Hal brings word of a party.
The Fort Bend Democrats and The Fort Bend Democratic Party are having one . . . a party, that is. Well, in this case, given the guest speaker is Paul Begala, they’re having a gala.
Where: Quail Valley Country Club – 2880 La Quinta Drive, Missouri City, Texas
When: Friday, October 20th, 6:30-9:30 PM[…]
Paul Begala grew up in Stafford, Texas, and attended Dulles High School. So Begala will be back home next week helping to raise money for our Democratic candidates.
There’ll be no tickets sold at the door, so you need to get up off your heinies and get advance tickets to the Begala Gala.
Thanks to the miracle of in-town grandparents, Tiffany and I will be able to make it to this event. If the chance to hear Begala speak and help raise a little dough for some excellent folks isn’t enough to make you want to join us, consider this: It will be a rare opportunity to see me in a suit and tie. Who knows when that will come around again? Click on Hal’s link or go here for ticket info.
I don’t know if it is appropriate or not at this time or another, to ask (at a formal affair…maybe ask in as funny a way as possible) Paul Begala about what he thinks now of his Times article defending Tom DeLay against Democratic concerns way back in 2000.
quoting:
Media Ignored DeLay’s $25 million RICO Case in 2000
by leveymg
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/1/27/104321/205
Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 09:43:21 AM CST
Here’s something about Tom DeLay I was completely unaware of until Josh Micah Marshall brought it up in his Blog the other day. The DCCC sued DeLay under the RICO statute five years ago, alleging many of the same illegal GOP fund-raising practices for which Tom and his associates — particularly Jack Abramoff — have been recently indicted, and DeLay settled! The funds were set-aside.
Betya never heard about this either, and that says a lot about how incredibly complicit the American corporate media has been with the Republican campaign crime machine, and why Dubya became President to begin with, and then kept his hold on power for a second term.
In settling the suit, Tom agreed to not contribute $25 million in improperly raised funds to the Republicans in the 2000 election cycle. The response of the major media is perhaps the most astonishing thing about this — the Washington Post scolded the Democrats for suing, the NYT was luke-warm, and the rest simply ignored the whole thing. Of course, the story just went away, right down the memory hole. Tom DeLay and Jack Abramoff’s dirty money machine then went on to be the deciding factor in the 2000, 2002, and 2004 elections.
Amazing. Still think we have a free press and honest elections in this country?
Here’s a first-hand account by Bob Bauer, a lawyer for the DNC:
http://www.moresoftmoneyhardlaw.com/…
DeLay in the Time of RICO
Posted: 1/26/06
Reflections on a Lawsuit
A few days ago, Joshua Micah Marshall at http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/… reminisced about the RICO suit filed by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee against Mr. DeLay, some of his closest associates and various organizations operating under his effective control. Marshall is interested in how the suit was received at the time. He recalls that it was “laughed off the political stage,” a stinging assessment but not far from the truth. The following, one account of the party and press reaction to the suit, is prompted by the questions Marshall asked: ” had the nub of what the operation was about. What happened to the case? And what was the reaction at the time from the established press worthies?”
First: what happened to the suit? After DeLay and his co-defendants attempted but failed to obtain a quick dismissal, the case was settled, with DeLay offering a representation that organizations within his network would not raise and spend $25 million in undisclosed, improperly raised funds on the 2000 Congressional elections. In filing the suit, DCCC had made clear its intent to prevent DeLay’s use of extortionate fund-raising and sham tax-exempts to establish a shadow political operation able to function outside existing rules and law. Once that purpose was fulfilled, the further prosecution of the suit was unnecessary. And the organizations in question did not figure prominently in the 2000 elections.
Second: what was the political response to the suit, from press and members of the party? Much of it was the expression of horror at the purported ugliness of the suit, which was denounced as little more than a naked example of the politics of personal destruction. Some Members of Congress–Democratic Members of both the House and the Senate–called to complain to the DCCC and to Chairman Kennedy, and a number of them, questioning the legal basis for the suit, were referred to counsel. Explanations of both the goal and substance of the suit did not seem to put the troubled, reproachful questions to rest. One Democratic Member demanded a meeting, in person, and interrogated the undersigned for well over an hour, demanding to know the process by which counsel had secured authorization for the suit. Spread before him were xeroxed copies of the statutes and cases on which we had relied, apparently provided by a member of the staff who attended the meeting and glared disapprovingly throughout the inquisition.
There were gratifying shows of support for the action. DCCC Chairman Kennedy and House Democratic Leader Gephardt did not waver. Senate Democratic Leader Daschle, aware of the adverse reactions, requested a briefing so that he would be prepared to answer questions from colleagues, and then, fully satisfied with what he learned, he assured the DCCC of his support. Press response, including commentariat response, was largely unfriendly. The Washington Post issued an editorial scolding. A member of the New York Times editorial board called to ask for some background questions: we were told that the Times would treat the DCCC with compassion, but that it should not expect a full embrace. The DCCC Communications Director Erik Smith reported a cold skepticism encountered throughout the media.
Nothing better illustrated the “mainstream” response than an op-ed published in the Times by well-known Democratic consultant and cable talk show host Paul Begala. “Democrats Play the Vengeance Game,” The New York Times (May 10, 2000) at 31. Begala administered a high-minded rebuke of the DCCC, opening his piece with the categorical conclusion that the suit was “wrong, ethically, legally and politically.” For him, this was merely a replay of the insidious partisanship displayed by Republicans during the Clinton era, and he called upon “those who decried the abuse of the legal system for partisan ends” to recognize their “moral obligation” and to “condemn the legal pursuit of Mr. DeLay.” He offered that he had no use for DeLay’s tactics, but that he knew them not to be criminal, which was rather beside the point in a piece about a civil suit. Begala insisted all the same that the remedy for DeLay’s conduct was properly left to a vigilant press and to the voters.
more
……..
I don’t know if it is appropriate or not at this time or another, to ask (at a formal affair…maybe ask in as funny a way as possible) Paul Begala about what he thinks now of his Times article defending Tom DeLay against Democratic concerns way back in 2000.