Burnt Orange Report

Congressional Democrats Slow To Take Advantage Of GOP Scandals?

By Vince Leibowitz

Via Google News (if you haven't customized Google with your own news (or even a feed from BOR), you really should...very handy), I stumbled across a Bloomberg story claiming that Congressional Democrats are "slow to take advantage of the corruption scandals that have engulfed Republicans."

This is reportedly because Congressional Democrats are divided over changes to lobbying and ethics rules:

Representative David Obey, a Wisconsin Democrat, said many members of his party oppose tightening lobbying rules at a time when Democrats have a chance to regain a majority in Congress in the November elections.

"I've had a number of people who said, 'Geez, you really want to do this, after the way Republicans have treated us?'" Obey said. "Why would we guarantee them this stuff if we take control?"

Democrats risk squandering an opportunity to use the ethics issue for political advantage, said Marshall Wittmann, who heads the Democratic Leadership Council, a party organization, and who previously advised Republicans. "The leadership needs to get in and rattle some members and say, unless we take the initiative with bold and far-reaching proposals, the Republicans will steal this issue from us," he said.

While I don't agree that the Republican Party as a whole could "steal" this issue from the Democrats, I do believe every congressional Democrat should latch onto this issue, even though they may have some differences of opinion concerning whether or not what is good for the goose is, in fact, good for the gander.

Regardless of whether or not the DeLay/Abramoff scandals actually eclipse one of the most famous congressional corruption scandals of the 20th century (Abscam), Democrats today should take a lesson from what the party's leadership did in the aftermath of that scandal with regard to stronger ethics. Or, better yet, Remember what Tip O'Neill did concerning Congressional pay raises, and how he tied that to ethics early in his tenure as speaker after Watergate? If not, refresh your memory with this, written shortly after O'Neill's death:

Early in his time as Speaker, when his bill for a new House code of ethics was in trouble, he lumbered to the well of the House and cut through the debate on the crucial provision, a limitation on outside income. The speech was vintage O'Neill.

Sure, he said, he knew what it was to be strapped. Wasn't he the one who had fought for a raise of $12,900 a year in Congressional pay? But in exchange he had promised the American people "the strongest code of ethics that this country has ever seen." The issue, after Watergate, he thundered, was "restoring public confidence in this Congress as an institution, restoring confidence in its membership."

He looked out at an audience that included the 80 Democrats for whom he had campaigned the previous fall, the scores of members he had appointed to the nine select and special committees over which he had jurisdiction, and the more than 200 beneficiaries of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Fund, for which he had been the chairman.

His listeners knew that the Speaker had a great voice in their committee assignments, the scheduling of floor action on bills, the disbursing of campaign money and the small favors that can make or break a Congressional career. Mr. O'Neill called in his chits. The result was a foregone conclusion. The vote was 344 to 79.

While I'm not advocating Democrats doing to Congress what Republicans did to the Texas Legislature after they gained control and turning it into a one-sided mess, Democrats (especially Congressional Democrats) need to realize the power that appropriately utilizing the DeLay/Abramoff ethics debacle can offer their campaigns.

And, I'm not just talking about Congressional Democrats or candidates running for state office, state house, etc. Even in rural counties with an entrenched, corrupt GOP machine (and there are many), the more you tie the incumbent GOP to the scandals, the better off you are. If there are GOP scandals in an individual county (and there often are, take Wood County, where a justice of the peace was recently convicted of perjury). There is no reason local candidates can't tie that corruption in with state and national level DeLay/Abramoff corruption.

While I understand it is a risky proposition to do something like this because it comes very near to painting all Republicans with the same brush, I believe it is something that has to be done and done right this election cycle.

If voters hear it enough, and the message is delivered properly, it will have an impact. When you've got your opponents on the ropes and issuing a denial every day or in response to every press question, it's much better than giving them time to issue their own fuzzy press releases—especially GOP incumbents who have a way of "announcing" funding and special projects during election years. (Again, not that Democrats don't do that, but I've never felt Democrats were as sleezy about it as Republicans are).

A lot of pundits and politicians and political consultants complain that negative does more harm than good, especially in terms of negative advertising. I've never believed that. Though it may not have worked for Tony Sanchez, 2002 was a different election cycle and Texas was in a different place politically. And, sure, newspaper editorialists always complain about negative ads, though the television stations owned by the same companies that own the newspapers are eager to take the cold, hard, cash they get for running those negative ads. Just another hypocrisy.

Keep in mind that negative campaign tactics are what turned Texas red in the first place: negative direct mail, negative television, negative radio. Although a lot of "experts" claim the public is tired of the negativity, I still believe it can work, if done right.

And, this is the year to do it right. And, this is the scandal to do it with.

Just my two cents. Disagree in the comments! (I'm serious; let's have a debate!)

Vince Leibowitz is a regular contributor to Burnt Orange Report and the Political State Report. He served as Communications Director for the Bob Glaze for State Representative Campaign in 2004 and still has an entire shoebox full of negative mailers sent out by Republicans during that campaign.