Culture of Corruption
David Brooks: "But Republicans need to do more than bump DeLay. They need to put the entire leadership team up for a re-vote. That's because the real problem wasn't DeLay, it was DeLayism, the whole culture that merged K Street with the Hill, and held that raising money is the most important way to contribute to the team." What can I say -- I agree.
Realistically, though, it's hard to imagine an entrenched incumbent political machine seriously reforming itself as a pre-emptive major even when faced with clear political risks. Instead, you'll get superficial change in the hope of staving off defeat. If defeat comes nonetheless, then you might see a few things getting rethought.
Advertisement
If Brooks had any guts he's go right past revote to removal. They were in charge, they were rolling in Jack's cash.
January 4, 2006 10:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
From your Abramoff post on TAPPED:
I actually don't think the "Tapped crowd" is all that interested in this, relatively speaking. We've got principles.
Uh. You want to explain what the hell that means? For those of who, presumably, don't have principles?
January 4, 2006 11:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Brooks, your complaints are too little, too late.
Please don't try and convince us you're some principled conservative at this stage in the game.
January 5, 2006 7:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
It costs Brooks almost nothing with his patrons when he occasionally voices such an objection. If he were giving voice to a constituency (right-of-center yuppies? people who imagine themselves to be characters in stories of Edith Wharton or Louis Auchincloss?), and raising the credible threat of that constituency's defection, that would be significant. But basically Brooks is just saying, "hey, I'm not down with this". It's less a matter of Brooks attacking the culture of corruption than him trying to make sure none of it sticks to him.
I mean, if that K Street business really bothered him, how could he possibly be a Republican?
January 5, 2006 8:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wasn't it Brooks (behind the paywall) who said that "the Republicans, plus a few Democrats", should lead the reform -- or something like that?
Isn't the idea that the reform should be led by Republicans pretty ridiculous? Brooks seems to be suggesting offering up a scapegoat and pretending that the Republican Party as such is not into this up to their necks.
So he's still a water-carrier and lackey.
January 5, 2006 8:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, Denny Hastert (aka Fat Bastard) did promise to hold a few seminars to tell his members that they shouldn't let themselves be bribed. What more do you people want?
January 5, 2006 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink