September 29, 2005

Tom Delay, Please Resign (UPDATED)

Tom Delay should resign from Congress. Did he do anything illegal? I've no idea. Campaign finance laws are like the tax code: so complicated as to lose all meaning to the average citizen. But whether or not Delay broke any laws is beside the point in my mind. He is the poster child for the peddling of Washington's largess to special interests.

He is the Republican version of Dan Rostenkowski. Did Rostenskowski break some minor federal laws? Perhaps, but the larger problem with the former Democratic Ways and Means Committee Chair was not that he committed 'mail fraud' but that he used his position in Congress to take my money away from me and give to his constituents, his campaign donors, and his ideological allies.

Congress is full of politicians who engage in quid pro quos with special interests. But some are worse than others. Tom Delay is one of the worst.

Is Ronnie Earle a partisan hack? That's a given. But even partisan hacks sometimes get it right, even when they are motivated by, well, partisanship. I've no idea if he's gotten it right here, but again, that is the least of my concerns.

There is a second and unrelated reason Delay should resign. Tom Delay hurts the Republican Party and helps the Democratic Party. I don't really care if Delay hurts the Republican Party. I am a big believer in the two-party system--as long as those two parties are Republicans and Libertarians. What I am not a big believer in are the statist principles at the core of Democratic philosophy and which are increasingly becoming part of Republican practice.

As long as the Democrats remain the party of bigger government as opposed to the Republicans just being the party of big government, then anything that helps them win cannot be good for the country.

The perception of corruption and ineptness in Washington by the public is uncannily familiar. I smell 1994 in the air again. The Democrats only need to come up with their own Contract With America--some coherent alternative vision based on a 'reform' agenda--and they will win back the House of Representatives.

So, Tom Delay, do us all a favor: resign. Spare us all the headache of putting a party in power who wants even more government so that it can dole out even more favors to even more special interests, campaign donors, and ideological allies. The country is in bad enough shape with you helping to run it, let's not make it any worse.

This will serve as my one and only post on the Delay scandal. The Jawa has spoken.

More Delay reaction from RINOs here at The Politburo Diktat. UPDATE: Due to heavy schedule here, I've been kind of out of it. Michelle Malkin has big roundup here. Ahhh, and check out the two last paragraphs from Captain Ed. UPDATE II: Professor Chaos, truth detector. Hawkins is right, but he needs to go go, not just go. UPDATE III: Chris Abraham, right on. Rusty Shackleford, 'bedwetting right'?? Are you kidding me?--Update: I have been assured that I was not part of the 'bedwetting right' alluded to here. Good to know.

UPDATE IV: Ok, John from Wuzzadem pretty much has the 'don't get on the indict Delay bandwagon yet because this just gives the moonbats fuel for the fire' argument summed up--sorta.

UPDATE V: Let me make myself clear:

I call on Jack Reed, Paul Sarbanes, Barbara Lee, John Oliver, Jim McDermott and all other Leftists in Congress to resign BEFORE Tom Delay because you are far mor dangerous to the nation


UPDATE VI: Willisms de-links me because I don't drink the party kool-aid at every turn, even after I try to reassert my street cred by calling on Leftists in Congress to do the same. Very unclassy. PS-had I realized you weren't on the blogroll I certainly would have added you, especially if you had asked. And, BTW, The Jawa Report is 'skinnable'. If you want a light background with dark text, simply click on the link in the upper right corner.

What I've never understood is people who put party loyalty above principle. It's the same reason I think the modern Democratic party has largely become a farce and an anti-American institution. They oppose the war because, er, they have to because, er, they're the party of opposition.

I'm not going to support Delay simply because he is the enemy of my enemy. This isn't war, no one is going to die if Delay goes down, he's not that important to my agenda--which is winning the war on terror.

There is something deeply disturbing about people who think it is their duty to be the propoganda arm of the Republican party and who think it an act of betrayal to oppose any one or anything that they are for.

I, for one, encourage reasoned disagreement. And, as always, I am open to having my mind changed if there is some angle that I haven't given enough thought to.

UPDATE VII: Let me get the two sides of the argument straight. One side, my side (now joined by Pieter Dorsman), thinks defending Delay helps the Democratic party by associating the party with perceived misdeeds. The other side, most of my readers are in this category (I'm looking in your general direction Filthy), think that if Delay goes down then the Dems come out on top and will go after the next politician they hate--thus, we must support Delay so that this doesn't happen.

Is this a fair presentation of the two sides of the argument?

UPDATE VIII: Loyal reader Marcus Aurelius disagrees.

UPDATE IX: We are officially in a blogfluffle.

UPDATE X: For John at Wuzzadem. I'm not supporting Delay's indictment. How should I know whether the charges are true or not? I just want him gone, gone, gone. It's a logical fallacy, in my mind, to equate someone resigning from office because they're pathetic scoundrals (which Delay is) and hurt the overall cause, with supporting those that wish to see him in jail. Anyway, those following the debate should probably go read John's post. But I wonder, isn't the greater pack mentality the reflexive defense of Delay because he's 'our guy' than we few who dare call for his resignation?

And for Beth, long-time blog-friend, I'd say that the Left hates Delay for a number of reasons, and that, yes, one of them is that he's effective. Mostly the effectiveness they hate him for has to do with the Texas redistricting push that he was largely responsible for. But just because they hate him for those reasons does not mean that I must also hate him for the same reasons. I hate him for the same reason Newt Gingrich hated the Democratic leadership of the 1980's--they were spendthrifts and Washington insider influence peddlers of the highest caliber. I did not support the Democrats when they drummed Newt out of Congress. Tom Delay, though, is no Newt Gingrich.

By Rusty Shackleford, Ph.D. at 10:18 AM | Comments |