This is amusing. If the notoriously right-wing Oxford press is right, the Democrats may be too afraid about the sins of their own to attack DeLay:
Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean is trying to get voters to hold the Republican Party responsible for the “culture of corruption” he sees in Washington, but Dean is getting virtually no help from fellow Democrats in the House of Representatives…
Indeed, at the DNC’s executive committee meeting here in early June, Dean publicly acknowledged that some congressional Democrats had urged him to tone down his “culture of corruption” rhetoric because they did not want to get caught up in the same ethics probe as DeLay. But Dean said he would not hold back.
There is no more salient argument for ousting Republicans right now than DC’s culture of corruption. People who couldn’t care about “issues” instinctively cringe when their elected officials use their office to personally profit at the expense of the American people. It’s the argument that helped the GOP sweep into office in 1994, and it’s the argument that helped Montana Democrats sweep state-level elections in a solid Republican year.
If Dems are worried about being “collegial”, they should stop. The DeLay majority hasn’t bothered with civility and collegiality since it took power. If Dems are worried that some of them may be tainted, then too bad. Corruption is bad whether it bears an (R) or (D).
It appears that there is more than a desire for “collegiality” worrying some Democrats:
But in recent months, with Abramoff the subject of a criminal investigation, there have been media accounts and studies by watchdog groups that raise questions about the conduct of Democratic House members:
As a completely disinterested [ ;) ]comment-crapper, I think congressional handwringing over “ethics” ought, pretty much, to be limited to the matter of corruption. That is, outlandish enrichment while in “public service,” like the recent GOP governor of Connectict (Rowland?), and Lyndon Johnson of yore.
Ass-covering paperwork for golfing-cum-“fact finding” junkets aren’t nearly so troublesome. Shoot, happens in lots of endeavors (medicine, academia, journalism), so the “common man” freak out is pretty out of place.
Given this article in WaPo:
I have my doubts about the accuracy of the article you cite.
Whatever the tally of Republican corruption versus Democratic corruption, it’d probably be best to sweep ’em all out and let the chips fall where they may.
Yes, of course, we’re all shocked — shocked! — to find out that there is corruption in the halls of Congress, and that it is bipartisan in nature.
Who knew? Is this the equivalent of finding life on Mars?
Give me a frigging break.
Ive got to say that I’m shocked, shocked, simply SHOCKED that there is gambling in Casab…oops, wrong movie. I’ve shocked, shocked simply shocked to hear that Jack Abramoff might have kept files on Democrats, too. After all, the party of the Teamsters and Tammany Hall must be as pure as the driven snow…
in downtown Cartagena.
I agree with Kos that this is an opportunity for the Dems to make the Repubs look bad. I don’t think that the Ethics committee is the way to do it, though, at least not through a direct filing. The only strategy that I can see working would be an indirect one, say by forcing the Committee to accept recommendations from parties outside Congress. That way, Abramoff wouldn’t be able to play the “Tuo Quoque” card on the filers.
Hey…The broom sweeps both ways.
Democratic corruption is as bad as Republican corruption, with everything else being equal. But with the Republicans now in charge because of their promise to root out Democratic corruption…well…their corrupt representatives make juicy targets indeed.
Throw the bums out. Throw all the bums out.
“Ass-covering paperwork for golfing-cum-“fact finding” junkets aren’t nearly so troublesome. Shoot, happens in lots of endeavors (medicine, academia, journalism), so the “common man” freak out is pretty out of place.”
Agree that it’s overblown to an extent, but at the same time, these people are supposed to be public servants, and so they should be held to a higher standard than your average business guy who fudges info on his travel accounts. They should be, in a sense, model citizens, and if they’re constitutionally incapable of being above bribes and illicit perks, they should go back (or be sent back) to being lawyers.
There has to be at least one Democratic Congressman or Congresswoman who both 1. doesn’t have scandals of his/her own and 2. doesn’t care about Republicans liking him/her.
Right? Right? C’mon, give me at least one!
The thing is, ethics rules are arcane enough that even very good and decent people can have an error or gift blown badly out of proportion.
I’ve had birthday presents which would violate ethics laws, had I been a Member at the time.
Come on, Kimmitt, we have always considered you to be a member. (/sophomoric flame)