That is what happens when the lunatics run the asylum.

Both sides now seem to be immune from ethics investigations.

Either way seems reasonable to me, since the committee can't act without bipartisan agreement.

I do find it interesting that the Democrats have stopped the formation of the committee altogether. I am guesing they are doing this to avoid having to get rid of Jim McDermit (sp?) and probably having to clear DeLay of all the noncharges against him. Pretty smart actually.

Art, you've got to be the biggest political hack on this forum. Even some Republicans (like McCain) are against these changes.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Even some Republicans (like McCain)

lol! Good one, Ken!

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

That is funny Ken. McCain. Now there is a Republican you can count on to speak for the party.

The power to investigate is the power to destroy when that power is used irresponsibly. This was shown during Gingrich's term when 34 ethics complaints were filed against him and investigated. 33 were baseless and he issued some sort of apology or other on the 34th. The guy who filed them, David Bonoir I think, was also cited for filing baseless complaints.

The Ethics committee is a pretty worthless structure. They still haven't gotten around to punishing McDermitt for his involvment in the distribution of that recorded cell phone call with Gingrich, and McDermitt has been convicted criminally for that. When the committee finally forms, they will have to deal with McDermitt. That is probably the real reason for the obstruction.

Naturally you ignore all this, and resort to calling me names. Pretty typical.

Your comment implies that the investigation in itself is destructive. I would agree to an extent, but for full impact, the investigated party has to commit a breach, no?

TD has stayed afloat for the last few censures, weathered the investigation.

FWIW, Gingrich on TD from last night's CBS interview:

Mr. GINGRICH: I'm saying when you're being attacked, the first thing you naturally do is you describe your attackers. In this case, that won't work. DeLay's problem isn't with the Democrats. DeLay's problem is with the country. And so DeLay has a challenge, I think, to lay out a case that the country comes to believe, that the country decides is legitimate. If he does that, he's fine.

---

iambigkahunatony.com

No, you can beat a guilty verdict out of a ham sandwich if you investigate and prosecute it enough. In Gingrich's case, 33/34 charges were total BS. He would have happy to cop to what I remember as being a technical fund raising violation absent the other 33 charges.

Just yesterday I heard the story from a business associate who spent a night in jail and spent $1,500 defending himself against a DUI charge despite the fact he did an on site breath test which showed he was under one half of the legal limit. This particular cop arrests a lot of DUI suspects, over half of which are released because they are BS. No breach, but lots of damage to my friend.

McCain is funny. He dumps on the House process, but says nothing about investigating Hillary after her fundraiser cops to a felony for lying on her campaign finance reports. Those lies enabled her to raise and spend more money. Can you guys get McCain to join your party some time soon?

None of this is to suggest that I like Delay's nepotism, or the nepotism of many other Congressmen. The charges that Republicans are getting arrogant, much like the 1994 Democrats that got fired, have a lot of accuracy.

"No, you can beat a guilty verdict out of a ham sandwich if you investigate and prosecute it enough. "

Tell that to Ken Starr.

---

iambigkahunatony.com