Perhaps I was not clear. I'm not talking about individual politicians who don't represent the worst the Republican party has to offer winning local elections. I'm talking about the "good guys" you mentioned losing this particular battle within the Republican party. When was the last time they won one of these intraparty squabbles? When was the last time the moderate, the ethical and the rational beat the Religious Right in the Republican party? If the only answer you can come up with is the fact that Arlen Spector will probably become the chair of the Judiciary Committee after kowtowing in an terribly undignified manner to the Religious Right, you've proved that there are no meaningful victories in the Republican party for moderates.

....and Specter was supported in his re-election bid by GB-against a much more conservative opponent. Specter did not kowtow during that campaign. Shows you that GB choose a moderate over a very conservative candidate to improve the GOP chances of winning the general election.

From what I have read, and I may not have read enough on this issue, Specter should have kept his mouth shut. While speaking pretty much common sense, you don't say things like that in public and embarass the leader of your party who campaigned hard for you to win. I don't have a problem with Specter saying that in private to GB.

This "moderate" admitted in the primary that in 2003 he voted with Bush 89 percent of the time.

I don't like the rule change at this time - it looks self-serving. But Presidents, Clinton as an example aren't forced to step down even when impeached so why should Delay have to step down when he hasn't been proven guilty. BUT - I think this was a flawed policy in the first place. ... As Copman always says "Everyone is innocent until proven guilty!"

[ November 18, 2004, 08:12 PM: Message edited by: copman ]

The rule stated that he had to step down from the leadership position, not his house seat. That would be the analogous situation with impeachment.

[ November 18, 2004, 09:06 PM: Message edited by: jqueer ]

Also, according to the Constitution, I believe DeLay cannot even be arrested for *anything*, as part of his Congressional privileges, unless convicted of treason, a felony, or advocating war against the U.S.A. Treason and the war bit ain't at issue.

I think only the Senate could impeach him, which with 55 most conservative GOPers is VERY unlikely; and it would require 2/3rds of the House to expel him, though if ditched he could be re-elected to the House at if he were not impeached by the Senate. Since Democrats don't control 2/3rds of the House, and since not even 100% of the Democrats would vote to expel DeLay despite his Texas redistricting shenanigans, he keeps his throne so long as he doesn't earn a felony conviction.

But a question: what is the penalty for having involved the Department of Homeland Security in hunting down those fugitive Texas Democratic legislators?

Between Der Fuhrer and Gov Goodhair, not a damn thing.

So according to these new rules, Scott Peterson could qualify to be Majority Leader, right :confused:

Yes, as long as he's a Republican.

He can also get married as many times as he wants.

He could be arrested for the activities of which he is accused, FT. The privilege from arrest refers to very specific acts committed in the act of doing one's congressional duties, as well as traveling to/from such acts. This is one reason, for example, a senator or congressman cannot be arrested or sued for saying outrageous or even slanderous things on the floor of the senate/house.

Members of the House and Senate aren't impeached by themselves. The Senate has no say in whether a House member is expelled, and the House has no say in whether a Senator is expelled. The Constitution gives to each respective house of Congress its own set of rules for determining seatability and expulsion. The House could expel Delay by a simple 2/3 vote of that body.

Uh, just an FYI--the debt ceiling has been raised every year, including during the years we had surplusses.

House Ethics Panel Chief May Be Replaced

Nothing like protecting your own, eh? If this isn't a conflict of interest and a blatant slap in the face to impartiality, I don't know what is.

No wonder why so many people are cynical of politicians. It doesn't matter which party is there; they only are interested in themselves, the selfish bastards. They sure talk a good game, though. :mad:

From the article:

Well, it seems like House Republicans have felt some heat on this, as Monday they changed their minds and reinstated the old rules about having DeLay step down if indicted. Sadly, though, they didn't reinstate the old rule about an ethics committee vote, but at least they negated their original actions.

Obviously, they recognized that they were in over their heads trying to protect ole 'Bug-killer' Delay. Was it really this corrupt when the Dems had complete control over both houses?

At this point in time, I can honestly say that I consider myself an "independent," as I think the Dems have lost the rudder to the ship of fools they are sailing on right now. They should have won the White House back - will they get their chit together in time to try to take back at least one house of Congress?

Yes, it was. frown

First they're for ethics...
Then against them...
Then for them...

Sounds flippy floppy to me.

Was it? I don't think the Senate under the Democrats was as corrupt as the Democratic House, which really flowered in incompetence and arrogance in the late 1980s, before the Democrats lost control and Gingrich took over and set to screwing things up himself. DeLay appears to be in a league by himself, though, and is far more venal and vicious than Jim Wright (he was the one who was toppled, right?).

On the whole, the current GOP Senate isn't as corrupt as the current GOP house, which may be the result of the two bodies' differing organizational structures and procedural systems. I do think the current GOP makeup in the Senate though is one of the scariest we've ever had; say what you will about those earlier generations of Democrats and Republicans, including the truly kooky ones, but this current GOP crowd, particularly the rabid nutcases like Tom Coburn, Jim DeMint, James Inhofe, and Mel Martinez, are in a league of their own. The Democrats, unfortunately, have only Mark Dayton to list among the mental patients.

[ January 04, 2005, 02:07 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

FT, I agree that the Senate tends to be and was, during the periods addressed here, less corrupt than the House. But that doesn't mean the Democrats' majority Congresses were any less corrupt than some see the GOPs' as now. Consider the Congressional post office/check kiting scam.

The issue of nutcases is another question, and to your list of lost causes, I would add Santorum to round out the Startling Five. Surely you can come up with more than one on the Democratic side, though; may I suggest Barbara Boxer and Hillary Clinton? The former is an open and obvious adverse possessor to Senatorial stature, having ridden and remained there courtesy of the California-emitted vehicle of Republican candidates who win primary but not general races. The latter is as cold and calculating a conniver as you'll find anywhere, and is, I believe, a dangerous and megalomaniacal sociopath who will eventually and publicly self-destruct when she finally realizes that the majority of Americans will - thankfully - never trust her.

#1 Santorum - Is this the same Rick Santorum that
was prominently displayed on Log Cabins web site a couple of years ago? The same Rick Santorum that Rich Tafel was all cuddled up with?

#2 Boxer - Hey, why dont you run against her, maybe you'll do as well as you did against Pelosi.

#3 Hillary - "A dangerous and megalomaniacal sociopath?" Not a very nice thing to say about the most admired woman in America. Why do you hate America?

So guess what the Repugs, are now up to? They are going to try to throw their arrogant weight around even more and change the rules once more so that the Dems. will not be able to fillibuster, especially as it relates to Shrub Supreme Court nominees!! Unbelievable....I first read about this 2 weeks ago in an Arianna Huffington column in the "Pacific Northwest Inlander" my weekly paper here.But it was confirmed and verified by an article in the Spokesman-Review this morning. This calls for national Democratic response/strategy or something. :mad:

The same Rick Santorum, who when his wife had a stillborn child, brought it home so that the rest of the children could "say good bye"?

(shudder)

Yes, yes, some folks were just born to be disagreeable; there's no explaining them, just ignoring them and their gratuitous remarks.

As far as the so-called "nuclear option" on judicial appointments to which Puckman only now refers, it's hardly the done deal he suggests, even though it's been talked about for far longer than he's apparently aware of. This article spells out exactly what's involved and why I'd support the GOP's using it if necessary to bring VOTES on judicial nominees to the floor and out of committee if necessary. Vote 'em up or down, but at least have the balls to allow a vote instead of relegating them to procedural limbo, as the Demos have done to date.

Why shouldn't the Democrats "relegate" as you say. Like if the shoe wasn't on the other foot and the Repugs. wouldn't be doing the same thing??? Oh, the hypocrisy!! Memo to Repugs.: don't nominate far right idealogues like currently occupy the White House, and you may have an easier time getting them through the system!

I must agree with Puck, the GOP office holders are completely moronic if they think we have forgotten their own strategies to hold up Clinton era nominees - politics is such a slimy way to earn a living ( I don't but the "public service to my country" BS anymore - if ya love the USA so much, how about doing it for FREE??)

Unfortunately, the GOP's John McCain is in the minority of republican office holders with sense and class.

:cool:

PM, two problems with your suggestion. First, there is no historical counterpart for the GOP's doing the same on judges; to suppose that one evil was preceded by - or necessarily follows - another is erroneous. Second, to adopt your "file and forget" approach to democracy would deny its workability. Is that what you favor???

No, let them be voted on and win or lose as they will. Maybe a few losses will indeed convince the hard rightists that they need to submit more open-minded judges for confirmation. To disallow votes will simply confirm them in their intolerance and teach them nothing.

That is assuming that they would lose any. Frist et all would be working overtime to pressure people to vote yes. And they'd only need to lose 4 votes and it would still succeed.

Given what happened last year with the budget process, where the GOP committee chair cut off any extra funding for areas that didn't support his line 100%, the same tactic, or an even slimier one would be used this time. And even John McCain would fold.

I only see one thing. If they manage to get the nucular option through, and get the extremists such as Priscilla Owens in, this will only reflect back on the GOP.

And when the Dems get the senate and w/h back, you KNOW it's gonna be payback time. The Dems will be sure to live within the rules that the GOP set.

Maybe Ted Kennedy as a Supreme Court Justice?

Lksimcoe: there you go!!!! wink

"Now, there you go again."* THAT will be a long time a-coming - if ever - and The Sage of Chappaquidick will be long gone by then.

But to return to the title of this thread, the majority opinion here seems to be that the GOP is "damned if it does, and damned if it doesn't" change the ethics rules, even though it's pretty clear at this point that it's not going to and, on the "nuclear option," is not at all clear whether it's going to. Sounds pretty unforgiving and intolerant to me on the former, and just plain speculative on the latter. Why not address some more definite issues? Oops, there are none; this thread's run its course with the no-change change that never occurred. Moderator?
_____
*RReagan.

You mean like when the Democrats and Robert Byrd changed the rules 4 times to get votes they needed on things? It's OK for Byrd to do it, but when the Republicans simply want to bring a vote to the floor, it's somehow deemed wrong by you?

Oh! The hypocrisy!

BTW, there is a standing agreement put in place by the Senate, when Democrats were in control, that stipulates Supreme Court nominees shall receive a floor vote regardless of any decision in the Judiciary Committee. Now Democrats, led by their archextremist left-wing loons, want to filibuster said nominees.

Oh! The hypocrisy II!

Point of fact to you both: The Republicans never filibustered an appellate court nominee. Such action was unprecedented until the Democrats did it numerous times, after saying they wouldn't do that, the liars.

Another point of fact: Republicans have never used the "go nuclear" option for anything like this before. The Democrats have done it several times while in the majority. The GOP, stupid as it is, was always afraid of using it because they feared it would be used against them when they were in the minority in the future. What a wimpish attitude. And they wonder why their party is as useful as tits on a bull.

This ridiculous label of "extremist" nominee really only has one point to it: abortion. You can bitch and moan and throw insults all you want, but this whole thing is about abortion, and every damn person alive knows it. If these judges were as extreme as you and the left-wing nutjobs claim, they would never have been confirmed to the federal bench in the first place!

[ January 05, 2005, 03:01 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]

Will Delay get in trouble for this?

No, nothing there. It'd be an awful stretch to criticize him for "insensitivity" too, since the references don't have that much in common with the tsunami.

Besides, "blood is thicker than water."

another example of compassionate conservatism!

[ January 06, 2005, 08:08 AM: Message edited by: thersis ]

More ethics trouble for Delay.

Is anybody surprised that this slimeball is up to his eyes in it again? Maybe he'll call out the Dep't of Homeland Security to clean up this mess for him?

I'm not and I hope he and his lawyer friend get prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But let's not hear anything out of Pelosi on this. During her 2002 Congressional campaign, she violated FEC rules by running two PACS at once until caught doing so. I'd like to see the House Ethics Comm. investigate and prosecute DeLay, which is not as farfetched an idea as some may think. Hubris has a way of bringing out the worst in people, and it invariably opens them up to attack by rivals in their own camps. With this guy, it's just a matter of time.

Republicans begin to question Delay.

Might this be the beginning of the end? Delay is a pompous, arrogant egomaniac . . .even for a Republican.

Same thing; another link.

DeLay Ethics Allegations Now Cause of GOP Concern

Just because I'm in a pugnacious mood, gmginsfo, you never answered this question. Are we to assume there aren't any?

Oh, KeyWest Guy, I don't think gmginsfo really even needs to answer that question. The lack of moderate voices in the Republican party is its demise. Even the dim-witted voters will be able to figure this one out, after Bush declares war on a few more nations, after he completely screws up Social Security, and after the dim-wits realize their great-grandchildren are going to be paying for these wars and other idiot Republican actions, the tide will turn on the Republicans. I can hardly wait for 2008.

Oops, I meant to direct that last post to jqueer. My bad, sorry jqueer.

No, JQ, I already answered your question 4 (friggin') months ago and if you don't like it, "live with it." Isn't that what being pugnacious - however slow you are in throwing the second punch - is all about?

MB, the moderate voices are there, but they're just not being heard above the din right now. That's no reason not to raise them though, and reason less to ignore them when they are raised.

[ March 15, 2005, 11:25 AM: Message edited by: gmginsfo ]

If a fag speaks out in the GOP forest and there's no one to hear it, does he really make a sound?

LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Would you please point out the post that contains the answer? I'm not seeing it, but I've missed this sort of thing before. Again, the question we're talking about was a follow up to the question I did see an answer for. When the radical right and the moderate center of the Republican party have been at odds, what victories can you point to for the moderate center?

Oops - "debate" over. Punch below the belt by KWG, for improper and offensive use of "fag." Delay and scorekeeping errors charged to JQ. And no more tuba players in the ring!

Dude, it's not like I've ever emptied my spit valve on your foot. I save that for Sebastian the Stork. wink

Don't start all that up again. . .

It's your threat to trash my car that worries me!

[ March 15, 2005, 02:17 PM: Message edited by: gmginsfo ]