So in the 1990s, when the Republicans were in the minority, they passed a rule stating that any leader of the membership (Speaker, minority leader, whip, etc.) must step down if indicted for a felony. They were trying to put pressure on Democrats. Sounds like a good thing, right?
Well, now the same Republicans are trying to overturn that rule. Seems that Tom DeLay, the House Majority leader, may be indicted for his actions in Texas (for which the spineless House “admonished” him twice this fall). The Republicans now say the rule is bad, because the indictment is “politically motivated”.
May have been a minority but could not have passed the law without Democrat support.
Of course. Didn’t I say it seems like a good rule? The Democrats agreed, even though the intent at the time was to use it against the majority Democrats.
This is surprising. I would imagine that most republicans wouldn’t mind if DeLay lost his position since he is know as a colossal a**hole, then again, you don’t want to cross him because if he comes out on top, he will use his power to ruin your political career.
I saw the story about the rule on Paula Zahn at the gym lat night, and heard the story about the case on NPR this morning.
I’ve no idea whether Delay is involved or not, but that was some fancy dancing the repubs did last night, and the two involved are a couple of sleazebags. How do you punish people like that appropriately?
The disillusionment I have with our politicians is that they are supposed to represent us. Instead, they often mislead us, consolidate power for their own (and their special interest) benefit. They manipulate, lie, cheat, etc. Yet, they seem to have little accountability for their actions. Neither major political party is insulated from this problem, its systemic.
Do the Democrats have a similar rule for selecting their own congressional leadership? If so, does it distinguish between someone who is indicted vs. convicted?
Do the Democrats have a similar rule for selecting their own congressional leadership? If so, does it distinguish between someone who is indicted vs. convicted?
What difference does whether the Democrats have a similar rule make regarding the lack of integrity of the Republicans?
Something about a pot and a kettle, I guess. But, I’ll take it from your response then, that the Democrats let anyone serve in a leadership position even if they have been convicted or indicted.
Seems to me to be only fair to allow someone who has been indicted to at least have a chance to clear their name in a trial before stripping them of any leadership position. After all, we have seen politically inspired indictments before that never resulted in conviction, haven’t we?
First, the Republicans adopted this rule when they wanted to use it against the then-majority Democrats. This was part of the Contract with America stuff that promised a change in behavior (ha). So now, when it appears that the rule could cause pain to the Republicans, they can it. And they do so at the request of a Texas Republican, who probably benefited from the sleazy (and possibly illegal) actions of DeLay in redistricting Texas, and they do it behind closed doors with a voice vote so there’s no record of who voted for it or against it.
Second, by bringing in the behavior of the Democrats (and I have no idea what their position is on indicted party leadership), you continue the laughable trait of so many Republicans: when challenged, compare yourself to something else. During the election campaign, I was amazed how many times the only defense of some Bush/Republican behavior was to compare it to Kerry, or Clinton, or Saddam Hussein (!). As if “I’m not bad, because he’s the same or worse!” is any kind of excuse.
For once, I’d like to see you staunch supporters show some integrity and admit when their idolized politicians do something wrong, rather than resort to what appears to my uneducated self as “moral relativism”.
The constitution should be amended to read: By the special interest led politicians for the special interests and to benefit the politicians when possible, if it helps our districts thats good ter and if it actually helps our constitutents well thats fine also.
Newt Gingrich was forced to resign because of this rule.
I am a republican but I agree that we are being two faced in changing the rule at this time. If you want to change the rule, change it, but don’t grandfather it to keep Delay in place.
The rule as it was written didn’t even mean he had to resign from congress just that he could not a leadership position(leader, whip, etc) in congress while indicted.
I am completely disillusioned in our “representatives.” From presidents getting hummers while talking on the phone to congressman who rant and rave about family values and then divorce their wives for younger, sexier women(okay, that one I can somewhat unerstand :)). Both sides are guilty of not living up to the standard for which they preach to their constituents but what do you expect from people who can vote themselves a pay raise and exempt themselves form the laws that they demand others follow(hiring, labor, osha, etc.)
Almost makes me want to join Sean Penn in Canada. Go Maple Leafs(well, maybe next year.)
Many Repblicans, including those who have posted on this thread, think DeLay is a scumbag. Hardly an “idolized politician”.
Yeah, chaging the rule is lame - I’m happy to admit. But what the Democratss do is relevant. If they never had a similar rule in the first place, then I guess the Republicans and Democratss are equally sleazy. Buit your point was to single out the Republicans right?
“when challenged, compare yourself to something else.” - Face it, when it comes to politics, everyone does that. Look back at the presidential election threads.
When Kerry was criticized, the** first** response was always that Bush was as bad or worse
When Bush was criticized, the** first** response was Elwood insulting the criticizer, and the second response was that Clinton was a bad or worse.
It may not be helpful, but neither political party can claim exemption from the “moral relatavism” that irritates you so much.
“It may not be helpful, but neither political party can claim exemption from the “moral relatavism” that irritates you so much.”
You have to remember the climate in which this rule (as Ken correctly points out was part of the Contract With America) was passed. It was just after the House Post Office scandal involving mostly Democrats and ultimately resulting in the demise of Foley and Rosty, as well as a bunch of other Democrats–and one or two Republicans.
I guess the difference is–Republicans tried to hold themselves to a higher standard and fell short. Democrats hold themselves to no standards. If you have no standards, you can’t fall short. In Ken’s mind, somehow this means Republicans are the bad guys, because it isn’t the standards or lack thereof that matters, all that matters is that you fell short.