So the GOP is now going to change its rules in the House that a party leader must step down if indicted.

"Welcome to the House of Representatives--please check your ethics at the door." Anyone care to defend the smarmy actions of Delay's cronies?

Gotta love that party of personal responsibility.

GOP... Goons On Patrol.

I guess the religious wackos will forgive anything he does and elect him as president in 2008.

I think this is going to be just the tip of the iceberg as it relates to sleeze that I think is going to happen more frequently now that the GOP is in firm control of everything. Its just a matter of time before there are ever more incidents like this that will occur.

Sorry guys, your queer bait goes unbitten here. Not all GOP Congressmen agree with this move to change the rules and you will see some spirited intra-party opposition to this and any similar moves, from both in and, as with me, out of Congress. It's by no means the slam-dunk some believe it to be.

whether this effort succeeds or not is totally immaterial. what is most telling is that the mindset of the republican party, at some level, would even allow this to be considered!

efforts of this sort expose those espousing it, to be utterly devoid of integrity! what were they sent to washington to do? protect the interests of the republican party? protect the interests of the existing power structure?

call me an idealist (you'd mean it as an insult; i'd consider it a compliment.), but these folks were sent to d.c. to represent the best interests of the people who voted for them. bending the rules of such a venerable institution as the house of representatives to accommodate those under indictment doesn't fall within the realm of "best interest of the people" in my book.

that this was even considered is, in itself, disgusting and very indicting.

The rules they're talking about changing were put in effect by the GOP when Newt and the gang took control of Congress, because they decided at the time they had to be held to a higher standard than the Democrats who were in charge previously. Now that one of their own is the sleazemeister, it's time to change the rules. How typical. Or in other words, "Oh, the hypocrisy!" eek!

[ November 17, 2004, 08:57 AM: Message edited by: Joe in Philly ]

Not sure what you mean by "queer bait" (although I have my ideas), but it's merely a link to factual story. Keep denying what your party is about, you might actually convince yourself one day.

You know exactly what I'm talking about KWG; you're no dummy. By your own words, you were looking to shame/embarrass/provoke/"bait" other GOPers here into defending DeLay. But because we know "what our party's about," and our role in defeating self-serving tactics like these, you'll get no argument here. Our energies remain directed elsewhere.

This is really shameful (shameless, maybe?) and strikes me as the moves of a group more intent on keeping power than in following established ethical standards. When will the electorate begin to hold such rascals accountable?

For anyone unclear about what their party is about, I encourage you to read the republican party platform.

I don't know the ins and outs of this particular brouhaha, but I do know this: The Dems are going after DeLay not out of some devotion to ethical purity but because they're terrified of the guy because he's tremendously effective at pushing Republican policies and crushing Democrats like the little bugs they are. If DeLay is smart, which he is, he sees all this hatred as a badge of honor. The GOP could go after Nancy Pelosi with little nitpicky ethical stuff like this if they gave a rat's ass about her or had the slightest sense of fear vis a vis what she can accomplish, but they actually like having her as the Democrat leader because she's such an ignorant slut. At any rate, much better to be feared than liked.

Gee William I thought you kept up with politics more than that. Each time he has been given his slaps on the wrist by the House Ethics Committee it has been unanimous, all Democrats and republicans voting to admonish. Must have slipped your mind.

[ November 17, 2004, 10:05 AM: Message edited by: RazorbackTX ]

Indeed. This rule change is reprehensible, but what is worse is the Texas district attorney who is going after Delay. He has been on a personal vendetta against many Texas Republicans for quite some time. In fact, he has attempted to indict many before, including Delay, but each time he has been unsuccessful, being rebuffed by grand juries in the past. I wouldn't doubt that eventually he'll shove some BS political indictment down their throats and get what he wants, that being not a conviction, but the political downfall of Delay (for whom I have little admiration anyway).

As usual our friends "on the right" never let facts get in their way. The district attorney that MIB (just popping in, Im not staying) speaks of is Ronnie Earl, who has prosecuted 12 Democratic officials and 4 Republican officials.

Wrong again MIB, as usual.

Target DeLay

Case Closed

Maybe for now William, but the guy is far from being "clean." Its not a quenstion of if, but when he slips up again.

Never one to let truth hit you on the side of the head, I guess. Earl's a Democratic crony long a puppet with a single goal--to bring down Delay.

Were turning the corner on Razor's partisanship, though, Bill. wink

Sorry, gm, it's a done deal.

Keep up the good fight, gm. It seems to be working.

Some propaganda from the National Review (Online) is supposed to answer *anything* involving Tom DeLay? William1865, come on now.... Seriously, I do think DeLay is a total crook and couldn't give a damn about the democratic process, but at the same time, I also agree that Bell's parting shot was just that. Can you perhaps find some other source that isn't as insistently right-wing and partisan?

sources aside, why do the republicans feel the need to change the rules? the articles paint this all as much ado about nothing, leaving delay to play the part of the innocent victim of some sort of hyperactive vigilante.

but we're (mostly)intelligent adults here and can appreciate that things are done for a reason. so what is the reason for changing the rules, if delay is so innocent? (and he is innocent until proven otherwise.) either the republicans aren't quite as convinced of his innocence as some here seem to be, or there's something wrotten in denmark and they know it.

or perhaps this is just a parliamentary exercise to show the incoming class how congress works. maybe!

Thanks MIB (or whoever you are today) for proving my point.

Earle scoreboard:

Democrats 12
repugs 4

Hello slam, meet dunk.
"Stay tunded"

The Good GOPers lost this round, not without a fight as some predicted, but the fight's hardly over and I'm staying in it. The barbs from the left only increase my stamina, so keep 'em comin', boys! :cool:

spirited? this, you call spirited? two dollar who*es don't roll over that fast!

again, why change the rules if he's innocent?

The proposed rule change was to eliminate the requirement for leaders to relinquish their posts after a felony indictment for non-federal indictments, but the rule that passed eliminated the requirement for ALL indictments, federal and non-federal.

The Republican Party: SOFT ON CRIME!

It didn't pass without a fight? From the Yahoo AP article: "(Rep. Henry) Bonilla said there was no vote count taken in the closed meeting but said the proposal passed overwhelmingly."

Doesn't sound like much of a fight took place.

[ November 17, 2004, 12:42 PM: Message edited by: Joe in Philly ]

gmg on the Titanic:

"NO, dont jump in those life boats, stay and fight, well "work from within" the ship, Ive got some thimbles, lets start bailing water!"

Stay tuned!

One of these articles is written for National Review Online by one of the ethics committee members (Feeney, I believe) Raze cites as some sort of authority on this whole "Tom DeLay is evil" thing. Surely you're not suggesting that he wrote a piece attacking DeLay and calling for his resignation, execution, whatever it is you guys think Republicans deserve, but the mean old right-wing partisans at National Review showed their bias by changing it. I really doubt that.

The other is an editorial from National Review, and alas I cannot find any other source for it except National Review, since National Review editorials run only, as far as I know, in National Review. (Keep in mind that on political matters, all media reports are biased somehow, unless the articles are written by robots with no beliefs, no feelings, no worldview, etcetcetc.)

I didn't know there were 12 Democrats left in Texas.

This may sound flip, but it's a genuine question. When was the last round y'all won?

The Lone Star State is turning the corner on Democrats, William. This must be driving Razor nuts--something I'd pay to see.

The GOP caucus in the House is becoming what they've criticized. Oh! The hypocrisy!

There's alot you dont know, and you prove that on a regular basis.

you are so very right. it all does have a certain 'animal farm' feel to it!

Wouldn't it make more sense to have the rule amended to force a leader to step aside if convicted of a felony, rather than just indicted? There is a presumption of innocence until proven guilty in these matters, isn't there?

I realize there are some ethical issues here, mainly that a party leader should be extra careful to avoid any appearance of impropriety. If that's followed, then a felony indictment on anything is highly unlikely. But still, indictments and the preceding investigations can be much ado about very little, in some cases.

I understand the concern that an opposing party could try to concoct some charges against a leader to force him/her out. That's why I think a conviction would be a much more appropriate standard for forcing someone to step down.

Ooh, good one, Raze. And it only took you, like 17 hours to come up with it.

Are you timing my posts now?
"Why are you so obsessed with me?"

Raze, I thought it was you who was stalking...

me and... mib/wm1865/veran../ump

you know, to our "red" states....

[ November 18, 2004, 10:50 AM: Message edited by: PhillyFan ]

No, PF, I am not stalking you, I know you wish I were...

Im too busy working within my red state to make it blue. Im hoping to have as much "success" as gmg has.

Raze man, I think you are going to do a bang up job working within TX. Seeing the whole ARK thing it makes sense. You house would be fairly mobile to latch onto the pickup.

However, since i'm assume you actually did attend college, if you have moved up to the big time double wide.. might be tough getting around the corners.

JQ, Last good guy GOP win? Well, there was Arlen Specter, and Chaffee from RI, if the President and Veep don't satisfy your collective tastes, not that they need to. See though, the whole problem with answering piecemeal individual quesitons like these is that the left always ups the ante. You know the drill, HRC's got it down pat: ask for equal rights, then push for marriage, to which no GOPer and very few Demos will agree. Marginalize your opposition. It's an old story.

But I digress. So much of the progress that's been made within the GOP on our issues hasn't been reported in the press, gay or mainstream. I have to make this point every 9 months or so, like a recurring pregnancy with delivery delayed. But good things come to those who wait. The progress on our issues is incremental, just like it was in the early days with the Demos, but it takes longer, because GOPers are more committed to principles than Demos are. As I've also said before, though (and gee, I HATE repeating myself!) when the progress in GOP ranks is made it's lasting, not lip service, as we've seen on DADT, DOMA and most recently, Don't Marry Me! Finally, whatever the critiques from the other side, their shrill nature alone is enough to convince me I'm in the right place. You see, I've been over there, and have done and put up with that, and will never go back to the likes of the left again. They're losers, whiners, paranoiacs and all things repugnant to me, as they demonstrate day after day on this board, just as they did when I lived among them.

LOL, on the circling of the trailers in TX, PF. The biggest one of them all stayed in AR, though - and they're opening it as Clinton's Museum to Himself today.

It took me all of about two minutes to figure the time thing out, Raze, which I suppose makes mine a very short-lived obsession.

gmg said
Republicans are more committed to principals that Dems. are.
Thats arguably debatable my friend. Like is the GOP more committed to the explosion in this country's national debt for example? I think so. I hear where Congress is going to have to vote..again, to raise the national debt ceiling to $8.18 trillion dollars.
Your party is the party of fiscal irresponsibility. But I guess nobody in the GOP seems to care much about this anymore.

Well, you know, gmg, the approach in Canada was not very different. And fifteen years ago, the gay rights situation in Canada was very similar to that in the blue states--sodomy laws were long gone, but most provinces did not have civil rights protections. Yet in Canada, the movement picked up steam, the military opened itself to gays even as the U.S. forged the DADT policy, a national civil rights law was passed. While the Massachusetts ruling provoked a backlash, an identical one in British Columbia resulted in a domino effect that has swept almos the entire country. The difference lies not in the approach of the left, but in the power and organization of the opposition, not to mention the very firm (however you wish to deny it) alignment of the federal Republican party with the religious right.

For a guy representing a party that is so big on taking responsibility for actions, why is it that you're so determined to blame the left for the failure of the gay rights movement?

And what's your evidence for this? Bush has made statements like \"not wanting to politicize sexual orientation\" while backing the FMA, which would ban civil unions as well as gay marriage. Though he had a late statement in favor of civil unions, he also said \"sodomy laws ought to be left up to the states\", and we know what he thought when he was in Texas. Sure sounds like lip service to me, if not downright dishonesty.

And in your final burst of hypocrisy:

Right, but of course we're the ones with the shrill rhetoric, demonizing our opponents, calling them bigots, etc. We need to learn to be more conciliatory, like your beloved Ann Coulter. Oh, she's a uniter all right--in the sense that Stalin was that she believes everybody who disagrees with her should be killed.

Puckman, I sometimes think it's the intent of the Republican party to bankrupt the country. Not only at the federal level, but at the state level as well, it's been shown that discretionary spending rises faster under Republican administrations than democratic ones, while taxes are lowered. Perhaps the plan is to get the country so deeply in debt that only extreme austerity measures will salvage it: the perfect excuse to abolish medicare, medicaid, welfare, social security, public education and all those other useless expenditures.

extremism in defense of liberty is no vice!

[ November 18, 2004, 01:51 PM: Message edited by: RazorbackTX ]

The fact that you have the gall to state this stereotype on this thread tells me all I need to know about your politics. Where are the House GOP's "committed principles" when it comes to Tom DeLay?

I'd like to hear more about that "incremental" progress made on "our" issues within the GOP you speak of. I'm just a dumb Dem, so spell it out for me, since the mainstream press hasn't picked it up. I'm counting on you to educate us.

I find the house GOPers voting to protect DeLay scummy, but not surprising. It further erodes Americans confidence in their politicians. It proves that the powerful are protected while the less powerful have to fend for themselves.

I try to condemn hypocrisy and general disgusting behavior wherever it is. There is not excuse for protecting DeLay-I hope this ends any chance that he will become house speaker, but I won't hold my breath.