlement) spending has grown strongly after a brief lull in the early 1990s. Mandatory spending will grow explosively when the baby boomers begin retiring in 2008.

Or for those of you who prefer pictures:

And here's another one, this time courtesy of Washington Monthly:

Looks like Tom doesn't just need a refresher in basic English. He needs it in math too.

Our budget that we just passed just a few weeks ago is the toughest budget that we've had since 1997. And it includes a very healthy look at all mandatory spending in reconciliation. So we're headed in that direction. We know that we have to show fiscal responsibility. And we're trying to do that.

Hey... I'll give him some credit here. Anything that takes us back to the Clinton era is fine by me.

 Reporter Charles Hurt: A lot of smart people say that no matter how you limit the growth of spending, it's not going to have a dramatic impact on shrinking government. What three big-ticket items would you personally like to see the government get out of the business of doing?

    Mr. DeLay: Well, I'm not sure I want to go there. Let me put it a different way. What people don't notice is this House has led the way and has had tax relief - sometimes more than once in a year - every year since we've been in the majority. That's really important. Some of it actually has become law. More important than that is that it's been over 10 years since we voted to raise any federal taxes. How did we do that? We grew the economy. Through our policies, we helped the economy grow.

    The idea is to hold the line on spending and let the economy catch up. Balanced budgets can be done [House Minority Leader] Nancy Pelosi's way. We could do that tomorrow. We could raise enough taxes to balance the budget. That's what they did in 1993.

Two minor points here:

1. Cutting taxes isn't shrinking government. It's shrinking revenue. After 25+ years of supply-side lunacy you'd think they'd have figured that out by now. But I understand.... don't want to go there. After all, cutting taxes is easy. Cutting spending? Oh no! That would require backing up our principles with action! Good lord!

2. 1993. Hmmm.... Balancing the budget through tax increase. I wonder... Anyone out there know what happened to the economy after we did that? Cause I can't remember what the mid to late 1990's was like. I was enjoying myself too much.

 Managing Editor Fran Coombs: Isn't the reason you don't want to name big-ticket items that once you start a program ... it's difficult to get rid of the program?

    Mr. DeLay: That's certainly been the case. And the Department of Education, the Department of Commerce - you're absolutely right. But the opposite is also true. If I named anything I would like to get rid of, then my ability to actually get rid of it is over.

    Because the minute the press gets a hold of it, the tsunami comes in, and there's no way to make it happen.

The "tsunami." a.k.a "the people."

 Mr. Hurt: Does that mean that shrinking or limiting government is not the priority, but that the priority is to grow into the government we have?

    Mr. DeLay: No, no, no. Shrinking government and limiting government are actually two different things. Limiting the government in your life, regulatory, social issues and all that and shrinking the size of government or reprioritizing - or as I like to say it, 'redesigning' - government to reflect our values are very important.
    I know some may have opposed what we did in Medicare. I'm very proud of what we did in Medicare.

    Reporter Ralph Z. Hallow: Why?

    Mr. DeLay: Because if we didn't do anything, it would break this country. What we did, we instituted - not in a pretty way - but we instituted our philosophy and our values, bringing in competition, trying to eliminate third-party payments, bringing in co-payments ... now they are instituted. And they are part of the Medicare program.

Competition? Like prohibiting the federal government from negotiating with drug companies to lower prices? You mean that kind of "competition?"

Skipping ahead...

 Mr. Coombs: What kind of immigration reform do you want to see in this Congress?

    Mr. DeLay: Well, I hate to bias what I'd like to see. I think it's incredibly important - before we even look at guest worker or anything else - to convince the American people that we are protecting our borders. I personally think that we ought to use the eyes and ears of our military. You'll never build a wall high enough or deep enough to keep people from coming over the Rio Grande River. They're gonna come to feed their families no matter what you do. But you can build a seeing-eye wall. I mean, we can read your license plate from satellites. We can set up our systems with Predators [remote-control unmanned surveillance planes] and everything. We don't need these guys down there - and God bless them for doing it - to watch people coming over the border. We can use our military

A "seeing-eye wall." What a great idea! I wonder. What would Ronald "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down that wall!" Reagan have to say about that?

I give up. This is just too easy...

UPDATE: Damn. Hang on. One more. This one just can't be missed:

 Mr. Dinan: You've been talking about going after activist judges since at least 1997. The [Terri] Schiavo case gives you a chance to do that, but you've recently said you blame Congress for not being zealous in oversight.

Mr. DeLay: Not zealous. I blame Congress over the last 50 to 100 years for not standing up and taking its responsibility given to it by the Constitution. The reason the judiciary has been able to impose a separation of church and state that's nowhere in the Constitution is that Congress didn't stop them. The reason we had judicial review is because Congress didn't stop them. The reason we had a right to privacy is because Congress didn't stop them.

Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Hmmm... I wonder what that means? Maybe we should ask the man who helped write it

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802

And one final thing...

Oath of Office Administered to Members of The House of Representatives You do solemnly swear (or affirm) that you will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Connecticut, so long as you continue a citizen thereof; and that you will faithfully discharge, according to law, the duties of the Office of State Representative to the best of your abilities; so help you God.

I guess poor old Tom needs some help with that too... Poor guy.

UPDATE II: Looks like that Reuters story I cited at the top left out the best part:

Bush told the American Society of Newspaper Editors that he expects that Delay will cooperate with an investigation.

"As I read his comments today, he wants the ethics committee to review his case, and he's willing to step up and talk to the ethics committee about it," Bush said. "And secondly, I'm looking forward to working with Tom. He's been a very effective leader. We've gotten a lot done in the legislature."

Bush laughed off an editor's question about whether he agrees with DeLay that the "liberal news media" are responsible for his troubles. "Of course not!" Bush exclaimed and then chuckled.


--------

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: COMPARE AND CONTRAST.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.alexwhalen.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1940

Leave a comment