Well, look at what we have here, just ahead of a midterm election year: an oopsie-daisy revelation of ethics investigations involving — you guessed it — a whole bunch of Democratic House members.
Shades of 1992-1994, when Republicans turned inconsequential sloppiness in administration of the House’s internal “bank” for members into a scandal, “Rubbergate,” of epic proportions, at least in the public mind.
House ethics investigators have been scrutinizing the activities of more than 30 lawmakers and several aides in inquiries about issues including defense lobbying and corporate influence peddling, according to a confidential House ethics committee report prepared in July.
The report appears to have been inadvertently placed on a publicly accessible computer network, and it was provided to The Washington Post by a source not connected to the congressional investigations. The committee said Thursday night that the document was released by a low-level staffer.
This certainly sets the stage for a back-to-the-future scenario, doesn’t it?
In 1993-1994, Republicans launched a vicious politics of personal destruction campaign against then House Speaker Tom Foley, D-Wash., one of the most honest, ethical and thoroughly decent men in government at that time. First elected in 1964, Foley became speaker in 1989, after Republicans pulled the same (explitive deleted) on then Speaker Jim Wright, D-Texas, over a penny-ante misstep involving Wright’s vanity book.
If you think Newt Gingrich, who, tragically, succeeded Foley as speaker, was involved in destroying Wright’s career and unseating Foley on lies, distortions and demagoguery, you get a gold star by your name. That’s exactly what happened.
Foley lost in 1994 to a colorless little necon lockstep marcher, George Nethercutt. The centerpiece of Nethercutt’s campaign was demagoging Foley’s proactive challenge of a mindless drive in Washington state to impose term limits on U.S. senators and representatives. Foley, who probably knows the Constitution as well as the average Supreme Court Justice, pointed out that under the Constitution, states can’t impose term limits on federal officeholders — a position the courts solidly upheld.
Never mind that Foley had the law on his side and a brilliant record representing Eastern Washington in Congress. Nethercutt and his backers maliciously hacked away at Foley’s honesty, his integrity and character, hammering on the term-limits issue relentlessly. Nethercutt pledged he would only serve three terms. Nethercutt won, becoming the first challenger to unseat a House speaker in many decades.
Then, in an act of perfect conservative Republican hypocrisy, Nethercutt proceeded to run for re-election, in 2000 when his third term ended and again In 2002, when his fourth ended. Nethercutt finally gave it up in 2004, but not to return to the private sector. Instead, he turned his attention to running against Sen. Patty Murray. Murray won in a walk, beating Mr. Term Limits 55 percent to 43 percent. Nethercutt went on to become a lobbyist.
We’ve taken you on this jaunt down memory lane to illustrate what can happen when, with a popular Democrat in the White House and Democratic majorities in one or both houses of Congress, Republicans find or create the raw materials of scandalmongering.
None on those being looked at by the House ethics panel, Democrat or Republican stands accused of any wrongdoing at this point. Release of names of those being investigated was a gross violation of House and committee rules, and a terrible disservice to the members named.
The ethics committee should do its work quickly and carefully. It should take or recommend appropriate sanctions on members found to have violated House rules, and refer to the Justice Department names of any members found to have broken the law. The innocent should be named as such with equal swiftness and care.
For once, Republicans should be denied one of their favorite election-year plays. Speaker Nancy Pelosi should put the spurs to the ethics committee to get busy, stay on task and report its findings ASAP.
Meanwhile, Democratic campaign committees in both bodies should have come-to-Jesus sessions with members being investigated, pressuring them to fess up if they’ve done wrong, pledging to back them to the hilt if they swear to their innocence. Wrongdoers, obviously, should be encouraged to resign.
The idea, seemingly too often lost on Democrats, is to deny the Republicans as much ammunition as possible.
Crikey, but you know exactly what will happen even in Nancy does get out the whip. The republicans will be trumpeting all over the airwaves who so -and-so was investigated by the ethics committee. There’ll be nary a word of “oh, and by the way, the ethics committee didn’t find anything but a parking ticket”, and people are plug stupid enough to take “investigation” for “conviction and jail sentence.”
On an unrelated note, looks like the VA gubernatorial race is going to go to McDonnell Tuesday. That SOB doesn’t even have an education – he went to Pat Robertson’s non-accredited chrisian “law school” – so we’re going back to the stone ages next week. It’s so depressing to secede from the confederacy and a year later go right back into it.
The goopers always make me think of the line uttered by the Masonic police chief in From Hell: He has that kind of cleverness you’ll sometimes find the middle classes. A cheap sort of intelligence, but effective nevertheless. Replace cleverness/intelligence with slow-wittedness/dumbassery, and you have the Dums.
This nastyness started the day after the general election , the mid-terms have been their goal since then, and they are slowly building up momentum. I agree, get all these accusations of ethics violations out of the way, quickly. It would spoil the GOP plans a little.
Bee, depending on their mood at the time, people really can be impervious to facts. Did McDonnell attend Robertson’s school or get his diploma through mail order?
Randal, more and more as time goes on, the GOP proves how whack jobs and selfish jerks can drive out the decent, sane and sensible. All the more reason for Dems to take care about how they handle their few bad apples.
Holte, I think a big part of it is to deny Republicans the initiative on this. Dems must get and stay out in front of it, and despite friendships and druthers, be ready throw anyone who’s done serious wrong overboard on a moment’s notice.
The difference between now and the early 90s is that now everybody can fact check via the net. Then there’s the issue of the Sibel Edmonds deposition that the MSM won’t touch. If that ever sees the light of day some senators and congress critters have a whole lot of eplainin to do. All involving bribery, blackmail and passing of national secrets.
You might be right about the honorables, Demeur, but Edmonds hasn’t exactly been ignored by the MSM. For example, 60 Minutes.
I think Holte summed it up. The day after the 2008 election the Republican leadership hit the ground running, ready to activate Plan B. If there’s a sleazy method, a dirty trick, the Republicans have already mastered it, and they’re gonna pull out all the stops. What, you thought the Republicans would actually compromise and work together with the party that swept them out of power?
Tom, I’ve thought many things about Republicans, but being a responsible opposition party, looking for ways to cooperate and help straighten out the mess they created, isn’t one of them.
Comparisons with 1992-1994 are invalid. The Rushpubliscums hadn’t stuck us with a Depression last time around. This time they have. The Rushpubliscums weren’t blatantly racist back then either; now, they’re in your face with it. Oh, and did I mention the voting demographics have changed-a LOT-since 1994?
Nah. They are going to pick up a few seats in Dixie, but they can’t use corruption on the dems as a tool anymore. The campaign ads that will be used against them in 2010, they are writing themselves right now. Their racism, perversions, incompetence, lack of any kind of coherent agenda, and religious bigotry are going to shoot them full of holes again.
I don’t think they care anymore-THAT’s what worries me. Their “Plan B” doesn’t appear to cover the US as a whole. I think that has serious implications for this country.
I’m hopeful about the 2010 elections. Look how the “teabag express” was derailed this past summer. They can’t keep espousing extreme ideologies and expect to regain a majority. Even Newt is smart enough to see that.
Republicans who do have a family tree with branches and who do speak in a relatively normal, lucid way, don’t seem to mind being associated with nutty end of the party, I don’t see the extremes driving people away from voting republican in the mid-terms. The Democrats big concern should be keeping those who voted for them in 2008 (and there wasn’t many republicans who did), and to do it again in 2010 and again 2012. The independents are the key.
JR, you make a strong, credible case. Just remember this, though. If enough people are hurting badly enough for jobs (entirely possible) and we’re still losing troops and billions in either or both of Afghanistan and Iraq (very likely), a few ugly scandals is all it might take for a fickle public to turn on Dems. This potential is magnified by the relatively small number who identify strongly as Democrats, as opposed to a large number of independents who are willing to vote Democratic if they’re disgusted enough with Republicans. IOW, you’ve got a large component of volatile (maybe “fickle” is a better word) voters not rooted in either party, and they can turn on a dime.
The other thing to be mindful of is that there’s a strong tendency among many people to see a particular candidate in their congressional district or state as not like those hard core or loony types they see on TV. As in: “Well, I know there are some Republicans who are way out there, but Johnny Smith in my (district/state) comes from a good family. My mother went steady with his first cousin when they were in high school. Smith is a sensible businessman — not like those others.” Polls bear this phenomenon out about incumbents, BTW. So, what I’m saying is that the GOP’s overall bad reputation for catering to fringe kooks, being racist, homophobic, being world-class liars, etc., doesn’t necessarily carry over to get in the way of every Republican running. And that’s true all over, not just in the South.
OK, Demeur, when Newt Gingrich exhibits more wisdom than the average Republican, they are in big trouble.
Holte, as in my response to JR, I agree. Democrats need to show some solid results, encourage more people to join or at least identify strongly with the party, and regenerate enthusiasm in younger voters and many African American and Hispanic voters who went to the polls for the first time last year. Taking anything or anyone for granted is a formula for failure. Just being not Republicans won’t ensure gains or even hold on to Democrats’ current majorities.