Tom Delay's Extreme Makeover

[TexasTiger 12,957]

Tom DeLay's extreme makeover

With DeLay's image sinking toward Gingrich-like depths, we asked professional image consultants and P.R. execs how to dress him for success.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

By Page Rockwell and Julia Scott

April 8, 2005  |  Tom DeLay is a walking public relations nightmare. Even many of his putative compatriots on the right are turning away in horror. His political grandstanding during the last days of Terri Schiavo's life was a painful sight in itself. And earlier this week, the notoriously conservative Wall Street Journal opinion page smacked DeLay around for money laundering and illegal campaign contributions. If the House majority leader expects to be reelected in 2006, it's safe to say he needs a serious makeover. And who better to polish DeLay's reputation than public relations executives and image consultants? Figuratively and literally, DeLay needs a new do.

"DeLay's public persona has become radioactive," says Andy Plesser, principal of Plesser Holland, a public relations firm in New York. "He's got to cool down. He can go along with his bombastic, combative approach with the mainstream media -- but that's a very bad idea. He can get a more sympathetic ear with Fox News, the New York Post and talk radio. Or he can decide to keep a lower profile. I think that's the best choice."

Plesser believes DeLay's recent displays of arrogance and political opportunism have knocked the lights out of his leadership. "As a leader, it's pretty much over for him," he says. "He's become a liability and his influence is going to wane. He's going to be a lightning rod for criticism from the Democrats. His recent behavior and demeanor on CNN are indicative of one who has lost the composure that's necessary to keep that position of leadership."

 

      

 

 

Site Pass Presented by

   

 

Sam Lauter, a political consultant and public relations executive in San Francisco, also says DeLay needs to dial down his hubris a good three notches. The Wall Street Journal dinged the Republican for riding to power on a wave of revulsion against big government but now embodying its worst traits himself. "And if there's one thing Americans don't like, it's hypocrisy, Lauter says. "Americans like people to be honest, and he's not being honest at the moment." Lauter, though, calls DeLay tough and smart and believes that by chilling out he will live to fight and win another Texas congressional battle.

Maybe so, says Diane Parente, president of Image Development and Management, based in Ross, Calif., but he better do something about his hair. "It looks shellacked to me," she says. "Every hair is in place. I would get rid of the gel." And while he's at it, he might consider a better-fitting suit. "He's very sloppy looking and the fit of his overall suits is sloppy," Parente says. ''His shirt is too tight. Although he wears a lot of tans, taupes and navy. And that's good." As for his appearance, well, he "needs to convey a more sincere attitude and watch the expression on his mouth, which looks like a frown. I would have him go in for an eyelift because he has heavy lids and they conceal his eyes; it makes him look cynical."

Plastic surgery for DeLay is most assuredly not an approach that Houston professional image consultant Suzie Wilson, founder of Image & Impact, would entertain. "Oh, I don't think he needs to change a thing," she says. "I think he's wonderful. He's a handsome man."

Wilson says DeLay's homespun Texan image fits him like a glove. "He wears a nice khaki pant with pleats that are going away from the abdominal area," she says. "If pleats go toward the abdomen, they make it look bigger. But he's always got a nice, toned-down, expensive-looking fabric khaki pant. He wears a nice shoe and a nice argyle sock." Khaki shirts, though, should be out for DeLay. "And orange," Wilson says. "If he were wearing a polo shirt, that would not be one of his best colors. Nothing in the orange or gold family. And no jewelry or bling-bling! That's important."

Wilson, who has dressed countless Texas politicians for success, is certain DeLay has his own image consultant and private dresser. "Oh, they all have someone," she says. Still, given DeLay's attire and appearance, it sounds as if Wilson doesn't believe he has an image problem. "I think he has a wonderful physical image," she says. "Now, there are some political things he may need to change."

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/04/08/image/

[AURaptor 1,125]

With DeLay's image sinking toward Gingrich-like depths, we asked professional image consultants and P.R. execs how to dress him for success.

This is exactly what the Dems are trying to do...paint Delay as the next Newt Gingrich. Why? Because they're losing, and the GOP continues to win, that's why. Instead of dealing w/ issues that face the country, all the Liberal Dems can think of is to go back to plan A - Smear tactics.

The practice of the politics of personal destruction is alive and well , brought to you by the Democrat Party.

[TexasTiger 12,957]

With DeLay's image sinking toward Gingrich-like depths, we asked professional image consultants and P.R. execs how to dress him for success.

This is exactly what the Dems are trying to do...paint Delay as the next Newt Gingrich. Why? Because they're losing, and the GOP continues to win, that's why. Instead of dealing w/ issues that face the country, all the Liberal Dems can think of is to go back to plan A - Smear tactics.

The practice of the politics of personal destruction is alive and well , brought to you by the Democrat Party.

154759[/snapback]

You just described the Repugs approach to Clinton. They couldn't beat the guy, so it smear tactics 24/7/365.

Gingrich was actually a better person than Delay. Which means Delay is pretty damn lousy.

[AURaptor 1,125]

One small problem. Clinton was guilty of the things he was accused of. The GOP didn't have to fabricate and gen up inane points to make them seem like felonies. Clinton did that all by his own damn self.

[TexasTiger 12,957]

One small problem. Clinton was guilty of the things he was accused of. The GOP didn't have to fabricate and gen up inane points to make them seem like felonies. Clinton did that all by his own damn self.   

154882[/snapback]

They spent years and 80 million dollars trying to prove anything. In the end, they proved he had weakness for sex. Shocker.

In the mean time, he was smeared daily for unproven crap and several loonies insinuated he had people killed and all sorts of other made up crap.

[AUloggerhead 2,241]

One small problem. Clinton was guilty of the things he was accused of. The GOP didn't have to fabricate and gen up inane points to make them seem like felonies. Clinton did that all by his own damn self.   

154882[/snapback]

They spent years and 80 million dollars trying to prove anything. In the end, they proved he had weakness for sex. Shocker.

In the mean time, he was smeared daily for unproven crap and several loonies insinuated he had people killed and all sorts of other made up crap.

154890[/snapback]

Kenneth Starr was appointed by then AG Janet Reno to head the investigation into the Whitewater scandal. Three people were convicted of fraud as a result of his investigation: Ark Gov Jim GuyTucker, and clinton family friends, Jim & Susan McDougal, and there were others convicted on lesser charges -- if I remember correctly, a total of 18 convictions. Like Al Capone did many years earlier, the clintons were just very adept at covering their tracks.

Btw, clinton was impeached for perjury & obstruction of justice, not for having a "weakness for sex." Funny thing about the Presidency -- people have this quaint notion to expect the chief law enforcement officer in the land to uphold the law and not be above it.

[TexasTiger 12,957]

One small problem. Clinton was guilty of the things he was accused of. The GOP didn't have to fabricate and gen up inane points to make them seem like felonies. Clinton did that all by his own damn self.   

154882[/snapback]

They spent years and 80 million dollars trying to prove anything. In the end, they proved he had weakness for sex. Shocker.

In the mean time, he was smeared daily for unproven crap and several loonies insinuated he had people killed and all sorts of other made up crap.

154890[/snapback]

Kenneth Starr was appointed by then AG Janet Reno to head the investigation into the Whitewater scandal. Three people were convicted of fraud as a result of his investigation: Ark Gov Jim GuyTucker, and clinton family friends, Jim & Susan McDougal, and there were others convicted on lesser charges -- if I remember correctly, a total of 18 convictions. Like Al Capone did many years earlier, the clintons were just very adept at covering their tracks.

Btw, clinton was impeached for perjury & obstruction of justice, not for having a "weakness for sex." Funny thing about the Presidency -- people have this quaint notion to expect the chief law enforcement officer in the land to uphold the law and not be above it.

154895[/snapback]

You said he was guilty of felonies. He was indicted by a highly partisan house, not found guilty by a slightly more responsible Senate. Have you ever been found guilty of a crime?

[AURaptor 1,125]

You said he was guilty of felonies. He was indicted by a highly partisan house, not found guilty by a slightly more responsible Senate. Have you ever been found guilty of a crime?

First of all, I didn't say he was guilty of felonies. I my exact quote was " the GOP didn't have to fabricate and gen up inane points to make them seem like felonies. ".

I was talking about the Dem's tendancy to make mountains out of mole hills.

Second, I've never lied to Grand Jury, like Clinton did. Clinton's perjury cost him his ability to practice law in the state of Ark and struck him from the list of attorneys allowed to appear before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Third, I've never gone on national t.v. as the elected leader of a country and brazenly wagged my finger in the faces of viewing audience, in an admonishing manner while lying through my teeth.

Finally, the reason this whole thing cost so much wasn't because of Ken Starr,but because of Bill and Hillary Clinton. Their stalling, obfuscation and foot dragging on this case cost the American taxpayers far more than it should have. Don't blame Starr for doing his job, blame Clinton for getting one.

[TexasTiger 12,957]

You said he was guilty of felonies. He was indicted by a highly partisan house, not found guilty by a slightly more responsible Senate. Have you ever been found guilty of a crime?

First of all, I didn't say he was guilty of felonies. I my exact quote was " the GOP didn't have to fabricate and gen up inane points to make them seem like felonies. ".

I was talking about the Dem's tendancy to make mountains out of mole hills.

Second, I've never lied to Grand Jury, like Clinton did. Clinton's perjury cost him his ability to practice law in the state of Ark and struck him from the list of attorneys allowed to appear before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Third, I've never gone on national t.v. as the elected leader of a country and brazenly wagged my finger in the faces of viewing audience, in an admonishing manner while lying through my teeth.

Finally, the reason this whole thing cost so much wasn't because of Ken Starr,but because of Bill and Hillary Clinton. Their stalling, obfuscation and foot dragging on this case cost the American taxpayers far more than it should have. Don't blame Starr for doing his job, blame Clinton for getting one.

154900[/snapback]

Funny thing about the special prosecutor. Normally, a crime is committed and we ask an investigator to determine who did it. In the case of Ken Starr it was determined that Clinton must be a criminal, so find the crime. Starr was an obsessive compulsive little dweeb who wasn't going to stop until he had something, no matter how far off track it was from the original investigation. He had no boss, no budget limitations and he continued his practice and took his sweet time with his "investigation.'

Clinton was not convicted of perjury and it is highly doubtful that he would have ever been in a court of law.

His intentionally misled the American people while technically telling the truth. That was inexcusable and politicians pay a price for it.

BTW, you didn't answer the question. You gave me a rather "Clintonian" response. No matter, I don't need to know your business, I was just going to point out that under your logic:

the clintons were just very adept at covering their tracks.

If you had never been convicted of a crime, I will just conclude you committed one anyway, but were damn slick about it.

[AUloggerhead 2,241]

Geez Tex, you're hysteria over this topic is getting you all turned around and you're confusing what Raptor said with with what I said. Take a couple of deep breaths and relax.

clinton's behavior while in office was nothing to be admired and certainly shouldn't be dismissed as some insignificant human foible that we all possess. He had a responsibility to uphold the law in his position and failed miserably at it. The irony of it all was that the Commander-in-Chief was engaging in behavior that would have seen him court martialed had he actually been a uniformed member of the armed forces. Along these same ironic lines, this Chief Executive at the top of all the civilian employees in the federal government engaged in behavior on the job that would have resulted in him being fired just like any of those civilian employees under his leadership. And last but not least, the irony of clinton lying under oath about his sexual history with Monica Lewinsky in a sexual harrassment lawsuit brough against him by Paula Jones is just too much. What a maroon!

True, the US Senate did not convict clinton. However, that was due more to a lack of political will rather than a lack of evidence.

[TexasTiger 12,957]

Geez Tex, you're hysteria over this topic is getting you all turned around and you're confusing what Raptor said with with what I said.  Take a couple of deep breaths and relax. 

clinton's behavior while in office was nothing to be admired and certainly shouldn't be dismissed as some insignificant human foible that we all possess.  He had a responsibility to uphold the law in his position and failed miserably at it.  The irony of it all was that the Commander-in-Chief was engaging in behavior that would have seen him court martialed had he actually been a uniformed member of the armed forces.  Along these same ironic lines, this Chief Executive at the top of all the civilian employees in the federal government engaged in behavior on the job that would have resulted in him being fired just like any of those civilian employees under his leadership.  And last but not least, the irony of clinton lying under oath about his sexual history with Monica Lewinsky in a sexual harrassment lawsuit brough against him by Paula Jones is just too much.  What a maroon! 

True, the US Senate did not convict clinton.  However, that was due more to a lack of political will rather than a lack of evidence.

154926[/snapback]

Look up hysteria. You obviously don't know what it means. My apologies to Raptor. You're right, it was you that made the idiotic comment that implied that someone not proven guilty after several years and 80 million dollars is just adept at covering his tracks.

There was certainly nothing admirable about Clinton's behavior in regard to Monica Lewinsky or his deceiving the American people or those closest to him. But there was little real "irony" in him not being forthcoming about it in the the Paula Jones suit. It really had no bearing on the suit. Paula Jones alleged an unwelcome advance. Monica admitted she pursued him, that it was consensual and that she wanted intercourse, i.e. "sexual relations" and he wouldn't. That relationship hardly supports the type of allegations made by Paula Jones.

[AUloggerhead 2,241]

Geez Tex, you're hysteria over this topic is getting you all turned around and you're confusing what Raptor said with with what I said.  Take a couple of deep breaths and relax. 

clinton's behavior while in office was nothing to be admired and certainly shouldn't be dismissed as some insignificant human foible that we all possess.  He had a responsibility to uphold the law in his position and failed miserably at it.  The irony of it all was that the Commander-in-Chief was engaging in behavior that would have seen him court martialed had he actually been a uniformed member of the armed forces.  Along these same ironic lines, this Chief Executive at the top of all the civilian employees in the federal government engaged in behavior on the job that would have resulted in him being fired just like any of those civilian employees under his leadership.  And last but not least, the irony of clinton lying under oath about his sexual history with Monica Lewinsky in a sexual harrassment lawsuit brough against him by Paula Jones is just too much.  What a maroon! 

True, the US Senate did not convict clinton.  However, that was due more to a lack of political will rather than a lack of evidence.

154926[/snapback]

Look up hysteria. You obviously don't know what it means. My apologies to Raptor. You're right, it was you that made the idiotic comment that implied that someone not proven guilty after several years and 80 million dollars is just adept at covering his tracks.

There was certainly nothing admirable about Clinton's behavior in regard to Monica Lewinsky or his deceiving the American people or those closest to him. But there was little real "irony" in him not being forthcoming about it in the the Paula Jones suit. It really had no bearing on the suit. Paula Jones alleged an unwelcome advance. Monica admitted she pursued him, that it was consensual and that she wanted intercourse, i.e. "sexual relations" and he wouldn't. That relationship hardly supports the type of allegations made by Paula Jones.

154928[/snapback]

Look up irony. If you don't think it's ironic for a superior to have to deny having improper sexual relations with a federal employee (i.e. the very definition of sexual harassment) while defending himself in a sexual harrassment lawsuit, then you don't understand what irony means.

I'll repeat what I said about the Whitewater investigation. It resulted in convictions of bank fraud with the McDougals and a sitting Governor, and a number of lesser convictions. This is exactly what you said a special prosecutor was supposed to do -- investigate a crime and find out who did it. You might be of the opinion that the investigation was millions of dollars spent unwisely and that's OK. You're entitled to that. But hey, that's the justice system we have. Thank God Janet Reno was able to appoint a competent special prosecutor, huh? Jim McDougal was not happy taking the fall for the Whitewater fiasco and was on the verge of singing like a bird. Unfortunately for the American justice system, he died in prison before he could testify. I don't know who first applied the 'Slick Willie' moniker to clinton but you have to admit, it fits him perfectly. I've never seen someone skate quite like him.

[Tiger Al 0]

Loggerhead, weren't the Clintons fully exhonerated of any wrongdoing by the Office of Independent Counsel? Didn't the OIC also find that, not only did they do nothing wrong, they lost money as well?

[TexasTiger 12,957]

Geez Tex, you're hysteria over this topic is getting you all turned around and you're confusing what Raptor said with with what I said.  Take a couple of deep breaths and relax. 

clinton's behavior while in office was nothing to be admired and certainly shouldn't be dismissed as some insignificant human foible that we all possess.  He had a responsibility to uphold the law in his position and failed miserably at it.  The irony of it all was that the Commander-in-Chief was engaging in behavior that would have seen him court martialed had he actually been a uniformed member of the armed forces.  Along these same ironic lines, this Chief Executive at the top of all the civilian employees in the federal government engaged in behavior on the job that would have resulted in him being fired just like any of those civilian employees under his leadership.  And last but not least, the irony of clinton lying under oath about his sexual history with Monica Lewinsky in a sexual harrassment lawsuit brough against him by Paula Jones is just too much.  What a maroon! 

True, the US Senate did not convict clinton.  However, that was due more to a lack of political will rather than a lack of evidence.

154926[/snapback]

Look up hysteria. You obviously don't know what it means. My apologies to Raptor. You're right, it was you that made the idiotic comment that implied that someone not proven guilty after several years and 80 million dollars is just adept at covering his tracks.

There was certainly nothing admirable about Clinton's behavior in regard to Monica Lewinsky or his deceiving the American people or those closest to him. But there was little real "irony" in him not being forthcoming about it in the the Paula Jones suit. It really had no bearing on the suit. Paula Jones alleged an unwelcome advance. Monica admitted she pursued him, that it was consensual and that she wanted intercourse, i.e. "sexual relations" and he wouldn't. That relationship hardly supports the type of allegations made by Paula Jones.

154928[/snapback]

Look up irony. If you don't think it's ironic for a superior to have to deny having improper sexual relations with a federal employee (i.e. the very definition of sexual harassment) while defending himself in a sexual harrassment lawsuit, then you don't understand what irony means.

I'll repeat what I said about the Whitewater investigation. It resulted in convictions of bank fraud with the McDougals and a sitting Governor, and a number of lesser convictions. This is exactly what you said a special prosecutor was supposed to do -- investigate a crime and find out who did it. You might be of the opinion that the investigation was millions of dollars spent unwisely and that's OK. You're entitled to that. But hey, that's the justice system we have. Thank God Janet Reno was able to appoint a competent special prosecutor, huh? Jim McDougal was not happy taking the fall for the Whitewater fiasco and was on the verge of singing like a bird. Unfortunately for the American justice system, he died in prison before he could testify. I don't know who first applied the 'Slick Willie' moniker to clinton but you have to admit, it fits him perfectly. I've never seen someone skate quite like him.

154937[/snapback]

Look up the legal definition of sexual harasssment. You've gotten that one wrong, too.

McDougal did talk about Clinton and the land deal. He said he couldn't get him to pay attention to anything business related. In fact, he said "When you try to talk to Bill Clinton about anything except for politics, his eyes glaze over." He was dying and had no reason to lie for Clinton, who wasn't even a close friend. Of course, he might have been willing to say whatever Starr wanted just to experience freedom before dying.

If you really want to see someone who got away with some crooked business dealings, check out Dubya making out on the Arbusto deal. Or Neil Bush ripping off taxpayers in the Silverado Savings and Loan before picking up an STD from hookers in the far east that he said would mysteriously appear at his door and have sex with him. (He claims, under oath, he didn't know they were hookers.) Now there is some crooked stuff that having a well-connected Daddy can get you out of. Clinton went to the Whitehouse after 12 years as governor and the first President in decades to not already be a millionaire. (He was also the first to leave the White House owing millions of dollars due to an out-of-control prosecutor.) If he was crooked financially, he would have found a way to make a little bit of money in 12 years as Governor. His weaknesses were elsewhere. If he had an illegal business deal, like Jim Guy Tucker, he would have been found out after years and years of investigations. On that front, as politicians go, he's pretty clean. Hate him for something else if you want.

[AUloggerhead 2,241]

Loggerhead, weren't the Clintons fully exhonerated of any wrongdoing by the Office of Independent Counsel? Didn't the OIC also find that, not only did they do nothing wrong, they lost money as well?

154941[/snapback]

Don't know the exact wording that was used, (and I don't care to look it up.) I suppose you could say that everyone associated with Whitewater not officially convicted was "exonerated." I'm not sure what relevance making or losing money has in a bank fraud case -- I'm sure the McDougals & Jim Guy Tucker lost money too.

[AURaptor 1,125]

Clinton was not convicted of perjury and it is highly doubtful that he would have ever been in a court of law.

So, he paid a fine, lost his law license because he was innocent ?

[TexasTiger 12,957]

Clinton was not convicted of perjury and it is highly doubtful that he would have ever been in a court of law.

So, he paid a fine, lost his law license because he was innocent ?

154973[/snapback]

Believe it or not, as members of the bar, attorneys are theoretically held to a higher standard than mere obeyance to the law. Perjury prosecutions in civil cases are very rare to begin with, and the legal definition of perjury requires more than evasive or even misleading testimony.

[AURaptor 1,125]

QUOTE(AURaptor @ Apr 10 2005, 07:52 AM)

QUOTE

Clinton was not convicted of perjury and it is highly doubtful that he would have ever been in a court of law.

So, he paid a fine, lost his law license because he was innocent ? blink.gif

*

Believe it or not, as members of the bar, attorneys are theoretically held to a higher standard than mere obeyance to the law. Perjury prosecutions in civil cases are very rare to begin with, and the legal definition of perjury requires more than evasive or even misleading testimony.

Can't come out and just admit it, huh? So, he paid a fine, lost his law license because .....HE WAS GUILTY.

[Auburn85 432]

maybe he's confusing the word fine with fee

[Auburn85 432]

Then again, now if you get a speeding ticket in Montgomery, and you sign the citation, it's not an admission of guilt. It just declares by signing the citation, you either pay the fine or show up on the court date.

And oh yeah, you were doing 80 in a 60, but you're not guilty of speeding

[TexasTiger 12,957]

QUOTE(AURaptor @ Apr 10 2005, 07:52 AM)

QUOTE

Clinton was not convicted of perjury and it is highly doubtful that he would have ever been in a court of law.

So, he paid a fine, lost his law license because he was innocent ? blink.gif

*

Believe it or not, as members of the bar, attorneys are theoretically held to a higher standard than mere obeyance to the law. Perjury prosecutions in civil cases are very rare to begin with, and the legal definition of perjury requires more than evasive or even misleading testimony.

Can't come out and just admit it, huh? So, he paid a fine, lost his law license because .....HE WAS GUILTY.

154989[/snapback]

I don't know how to make it any simpler for you, Raptor. The state bar controls licensing. One need not be found guilty of a crime to lose your license. It is not a criminal procedure and does not create a criminal record. He did not appeal the conclusion that he failed to meet the standards of a member of the bar.

[AURaptor 1,125]

He did not appeal the conclusion that he failed to meet the standards of a member of the bar.

....... because he was GUILTY. Can't get much more simple than that!

[TexasTiger 12,957]

He did not appeal the conclusion that he failed to meet the standards of a member of the bar.

....... because he was GUILTY. Can't get much more simple than that!

154999[/snapback]

It can obviously never be simple enough for you. Guilty of what?

[Auburn85 432]

Again playing the technicality game.

He was gulity of being an immoral martyr

[AURaptor 1,125]

It can obviously never be simple enough for you. Guilty of what?

What's w/ the ' Who's on first ' routine ?

Clinton lied to a Grand Jury. That's perjury. That is what he is guilty of. End of discussion.