Login required to started new threads
Login required to post replies
What do you guys make of the rule changes Republicans have proposed for the House Ethics Committee. Disregarding some of the politics, is it a good idea to change the rules so that an investigatio automatically dies unless a majority of the Committee agrees it needs to be investigated? With a Committe of 5 Dems and 5 Reps, it sounds to me like either party could simply block any investigation of one of it's members.
Slowguy
(insert pithy phrase here...)
To be honest with you, I haven't really followed the story much, and I don't much care about it, either. It's of no consequence. Why? Because the the "Ethics" Committee is a joke, and always has been. It makes no difference how perfect or how flawed its "rules" are.
"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."
My reaction is that this is not much of a change since the end result of an investigation needs bipartisan support to take action anyway.
Of course this all assumes most members of the committee are acting in good faith. If you want to argue that they are not, no set of rules will help with that problem.
The power to investigate is the power to destroy. I think it was David Bonoir that kept making ethics charges against Gingrich, eventually get up to 34 separate cases. Ultimately one item had merit, having to do with a technical fundraising issue as I recall. It got so bad that Bonoir got sanctioned for his over the top behavior.
I think the Democrats refusing to staff the committee is just a brilliant tactic. They have a real problem with McDermit since he has actually finally been convicted by a court. The press won't talk about McDermit since he is a Democrat. By not staffing they stop Delay from being exonerated, avoid McDermit's problems, and generally play to win.
The Democratic party is not the most successful political party in the history of the world for no reason. Back in the 70s when Byrd threatened to change the filibuster rules, Republicans caved. Now the roles are reversed, and the Democrats have no desire to compromise, get along, or avoid a fight. They have a desire to win.
I wish the Republican Party would have balls like that once in a while.
"My reaction is that this is not much of a change since the end result of an investigation needs bipartisan support to take action anyway."
Maybe I'm missing something, but this seems like a pretty big change to me. Under the old rules, the default position was that an investigation would occur if charges of ethical misconduct was made. Under the new rules, the default is that the charges would not be investigated. If one assumes that the members of the Committee were evaluating charges in good faith, this seems like a pretty big change to me. Certainly the power to investigate can be turned into the power to destroy, however, I'm not sure that the solution is to adopt a "turn a blind eye" position as the default.
Obviously I'm trying to leave the politics as much out of this as possible, because there are all kinds of reasons why the Republicans have tried to change the ules, and why the Democrats have opposed them, that may or may not have anything to do with whether or not the rules are good, but are about whether or not the rules are designed to save Tom Delay.
Slowguy
(insert pithy phrase here...)
The Republicans have a choice to make. Do they want to allow a repeat of the Gingrich fiasco? Do they want their effective leaders to be destroyed by endless investigations of charges not made in good faith? The more leaders the Republicans throw overboard, the more the tactic will be tried. Lott is the obvious more recent example.
As in the case of the Senate filibusters, the Republicans have to choose whether to be a majority party that drives its agenda or not. If they blink on the flibusters out of fear that they might be in the minority someday, they might as well just go into the minority right now. If electing 4 new Senators to bring their total to 55 isn't enough to give them some backbone to deliver on the issues upon which they campaigned, then to hell with them.
The only solution to all this in my opinion is to fix our electoral system so representatives have to reach out to the middle to get elected. With the current gerrymandering, representatives need only reach out to the radical left or right depending on their district.
The Democrats are playing to win. Were I a Democrat, I would be damn proud of them. You question is really whether the Republicans should do the same.
"You question is really whether the Republicans should do the same"
No, actually my question is whether or not a committee designed to investigate ethics violations should have, as it's default position, the rule that they will not investigate.
as for Delay's alleged ethics issues, I don't think there are many, including several Republican Congressmen, who would say there isn't something there to take a look at.
Slowguy
(insert pithy phrase here...)
even if you take vitus' approach, which is that the ethics committee is a paper tiger, i still think it serves an important function to the public. i'd rather at least have the appearance that there is bipartisan ethical oversight of congresspersons, even if the actual "punishments" are no more than a slap on the wrist. these rules remove even the appearance of ethical accountability and simply make the committee another polarized, partisan battle ground. i think most politically cognizant individuals are pretty jaded to the current state of federal politics. these rule changes simply reinforce that belief.
f/k/a mclamb6
These rules are not the cause of a polarized committee. The blatant misuse of the complaint process by those practicing the politics of personal destruction against those they can not defeat through the democratic process is the cause.
At the root, the real cause is gerrymandering as I outline above.
at least with respect to delay, the dems are not the sole source of the committee's investigations of him. for instance, his second admonishment came at the behest of a republican(delay offered to endorse an outgoing reps son in his effort to replace his father, if the father changed his vote on medicare).
art to say this is simpy the "politics of personal destruction" is a bit much and parrots delay's soundbites. the typical argument seems to be "everyone's doing it". however, i have yet to see another congressperson's record that matches the depth and breadth of delay's ethical shadiness. there is objective cause for investigating delay. moreover, there is the chance that forcing someone like delay to clean up or step down(or be voted out) could have more far reaching implications for cleaning up ethical transgressions.
f/k/a mclamb6
there is the chance that forcing someone like delay to clean up or step down(or be voted out) could have more far reaching implications for cleaning up ethical transgressions
AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA ! ! ! !
"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."
I don't like some of Delay's conduct either. The charge that Republicans are getting arrogant rather like the Democrats prior to 1994 is well based.
Investigation is not the answer. The light of day is the answer, but the light needs to shine uniformly. I don't doubt that reform legislation would be the result of this process.
I guess I don't understand how making a deal to convince someone to change their vote is a violation of anything. Isn't that what democracy is all about? I never said the process was pretty.
it's a violation of house ethics rules. i can see why they'd frown on such things(delay's endorsement offer) vs. a "you support me on this bill, i'll get you votes on your bill" situation. yes, they are variants on the same continuum of quid pro quo, but the delay's actions are much more analogous to saying, "i've got connections on the admissions committee at harvard. change your vote, and i'll get him in."
f/k/a mclamb6
I guess I don't understand how making a deal to convince someone to change their vote is a violation of anything. Isn't that what democracy is all about?
No.
"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."
Sorry, you are being naive. Such deals are the grease of democracy. You vote for my pork boondoggle and I will vote for yours. It is pretty hard to find any bill that gets through Congress without such deals.
Do you actually think tobacco subsidies and ethanol subsidies get approved by Congress on their merits? Do actually think a Congressman from Ohio votes for a highway in Alaska because he wants the road?
Puhleze.
There is a significant difference between quid pro quo in voting for various measures, and quid pro quo saying I will help your son get your Congressional seat in exchange for your vote, and if you don't, your son won't get elected. If you don't see the difference, you are further down the road than I thought you were.
Slowguy
(insert pithy phrase here...)
Typical slowguy, pure as the driven snow, the perfect is the enemy of the good.
Sorry, given the choice of Delay's promising I will get off my duff and raise a few bucks for your kid and Delay's agreeing I will give your boondoggle $10,000,000 of taxpayer money if you give my boondoggle $30,000,000 of taxpayer money, I pick the former.
As I recall, the kid never did get the seat.
"Typical slowguy, pure as the driven snow, the perfect is the enemy of the good. "
I don't know exactly what you mean by that, but when the head of the Republican party says he will keep your son out of office or get him elected based on your vote on a billl, that is neither perfect nor good.
Slowguy
(insert pithy phrase here...)
No, it is not perfect or good, it is democracy. Messy process this democracy. Rather like making sausage.
Not to pick nits, but I never heard of DeLay's threat to keep him out of a seat. I only heard of his agreeing to help get him a seat based upon the vote. I don't like it, but I don't see a problem here.