It is a great and glorious to see Tom “The Hammer” DeLay go away. DeLay once declared “I AM the Federal Government” at precisely the moment he was violating countless rules, customs and laws. Even Republicans hate Tom DeLay, with good reason, given he is a self-serving dictator.

But, while we dance on his political grave, note that he has moved to
Virginia to pursue a career as a lobbyist. With Jack Abramoff as his model, he will no doubt be in the news again — and in jail before long — but not before he’s screwed the country again. mjh

DeLay Exits, Stage (Hard) Right By Ruth Marcus

No one who’s seen Tom DeLay operate over the years could have expected the Texas Republican to go gently: The Hammer always comes down hard. But DeLay’s farewell address on the House floor last week was nonetheless stunning for its sneering, belligerent partisanship.

This was not the case of a politician who happened to hit a jarring note at just the wrong time. DeLay made clear that he wanted to leave the way he behaved throughout his 22 years in Washington — contemptuous of the opposition and unrepentant about his cutthroat tactics. …

In DeLay’s world, “It is not the principled partisan, however obnoxious he may seem to his opponents, who degrades our public debate, but the preening, self-styled statesman who elevates compromise to a first principle.”

This is a man who — now that he’s had time to take in the monuments — sees Lincoln’s statue and fixates on the one hand clenched in a “perpetual fist.” …

As he addressed his colleagues for the final time, DeLay betrayed no doubt that his tactics had ever edged even slightly across the line, no hint of recognition of the poisonous consequences of GOP authoritarianism under his sway.

There is a place for partisanship, and an honor in hewing to principles that divide the parties. But DeLay’s zero-sum politics diminishes the capacity of government to solve difficult problems. Compromise isn’t just an occasionally necessary evil, as DeLay sees it. Practiced well, it can be a mechanism for distilling the best public policy, or at least a better one than either faction would achieve on its own.

“If given the chance to do it all again, there’s only one thing I would change,” DeLay said, jabbing his finger in the air for emphasis. “I would fight even harder.”

Think Progress » VIDEO: In Goodbye Speech, DeLay Bitterly Attacks Liberals

DeLay: “In any place or any time on any issue, what does liberalism ever seek, Mr. Speaker? More. More government, more taxation, more control over people’s lives and decisions and wallets.

“If conservatives don’t stand up to liberalism, no one will.”

Texas Democrats Revel in DeLay’s Departure — Newsday.com By ANGELA K. BROWN, Associated Press Writer

“If the sun seems a little brighter today; if our step seems a little bouncier; if life seems a little better today, there’s a good reason for it. For the first day in 22 years, Tom DeLay is not a member of Congress,” U.S. Rep. Chet Edwards, D-Waco, said as the crowd cheered wildly.

Lest anyone feel the need to defend the nobility of DeLay’s principles, here’s just the latest info on how he royally enriched himself. mjh

Retirement Account of DeLay’s Wife Traced By R. Jeffrey Smith, Washington Post Staff Writer

A registered lobbyist opened a retirement account in the late 1990s for the wife of then-House Whip Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) and contributed thousands of dollars to it while also paying her a salary to work for him from her home in Texas, according to sources, documents and DeLay’s attorney, Richard Cullen.

The account represents a small portion of the income that DeLay’s family received from entities at least partly controlled by lobbyist Edwin A. Buckham. But the disclosure of its origin adds to what was previously known about the benefits DeLay’s family received from its association with Buckham, and it brings the total over the past seven years to about half a million dollars. …

From 1998 until recently, Buckham, an evangelical minister, met regularly with DeLay, occasionally attended staff meetings in his office, made scheduling recommendations or decisions for the office, and served as DeLay’s chief political and spiritual adviser, even though he was not formally employed by him. At the time, Buckham’s clients included a host of companies with regulatory and legislative business before Congress, and whose interests DeLay supported. …

Besides financing the retirement account, Buckham played a role in two other streams of income that indirectly benefited DeLay.

One involved payments to DeLay’s family by his principal political action committee, Americans for a Republican Majority (ARMPAC), which drew its largest donations from corporations. Three former DeLay staffers with firsthand knowledge of Buckham’s activities have described him as a decision maker for the group, even though it was formally run by its executive director. …

[F]rom 2001 to Jan. 31, 2006, ARMPAC paid Christine DeLay; DeLay’s daughter, Dani DeLay Ferro; and Ferro’s Texas firm a total of $350,304 in political consulting fees and expenses, according to public records. [mjh: nice work if you’re sleazy enough to take it] …

Together with the retirement account worth about $25,000, this means the [DeLay] family’s total financial benefits from entities at least partly controlled by Buckham exceeded $490,300.

Newty Gingrich set the stage and the tone for the rise of the Radical Religious Right. Tom DeLay is his offspring — perhaps The Hammer will be the VP candidate? Now, Gingrich has been gone long enough to return as a noble elder statesman. I’d rather they dig up Nixon. mjh

Gingrich May Run in 2008 If No Front-Runner Emerges By Juliet Eilperin, Washington Post Staff Writer

Former House speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) expects to run for president in 2008 if the contest for the Republican nomination still seems wide open late next year, he said yesterday. …

Gingrich’s entry would shake up a Republican presidential field that now includes Sens. George Allen (Va.), Bill Frist (Tenn.) and John McCain (Ariz.). Many Republicans still revere Gingrich for engineering the GOP’s takeover of Congress in 1994, though members of his own party pushed him to resign in 1998 after his drive to impeach President Bill Clinton cost them seats in that year’s election.

With ineptitude on full display, the party’s over for Republicans – baltimoresun.com By Garrison Keillor

People who live in mud huts should not throw mud, especially if it comes from their own roofs. As Scripture says, don’t point to the speck in your neighbor’s eye when you have a piece of kindling in your own.

I see by the papers that the Republicans want to make an issue of Nancy Pelosi in the congressional races this fall: Would you want a San Francisco woman to be speaker of the House? …

Running against Ms. Pelosi, a woman who comes from a district where there are known gay persons, is a nice trick, but it does draw attention to the large shambling galoot who is speaker now, Tom DeLay’s enabler for years, a man who, judging by his public mutterances, is about as smart as most high school wrestling coaches.

For the past year, Dennis Hastert has been two heartbeats from the presidency. He is a man who seems content just to have a car and driver and three square meals a day. He has no apparent vision beyond the urge to hang onto power. He has succeeded in turning Congress into a branch of the executive branch. If Mr. Hastert becomes the poster boy for the Republican Party, this does not speak well for them as the Party of Ideas. …

Meanwhile, the Current Occupant goes on impersonating a president. Somewhere in the quiet leafy recesses of the Bush family, somebody is thinking, “Wrong son. Should’ve tried the smart one.”

This one’s eyes don’t quite focus. Five years in office and he doesn’t have a grip on it yet. You stand him up next to Tony Blair at a press conference and the comparison is not kind to Our Guy. Historians are starting to place him at or near the bottom of the list. And one of the basic assumptions of American culture is falling apart: the competence of Republicans. …

So here we are at an uneasy point in our history, mired in a costly war and getting nowhere, a supine Congress granting absolute power to a president who seems to get smaller and dimmer, and the best the GOP can offer is San Franciscophobia? This is beyond pitiful. This is violently stupid.

It is painful to look at your father and realize the old man should not be allowed to manage his own money anymore. This is the discovery the country has made about the party in power. They are inept. The checkbook needs to be taken away. They will rant, they will screech, they will wave their canes at you and call you all sorts of names, but you have to do what you have to do.

We can take some comfort in how quickly the recent push against gay marriage died. You see in the process the declining power of the Religious Radical Right. I believe this ‘get out the base’ tactic will fail this fall after succeeding so well in 2004. Be sure to note the conservative argument FOR gay marriage below. mjh

Bush Re-Enters Gay Marriage Fight By Peter Baker, Washington Post Staff Writer

President Bush plans to wade back into the emotional debate over same-sex marriage for the first time in his second term beginning today with a pair of speeches pressing the Senate to approve a constitutional amendment next week defining marriage as the union of a man and woman.

Bush, whose opposition to marriage between gay partners helped power him to reelection in 2004, has remained largely silent on the issue since, much to the consternation of conservatives who complain he has not exerted leadership. Now, with midterm elections approaching, [Bush] is returning to a topic that galvanizes an important part of the Republican base. …

In one North Carolina congressional district, for instance, Republican challenger Vernon Robinson has aired a radio ad attacking Democratic Rep. Brad Miller with mariachi music playing in the background: “Brad Miller supports gay marriage and sponsored a bill to let American homosexuals bring their foreign homosexual lovers to this country on a marriage visa. If Miller had his way, America would be nothing but one big fiesta for illegal aliens and homosexuals.” [mjh: while they wage war on Christmas and burn the flag!] …

In 2004, 63 percent of Americans opposed same-sex marriage and 30 percent approved. In March, 51 percent opposed it and 39 percent supported it. [mjh: more of that Bush magic; in 3 years, 100% will support anything he opposes]

Can Gay Marriage Help GOP? By Debra Rosenberg, Newsweek

Bush himself had been mostly mum on gay marriage since his re-election. But now, with his poll numbers in a nose dive and even his most enthusiastic supporters grousing, Bush took up the cause in his radio address Saturday; an amendment is needed because “activist courts have left our nation with no other choice,” he explained. …

Though Bush himself has publicly embraced the amendment, he never seemed to care enough to press the matter. One of his old friends told NEWSWEEK that same-sex marriage barely registers on the president’s moral radar. “I think it was purely political. I don’t think he gives a s–t about it. He never talks about this stuff,” said the friend, who requested anonymity to discuss his private conversations with Bush. White House aides, who also declined to be identified, insist that the president does care about banning gay marriage.
—–

[mjh: David Brooks, conservative, wrote the following November 22, 2003.]

Op-Ed Columnist: The Power of Marriage By DAVID BROOKS, NYTimes

You would think that faced with this marriage crisis, we conservatives would do everything in our power to move as many people as possible from the path of contingency to the path of fidelity. But instead, many argue that gays must be banished from matrimony because gay marriage would weaken all marriage. A marriage is between a man and a woman, they say. …

The conservative course is not to banish gay people from making such commitments. It is to expect that they make such commitments. We shouldn’t just allow gay marriage. We should insist on gay marriage. …

It’s going to be up to conservatives to make the important, moral case for marriage, including gay marriage.

mjh’s blog — ‘Where in the Bible…?’

mjh’s blog — Expanding Freedom

How closely do Bush’s priorities match yours?
Not at all 58%
Very 24%
Somewhat 18%
Total Votes: 125,143

How would you rate his overall job performance?
Poor 60%
Good 18%
Excellent 12%
Fair 11%
Total Votes: 126,917

Where should gay marriage fall on Bush’s priority scale?
At or near the bottom 67%
At or near the top 19%
In the middle 15%
Total Votes: 124,858

How would you rate Bush’s handling of gay marriage?
Poor 61%
Excellent 21%
Good 11%
Fair 7%
Total Votes: 125,004

Where should illegal immigration fall on Bush’s priority scale?
At or near the top 53%
In the middle 37%
At or near the bottom 10%
Total Votes: 73,387

How would you rate Bush’s handling of illegal immigration?
Poor 53%
Fair 25%
Good 15%
Excellent 6%
Total Votes: 74,132

Where should the war in Iraq fall on Bush’s priority scale?
At or near the top 89%
In the middle 6%
At or near the bottom 4%
Total Votes: 70,972

How would you rate Bush’s handling of the war in Iraq?
Poor 67%
Good 14%
Fair 11%
Excellent 8%
Total Votes: 72,218

Where should the war on terror fall on Bush’s priority scale?
At or near the top 78%
In the middle 18%
At or near the bottom 3%
Total Votes: 68,988

How would you rate Bush’s handling of the war on terror?
Poor 54%
Fair 17%
Good 15%
Excellent 14%
Total Votes: 70,086

Where should the economy fall on Bush’s priority scale?
At or near the top 78%
In the middle 21%
At or near the bottom 2%
Total Votes: 67,065

How would you rate Bush’s handling of the economy?
Poor 61%
Fair 14%
Good 13%
Excellent 12%
Total Votes: 68,603