Saturday, July 15, 2006

NY Times Editorial Hypocrisy: Tom DeLay vs. Robert Torricelli

A Friday editorial, "Chained to the Ballot," applauds a U.S. District judge for keeping former House majority leader Tom DeLay on the ballot for the upcoming congressional election, calling DeLay’s failed attempt (he will appeal the ruling) a "gambit" and "final power play," as well as "bait-and-switch politicking."

"The former House majority leader Tom DeLay, master practitioner of tooth-and-claw politics, finds himself in a predicament. He’s been cast adrift somewhere between Texas and Virginia after a court struck down his parting Congressional gambit.

"Mr. DeLay, a proud Texan, quit Congress earlier this year, clearly fearing political defeat as he faced trial on charges of campaign money laundering. He could see the Congressional ethics scandal blossom around his old buddy, Jack Abramoff, the now-famously corrupt lobbyist. Before parting, however, the combative Republican could not resist a final power play."

[snip]

"'There is no evidence that DeLay will still be living in Virginia tomorrow, let alone November 7,' wrote Judge Sparks, a Republican appointee who found no room in the law for bait-and-switch politicking."

The Times concluded:

"It might be a fitting punishment to force him to run for Congress while explaining to his constituents why he tried so hard to abandon them for the green fields of the Washington suburbs."

For comparison’s sake, let’s examine how the Times editorial page treated a similar incident on the other side of the political divide.

Democratic Sen. Robert Torricelli of New Jersey resigned his seat a mere five weeks before the 2002 election because of allegations of corruption. Under New Jersey law, Torricelli’s resignation came too late to put up a substitute candidate -- the electoral ballot could not be changed within 51 days of the election.

In a striking contrast, the Times wanted Torricelli off the ballot quickly, so that the voters could get a "vigorous" campaign and "the choice they deserve." The "choice" to vote for a more viable Democrat than Torricelli, anyway.

The Times editorial from October 3, 2002:

"New Jersey's Supreme Court made the right call yesterday when it ruled that the State Democratic Party could substitute Frank Lautenberg for the discredited Robert Torricelli as its candidate in November's election for the United States Senate. The ruling appears to clear the way for a vigorous if necessarily abbreviated campaign, thus giving New Jersey voters the choice they deserve....in the end it ruled, rightly, that the greater need was to ensure ‘full and fair ballot choice for the voters of New Jersey.’"

From an October 1, 2002 editorial:

"The task now is to find a way to give New Jersey's voters the choice they deserve….The Democrats, led by Gov. James McGreevey, must move quickly to find a credible replacement. The courts must then expeditiously approve the ballot substitution, which in turn will clear the way for an energetic one-month campaign that, with Senator Torricelli out of the picture, can focus tightly on loftier issues than his seamy behavior."

Interesting, that what is now "bait-and-switch politicking" when done by Republican Tom DeLay was absolutely necessary four years ago when done by New Jersey Democrats, in order to give New Jersey voters "the choice they deserve." Apparently the Times is unconcerned about the choices of Texas voters, but simply want DeLay retained on the ballot as a "fitting punishment" -- in other words, for the paper’s own partisan fun.

16 comments:

Anonymous said...

See, this is another example of you blindly copying another persons information. Did you fail to notice that EXACTLY at the point the details of WHAT DeLay did that caused the judge to rule, the website SNIP'ed the information. You cant compare the two articles without having a common point. Just another example of Con Spin Journalism.

Jim said...

And did you also notice that the point of the Delay article is Delay's gambit that is backfiring.

Prior to the primary, Delay made known that he was already planning to resign from Congress AFTER he won the primary. Running in the primary allowed him to "legally" collect political contributions which he could then use for his defense fund.

So it is Delay's ethically questionable, selfish gambit that has put his party in this "bind."

Ah, karma!

The Game said...

this one is a no brainer...
A Republican wants to have a name changed because he doesn't want to run anymore...you get all over it..
Democrat wants out because he is going to lose and the Dem's dont want to lose the seat, and it is justified to you...
do you have once ounce of intellectual honesty in you???
Partisan hacks 100%

Anonymous said...

Actually, game, its ano brainer due to the mitigating circumstances. Any claim to the contrary, without proof(such as you) is merely Cons and their little inferiority complexes whiney, whiney whiney.

Jim said...

I guess the issue is my "intellectual honesty" vs your intellect.

The central issue here continues to elude you. Here it is again:

Tom Delay NEVER had any intention of running in the general election. He ran in the primary in order go collect political contributions for his campaign which he could then use for his defense fund. Then he would resign from the House and NOT run in the general election.

Do you understand this? Do you see why having to keep his name on the ballot is such delicious irony? He selfishly ran to get money for himself and left the party high and dry.

This illustrates that Delay will screw anybody, even the Texas Republic party, for his own selfish reasons, .

The Game said...

where is the proof....
and it is the same story, someone calls it quits, and in one caes it is okay, in another it is not...

Jim said...

What do you mean "where is the proof?" It is no secret.

From the Washington Post, April 4, 2006:

"DeLay also is entitled under federal election rules to convert any or all of the remaining funds from his reelection campaign to his legal expenses, whether or not he resigns, is indicted or loses the election. Election lawyers say one advantage of bowing out of the election now is that the campaign cash can be converted to pay legal bills immediately, instead of being drained in the course of a bid to stay in office. . .

"By stepping aside so early in an election year, a lawmaker 'wouldn't be spending to be reelected' and could transfer the funds immediately to fend off any federal charges, said lawyer Kenneth A. Gross, a former head of the FEC's enforcement division."

The Game said...

That is speculation...I still do not see proof and facts...man, you really suck with those...

Jim said...

Yes, I suppose it could be speculation that Delay, a presumably very intelligent man and skillful politician planned this all out. Let me also speculate that the sun will rise tomorrow.

So let's look at a few facts and see what conclusion a reasonably intelligent person could draw from them.

2006: Delay is under indictment, has resigned as House Majority Leader and is facing mounting legal bills.

March 2006: Despite the above, Delay runs in the Republic primary. During this primary he collects political contributions in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Delay wins the primary.

April 2006: According to Fox News, Delay announces that he will retire from Congress and not seek reelection. this is less that one month after winning the primary. Furthermore he announces that he will become a Virginia resident. The Washington Post reports that according to FEC regulations, Delay can keep his political contributions and convert them to a defense fund.

So you tell me, why within a month of winning the primary did Delay decide he couldn't win the general and decided to move to Virginia? Did he give back all the contributions he collected?

How's that for sucking?

The Game said...

Jim, I can admit it sounds good...and you know what..it might be true...but how does that change the point of the original post...
Fact is, Delay wanted out...and it is wrong when he wants to...for whatever reason
When a Dem does it, MUCH CLOSER TO THE ACTUAL ELECTION, it is just fine...
See, Jim is doing what the Left does...since the point made in the article is absolutely correct, he has to go to something else to get the attention off the original point that he can not refute...
So, okay Jim...I'll say sure, Delay might have done this all to get money
and Torricelli dropped out so the Dem's could keep the seat...if both are true, they are both wrong and the fact that the media doesn't report both the same shows their liberal bias

Jim said...

I'm guessing here, but here's my guess: You, Game, never actually read the NY Times editorial that NewsBusters is referring to.

Did you? Or did you just read what the obviously biased NewsBusters site had to say about it?

Because the Times editorial has a point which is particular to Delay in that he is known as a powerful manipulator and he has manipulated his party into a bad situation because of his own selfishness.

And if you read it closely, it says that the right thing would be that "Republican voters choose a new nominee for his Houston seat" just like in New Jersey. Instead "Mr. DeLay ran in his party’s primary and won. Then he resigned, angling to have his precinct bosses anoint a noncontroversial and hand-picked replacement for the November ballot."

In other words, rather than let voters decide, Delay wanted to pick his successor. It appears that the Times is not being inconsistent here, and the article is NOT correct.

The point of the editorial is right here:

"Mr. DeLay has gamed the system so many times — most famously by gerrymandering the Texas Congressional districts — that he may have presumed a minor thing like fixing the Republican nomination for his own seat was his to control."

Don't read NewsBusters without reading the source. Otherwise you're likely to be mislead.

The Game said...

did the voters have to choose the person that replaced Torricelli???
I am almost positive the Dem's chose it?
Come on Jim, just admit the bias

Jim said...

OK, explain to me, in your own words, what the issue of bias is in this case.

The Game said...

has been explained...

Jim said...

But you are wrong, Game. You disagree with me. I am right and you are wrong.

The Game said...

grow up...I have tried to explain it to very simply a few times...not worth it...