Tag Archives: politics

LiveChat: Robert Scheer on the Economy (part 3)

LiveChat: Robert Scheer on the Economy (part 3) From: truthdig Views: 4 0 ratings Time: 09:43 More in News & Politics

Continued here:
LiveChat: Robert Scheer on the Economy (part 3)

Roland Martin to Dems: ‘Protect the Constitution’ By Supporting Mosque

On Tuesday’s Anderson Cooper 360, CNN contributor Roland Martin strongly pushed for the Democrats to ” stand up and protect the Constitution ” by defending the planned New York City mosque near Ground Zero: ” Democrats should get some spine and say, ‘You know what? I am sworn to uphold and protect the Constitution .’… Stay strong- say it’s about the Constitution .” Substitute anchor John Roberts brought on Martin, along with Republican strategist Ed Rollins and CNN senior political analyst David Gergen, to discuss the continuing controversy surrounding the mosque project. The anchor first turned to the black talk radio host and asked, “Roland, is this the sort of thing that Democrats want to be talking about right now, at a point where many people form their opinions of who they’re going to vote for in November?” Martin didn’t begin with his “constitutional” argument, but instead emphasized that Democratic candidates needed to focus on local issues: “Frankly, if I’m a Democrat and somebody comes to me with that question…I say, ‘Hey, go talk to…the folks representing New York. I’m here talking about my district.'” Both Gergen and Rollins disagreed with their fellow guest. When the strategist stated that “there’s going to be some seats lost over this issue,” Martin doubled down on his initial point: “You’ve got school districts laying off hundreds of thousands of teachers. And you’re actually going to say, ‘I’m going to vote for somebody based upon this issue’- to me, that’s nuts. You vote on what’s happening where you are.” The CNN contributor then went right in his proposed strategy about making it a constitutional issue and echoed the argument of The Washington Post’s David Ignatius : that the President shouldn’t have backed away a bit from his initial statement on the issue on Friday: “Democrats should get some spine and say, ‘You know what? I am sworn to uphold and protect the Constitution.’ The President was strong on that on Friday. I think he blew it on Saturday by walking it back. Stay strong- say it’s about the Constitution, because every member of Congress, they are supposed to stand up and protect the Constitution.” Martin continued on this point throughout the remainder of the segment. Refreshingly, Gergen pushed back and disagreed: ” I increasingly believe it may come back to haunt him [President Obama] over time….there was a sense that this is another example of people thinking, ‘He doesn’t understand me. He’s not like me. He sees the world through different glasses than I do.'” Later, after Martin rephrased his point and stated that “it is amazing how he’s criticized for saying it is a constitutional right- to freedom of religion,” the senior political analyst retorted by basically endorsing the main argument of the mosque opponents: ” It is not simply a constitutional issue. It has to do with the sensitivities and sensibilities of a lot of families who lost loved ones there for whom this is hallowed ground . And a lot of Americans are saying, basically- look, if they’ve got real problems with it, I would rather they’d move it somewhere else.” Earlier in the segment, as he introduced the controversy, Roberts didn’t use the word “mosque” to describe it, labeling it instead as a ” planned Islamic community center and prayer space down on Park Place in lower Manhattan , two blocks northeast of the Ground Zero site, another two blocks south of a mosque that’s been in that area since 1970, before there even was a Twin Towers.” The full transcript of the panel discussion, which began 37 minutes into the 10 pm Eastern hour of Tuesday’s Anderson Cooper 360: ROBERTS: We’re talking tonight about the planned Islamic community center and prayer space down on Park Place in lower Manhattan, two blocks northeast of the Ground Zero site, another two blocks south of a mosque that’s been in that area since 1970, before there even was a Twin Towers. Sixty-eight percent of Americans surveyed by CNN/Opinion Research Corporation oppose it. In other polling, so does a smaller majority of New Yorkers. A narrow majority of Manhattanites say they support it. Believe it or not, when the local community board voted on it, the result was 29-1 in favor, with 10 people abstaining. It seems the farther you get from the location, the closer you get to election day, the hotter the opposition becomes. Well, that’s ‘Raw Politics’ for you, and here to talk about all of that: political analyst Roland Martin, political contributor/GOP strategist Ed Rollins, and our senior political analyst David Gergen. Good evening to you all, gentlemen. Roland, is this the sort of thing that Democrats want to be talking about right now, at a point where many people form their opinions of who they’re going to vote for in November? ROLAND MARTIN: Of course not, and you’re running for office- you don’t want to be talking about what’s happening in New York City in lower Manhattan. You want to talk about what’s happening on the ground, economic-wise, in Indiana, in Georgia, in Mississippi, Alabama, Idaho, California, or wherever you are. And so, frankly, if I’m a Democrat and somebody comes to me with that question, and I’m running for the U.S. Senate, I say, ‘Hey, go talk to Chuck Schumer, or go talk to- you know, the folks representing New York. I’m here talking about my district.’ ROBERTS: Well, if only Harry Reid had said that, instead of what he said. So Harry Reid is another Democrat, David Gergen, who’s distancing himself from the President. Do you believe, as time goes on, now that the White House has weighed in on what was a local issue, you’ll see more Democrats looking to put some space between them and the President? DAVID GERGEN: I think so, yes. There are a lot of Democrats that, of course, would like not to talk about this. Roland is right about that. But when it becomes a big national controversy, and you’re running for a Washington office- you know, it seems to me it’s totally legitimate for the press or their opponents to ask them, what do you think about this issue? I think that- you know, it’s like one of the issues you’re going to have to deal with when you’re in national life. ROBERTS [to Ed Rollins]: And you were one of the notable quotables from the Sunday shows when you said, ‘This is the dumbest thing that any president has said or candidate has said since Michael Dukakis said it was okay to burn the flag.’ ED ROLLINS: It’s a similar issue. It’s an emotional issue. You can give an intellectual answer- ROBERTS: Is it a defining moment for this president? ROLLINS: It may be. It may very well be. There’s going to be some seats lost over this issue, I think. It’s going to energize our base- ROBERTS: Really? ROLLINS: Yeah, I think there will. I think there’s- I think you’re down to where these seats are a couple hundred votes. I think people are distracted by they can’t talk about the things they want to be talking about, as Roland said, and I think this is an issue that’s not going to go away. It’s going to get bigger as time goes on, and- you know, it shouldn’t be, but I think it will. ROBERTS: Do you agree, Roland? It’s going to cost the Democrats some seats? MARTIN: No. No. I think if you’re sitting here voting- if you were in any other place in America and your district is broke, you’ve got people who are- increasing number of Food Stamps. You’ve got school districts laying off hundreds of thousands of teachers. And you’re actually going to say, ‘I’m going to vote for somebody based upon this issue’- to me, that’s nuts. You vote on what’s happening where you are. And I will also say this here. Democrats should get some spine and say, ‘You know what? I am sworn to uphold and protect the Constitution.’ The President was strong on that on Friday. I think he blew it on Saturday by walking it back. Stay strong- say it’s about the Constitution, because every member of Congress, they are supposed to stand up and protect the Constitution. ROBERTS: David, you’ve been here- I’m not sure if you’re nodding your head or shaking your head or a little bit of both. GERGEN: Listen, I’ve been talking to people about- is this a one-week story or is this going to be a lingering story, especially for President Obama, and I increasingly believe it may come back to haunt him over time. I thought at first it would be short. But there was a quality about this that I think a lot of people concluded- wasn’t just about the merits of the issue, but there was a sense that this is another example of people thinking, ‘He doesn’t understand me. He’s not like me. He sees the world through different glasses than I do.’ ROBERTS: Communication problem? GERGEN: Well, it’s- I thought in Philadelphia. during the campaign, that was a masterful speech because he gave voice to alternative perspectives and was respectful of them. And in this situation, he stated one point of view, but for lots and lots of other people who oppose this, he showed no sympathy for what they’re going through and why the public is- MARTIN: David! David, the one point of view is the Constitution! ROBERTS: Yeah, well- GERGEN: That is not the only issue, Roland. I’m sorry MARTIN: Wow! That’s not the one point of view! GERGEN: That’s not the only issue. ROLLINS: I don’t think anybody is basically arguing about repealing the First Amendment. I think the critical thing here is, it’s a judgment call. It was a bad judgment in the heart of the politics, and where this president carries this party or sinks this party is on his approval ratings. You go back to 1947- ROBERTS: Which are not looking good. ROLLINS: And they’re 52 percent- 42 percent today in the Gallup, back to the Nixon and the Reagan levels now. If he drops another two or three points, which he clearly could- and this is a defining- could be a defining moment- he’s going to hurt his party. And I say people are going to lose seats. The whole thing is about 3 percent or 4 percent out there. And our base is energized already, and this is going to energize some conservatives, some Tea Party people. ROBERTS: But the point has been made, though- but the point has been made, Roland- let’s get you to speak to this- that the GOP could also lose something over this, because they’re trying, obviously, to get as many votes as they can. There’s a large section of the Muslim population that presidential candidates and, obviously, local candidates court in Dearborn, Michigan. How are Muslims in this country going to feel about what the GOP are saying these days? MARTIN: Well, obviously, frankly, people really haven’t cared what they thought since 9/11, whether you’re a moderate Muslim- and folks have just blown them away and dismissed them and said they’re absolutely irrelevant. And so, sure- bottom line is if you’re Republicans, you’re trying to lock up those freshman Democrats who won in conservative districts, and that’s really who you’re really targeting. But it is amazing to me, though, when you have folks on the right who have attacked this president by saying, he’s not one of us and doesn’t understand our values, and when he does actually reinforce the Constitution, then it’s a bad thing. I get the whole political thing, but maybe- but it is amazing how he’s criticized for saying it is a constitutional right- to freedom of religion. That’s pretty interesting. GERGEN: It is not only- it is not simply a constitutional issue. It has to do with the sensitivities and sensibilities of a lot of families who lost loved ones there for whom this is hallowed ground. And a lot of Americans are saying, basically- look, if they’ve got real problems with it, I would rather they’d move it somewhere else. ROBERTS: We’re not going to solve this tonight. It’s going to continue- MARTIN: Right. It’s hallowed ground? There’s a mosque four blocks away. This is two blocks away. Wow! (laughs) ROBERTS: Roland Martin, David Gergen, Ed Rollins, thanks for coming up- appreciate it.

More:
Roland Martin to Dems: ‘Protect the Constitution’ By Supporting Mosque

LiveChat: Robert Scheer on the Economy (Part 1)

LiveChat: Robert Scheer on the Economy (Part 1) From: truthdig Views: 1 0 ratings Time: 07:16 More in News & Politics

Follow this link:
LiveChat: Robert Scheer on the Economy (Part 1)

NYT Scrubs GZM Imam’s ‘Iconic’ Paragraph From Original Online Report

On December 8 of last year, at some point before hitting the “print” button, someone at the New York Times decided that a story about what has since become known as the Ground Zero Mosque needed to be reworked. Earlier that day, the Times published an online powder-puff piece by reporters Ralph Blumenthal and Sharaf Mowjood about Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf’s GZM plans. The pair’s story was revised before it went to print, and the online version was changed (“Muslim Prayers and Renewal Near Ground Zero,” with a web page title bar that reads “Muslim Prayers Fuel Spiritual Rebuilding Project Near Ground Zero”) to mirror it . It’s even puffier. Several bloggers posted about the pair’s online original when it appeared. A few, including Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugs and Ben Muessig at The Gothamist , excerpted some or all of the key paragraphs shown on the left below (bold in the third paragraph is mine). On the right is how that segment went to print on December 9 (link is to hard-to-read enlarged scan of that day’s front page, where the story’s opening paragraphs appeared near its bottom right), and how it currently appears online: Putting aside the issue of whether previous online versions of subsequently revised stories should be retained and kept available to readers for future reference (I think they should; the Times, the Associated Press, and others clearly disagree), and even giving the paper the benefit of the doubt on the need to fit available print edition space, there’s plenty of reason to question the paper’s editing choices. The most important one is: “Why did the third paragraph disappear?” That disappearance raises at least these points: The imam describes the location as being “close to 9/11,” as if the fallen towers represent some kind of event and not an actual place. Is this imperfect English, or a slip of the tongue? Readers who know more about Rauf’s full background might be tempted to think he’s referring to something positive, especially given that he describes being so close to them as being “iconic.” Expanding on the Rauf’s use of “iconic,” the word “icon” in context means : “a person or thing regarded as a symbol of a belief, nation, community, or cultural movement.” So if the GZM’s proposed location is indeed “iconic,” it’s far, far more than a nice community center, isn’t it? Readers who know more about Rauf’s full background have legitimate cause for wondering what he believes the GZM really symbolizes. It’s also interesting how the phrase “a longtime critic of radical Islamists” fell off. It’s not like ” Islamists ” is a forbidden word at the Old Grey Lady — or even (though much more rare) ” radical Islamists .” Perhaps Blumenthal or Mowjood found some contradictory information, like that 60 Minutes interview where Rauf told Ed Bradley less than three weeks after the 9/11 attacks that “the United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened,” and that “in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the USA.” It seems a bit more likely, at least before the GZM idea sprung up, that Rauf, based on his own words, had really been a longtime sympathizer with radical Islamists. Finally, it’s more than a little odd that the Times denied itself the opportunity, after originally claiming it, to brag about getting a scoop. Did the paper back away from seemingly valid bragging rights because of nervousness about being accused of proactively helping the project move along? Given the facts and attitude clues washed out, the Times made some interesting editorial decisions indeed. When done, the presentation of Rauf is on balance became much more favorable, and there were no direct alerts that something might be amiss. Imagine that. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .

Link:
NYT Scrubs GZM Imam’s ‘Iconic’ Paragraph From Original Online Report

Feminist Bloggers/Journalists Offended When Dallas Police Chief Suggests Preventative Measures Against Date Rape

A startling statistic was presented at the August 2 Dallas Public Safety Committee meeting: Rape there is up 25.3% over last year. Police Chief David Brown (pictured right) was pressed on this, and here was how blogger Andrea Grimes of the Dallas Observer interpreted his remarks: But Ms. Jasso read my mind, asking the Chief to explain the… increase…. is it that victims are reporting rapes more frequently, or that more rapes are happening? The answer, unfortunately: More rapes, says Chief Brown, specifically date rapes. And we all know what the solution to date rape is: getting women to stop drinking, because that is what causes date rape. Not dudes raping women, but women drinking. Blogger Shelby Knox piled on : Thank you law enforcement official charged with preventing or at least condemning crimes like, oh say, RAPE for suggesting that if I get raped it’s my fault…. Guess I should leave the short skirt at home too, right Chief? Men of Dallas: Your Chief of Police doesn’t seem to think you possess enough self-control or self-respect to resist violating a woman who’s been drinking. Be offended by this and be part of the solution. You watch your friends and remind them that if a woman is too drunk to say ‘yes,’ she’s too drunk for sex. Women of Dallas: Rape is rape is rape. If you were raped while drunk it doesn’t make it your fault or any less of a crime. And Bethany Anderson at D magazine added : So date rape solved? Don’t drink if you have two x chromosomes. Forget the fact that the drunk cannot consent to sex, and nonconsensual sex = rape. I’m sure glad we cleared that up. But wait a minute. Would a high profile modern man be so stupid as to place the fault of rape on women? Scott Goldstein at the Dallas Morning News was the 1st to challenge the stereotypical and stereotypist feminist mob: Some writers at a couple of local Dallas publications are accusing… Brown of essentially blaming rape victims in comments he made during a City Hall committee meeting yesterday…. No need for me to judge whether the folks at D magazine and the Dallas Observer are being unfairly provocative. You be the judge. Watch the video clip and tell us what you think. Yes… Liberal feminists are often caricatured as over reactive, and here was just another example of the Birkenstock fitting. Fortunately, and surprisingly given this touchy subject, there was immediate blowback. Goldstein wrote in follow-up: Brown… was unaware of the way some bloggers are portraying [his] comments…. I filled him in and asked him to respond. “I absolutely did not state that the victims are to blame for sexual assault,” Brown said. He said that he was explaining yesterday that a DPD analysis of the increase shows that many of the cases involve alcohol and date rape. “I do want to continue to emphasize that women be aware of their surroundings and, when possible, travel in pairs or in a group to enhance security around sexual assault,” Brown said. Speaking specifically about the way some have characterized his comments, Brown said: “I just think it’s irresponsible for bloggers to put inaccurate information in reports to excite or to create this uproar that is not consistent with my statement,” Brown said. “They’re being irresponsible. This is a very sensitive issue and we really do want to make victims aware of how to protect themselves from these predators.” Commenters proceeded to take Anderson to task … “I know it’s cool to suddenly be playing gender-centric neo-1970s games regarding what people actually say vs. how others claim they spoke… or even to interpret what they meant. But to me, hanging people out to dry, with an agitator’s agenda being the motivation to twist and shout, that’s every bit as shocking as the Chief’s ‘summarized’ comment in question here….” Guess i’ll be the contrarian here, i don’t see anything about drinking causing rape in his quote. What i see is a suggestion for friends to keep an eye on each other when they’re out partying, something guys do all the time. If you’re friend isn’t acting herself, maybe it’s because something was slipped in her drink, a friend would probably be able to notice something like that if they were keeping an eye on one another when out partying.” … to such an extent Anderson had to perform a mea culpa, “of sorts” … After listening to the video of Chief Brown, and reviewing his statement about how his comments were taken, I’ve done some thinking. Yes, you get more of an idea of what he was getting at, and it confirmed my gut reaction: He meant well…. If I had been at the meeting, or watching it, I admit, my response would’ve been more measured… I do think that the resulting discussion was, by the whole, a good leaping off point for exactly the sort of thing Chief Brown said we needed – more preventive measures…. Really? What Brown was saying in the first place? I know it’s verboten to say women, particularly young women in bars, ask for it when they get raped. But as we saw in this instance, it’s to the point where liberal feminists aren’t even allowing women to be educated on common sense preventative measures. Why is there a 25% increase in rape this past year in Dallas? Is it that there are more perpetrators on the street or more naive victims? I think it’s a combination of both, the former thanks in large part to another verboten topic, increasing access to porn, and the latter because liberal feminists have created an environment that makes it nearly impossible to discuss preemptive measures women can take to stop it. I look back to many instances when I did stupid things that opened the door to crime, such as picking up male hitchhikers. As recently as last week I walked through a large, dark parking lot at O’Hare Airport alone to my car at 11:30p at night. I should have asked Security for a ride. Liberal feminists don’t like it, but the simple fact is the bar scene, particularly late at night, isn’t necessarily safe. There aren’t a lot of date rapes in church. [Photo via CBS News ]

See the original post here:
Feminist Bloggers/Journalists Offended When Dallas Police Chief Suggests Preventative Measures Against Date Rape

Open Thread: Pelosi Wants to Investigate Mosque Opponents

That’s right, not the people building the Ground Zero Mosque, the people who are leading the grassroots campaign to prevent it from being built. She said the following to reporters (via  Kerry Picket ): There is no question that there is a concerted effort to make this a political issue by some. And I join those who have called for looking into how is this opposition to the mosque being funded . How is this being ginned up that here we are talking about Treasure Island, something we’ve been working on for decades, something of great interest to our community as we go forward to an election about the future of our country and two of the first three questions are about a zoning issue in New York City. So Pelosi’s complaint is that voters care about this issue. And her response is to call for an investigation. What are your thoughts on her statement? 

View post:
Open Thread: Pelosi Wants to Investigate Mosque Opponents

WaPo Highlights Dem Outrage at Fox Donations to GOP, Downplays Reality of 50-50 Contributions

The Washington Post hyped the news on the front of Wednesday’s Style section that Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation has donated $1 million to the Republican Governors Association , “triggering swift criticism from Democrats that a contribution of that magnitude casts a shadow on his media properties, particularly Fox News.” In paragraph 13, on page C-10, this apparent outrage of Republican favoritism gets ruined by reality: Until now, the News Corp./Fox political action committee had given 54 percent of its donations to Democrats and 46 percent to Republicans , according to the Center for Responsive Politics — including $8,000 to Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid’s campaign committee and $5,000 to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s organization. News Corp. also gave $45,000 each to GOP and Democratic campaign committees on Capitol Hill. So the real story here is that Democrats are having a fit over the RGA donation, even if the overall donation levels are about even. Reporter Howard Kurtz failed to inform readers that Murdoch held a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton in 2006 (and the New York Post endorsed her Senate re-election bid). Kurtz only mentioned he’d “sought accomodations” with her: An outspoken conservative, the Australian-born Murdoch has nonetheless sought accommodations over the years with political rivals, including Tony Blair when he was British prime minister and Hillary Rodham Clinton when she was a senator from New York. Kurtz suggested the RGA donation spurred a new anti-Fox News political campaign by the Democratic Party:   The White House refused for months to make top officials available for interviews and assailed Fox as an arm of the Republican Party — an attack that was revived Tuesday. “Any pretense that may have existed about the ties between Fox News and the Republican Party has been ripped violently away,” said Hari Sevugan, spokesman for the Democratic National Committee. “Any Republican that appears on Fox should now have a disclaimer that they are financially supported by the network and any coverage of the elections this fall on Fox should be reported with disclaimer for what it is — partisan propaganda.” But if “disclaimers” were being handed out, wouldn’t every report on Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have to note they were funded by the parent company of Fox News? And wouldn’t that tend to ruin the DNC spin? If Sevugan thinks the on-air FNC product is ridiculously unfair and imbalanced, if anything, the roughly 50-50 donations levels must be more balanced than the TV coverage.  It’s quite clear that the Democrats are used to a media environment where every network, every newspaper, and every “news” magazine caters to Barack Obama and find it scandalous and outrageous that anyone wouldn’t march to their drumbeat. Being a “real” news network and not a “partisan propaganda” outlet by their definition actually requires being a partisan propaganda outlet for Obama. 

View post:
WaPo Highlights Dem Outrage at Fox Donations to GOP, Downplays Reality of 50-50 Contributions

Open Thread: A Passionate Sermon Against Birthright Citizenship from…Harry Reid?

“Looks like Republican opposition researchers finally are getting their act together in countering the Reid campaign machine,” says Professor Jacobson . Smoking gun?

See original here:
Open Thread: A Passionate Sermon Against Birthright Citizenship from…Harry Reid?

Halperin Not Digging Dippy Deutsch?

Was Mark Halperin just mugging, or was he really turned off by Donny Deutsch’s antics on the set of Morning Joe today? Check the video and be the judge. Here’s the background: on the show’s August 6th edition [a clip of which was played today and is seen in the video here], Deutsch turned up in a tight black T-shirt and proceeded to spend much of his appearance flexing for the cameras.  He ended his self-promoting performance by doing a set of push-ups as the closing comments rolled. Deutsch, apparently doing sartorial penance, appeared in a three-piece suit this morning.  But when Mika Brzezinski chided him for his macho act, going so far as to facetiously accuse him of “sexting” on the set, Deutsch couldn’t resist recreating his previous performance, doing a set of dips on the desk. Keep an eye on Mark Halperin, who reacts with a series of head shakes, eye rolls, nose pinches and snippy sidewise glances.  Mark might have just been mugging, but was there also been an element of sincere disapproval of Deutsch’s egotistical display?  I’m saying ‘si’.

Read the original post:
Halperin Not Digging Dippy Deutsch?

Tom DeLay Cleared — N.Y. Times Puts the Story on Page A-18 (Behind Organic Golf Courses)

When former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay announced that the Justice Department was dropping its six-year investigation of his relationship with convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff, The Washington Post put the news on the front page Tuesday. The New York Times decided that this story was best put on page A-18. The front page of the Times covered flooding in Pakistan, Team Obama’s tough evaluation of offshore drilling permits, and a chilling Rod Nordland story on new public executions by the Taliban in northern Afghanistan. But the front page also offered “Walking in New York? Beware Men Turning Left” and “Exclusive Golf Course Is Also Organic, So a Weed or Two Get In.” At least the Times covered the DeLay story. To date, the newspaper “of record” has not mentioned Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s exclamation last Tuesday that “I don’t know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican.” The Times was quick to note that DeLay still faces the indictment of Democratic Travis County prosecutor Ronnie Earle from 2005. The caption under DeLay’s picture read “Tom DeLay still faces a trial in Texas on unrelated charges of money laundering and conspiracy.” Reporter Charlie Savage elaborated: Mr. DeLay’s legal troubles are not yet over. He still faces a trial in Texas on unrelated state charges of money laundering and conspiracy in connection with campaign donations during the 2002 election. A trial on those charges, for which he was indicted in 2005, was delayed for years because of an appeal by co-defendants, but a hearing on pretrial motions is scheduled for next week. Savage made no attempt to calculate how much money the federal government has spent investigating DeLay, which was standard operating procedure for the media during Clinton investigations. Instead, Savage reminded the reader of all the prosecutors’ successes: The scandal, which helped Democrats win majorities in Congress in the 2006 election, led to convictions or guilty pleas by two of Mr. DeLay’s former aides; former Representative Bob Ney, Republican of Ohio; two former White House officials; Mr. Abramoff himself; and several other former Congressional aides and lobbyists. Mr. Abramoff was released from prison in June. There were no conservative groups to complain about the partisanship of the process, but Savage did bring in a liberal group (without a label) to lament how it was a malodorous outrage that DeLay hadn’t been jailed: Melanie Sloan, the executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a government watchdog group, sharply criticized the Justice Department’s decision to close the investigation into Mr. DeLay’s role without charges. “It’s a sad day for America when one of the most corrupt members to ever walk the halls of Congress gets a free pass,” Ms. Sloan said. “The Justice Department’s decision not to prosecute Mr. DeLay for his actions sends exactly the wrong message to current and future members.” The only supporter of DeLay in the Times piece was DeLay: But Mr. DeLay said that he had done nothing wrong and that his political enemies had spent more than  “criminalization of politics and the politics of personal destruction” that he contended his case exemplified. “The new politics — it’s a decade coming up with “frivolous” ethics charges against him. He denounced the “criminalization of politics and the politics of personal destruction” that he contended his case exemplified. “The new politics — it’s no longer good enough to beat you on policy,” he said. “They have to completely drown you and put you in prison and destroy your family and your reputation and finances, then dance on your grave.”

Read more:
Tom DeLay Cleared — N.Y. Times Puts the Story on Page A-18 (Behind Organic Golf Courses)