| Exercise
in Arrogance
by Vincent Fiore
Way back in 1991, Republican freshman Jim Nussle
made national news by appearing on the floor of the House of Representatives
donning a paper bag over his head. Representative Nussle went on
to criticize the then Democrat-led House for its actions, or more
appropriately, its inactions in the face of the infamous House banking
scandal.
 This
fit of showmanship by Nussle was meant to impose a mantle of shame
upon the Democratic leadership of the House, and so it did. In the
following months, some 355 House members, past and present, were
involved in writing over 20,000 bad checks that totaled over $10.5
million dollars.
In 1993, the still Democratic-led House then suffered
a House Post Office scandal, in which representatives traded stamps
and official House postal vouchers for cash. Finally, House Ways
and Means committee chairman Dan Rostenkowski essentially looted
his own campaign funds for his own personal extravagancy.
All of the above are political headaches that stem
from single-party dominance and hubris. Although some of the above
scandals were bi-partisan as to the abusers themselves -- though
much more heavily abused by Democrats, the one over-riding factor
as far as the voter was concerned, was “who is in charge?”
So when the Republican-controlled Congress recently
cavalierly decided to change a rule that was installed by the Newt
Gingrich-led GOP in 1993, voters were watching with interest. The
"no-indictment" rule essentially said that a member of
any House leadership position must temporarily yield the position
if criminally indicted.
But the House Republican Steering committee changed
the rule to state that each case will be reviewed independently
before any action is taken. This is of great interest to besieged
House Republican Majority Leader Tom DeLay, as this rule change--solely
for his benefit--enables him to continue to traffic publicly among
the aisles of power.
For DeLay, it is the equivalent of a "get out
of jail" card, politically. In truth, no one can see DeLay
being stripped of his leadership position in the House, with no
small consideration being given to what the White House wants in
this as well; and in this, the White House wants DeLay right where
he is.
But a cloud of "questionable conduct"
continues to follow DeLay, dating back to 1999. Back then, he was
admonished by the House ethics committee for threatening reprisals
against a trade group if it hired a Democrat as its president. In
2002, he was accused of misusing corporate funds by funneling them
to Texas state legislators through a political action committee
(PAC) he created. Currently, a Texas grand jury has indicted three
of his associates and eight corporations, and is continuing to investigate.
More recently, the bi-partisan House ethics committee
"rebuked" DeLay on two occasions: creating the appearance
of favoritism in regard to granting special access to donors on
energy legislation and misuse of a federal agency (the FAA) to intervene
locally in a Texas political turf war; and pressuring Rep. Nick
Smith, R-Michigan, to switch his vote on the Medicare prescription-drug
bill in return for endorsing Smith's son in a Republican primary.
Smith refused, and his son lost the primary. These latest admonishments
stem from a complaint filed by outgoing Rep. Chris Bell, D-Texas,
who lost his own primary battle after DeLay's successful redistricting
of the state.
With the most contentious election in memory now
over, President Bush has set an ambitious agenda that will keep
both upper and lower Houses of Congress extremely engaged. The last
thing Bush can afford is a rallying cry from Democrats that will
be dutifully echoed by the mainstream media.
Worse still, the cry will be based upon the ethical
and moral behavior of the Republican leadership and its misuse of
power for the benefit of political protectionism. One cannot over-state
the importance of these questions of personal behavior. They played
a role in winning the White House for Bush in 2000, and in 2004.
If Republicans go too far now, as I think they have, they may see
it play a role in their defeat of 2006.
Tom DeLay is one of the most powerful men ever to
ascend the House of Representatives. His leadership has been indispensable
to the GOP, and to this president. Some will say that protecting
Tom DeLay is an action of reflex on the part of the GOP, for what's
a party in power to do when dubious actions on the part of Texas
Democratic prosecutor Ronnie Earle have more than a whiff of partisan
machinations?
In my mind, there is no doubt that DeLay is the
target of an overzealous prosecutor that is more political than
professional. Still, DeLay can ill-afford to antagonize an electorate
that will see this change in the rules as a party power-grab to
insulate himself and itself. DeLay should willingly and temporarily
excuse himself from the leadership, only to return after these charges
have been dealt with in its entirety.
Be warned: Voters have a way of thinking along party
lines as well, and more times than not, it is the party in power
that suffers for the abuse of it. Might there not be a bag-in-waiting
for some Democrat, who will mount the floor of the House and loudly
lament the breakdown of the ethical fiber in the GOP-controlled
House? For Republicans to proceed in exercises of arrogance is to
invite a replaying of history.
Vincent
Fiore is a freelance political writer who lives in New York City.
Email
the Editor |
