Paper Bag Politics
By Vincent Fiore (11/21/04)
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, inaction into the famous 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 suffered under the yoke of the House Post Office scandal, in which representatives traded stamps and official House postal vouchers for cash. Further still, 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 stemming from single-party dominance and hubris. Though 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 the voter sees is who is in charge.
So last week when the Republican-controlled Congress cavalierly decided to change a rule that was installed by the Newt Gingrich-led GOP in 1993, voters were watching with interest, and possibly resentment. 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 now 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” worries 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, Delay 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 Delay’s associates and eight corporations, and is continuing to investigate.
More recently, the 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 main stream 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.
President Bush does not believe in the arrogance associated with power, and neither should his House leadership. If the stunning election victories of the Republican Party are to mean anything, they must continue to dance with what “brung’em to the dance,” and that is the moral and ethical concerns that created the majority they now enjoy, without the arrogance and abuse of power that was so completely abandoned by their Democratic Party colleagues in the early 1990’s
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 ethical fiber in the GOP-controlled House? For Republicans to proceed in exercises of arrogance is to invite a replaying of history.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Vincent Fiore
