You may comment here on Billmons new piece.
Back to Main
July 12, 2004
Billmon: Play It As It DeLays
Comments
I regard Delay with fear and disdain. Whenever I think of him, I think of the exterminating business (not my line of work), Texas (I don’t live there), his loud embrace of improbable right-wing Christian proposals (not my thing at all), and, before I know it, I’m so disgusted with the guy that I have no idea of what he’s actually doing. But bankers just love this guy, and lawyers get along with fine. Republicans in Congress, of course, are terrified.
So where do his talents lie? He must be the smartest, meanest operator on Capitol Hill. He has total recall, he’s a multi-tasker, he probably never sleeps, and he never antagonizes bankers or lawyers. He never stops raising funds, and he works like hell to get people re-elected. He’s a quick study, and has all the patience it takes to organize a takeover of almost anything. The fastest gun in the West–that’s what he seems to be…..
But when he really gets me down, I remember one person, namely Bill Clinton. Clinton beat Delay hollow in the maneuvers back in 1996–I forget how, but Delay sure didn’t forget how. He kept saying, over and over again during the impeachment comedy, that he’d get that guy out of office because he lied to him during the budget negotiations of ’96. With the fury of a truly wounded narcissist. And so he led the charge….
And here’s something else I’ll never forget: hardly a month or two after the impeachment thing was over, there was a big photo of some big shots signing an immigration bill. Actually, the person signing the bill was none other than Clinton (smiling away as he signed). Another person smiling, wanly, on stage right, was none other than Tom Delay. And as I remember the legislation, it was one of those times when Clinton drove a very hard bargain right over the opposition of Delay (I may be wrong about this–please correct me if I am).
Delay, then, is really the second fastest gun in the West. In a shootout with Clinton, he’s the slowest gun in the West. So I think it would be cool if the Democrats contracted with Clinton to simply finish him off entirely–but of course the price would be unimaginably high (though maybe, for all we know, Clinton has something to do with the litigation currently under way).
Posted by: alabama | Jul 12 2004 8:02 utc | 1
In Machine at Work Paul Krugman takes aim at DeLay.
Last two graphs:
But you shouldn’t conclude that the system is working. Mr. DeLay’s current predicament is an accident. The party machine that he has done so much to create has eliminated most of the checks and balances in our government. Again and again, Republicans in Congress have closed ranks to block or emasculate politically inconvenient investigations. If Enron hadn’t collapsed, and if Texas didn’t still have a campaign finance law that is a relic of its populist past, Mr. DeLay would be in no danger at all.
The larger picture is this: Mr. DeLay and his fellow hard-liners, whose values are far from the American mainstream, have forged an immensely effective alliance with corporate interests. And they may be just one election away from achieving a long-term lock on power.
Posted by: Bernhard | Jul 13 2004 6:24 utc | 2
There’s the wake-up call, Bernhard! If you’re part of the American mainstream, or if you’re well to the left of it, then Delay has to look like a joke in doubtful taste. How can you take him seriously? How can any serious person, even someone somewhat to to the right, dignify him with a minute of attention?
But then Krugman sounds the chilling note–something about “an immensely effective alliance with corporate interests.”
Here, the temptation to blow the guy off as a lurid bit of local color is an intellectually reckless, even irresponsible, impulse, and a very hard one to resist, because DeLay ought, in principle, to have his hands and head full of the corporate interests of Texas–which are immense, and impossible to follow, but still local.
But no, that’s not the point at all: this guy talks to corporate interests everywhere. He is loved, known and trusted on Wall Street, and Wall Street isn’t in Texas.
Just watch this guy when the Republican Convention rolls around. Watch the really big money guys–those bankers and lawyers I keep fretting about–bonding with this guy in a love-feast from hell. The local color of Texas isn’t local, it’s just color. It’s colorful, it’s diverting.
Where to begin with the homework on this stuff? Do I need a Harvard MBA to know the score?
Posted by: alabama | Jul 13 2004 6:45 utc | 3
Good morning to you fellow denizens.
I have not been posting because I feel that even though one of my last posts was meant in jest, ang might have injected a sorely needed serum of comedy,in effect all I accomplished
was to #1 show a very unattractive derriere, and #2, possibly alienate Kate. I do have some experience with the former, however, I feel that the latter is weighing on my mind alot.
If you,Alabama, can contact her, please tell her I’m sorry.
Posted by: possum | Jul 13 2004 7:17 utc | 8
possum, I have no doubt that Kate is a dedicated visitor to this site, and will find the message here. But e-mail me in a day or two, if you feel the urge to do so.
Posted by: alabama | Jul 13 2004 7:49 utc | 10
A note to readers of this thread:
The Barkeep posted a rather pointed comment on Tom DeLay; Bernhard relayed it here without comment; I posted a comment two hours thereafter; Bernhard then provided a link to Krugman (with citation) on the topic of DeLay; I then posted a second comment, half-an-hour thereafter, on Krugman’s comment on DeLay, building on the prior material from the Barkeep. After that, there were a few brief, personal salutes, but no comments concerning DeLay, Krugman, the Barkeep, Bernhard, or alabama (I’m writing this at 12 noon CDT).
It would be interesting to know why–let’s not suppose there’s anything “personal” at stake here–but it’s really impossible to know why. It can safely be supposed, however, that something or other is at stake, and we can always speculate what that is.
Maybe the Barkeep and Krugman guessed wrong: DeLay isn’t interesting, and DeLay isn’t worthy of comment.
Maybe the points being made about DeLay–most urgently, in my view, that he’s a national force, lurid to the point of distraction, and very had to track–don’t matter very much, or they lack the ring of probability.
Maybe my account of DeLay’s history with Clinton lacks resonance, i.e. sounds too personal, or at least too anecdotal, and discredits itself a fortiori because it ends up being a fan letter of sorts about Clinton–a figure to be forgotten, in the minds of some, if not actually regretted or despised.
If any or all of these points hold, than a discussion is unlikely to prosper, because we tend to talk about the things that move us–to rage, fury, or enthusiasm.
So let me drop a third coin into this particular well: the one they call “Bill Clinton” really happened, and he happened as a Democrat. In his eight years as a Democrat in the White House, he did at least one interesting thing: he frustrated Republicans. Since his departure from office, Democrats have not had little evident success at frustrating Republicans.
Some Republicans count for a lot in the scheme of things, and DeLay is one of these. And if, as I believe, a key to Clinton’s success at frustrating Republicans lay in his skill at frustrating DeLay, then Clinton is someone to be valued on that score alone. Here and now.
I think people know this very well. Some who know this very well also don’t like Clinton–so much so, indeed, that they’d rather go on denying the dangers of DeLay than have to ask Clinton for support in their hour of need.
Some Democrats who blow off Clinton in this way–they do exist, and I know some of them rather well–would rather lose to Republicans than get dirty (from the standpoint of political correctness, in particular). They would rather lose because they can afford to lose–in the end, they don’t do badly under the Republicans–and they can also afford the high cost of looking good. And they can’t, or think they can’t, afford to look bad.
The plastic surgery industry, booming across the land, appeals to Democrats and Republicans alike.
But that’s just a construct of mine. It may be true, or false, or fanciful, and even somewhat paranoid. Since there’s nothing to go on here, there’s no way to direct, let alone test, the hypothesis.
I take this as an instance of one way in which the site can grow and develop. When someone advances a hypothesis, however silly it may be, or distasteful the subject may be, I’ll take it as a task to address the point, however briefly. This will keep it in the air for someone else to shoot down.
Posted by: alabama | Jul 13 2004 17:50 utc | 11
PS: over in the Whiskey Annex, the Barkeep’s post gets no substantial attention whatsover.
Posted by: alabama | Jul 13 2004 18:09 utc | 12
@alabama
Reason for so little posts on this is not the theme, but the timing. The main audiance of this is still in the US. Comments start to flow only after noon EST and there was another good Billmon post after this one came out. So what people saw first was the Election Prevention piece and that what they talked about – it´s also more conspirative, i.e. more fun to talk about.
Also the traffic on this site is not compareable to what it was at Billmons place – less people – less comments.
Personally I think the DeLay stuff is just what one expected from DeLay – so what can do you exept shrug. Maybe others have the same opinion.
Posted by: Bernhard | Jul 13 2004 18:17 utc | 13
Right, Bernhard, and thanks for the point about timing.
But “shrugging”, Bernhard, means that you have no resources at hand with which to fix the thing. Nothing, nowhere….
But we have resources! Clinton’s among us, after all, and if the party included him in its operations, he could surely do lots of interesting things to mess up DeLay.
After we’ve given Clinton what he needs to do the job, and after he’s failed to the job–then, and only then, is it really time to shrug.
Any premature shrugging, in my view, is a way of continuing to marginalize Clinton. That way madness lies, in my view–unless Democrats have really big complaints about the man’s politics. If they do, then we’ve been watching a de facto breakup of the party–not to be laid at Clinton’s hands, but to be laid at the hands of Democrats who won’t accept him even now.
If Democrats don’t accept him, they should explain why. They should also explain why other Democrats who have indeed accepted him should stay with a party that disenfranchises a large part of itself.
Kerry will lose, just as Gore lost, if he doesn’t bring Clinton into play (and not just as a fundraiser, but as a participant in party operations).
As for those who say that Clinton would never put out the needed effort for Kerry–that he’s only interested in lining things up for Hillary in 2008–I invite them to produce some supporting evidence for that view. I, for one, don’t see any, and I’ve looked for it rather hard.
Another thought, as I step away: it may well be that Democrats remain geographically divided–whence the enthusiasm for Edwards. But what does such a “geographical division” mean? To me, it means that a large element of the Party, mostly in the Northeast and the Far West, never liked, trusted, or respected Clinton.
And I wonder why. Is it because he came from nowhere (and I can demonstrate, in a rather lengthy and tedious way, that Clinton is the very first American President ever to come from absolutely nowhere)?
Posted by: alabama | Jul 13 2004 18:47 utc | 14
alabama,
I also think there is a kind of Enron fatigue going on. At least here in California, we’re all recovering from listening to those damnable tapes about how we were screwed big time — and laughed at.
Also, there’s general scandal fatigue, you know? So many dark horses to back and only a limited amount of energy. For example, I had high hopes for the Medicare scandal to take us somewhere but that looks like it’s not even a “show” in this horse race.
I really don’t want to get excited about DeLay getting the boot and then find out it’s going to be corporate/government fuck-fuck games as usual. Maybe I’ll work up some enthusiasm for it when it looks like a stayer. I can only take so much disappointment.
Posted by: SusanG | Jul 13 2004 18:52 utc | 15
I couldn’t agree more, SusanG. But aren’t these spells of fatigue the very moments when you should call on the strongest horse in the team? I think Clinton can do a lot to mitigate our disappointments.
For example: do we know what he thinks about the energy deregulation process in California? Did he actively support it? Did he see problems? If so, did he try to intervene? Knowing answers to these questions would be enlightening–and good, in that respect, for the morale.
Posted by: alabama | Jul 13 2004 19:02 utc | 16
Jumping in here for various reasons but mostly just to give some support and responsiveness to my very good and deserving friend alabama–
(not that my responsiveness is necessarily something to cheer about, but still, it’s better than nothing)
oh and let me apologize for the middle of the night off topic personal meandering while I’m at it…
on to the topic:
alabama, you’re priceless:
Delay, then, is really the second fastest gun in the West. In a shootout with Clinton, he’s the slowest gun in the West. So I think it would be cool if the Democrats contracted with Clinton to simply finish him off entirely–but of course the price would be unimaginably high (though maybe, for all we know, Clinton has something to do with the litigation currently under way).
I think you’re right about Clinton. What a startling and good idea. The man may be nothing in terms of professional conduct in the workplace (you know what I mean), but in terms of the smartest politician in town — hey that’s a job skill! Now I don’t like his triangulation and the centrism and all that and what it means. But I think DeLay should be a much much easier target than that. And the things DeLay seemed mad about were not about triangulation or even what we consider politics in that sense — no they were about the way that deals are made, who shook hands with whom and business as usual. At least I thought, at the time, that’s what it was about. Outmaneuvering. Given my sometimes oblique perspective I could be wrong, but it seems to me that was the scent of things at the time.
What bugs me, and what I think should be actually an easier target than is generally presumed, is all this paying for a certain brand of social outlook and the legislation that may result. Frankly what has me stumped like a bat in the blinding sunshine today is the attempt to ban gay marriage via constitutional amendment. There are so many reasons why this is abuse for some reason the issue has staggered me. And I say that as someone who identifies herself as a Christian and for whom my religious perspective is central to my life. In religious circles – although I’m more of the theological/contemplative type, and not institutionally active at all – this debate about gay marriage is open right now. People are at least talking about it. But this sort of thing would say to people, “No you can’t talk about it. You can’t consider it. The question is closed, and as it’s closed via our Constitution, it’s closed forever. This sort of thing just staggers me. And I for one think it’s a far easier target than is generally assumed, in principle. Why legislate this sort of thing through the Constitution–is just one way to approach it. Is the Constitution about personal or private behavior? These are all ways the man is vulnerable on this question, completely aside from the issue of what people think of gay marriage.
(I hope I’m not rambling. I am sleep deprived.)
Posted by: x | Jul 13 2004 19:07 utc | 17
(alabama–if you’re interested in my sort of amateurly theological thinking on the whole question of gay marriage, would be glad to go into it…just as it’s you I thought I’d ask)
Posted by: x | Jul 13 2004 19:11 utc | 18
x, I like that very, very much–and thank you for hanging in there, as you always have.
Mad initiatives, like the amendment of which you speak, are always with us–always. They are like the bubonic plague, polio, or cholera. And they are opportunistic little critters. Keeping them under control is a discipline, an exercise–really, in many respects, a military sort of discipline. A lot of people have to pull together all the time without falling asleep on guard duty if the critters are to be warded off.
If an amendment such as this were to pass, I’d have to take that passage as positive proof that its opponents had lost their nerve, their strength, their will and and their substance.
Clinton is a great antidote to the Republican Party. He has the energy and brains to beat them hollow.
For Democrats to traffic with Republicans without having Clinton at their side is like having sex with a total stranger and taking no heed to make that sex safe. If you then come down with a dread disease, you have only your own carelessness to blame, your own indifference to the arts of survival, your own Death Wish.
Posted by: alabama | Jul 13 2004 19:24 utc | 19
s, I’d love to hear your theological take on gay marriage. It’s where the action is, if I may put it so. Marriage, after all, is a theologically overdetermined institution. If there’s to be gay marriage in ways that pertain to our culture’s notion of “marriage,” it needs to be shown (and I have no doubt that it can be shown) that “gay marriage” is an instance of “holy matrimony” (it’s not just a civil contract).
Posted by: alabama | Jul 13 2004 19:28 utc | 20
oh thanks for asking, even if you may regret it later.
My musings are as follows: it depends on how you think of marriage and what you think marriage is for.
(for those who hate to hear anything about Christian theology, please skip over, although you might find it interesting anyway)
In a Christian framework, the central theme is love. But you have to ask, “Why is this so?” This is so because our particular monotheistic religion is not about one big guy with a white beard. No, it’s not one person who hands down the rules. “God” is about three persons in one. And those persons are so involved in love, in relationship with each other, that they are three persons *as relationship.* They are relationship itself, as each extends out and into the other in self-giving, there is naught left but relationship. Hence “God is Love.”
So extrapolating from this, it becomes essential in the Christian sense to imitate the life that “God” teaches us through “right relationship.” Through love. That is, also, self-emptying. Giving up self for relatedness to God, to love, and through that (the vine and the branches) to our fellow human beings and everything else on and in this planet. Monastics do this through religious discipline, prayer, contemplation and other practices I won’t go into that are related to awareness and self-examination.
But the theologians, and I am not just talking the new age-y modern American lefty types, but the Greek monastics who base their whole thinking on the earliest Patristics and Desert Fathers, tell us that marriage is the way that lay people learn what they go the monastery to learn. Marriage, they say, is not for the sole purpose of procreation as so many wish to claim. No, marriage is for the purpose of two people cleaving to one another. Marriage is to learn relationship — self-emptying, each giving to the other, to become “us” and not “me and you”. Marriage is about love and learning what love is. It’s the “monastic” institution for non-monastics.
So ergo, in my book, the question becomes open, at least open, to what and who those two loving parties are. Not whether or not they can produce a child together. That’s not the essence of marriage.
Those are my thoughts. (Please no flames and sorry if I’ve offended anyone–I don’t mean to put down anybody else’s religious point of view.)
Posted by: x | Jul 13 2004 19:43 utc | 22
(And I don’t even have to say how far off these particular loonies are on getting that “love” part.)
Posted by: x | Jul 13 2004 19:46 utc | 23
x, that’s very strong. I think the Greek word for the process you mention is “kenosis”. Does that word turn up in your readings?
Posted by: alabama | Jul 13 2004 19:54 utc | 24
dear sir:
kenosis: Late Greek kensis, from Greek, an emptying, from kenoun, to empty, from kenos, empty.
Hey by the way, you should check out Blackie’s of July 13, 2004 03:50 PM on the “Class Warfare” thread. As you are my favorite wordsmith…
Posted by: x | Jul 13 2004 20:01 utc | 25
I for one appreciate your persistence alabama. Like SusanG, I have a hard time following all the crimes and all the reptiles. Somehow in spite of it all we seem to be making progress though.
Just today I was linked to a story that to me makes some sense of this brouhaha the world has descended into; for quite a while I have felt strongly that there is something more to it than just “human nature” or greed. Something else is causing it and I offer the following as a credible possibility. Although your first reaction may be to kill the messenger, or at least laugh him off the stage, I urge you to read it all the way through and give it some thought.
Link to Dulce
Posted by: rapt | Jul 13 2004 20:15 utc | 26
Since that link didn’t seem to work so well, just go to http://www.redelk.net and find the Dulce link from there. Simple.
Posted by: rapt | Jul 13 2004 20:19 utc | 27
hey rapt:
I’m trying to look at your link, but for some reason it’s not working–there’s a message saying the page cannot be found. Got it cached or at a different link or something?
Back to DeLay and the Constitutional Amendment–you don’t have to have any opinion on gay marriage to be against that amendment and to know why it’s a bad idea. Legislating that kind of personal level and social more through the constitution involves so much more that I think the average voter can relate to.
Posted by: x | Jul 13 2004 20:21 utc | 28
Still couldn’t find it on the homepage, rapt, but did a google
Dulce
Posted by: x | Jul 13 2004 20:29 utc | 29
speak of the devil
Bush Heads Toward Defeat on Gay-Marriage Measure
Tuesday, July 13, 2004 3:36 p.m. ET
By Thomas Ferraro
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Bush’s bid to amend the Constitution to ban same sex-marriage headed toward defeat on Tuesday, with Democratic foe John Kerry accusing him of divisive election-year politics.
(scroll down, way down page, to read the whole story…)
Posted by: x | Jul 13 2004 20:39 utc | 30