Delay's Days Dwindling?

schumer

Schumer?s Campaign Violations The FEC hits the campaign-finance ?reformer? with a hefty fine.
New York Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer, an outspoken advocate of campaign-finance reform, has been hit with one of the biggest fines ever imposed on a member of Congress by the Federal Election Commission ? for violating campaign-finance laws.
The FEC ruling, handed down in March, ordered Schumer’s 1998 senatorial campaign to pay a civil penalty of $130,000. The campaign was also ordered to return $120,455 in illegal contributions, bringing the total of fines and restitution to slightly more than a quarter-million dollars. The campaign paid the sum in April.

According to FEC records, only three cases involving federal candidates have resulted in higher fines than the one levied on Schumer’s campaign. No senatorial candidate has ever been so severely penalized.

At issue in the FEC action were more than 750 contributions, totaling about $915,000, dating from Schumer’s 1998 race against Republican Alphonse D’Amato. The FEC found that each of those donations exceeded the $1,000 limit then in effect for contributions to a candidate during a primary or general election.

The FEC said most of those excess contributions were within the $1,000 to $2,000 range.

The FEC also found that the Schumer campaign failed to file notices required by law for $89,500 in contributions given in the last days of the 1998 campaign. The Schumer campaign also filed late notices for $186,500 in contributions.

After an FEC audit discovered the violations in 2001, some of Schumer’s defenders downplayed them as “technical.” But the size of the fine suggests the FEC viewed the infractions as a serious matter. At the least, the violations suggest a relaxed attitude on the part of the Schumer campaign toward the rules regarding the reporting of campaign contributions.

And the punishment might have been worse. It appears that Schumer’s campaign benefited from a change in FEC rules, adopted last November, which in effect reduced the number of violations that were subject to fines. Had the Schumer campaign been judged by the FEC’s old rules, the $130,000 fine might have been much higher.

The FEC cleared Schumer of personal responsibility for the violations. “The Commission does not allege and there is no finding that U.S. Senator Charles Schumer engaged in any wrongdoing in connection with the findings in this agreement.” His 1998 campaign treasurer, Steven D. Goldenkranz, was named in the report.

When asked about the FEC judgment last week, a Schumer spokesman promised to make a written comment, but so far has not made one.

The 1998 Schumer race against D’Amato was, at the time, the most expensive in history, with the Schumer campaign spending nearly $17 million. Now, as he prepares to run for reelection next year, Schumer has already amassed nearly $15 million, making him the most successful fundraiser in the Senate.

[quote]hedo wrote:

Of coure I will not admit to an obvious error. GDP, PE ratio’s, corporate profits are all FACTORS that lead the stock market to move. If you can find a direct coorelation to anyone of them then you will be a very rich man. Many, many fools have tried and gone broke.

An economist and the rate of return on stocks. It’s not hard to find son. It’s well over 7%. I am not talking about picking and choosing short periods of time. Look it up since the inception of the DOW until today. When my father started working and paying the SS tax the DOW was less then 1000. Know what it is today. Think his private account would have done OK. Guess what if the market was down he could have simply just left it there.

Seriously you are arguing idealogy and I am putting forth fact and common sense. It is pointless until you learn about the market.

[/quote]
I’m getting the feeling Hedo, that you have no idea what I’m talking about. I have not made a single point yet on idealogy!? Your talking about the past-still-why? I’m discussing the PRESENTATION hedo, the PRESENTATION!!!
Holy Crap!

an economist on rate of return—for the last time economists don’t question the 7 percent—jeez! I said find an economist that can come up with a scenario IN THE FUTURE where stocks continue to reach historical returns of 7 percent while GDP grows 1.8. It would be very,very,very hard to find!(Except at the Heritage Foundation!)And yes gdp is a factor as are corporate profits, p/e, price of oil, trade deficit.

certainly there are scenarios to help boost the likelyhood of historic returns.

1.corporate profits could grow much,much more rapidly than historically.
2. we become an enormous exporter of capitol to faster-growing countries.
3. a crushing and prolonged correction in stocks restoring stocks to p/e of closer to 10/1.

while not all are impossible, only 3 is close to likely.

[quote]100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:

Of coure I will not admit to an obvious error. GDP, PE ratio’s, corporate profits are all FACTORS that lead the stock market to move. If you can find a direct coorelation to anyone of them then you will be a very rich man. Many, many fools have tried and gone broke.

An economist and the rate of return on stocks. It’s not hard to find son. It’s well over 7%. I am not talking about picking and choosing short periods of time. Look it up since the inception of the DOW until today. When my father started working and paying the SS tax the DOW was less then 1000. Know what it is today. Think his private account would have done OK. Guess what if the market was down he could have simply just left it there.

Seriously you are arguing idealogy and I am putting forth fact and common sense. It is pointless until you learn about the market.

I’m getting the feeling Hedo, that you have no idea what I’m talking about. I have not made a single point yet on idealogy!? Your talking about the past-still-why? I’m discussing the PRESENTATION hedo, the PRESENTATION!!!
Holy Crap!

an economist on rate of return—for the last time economists don’t question the 7 percent—jeez! I said find an economist that can come up with a scenario IN THE FUTURE where stocks continue to reach historical returns of 7 percent while GDP grows 1.8. It would be very,very,very hard to find!(Except at the Heritage Foundation!)And yes gdp is a factor as are corporate profits, p/e, price of oil, trade deficit.

certainly there are scenarios to help boost the likelyhood of historic returns.

1.corporate profits could grow much,much more rapidly than historically.
2. we become an enormous exporter of capitol to faster-growing countries.
3. a crushing and prolonged correction in stocks restoring stocks to p/e of closer to 10/1.

while not all are impossible, only 3 is close to likely.[/quote]

100

I understand what you are trying to say. Unfortunately you are looking into a left wing crystal ball and expecting the rest of us to take it as Gospel.

Smarter men then you have made predicitons just as wild, and with more conviction and reasoning and been proven wrong. It’s certainly no basis on which to set policy.

It’s about choice. I want to invest my own money and not depend on the govt. I am willing to surrender my defined benefit to do so. You want a defined benefit. So be it.

Where the conflict come in is that I must make contibutions to pay for your benefit and others who wish the same. I pay S.S. tax’s at a very high rate. I also pay that tax for about 40 employees. It’s a lot of money to support a defined benefit I don’t want. The fact is I am supporting others with my money instead of myself.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
100meters wrote:
I don’t see anything on Reid or Pelosi, except the newsmax.com article on Pelosi’s staffer taking a 4000 dollar trip. So are you comparing the ethics of Pelosi not going on a junket and sending an advisor–all to help local business to Delay going on 6 figure golf trips with entourage to help RUSSIAN OIL BARRONS?

And I don’t see anything on Reid? Is this a Limbaugh rant or something?

Amazing. Your hypocrisy and your ignorance of the investment markets make you nothing more than a cheerleader for the left.

I will find the links to Pelosi’s and Reid’s misgivings if you will promise to actually try and learn something about the HRR of the DOW. [/quote]

What are you talking about? What ignorance? You and Hedo with the rate of return—that I don’t question, and in fact am using in my discussion! Am I arguing what the market has done? Nope? I’m pointing out the glaring contradiction in the presentation of the privatized accts.

In a nutshell.(For Rainjack and Hedo)
Present both plans, current and personal accounts, using either 1.8 percent or using 2.5 percent(or whatever) GDP.

Don’t present the current plan with 1.8 percent gdp, and then present personal accounts with a higher GDP. USE THE SAME DAMN NUMBER!

How this makes me ignorant or hypocritical is beyond me! Oh, and I am an investor! Geez! And yes as an investor I usually cheer for the left.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
The first link is wrt to Pelosi. The secon, Reid.

I spent a total of about 30 seconds finding these links, and I don’t even know how to search. So I know you didn’t even make an effort to find anything.

You are a shill. I am embarrased to have even engaged you in debate. This will be my last post wrt anything you have to say - unless you are willing to discuss the ethics violations of your party’s leadership. That won’t happen though as you have your miond made up. Typical liberal shell game.

I wish you much happiness in your land of make believe.

[/quote]
First, I’m a liberal not an apologist for the democratic, or republican party. At no point have I said democrats have done no wrong. Did I excuse “white niggers”, or “Rosty”, or the gov. of NJ, or dixiecrats against civil rights? Can you please point to this shillness that you speak of? As a liberal I vote for the person who I believe will help the most americans, and the person I feel is the most sincere in those intentions. At times this person is a member of the Republican party. As a former resident of NYC—I voted for Rudy. Rudy improved my NYC life. I also voted for Pataki, though I was disappointed by his ineptness. I supported McCain in 2000(but no longer) and I currently support a Republican gov. in my state here in MASS. And again I love Ike, and my next two would still be Republican. So enought with the shill, for me it’s the better person for the most people period.

Second my thread is about Delay’s days dwindling. I think he’s going down, and that he’ll go down when his party fails him. You disagree. This is not a I’m better than you thread, I’ll leave that to you conservatives. There’s ethics and there’s also right and wrong, Like divorce is cheating, but it’s not against the law. Delay fits this bill, Reid’s indirect/direct help to his family members also points to this…I remember this cleared ethics, but commonsense should have avoided this. Pelosi had asked to have 2 pacs and was given initial permission, formed the second pac then permission was changed, and she promptly paid a fine. Anyway Pelosi is a bitch whom I think should never be giving the Democratic response…that’s another story. Besides if these things bother you as much as it seems too, then Delay would be doubly offensive, in your own example Reid’s real estate deal shamelessly helped people at least in his state, whilst delay’s golf trips and staff/family vacations were to the benefit of slave labor in the marianas , russian oil barrons, milosevic, etc. You can’t even seem to say these things look a little shady(UNDERSTATEMENT) Rainjack. Make believe is assuming that the same racists, liars, crooks, etc, don’t dwell in both parties, that’s not a party thing it’s a power thing, and political thing.

[quote]hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:

Of coure I will not admit to an obvious error. GDP, PE ratio’s, corporate profits are all FACTORS that lead the stock market to move. If you can find a direct coorelation to anyone of them then you will be a very rich man. Many, many fools have tried and gone broke.

An economist and the rate of return on stocks. It’s not hard to find son. It’s well over 7%. I am not talking about picking and choosing short periods of time. Look it up since the inception of the DOW until today. When my father started working and paying the SS tax the DOW was less then 1000. Know what it is today. Think his private account would have done OK. Guess what if the market was down he could have simply just left it there.

Seriously you are arguing idealogy and I am putting forth fact and common sense. It is pointless until you learn about the market.

I’m getting the feeling Hedo, that you have no idea what I’m talking about. I have not made a single point yet on idealogy!? Your talking about the past-still-why? I’m discussing the PRESENTATION hedo, the PRESENTATION!!!
Holy Crap!

an economist on rate of return—for the last time economists don’t question the 7 percent—jeez! I said find an economist that can come up with a scenario IN THE FUTURE where stocks continue to reach historical returns of 7 percent while GDP grows 1.8. It would be very,very,very hard to find!(Except at the Heritage Foundation!)And yes gdp is a factor as are corporate profits, p/e, price of oil, trade deficit.

certainly there are scenarios to help boost the likelyhood of historic returns.

1.corporate profits could grow much,much more rapidly than historically.
2. we become an enormous exporter of capitol to faster-growing countries.
3. a crushing and prolonged correction in stocks restoring stocks to p/e of closer to 10/1.

while not all are impossible, only 3 is close to likely.

100

I understand what you are trying to say. Unfortunately you are looking into a left wing crystal ball and expecting the rest of us to take it as Gospel.

Smarter men then you have made predicitons just as wild, and with more conviction and reasoning and been proven wrong. It’s certainly no basis on which to set policy.

It’s about choice. I want to invest my own money and not depend on the govt. I am willing to surrender my defined benefit to do so. You want a defined benefit. So be it.

Where the conflict come in is that I must make contibutions to pay for your benefit and others who wish the same. I pay S.S. tax’s at a very high rate. I also pay that tax for about 40 employees. It’s a lot of money to support a defined benefit I don’t want. The fact is I am supporting others with my money instead of myself.

[/quote]

Whew! finally— we have an honest disagreement!

[quote]100meters wrote:
Besides if these things bother you as much as it seems too, then Delay would be doubly offensive, in your own example Reid’s real estate deal shamelessly helped people at least in his state, whilst delay’s golf trips and staff/family vacations were to the benefit of slave labor in the marianas , russian oil barrons, milosevic, etc. You can’t even seem to say these things look a little shady(UNDERSTATEMENT) Rainjack. Make believe is assuming that the same racists, liars, crooks, etc, don’t dwell in both parties, that’s not a party thing it’s a power thing, and political thing.[/quote]

Show me - I’M BEGGING YOU!!!- where I said that Delay was innocent. You won’t find it, because I never said it. In fact, if you were to read what I read I believe I say thw if he is indeed found guilty, then he should pay the piper.

My problem with you is you want him drawn and quartered without so much as a trial. I support Delay. And I’m sorry if upsets your apple cart, but unless he is kicked out of congress he will be re-elected from his district for yet another term in 2006.

I like the way you try and distance your self from the source of your talking points. If you walk like a duck and quack like a duck - don’t be surprised if men in stupid looking outfits try to shoot you. If you were truly as independent as you claim, you wouldn’t have a problem with me wanting to wait ans see what happens wrt Delay.

I don’t claim to be independent. I claim to be right. There is a difference. I have been right in every election since 1994. I voted for the loser in '96, but even a blind man with a dead seeing-eye dog could see that train wreck coming.

Pride? Yep. Sick of the left’s standard bullshit? Even bigger yep. I’m not giving up on Delay as an effective leader for the right. Too many gave up on Newt when the left tried the same standard bull shit back then. (What in the hell are you going to do when you have to say President Gingrich?) You can say I’m blind, you can say I am ignoring ‘facts’. I could give a shit. My mind certainly won’t be swayed by the likes of an admitted ‘independent’ liberal spewing rehtoric identical to the Dem talking points.

There are just as many folks on Delay’s side as there are against him. But you won’t read about them, or get soundbites from them because it doesn’t fit in with the witch hunt mentality of the liberal media.

If you want to be considered as the true ‘independent’ liberal you paint yourself as, get yur talking points from a different source.

Hey RJ, I thought you said you were done trying to discuss things with the little blind squirrel?

[quote]100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:

Of coure I will not admit to an obvious error. GDP, PE ratio’s, corporate profits are all FACTORS that lead the stock market to move. If you can find a direct coorelation to anyone of them then you will be a very rich man. Many, many fools have tried and gone broke.

An economist and the rate of return on stocks. It’s not hard to find son. It’s well over 7%. I am not talking about picking and choosing short periods of time. Look it up since the inception of the DOW until today. When my father started working and paying the SS tax the DOW was less then 1000. Know what it is today. Think his private account would have done OK. Guess what if the market was down he could have simply just left it there.

Seriously you are arguing idealogy and I am putting forth fact and common sense. It is pointless until you learn about the market.

I’m getting the feeling Hedo, that you have no idea what I’m talking about. I have not made a single point yet on idealogy!? Your talking about the past-still-why? I’m discussing the PRESENTATION hedo, the PRESENTATION!!!
Holy Crap!

an economist on rate of return—for the last time economists don’t question the 7 percent—jeez! I said find an economist that can come up with a scenario IN THE FUTURE where stocks continue to reach historical returns of 7 percent while GDP grows 1.8. It would be very,very,very hard to find!(Except at the Heritage Foundation!)And yes gdp is a factor as are corporate profits, p/e, price of oil, trade deficit.

certainly there are scenarios to help boost the likelyhood of historic returns.

1.corporate profits could grow much,much more rapidly than historically.
2. we become an enormous exporter of capitol to faster-growing countries.
3. a crushing and prolonged correction in stocks restoring stocks to p/e of closer to 10/1.

while not all are impossible, only 3 is close to likely.

100

I understand what you are trying to say. Unfortunately you are looking into a left wing crystal ball and expecting the rest of us to take it as Gospel.

Smarter men then you have made predicitons just as wild, and with more conviction and reasoning and been proven wrong. It’s certainly no basis on which to set policy.

It’s about choice. I want to invest my own money and not depend on the govt. I am willing to surrender my defined benefit to do so. You want a defined benefit. So be it.

Where the conflict come in is that I must make contibutions to pay for your benefit and others who wish the same. I pay S.S. tax’s at a very high rate. I also pay that tax for about 40 employees. It’s a lot of money to support a defined benefit I don’t want. The fact is I am supporting others with my money instead of myself.

Whew! finally— we have an honest disagreement!
[/quote]

Well it was bound to happen.

We Republicans are the party of inclusion these days! Membership is open.

ooops.

Delay is a first class putz (what ever putz means?) I live in west texas not in his district and used to get calls all the time from his phone bank I guess because I’m a registered republican. I’d bet the calls were paid for with our tax dollars. Finally I got one girl who called to get me off his list. She asked why and I told her how I disliked him and so forth she just laughed and sai OK. Havn’t received another call from the ahole’s office since.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Show me - I’M BEGGING YOU!!!- where I said that Delay was innocent. You won’t find it, because I never said it. In fact, if you were to read what I read I believe I say thw if he is indeed found guilty, then he should pay the piper.
[/quote]

Oy! again with this “innocent” thing.

I don’t want him drawn and quartered, I find him distincly un-american, and it amazes me that he is involved in setting a path for the country. He is a religous right radical with no respect for americans in my opinion. And hopefully you’ll be wrong about 2006 especially if voters in his district have any self-respect.It’s not the matter of his party, it’s a matter of his philosophy, if he would simply be replaced by a respectable republican, wonderful!

I don’t consider newsmax.com, or Rush to be a good source, I’m sorry, but as you actually know I’ve used articles from WSJ, David Brooks, Washington Times, and the sources from NYT, or the WP included conservative opinion or were based on information that had to be given to reporters by conservative insiders.(The sub-theme of the thread!) In other discussions with you and others I used government websites as links or info sources. And regardless, I would welcome anybody to post as much info as possible , as B.B. does superbly. Got a different opinion of Delay or a different take post it up! I don’t see why you can’t have threads titled “Liberals go to great lengths…” or similar exclusive liberal bashing threads and also have threads about Tom Delay based on conservative articles against Delay. (I’m not saying your saying this, before you post, “where did I say that”)

ok.

ok

Darn that media printing the words and actions of Tom Delay, that’s a bad little media!

Just liberal is fine, and I do as discussed, hell I even read Limbaugh’s Letter…but I’d never post that as a source!

Interesting article from The New Republic – definitely has its perspective a little to the left of center, but I think the observations on the intra-Republican dynamics are very interesting indeed:

WHO WOULD BENEFIT FROM DELAY’S DEMISE? A GUIDE.
DeLay Gratification
by Reihan Salam

Only at TNR Online | Post date 04.14.05

Tom DeLay is bloodied but unbowed. Despite the now-familiar list of allegations surrounding him–the apparent relationships with crooked lobbyist prot?g?s; the dubious and probably illegal campaign-finance runarounds in Texas; the various sweetheart deals for those near and dear that at the very least create “the appearance of impropriety,” to use a phrase from the Clinton wars–DeLay has refused to apologize. Instead, he has offered the crudest clich?s from the disgraced politician’s playbook, for instance pointing his finger at “a huge nationwide concerted effort to destroy everything we believe in”–“we” in this context presumably referring to a group broader and nobler than DeLay and his fellow pigs at the trough.

You can hardly blame DeLay for arguing that liberals are out to get him. Nor can you really blame liberals for being out to get him. He has, after all, been ruthlessly, stunningly effective in achieving his objectives, in the process creating a lot of bad blood. Those allegedly shady corporate dollars funneled to Texans for a Republican Majority Political Action Committee helped knock off quite a few congressional Democrats; and a lot of his most passionate detractors are, without a doubt, partisan Democrats with an axe to grind. This gives DeLay some breathing room. As John Harris has suggested in The Washington Post, it could be that in today’s polarized Washington you can get away with dismissing sharp accusations of wrongdoing as little more than partisan point-scoring:

[i]During Watergate, President Richard M. Nixon was forced to resign when fellow Republicans denounced his coverup as unacceptable. In the current political climate, some critics believe, Democrats and Republicans know that no matter how much the opposition brays, colleagues from a politician's own party are unlikely to join in.

And so despite his many misdeeds, Tom DeLay will get away scot-free.[/i]

Or will he? With the DeLay bloodletting, there’s a chance that “colleagues from a politician’s own party” will indeed join in, with relish. Believe it or not, DeLay’s hard-charging style, his disregard for public opinion, and the shabby compromises of conservative ideals he’s made in order to carry water for this or that special interest–all the qualities that have made him nearly unbeatable in his rock-ribbed Republican home district–have made him strangely unpopular with many fellow Republicans. And so it’s worth asking the question: Cui bono? Below, TNR Online’s guide to who benefits if DeLay gets canned.

George W. Bush. Remember back when Senator Trent Lott became a liability? After sharing some colorful remarks concerning the enduring wisdom of the Dixiecrats’ segregationist stance, a handful of conservative commentators demanded Lott’s resignation from his exalted role as Senate Majority Leader. Being a deeply and profoundly loyal man more interested in standing by friends than currying favor with the electorate, President Bush resisted these slings and arrows and tenaciously defended Lott.

Wait, no. Actually, President Bush cut Lott loose. Shortly after the brouhaha first erupted in December 2002, Bush made his displeasure with Lott clear, saying in no uncertain terms that defending segregation “is offensive” and, worse yet, “wrong.” When Lott stepped down, thanks in no small part to the very public tongue-lashing, Bush thanked Lott for “the very difficult decision” he “made on behalf of the American people.” Pretty soon, Lott was throwing stink bombs from the backbenches as the more presentable Bill Frist took his place. Since then, Lott has kept himself busy condemning Donald Rumsfeld, working with Democrats, and having a devil of a good time. But from President Bush’s perspective, the most important thing is that Trent Lott is no longer embarrassing President Bush. As a result, provided Lott more or less votes the right way and doesn’t immolate himself while gleefully singing the praises of the Iraqi insurgency, Bush is perfectly content to allow his erstwhile ally to waste away in obscurity. Could the same happen with yet another truculent majority leader?

There are crucial differences. Lott was not considered a particularly effective Senate leader. DeLay’s shrewd political instincts and his ability, honed during a long tenure as a bloodthirsty, take-no-prisoners majority whip, to deliver majorities by filling the hearts of recalcitrant Republicans with unspeakable dread is the stuff of legend. More than a few observers believe that DeLay’s legislative prowess has been essential to passage of key elements of the Bush agenda, the Medicare prescription drug benefit, which DeLay rammed down the throats of conservative rebels, being but one example among many.

Still, this cuts both ways. Just as DeLay has been integral to Bush’s successes, his ethical troubles may well damage the administration. Though relatively few Americans are intimately familiar with DeLay’s doings (according to the latest CNN/Gallup/USA Today poll, 26 percent of voters have still never heard of him, and 16 percent have no opinion of the man), the unmistakable odor of corruption wafting from his person has surely contributed to the steep decline in Congress’s approval rating. The most recent numbers from the Associated Press are positively toxic, with 22 percent of voters strongly disapproving of the way Congress “is handling its job” against 5 percent who strongly approve. Taking leaners into account, you’ve got 58 percent of voters delivering the thumbs down. (A month ago, that number was 53.) This can’t possibly help when it comes to passing sweeping Social Security reform, or a future tax-reform proposal for that matter. And so the most important, transformative elements of Bush’s Ownership Society have been placed in grave danger, thanks in part to one unctuous, increasingly unpopular man. The days of passing bills through DeLay-driven shock and awe are yesterday’s news: Congressional rebels are emboldened by DeLay’s weakness, which will inevitably take things from bad to worse. DeLay’s extremely high profile during the Schiavo affair hardly helped matters. Whatever else one thinks of Congressional intervention in the Florida case, it proved deeply unpopular with wide swathes of the American public. While DeLay may have strengthened his street cred with social conservatives, he may well have done this at President Bush’s expense.

What to do? Sacking DeLay might make for a good start. Cleaning house by cleaning the House of petty corruption could strengthen Bush’s credentials as a “reformer with results,” a slogan from long ago that just might come back in style. Bush will thus change the subject from his own failures on the Social Security front and gain precious time to regroup. After installing a new, more attractive leadership, the White House can take a second pass at advancing key policies.

There could, of course, be a backlash if Bush shoves DeLay out. And when given the choice of hunkering down or admitting defeat, this White House has demonstrated, time and again, an unmistakable preference for hunkering down.

But the time for switching things up just might have arrived. Outside the Beltway, DeLay doesn’t have much of a personal constituency; indeed, unlike even the mercurial, notoriously weird Gingrich, DeLay’s name has never been floated as a presidential prospect. There’s still plenty of time between now and 2006 to salvage the Ownership Society. For Bush, getting rid of DeLay might be a first step toward doing just that.

Newt Gingrich and the Gingrichettes. Speaking of Gingrich, it’s worth noting that DeLay’s rise through the Republican ranks involved stepping on a lot of toes, many of which belonged to former Speaker Newt Gingrich. You’ll note the conspicuous absence of Gingrich’s voice from stories of conservatives rallying around DeLay. Ever since 1989, when DeLay backed a Gingrich rival for minority whip, they’ve been on unfriendly terms. Gingrich knew as well as anyone that DeLay’s power grew and grew as Gingrich’s own power waned during the Clinton scandals and the long, painful denouement of his speakership. Staunch social conservatives were DeLay’s best friends back then, thanks in part, ironically enough, to DeLay’s honesty. He was considered unbendingly conservative and willing to tell it like it is. Gingrich, on the other hand, was seen as a flake and an egomaniac. Now the tide appears to be turning.

Though Gingrich has been out of the House for a very long time, those who rose through the hierarchy with him still nurse a grudge against the man who more than anyone else was responsible for Gingrich’s undoing. DeLay has outlasted most of his Gingrichite rivals, who’ve by and large moved on to lucrative consulting gigs. Dick Armey and Bob Walker are long gone, leaving them with no standing to pay DeLay back for all he did to them. But others, like Chris Cox, John Boehner, and John Linder, are still around to remember the ass-kicking delivered unto them by the power-mad DeLay, who figured he’d pulled off a brilliant coup by installing pliable Louisianan Bob Livingston in Gingrich’s place while squelching the hopes of countless others. Cox, Boehner, and Linder are smart and ambitious, and they’ve stewed for years as marginal figures in a DeLay-dominated Republican conference. As they say, elephants never forget (groan). Might they now twist the knife?

Well, they might if they had the power or the influence to do so. The last time Republican coup plotters had any serious power was when DeLay was one of them, back in 1997. Now the coup plotter rules them all, and he’s not about to let lesser coup plotters fester in the background. Of the three, Boehner, chairman of the Education and the Workforce Committee, is probably the most formidable. He’s even been mentioned as a possible successor to Speaker Hastert. But don’t hold your breath.

Christopher Shays. Last time you heard from Shays, he was blasting his fellow Republicans over federal intervention in the Schiavo case, claiming that the GOP had become “a party of theocracy.” Naturally, this tickled liberals and won Shays many admirers among DeLay-hating editorialists. Having faced a serious, well-funded Democratic opponent for the first time in ages last November, Shays, who represents a liberal district in Connecticut, has reason to fear early retirement in 2006. Ostentatiously picking fights with the Republican leadership seems like a good way to curry favor with the growing number of limousine liberals in his district.

So now, shockingly enough, Shays has trained his less-than-formidable firepower on DeLay himself. With enemies like this, DeLay won’t need friends. Right though he may be that DeLay’s “conduct is hurting the Republican Party,” not to mention “hurting any Republican who is up for reelection,” particularly those from marginal districts trending Democratic, Shays has about as much credibility with conservatives as George Soros. In other words, Shays may have plenty to gain from seeing DeLay go down; but he’s not going to be the one to make it happen.

Eric Cantor. Now if Representative Cantor turned on DeLay, that would be news. Cantor, currently Chief Deputy Majority Whip, has enjoyed a rise through the ranks invariably described as “meteoric,” and deservedly so. He’s been disbursing campaign cash to fellow Republicans like a seasoned professional, winning friends all the while. As a DeLay disciple, he’s gone above and beyond the call of duty, defending his boss with a rottweiler-like tenacity unmatched by his colleagues. In public, he’s shown a serene confidence that DeLay will beat the rap. In private … well, who knows what Cantor is saying in private? Ask Mrs. Cantor.

What one can say with great confidence is that when the dust settles, Cantor will come out smelling like roses under pretty much any imaginable set of circumstances. Say DeLay survives: Cantor will be rewarded for his loyalty. On the off chance DeLay’s malfeasance catches up with him, Cantor will be there to pick up the pieces: If Roy Blunt, the current majority whip, takes over for DeLay, and if Bush is hoping for a new, youthful face for the House Republicans, he could–let’s get ahead of ourselves for just a moment–lean on the right people to make Cantor the new majority whip: that is, the kinder, gentler DeLay.

Roy Blunt. How interesting. Tom DeLay is, shall we say, known for his assiduous efforts to cultivate a friendly reception from key K Street lobbyists. He has built a unique and constructive working relationship with these lobbyists, and now a certain congressman from Missouri named Roy Blunt, also known as the House Majority Whip, DeLay’s second-in-command, is evidently trying to do the same. Obviously, this has been going on for a long time, and there’s nothing remotely untoward about it. Still, it’s interesting to note that Blunt and his Senate counterpart, Mitch McConnell, the brilliant parliamentary tactician widely seen as the heir apparent to Frist, are joining forces and holding strategy sessions with K Street movers and shakers. Might Blunt be letting lobbyists know that he’s a safe pair of hands, and that he can mind the store whether or not DeLay is taking lumps over trifling ethical matters?

At one level, such speculation is silly. Corralling lobbyists is, in the new Washington, an integral part of what whips do. By getting the business community on board, you make it easier to elicit unquestioning obedience from your loyal footsoldiers. The business community, after all, controls the pursestrings. In addition, Blunt has certainly been loyal in public. Indeed, he’s given his defenses of DeLay a DeLay-like spin by adding a hint of menace. When asked about DeLay’s recent troubles, Blunt reportedly suggested that enterprising journalists look into House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s travel history, and try to connect the dots to some of her votes. Ouch.

And yet: DeLay has been an unusually hands-on Majority Leader. It looks like Blunt is taking tentative steps in the direction of spreading his wings. Now is an ideal time.

Zach Wamp. Representative Wamp knows how to hurt people’s feelings. Consider the following statement, recorded for posterity by Roll Call:

“I don’t want to run over anybody to get where I’m going,” Wamp said. “I look forward to when you can get into leadership without running over anybody [and] without building a power base centered on money.”

Is Wamp suggesting that certain unnamed individuals in the Republican leadership built power bases “centered on money”? This is the kind of heretical talk that garners attention and that gets you a grisly knife wound in the back. Wamp has even dared to suggest that if DeLay’s troubles get worse, the Majority Leader might lose the confidence of House Republicans. This is blindingly obvious, and yet it’s significant that Wamp broke the code of silence and contemplated, very cautiously, the remote possibility of DeLay’s ouster. Why? Because unlike Chris Shays, Wamp is not a northeastern moderate without a future in the Republican leadership. He’s certainly not particularly well placed, and he does have a reputation for spouting off, but it could be that he’s making a gamble that might pay off.

Along with Representatives Mike Castle and Rob Simmons, both from marginal districts (in Delaware and, of course, Connecticut, respectively), Wamp has refused to unequivocally state that he’s backing DeLay. Assuming DeLay gets through the current imbroglio unscathed, perhaps he will skin Wamp alive and mount his head on a wall. If DeLay doesn’t make it, there’s a slim chance that Wamp will one day get one of those leadership posts he clearly craves.

Mike Pence. What about the conservatives? In the course of delivering the goods for the Bush White House, DeLay has on rare occasions run afoul of the small band of Republican starve-the-beasters. It’s rare that anyone questions DeLay’s conservative bona fides, but there are other committed conservatives without DeLay’s baggage. One of them is Representative Mike Pence of Indiana, the chairman of the Republican Study Committee. Though he’s only led the RSC for a short while, Pence has worked aggressively to raise the group’s profile and assert its prerogatives as “the majority of the majority.”

Might Pence be in a position to bring House Republicans back to their small government roots? Though he’s denied any leadership ambitions, stranger things have happened. Even if DeLay remains in place, his authority and prestige could dwindle, and Pence could fill the void.

George Soros. Soros is, of course, not a Republican. But if DeLay goes, he’ll certainly get at least some of the credit. DeLay defenders have identified Soros as the mastermind behind the plot against their beloved House Majority Leader. And now that Soros is best known for having spent millions of dollars, amassed by the sweat of his currency-speculating brow, in the failed effort to unseat President Bush, he’s joined Hillary Clinton in the ranks of liberals whom conservatives of all stripes love to hate. This is the reason, tragically, why we’ll almost certainly have to endure many more months of DeLay, if not years.

In fact, that could be Soros’s diabolical scheme. Conservatives beware. Knowing that he’s become a ripe target for demonization, Soros might very well want conservatives to stand by their man. In the greatest sucker punch of all time, perhaps Soros hopes for DeLay to remain in place while driving up his negatives just in time for 2006, when, in a coordinated attack, Pelosi, Representative Rahm Emanuel, and other key Democrats will tie congressional Republicans to the DeLay sleaze machine, in the process performing a miracle: delivering Congress to the Democrats for the first time since 1994. How’s that for a “vast left-wing conspiracy”? The American Conservative Union, the Leadership Institute, the Heritage Foundation, and the Family Research Council are thus–get this–the unwitting dupes of Soros, a foreign-born billionaire who wants to legalize the weed!

Or Soros might just be wasting vast sums he could be spending on a new ski chalet, all while saddling the case against the House Majority Leader with baggage it does not need. In which case he would be a happy man if Tom DeLay does in fact step down.

Reihan Salam is a former TNR reporter-researcher.

[quote]100meters wrote:
Oy! again with this “innocent” thing.[/quote]

Yeah - I can see where misquoting me, and making assumptions about me can get really frustrating when I keep trying to get you to correct your lies.

I’m not wrong about 2006. I’m especially not wrong about Delay’s district. I’d be willing to bet you a year of silence ofver the outcome of Delays district, provided he runs, and wins the republican primaries.

Delays is a loud, brash, in your face Texan. Do you hold the same contempt for LBJ? They are cut from the same cloth.

Where is your outrage over Algore posing t=with the Buddist Monks? Or Clinton whoring out or missle defense software to the Chinese? We know that they did these things - what with the photos and all. All we have on Delay is a throng of Woodward and Bernstein wannabe’s.

I don’t understand what your mental block is wrt waitng for something more substantial than op/ed pieces and questionable reporting. Why is this confusing to you. Why must you get stuck on this (and HRR in investment markets…ooops…another thread).

[quote]I don’t consider newsmax.com, or Rush to be a good source, I’m sorry, but as you actually know I’ve used articles from WSJ, David Brooks, Washington Times, and the sources from NYT, or the WP included conservative opinion or were based on information that had to be given to reporters by conservative insiders.(The sub-theme of the thread!)

In other discussions with you and others I used government websites as links or info sources. And regardless, I would welcome anybody to post as much info as possible , as B.B. does superbly. Got a different opinion of Delay or a different take post it up! I don’t see why you can’t have threads titled “Liberals go to great lengths…” or similar exclusive liberal bashing threads and also have threads about Tom Delay based on conservative articles against Delay. (I’m not saying your saying this, before you post, “where did I say that”)[/quote]

I know you are new here. I know you won’t go back and read through the archives. But we here on the conservative side are role players. BB is the cut and paste article guy. And he’s is probably the best around at it.

I know what I know and I go off on rants against the loser-left. To draw me into a links battle would be like me challenging you to a rant/common sense contest. You might have skills, but you are not in my league when it comes to that. I recognize my weakness as a cut and paster, and will not even attempt to enter in that arena.

[/quote]Just liberal is fine, and I do as discussed, hell I even read Limbaugh’s Letter…but I’d never post that as a source!
[/quote]

Your the one who came up with independent liberal. Make up your mind.

W/r/t SS estimates, I want to focus here:

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
First, with respect to the problem with Social Security, I don’t know where you’re getting a 1.8% productivity growth as the key – the key is the change in demographics, unless somehow a slighty higher productivity growth that is reflected in the wage of 1 worker but in the benefits to 10 retirees (just to pull some numbers out of my ass - I forget the precise ratio). In the actuary’s report, it states explicitly that demographics are the cause for the rising costs that will drain the system.

100meters wrote:
1.8 is the number used to get to doomsday by 2042. Actually it’s 1.8 for like the next 10 years then it goes down to like 1.2 or something like that.[/quote]

You didn’t seem to get what I was getting at, which is namely that the 1.8% productivity growth number isn’t the driving force behind the SS projections, even if it is the number used in the mid-range projection. The productivity growth projection is just one of many factors in the assumptions. The driving force is the demographic numbers.

And changing the productivity number to a higher number should actually have a NEGATIVE effect on the future viability of Social Security if benefits are figured under the current Social Security inflator, which increases them with productivity gains rather than with cost of living gains. THis is because benefits would be rising faster than the tax base on which social security taxes are collected – the cap is $90,000 in current dollars, so as more and more people got higher salaries, more and more income would escape the tax, while the benefits would continue to grow.

The actuary stated in the report that the most important factor in the rising costs for social security were the demographics – namely, the aging of the population, which gives us many more retirees supported by many fewer productive workers. That’s the key. Not the 1.8% productivity gain assumption.

While a higher productivity number would be a good thing generally, and could be part of a fix if the SS inflator was changed to reflect only cost of living increases, I don’t see that the productivity measure has the power that you’re ascribing it.

my question here is fairly simple, 100meters, try to follow it: you went off on a tangent complaining about Limbaugh and Newsmax, yet what RJ and I posted about Reid, Pelosi et al came from sources like the LA Times and Roll Call.
So the question is: are you trying to lie and weasel out of something, or are you just stupid (and blind)?

[quote]rainjack wrote:
100meters wrote:
Oy! again with this “innocent” thing.

Yeah - I can see where misquoting me, and making assumptions about me can get really frustrating when I keep trying to get you to correct your lies.

I don’t want him drawn and quartered, I find him distincly un-american, and it amazes me that he is involved in setting a path for the country. He is a religous right radical with no respect for americans in my opinion. And hopefully you’ll be wrong about 2006 especially if voters in his district have any self-respect.It’s not the matter of his party, it’s a matter of his philosophy, if he would simply be replaced by a respectable republican, wonderful!

I’m not wrong about 2006. I’m especially not wrong about Delay’s district. I’d be willing to bet you a year of silence ofver the outcome of Delays district, provided he runs, and wins the republican primaries.

Delays is a loud, brash, in your face Texan. Do you hold the same contempt for LBJ? They are cut from the same cloth.

Where is your outrage over Algore posing t=with the Buddist Monks? Or Clinton whoring out or missle defense software to the Chinese? We know that they did these things - what with the photos and all. All we have on Delay is a throng of Woodward and Bernstein wannabe’s.

I don’t understand what your mental block is wrt waitng for something more substantial than op/ed pieces and questionable reporting. Why is this confusing to you. Why must you get stuck on this (and HRR in investment markets…ooops…another thread).

I don’t consider newsmax.com, or Rush to be a good source, I’m sorry, but as you actually know I’ve used articles from WSJ, David Brooks, Washington Times, and the sources from NYT, or the WP included conservative opinion or were based on information that had to be given to reporters by conservative insiders.(The sub-theme of the thread!)

In other discussions with you and others I used government websites as links or info sources. And regardless, I would welcome anybody to post as much info as possible , as B.B. does superbly. Got a different opinion of Delay or a different take post it up! I don’t see why you can’t have threads titled “Liberals go to great lengths…” or similar exclusive liberal bashing threads and also have threads about Tom Delay based on conservative articles against Delay. (I’m not saying your saying this, before you post, “where did I say that”)

I know you are new here. I know you won’t go back and read through the archives. But we here on the conservative side are role players. BB is the cut and paste article guy. And he’s is probably the best around at it.

I know what I know and I go off on rants against the loser-left. To draw me into a links battle would be like me challenging you to a rant/common sense contest. You might have skills, but you are not in my league when it comes to that. I recognize my weakness as a cut and paster, and will not even attempt to enter in that arena.

Just liberal is fine, and I do as discussed, hell I even read Limbaugh’s Letter…but I’d never post that as a source!

Your the one who came up with independent liberal. Make up your mind.

[/quote]

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
W/r/t SS estimates, I want to focus here:

BostonBarrister wrote:
First, with respect to the problem with Social Security, I don’t know where you’re getting a 1.8% productivity growth as the key – the key is the change in demographics, unless somehow a slighty higher productivity growth that is reflected in the wage of 1 worker but in the benefits to 10 retirees (just to pull some numbers out of my ass - I forget the precise ratio). In the actuary’s report, it states explicitly that demographics are the cause for the rising costs that will drain the system.

100meters wrote:
1.8 is the number used to get to doomsday by 2042. Actually it’s 1.8 for like the next 10 years then it goes down to like 1.2 or something like that.

You didn’t seem to get what I was getting at, which is namely that the 1.8% productivity growth number isn’t the driving force behind the SS projections, even if it is the number used in the mid-range projection. The productivity growth projection is just one of many factors in the assumptions. The driving force is the demographic numbers.

And changing the productivity number to a higher number should actually have a NEGATIVE effect on the future viability of Social Security if benefits are figured under the current Social Security inflator, which increases them with productivity gains rather than with cost of living gains. THis is because benefits would be rising faster than the tax base on which social security taxes are collected – the cap is $90,000 in current dollars, so as more and more people got higher salaries, more and more income would escape the tax, while the benefits would continue to grow.

The actuary stated in the report that the most important factor in the rising costs for social security were the demographics – namely, the aging of the population, which gives us many more retirees supported by many fewer productive workers. That’s the key. Not the 1.8% productivity gain assumption.

While a higher productivity number would be a good thing generally, and could be part of a fix if the SS inflator was changed to reflect only cost of living increases, I don’t see that the productivity measure has the power that you’re ascribing it.

[/quote]

OK B.B.

yes or no?
should both scenarios use the same productivity number? For honesty’s sake?

[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
my question here is fairly simple, 100meters, try to follow it: you went off on a tangent complaining about Limbaugh and Newsmax, yet what RJ and I posted about Reid, Pelosi et al came from sources like the LA Times and Roll Call.
So the question is: are you trying to lie and weasel out of something, or are you just stupid (and blind)?
[/quote]

I read the articles! The critique was of my sources Joe and I responded that I won’t use Limbaugh or newsmax, anymore than I’d use Franken, or Instapundit or moveon as a source here.
So my answer to your question is no and no, and no (and no)

[quote]100meters wrote:
OK B.B.

yes or no?
should both scenarios use the same productivity number? For honesty’s sake?[/quote]

when did you start valuing honesty?

If both were produced by the same people, then yeah. If both had been produced to address the same situation, then yeah. In a perfect world, then yeah.

However, these aren’t apples you’re comparing. The actuary produced the Social Security numbers, and used several different sets of assumptions. Assuming you’re correct, in the mid-range assumption he (or, to be correct, his department) used a 1.8% number for productivity growth.

In the private-accounts numbers run by the CBO – which everyone is assuming is the basis for the president’s plan – the CBO, a completley different entity from the SS actuary, made different assumptions – apparently one was a 1.8% productivity growth.

The factors each was using were different, though apparently both looked at productivity growth, and used differing numbers for that factor. Actually, I think each looked at a series of numbers, but apparently they weren’t coincident with each other. Ideally, if one source were producing forecasts for the purpose of a single plan, you would use the same set of assumptions. But given they weren’t coordinated efforts, it is completely unsurprising that they used different numbers. Perhaps they can run an integrated set of projections for a plan, once a plan is actually presented.

Now, w/r/t returns on private accounts, productivity growth is going to be a more powerful factor than it is with social security shortfalls. A lot of people who are coming up with bearish forcasts for the market in the future are focusing on productivity, and they think it will be small, for various reasons ranging from energy costs to population demographics to technological advances slowing their pace.

But there are a lot of other people who disagree with them. And if you look at history, the same debate has played out for a long time, between the bulls and the bears. In various short-term scenarios, both have been right.

That, of course, is why all the various proposals I’ve heard floated have restricted participation to younger workers with long-term investment time periods. And the long-term mean historical real return on stocks has been 6.8%. It’s not guaranteed to stay exactly there, but given the amount of data we have, barring some very large systemic change (which I know is central to each and every argument that comes down the pike about how “This market is DIFFERENT! – We need to produce like th Japanese (or whatever)” – none of which has been right to this point), it should be pretty close to that.