The Left's Campaign Against Tom DeLay

[Tigermike 3,039]

April 11, 2005

The Left's Campaign Against Tom DeLay

By Robert Novak

WASHINGTON -- On March 24, former Congressman Bob Livingston was sent an e-mail by a New York Times editorial page staffer suggesting he write an op-ed essay. Would Livingston, who in 1998 gave up certain elevation to be House speaker because of a sexual affair, write about how Majority Leader Tom DeLay should now act under fire? In a subsequent conversation, it was made clear the Times wanted the prominent Republican to say DeLay should step aside for the good of the party.

Livingston in effect declined by responding that if he wrote anything for the Times, it would be pro-DeLay. But this remarkable case of that august newspaper fishing for an op-ed piece makes it appear part of a calculated campaign to bring down the single most powerful Republican in Congress. The Democratic establishment and left-wing activists have targeted DeLay as the way to end a decade of Republican control of the House.

Ironically, this campaign's intensity may protect DeLay from Republicans who in their secret hearts would like to see the sometimes-overbearing Texan fall. No GOP politician wants to be the handmaiden of DeLay's Democratic detractors. Last Wednesday's closed-door caucus of House Republicans gave DeLay a standing ovation. Contrary to claims on leftist websites, no Republican member has called for the majority leader's resignation.

Accusations of DeLay going on junkets funded by private sources and putting relatives on non-government payrolls reflect common congressional practice. The assault on DeLay did not begin until he redistricted Texas congressional seats, which changed the 2004 election from a net loss to a net gain for House Republicans. That accomplishment, however, makes it much harder to rip holes in DeLay's House GOP support.

At least 18 news organizations now have assigned reporters to cover DeLay, but the quest by The New York Times for a prominent Republican to suggest his resignation may cross a line. Livingston, a Louisiana congressman who was Appropriations Committee chairman, was set to succeed Newt Gingrich as speaker in November 1998, when he stunned Washington by announcing his resignation from Congress after allegations of a sexual affair.

New York Times editorial page staffer Tobin Harshaw sent the March 24 e-mail to Livingston, now a Washington lobbyist. Chris Terrell, a principal in The Livingston Group, declined to give this column a copy of the message but read it to us. Harshaw, reached in New York, confirmed he had a conversation with Terrell, but added: "We don't comment on assignments, written or unwritten."

According to Terrell, Harshaw's e-mail suggested Livingston might want to write "a short op-ed on DeLay's political future." Terrell said he telephoned Harshaw, saying his boss would "write a favorable piece," then asked: "Is that really what you're seeking or is that what you would print?"

It clearly was not. While Harshaw asserted "we would welcome any thoughts" by Livingston, Terrell quoted him as saying "we are seeking those who would go on the record or state for the good of the party he [DeLay] should step aside."

The importance of such a column by so prestigious a Republican as Livingston would break a solid GOP front supporting DeLay. Potential Republican defectors have stayed loyal to DeLay because of Democratic leaders. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, abandoning traditions of at least minimum courtesy between party leaders, has led the campaign against her Republican counterpart. Rep. Rahm Emanuel, the aggressive new chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, has made this the cornerstone of efforts to recapture the House in 2006.

The one crack in the pro-DeLay alliance was a March 28 editorial in The Wall Street Journal charging the majority leader with "betraying the broader set of principles that brought him into office." To be accused of imitating the ethical standards of the Democrats he deplored was viewed by DeLay as a "gut shot."

The question: Would this editorial start a chain reaction of Republican House members abandoning DeLay, much as Democrats turned against Speaker Jim Wright in 1989? Those defections doomed Wright, whose fall was followed in five years by the Republican capture of the House. Since Bob Livingston would not get the ball rolling, the campaign to get DeLay still needs a major anti-DeLay Republican to go public. 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentar...4_11_05_RN.html

[Tiger Al 0]

The importance of such a column by so prestigious a Republican as Livingston would break a solid GOP front supporting DeLay.

It's sad when a major spokesman for the party of "high moral ethics" holds an admitted adulterer in such high regard. But, considering the source, Bob Novak, it's not really surprising.

[Tigermike 3,039]

The importance of such a column by so prestigious a Republican as Livingston would break a solid GOP front supporting DeLay.

It's sad when a major spokesman for the party of "high moral ethics" holds an admitted adulterer in such high regard. But, considering the source, Bob Novak, it's not really surprising.

155090[/snapback]

As usual, a typical reaction from the left has been to shoot the messenger without denying the basic facts of the message.

[Tiger Al 0]

The importance of such a column by so prestigious a Republican as Livingston would break a solid GOP front supporting DeLay.

It's sad when a major spokesman for the party of "high moral ethics" holds an admitted adulterer in such high regard. But, considering the source, Bob Novak, it's not really surprising.

155090[/snapback]

As usual, a typical reaction from the left has been to shoot the messenger without denying the basic facts of the message.

155092[/snapback]

And what would those basic "facts" be? That a newspaper asked a has-been politician to write an op-ed piece rebuking Tom Delay? If the NYT did, so what? If they didn't, so what? I doubt this is the first time it's happened nor will it be the last. Dollars to doughnuts Fox or another republican news source asked Zell Miller to speak or write something derogatory about his fellow Democrats or the party itself. So what?

I'm more confused about why the NYT would think that Livingston, an admitted adulterer and obvious hypocrite, would possess the credibility to speak on any matters that might attempt to sober up the "righteous right" from its druken stupor regarding Delay. Christopher Shays (a decent republican) and Rick Santorum (a self-righteous, religious zealot) among others have spoken publicly about the disgrace that is Tom Delay. Maybe they were also approached by the NYT. So what?

What other "facts" did I ignore? Oh, let's see, how about this strawman Novak concocted:

The Democratic establishment and left-wing activists have targeted DeLay as the way to end a decade of Republican control of the House.

and, this one:

The assault on DeLay did not begin until he redistricted Texas congressional seats, which changed the 2004 election from a net loss to a net gain for House Republicans.

Ahh, so he really did nothing wrong? It's just those mean, bed-wetters out to get him? Has nothing to do with being found guilty by the House Ethics Committee four times for prior ethics violations. To believe Novak, you must believe the tail wags the dog.

[Tigermike 3,039]

The importance of such a column by so prestigious a Republican as Livingston would break a solid GOP front supporting DeLay.

It's sad when a major spokesman for the party of "high moral ethics" holds an admitted adulterer in such high regard. But, considering the source, Bob Novak, it's not really surprising.

155090[/snapback]

As usual, a typical reaction from the left has been to shoot the messenger without denying the basic facts of the message.

155092[/snapback]

And what would those basic "facts" be? That a newspaper asked a has-been politician to write an op-ed piece rebuking Tom Delay? If the NYT did, so what? If they didn't, so what? I doubt this is the first time it's happened nor will it be the last. Dollars to doughnuts Fox or another republican news source asked Zell Miller to speak or write something derogatory about his fellow Democrats or the party itself. So what?

155137[/snapback]

The fact that the NY Times asked Livingston to do a piece condemning DeLay was not out of bounds. I’m sure that happens all the time in newspapers across the country.

That in no way could indicate the Democrats, leftist groups and the NY Times are working together could it? I find it odd that the NY Times didn’t accept an OP-ED from Livingston in support of DeLay. That would have hurt DeLay more than what they have been doing.

and, this one:

The assault on DeLay did not begin until he redistricted Texas congressional seats, which changed the 2004 election from a net loss to a net gain for House Republicans.

Ahh, so he really did nothing wrong? It's just those mean, bed-wetters out to get him? Has nothing to do with being found guilty by the House Ethics Committee four times for prior ethics violations. To believe Novak, you must believe the tail wags the dog.

155137[/snapback]

Funny isn’t it Al, when the democrats use Gerrymandering to set themselves up all is OK & fine in the world. But if a Republican does it, it is the crime or sin of the century.

I'm more confused about why the NYT would think that Livingston, an admitted adulterer and obvious hypocrite, would possess the credibility to speak on any matters that might attempt to sober up the "righteous right" from its druken stupor regarding Delay. Christopher Shays (a decent republican) and Rick Santorum (a self-righteous, religious zealot) among others have spoken publicly about the disgrace that is Tom Delay. Maybe they were also approached by the NYT. So what?

What other "facts" did I ignore? Oh, let's see, how about this strawman Novak concocted:

The Democratic establishment and left-wing activists have targeted DeLay as the way to end a decade of Republican control of the House.

I’m confused about why a liberal democrat would be so confused that the NY Times would think that Livingston, an admitted adulterer and obvious hypocrite, would possess the credibility to speak, when the Democrats and the NY Times have held up Bill Clinton, an admitted adulterer and obvious hypocrite, as a beacon of light.

[Tiger Al 0]

The fact that the NY Times asked Livingston to do a piece condemning DeLay was not out of bounds. I’m sure that happens all the time in newspapers across the country.

That in no way could indicate the Democrats, leftist groups and the NY Times are working together could it? I find it odd that the NY Times didn’t accept an OP-ED from Livingston in support of DeLay. That would have hurt DeLay more than what they have been doing.

It's a real simple formula. Republican cheerleaders in support of Delay elicits the response, "Oh, wow...big surprise there." On the other hand, one breaking ranks and actually denouncing a goon like Delay sells papers! Same thing happened in the 90's. A Democrat defending Clinton was same ol' same ol'. Finding one to smack him down was gold. I'm sure you remember, Tigermike. And, if you noticed, Livingston was asked to do an opinion piece. This wasn't going to be a news article. As for alliances between the Dems/liberals/NYT, Fox and the RNC have already made up your mind for you!

Funny isn’t it Al, when the democrats use Gerrymandering to set themselves up all is OK & fine in the world. But if a Republican does it, it is the crime or sin of the century.

When you strut around with a self-righteous, holier-than-thou attitude like Delay does, the fall will be a lot harder because the moral pedestal he places himself on is a lot higher.

I’m confused about why a liberal democrat would be so confused that the NY Times would think that Livingston, an admitted adulterer and obvious hypocrite, would possess the credibility to speak, when the Democrats and the NY Times have held up Bill Clinton, an admitted adulterer and obvious hypocrite, as a beacon of light.

No, not a beacon of light. Just a man with human faults who made mistakes but also sure did a lot of good. The difference is that he didn't present himself as being morally superior to others like Delay and his ilk do. And since Delay and his supporters claim the moral high road, I'm also confused as to why one of them, you, would be at ease with them for acting as the "morally inferior" Democrats do. Maybe higher standards only make good talking points.