House to Change Moral Clause for De Lay

[rmcrobertson]

Turns out that Tom De Lay, House majority leader just re-elected, is in a passel of legal trouble back home in Texas. His gerrymandering/contribution soliciting has led to the indictments of three close associates, and the supposition is that he's next.

The issue is this: there's a House/Senate set of rules that members may not hold such positions as majority leader while under indictment. In advance, the Republicans are plannbing to change that rule so he can continue to serve.

One was wondering what those who associate morality and decency with Republicanism might have to say about the ethics of this.

 

[Cruentus]

The only thing I have to say is: the moral majority.... isn't. :wink:

 

[Xequat]

Robert, I don't think you'll see many people associate morality with either political party on this forum. I certainly don't. But I consider myself a moderate and vote for more Republicans than Democrats (but not all Reps) and I am a little disgusted by this action, but not surprised. I tend to vote for issues more than individuals which is why I'm glad Clinton beat Dole. Clinton had no honor, but the Clinton years were pretty good. Anyway, it's political convenience, like changing the rule that foreigners can run for President because you happen to control the Congress at the time and happen to have one in your party who would have a good shot at winning. Kind of reckless since if it were a Democrat in De Lay's position, the Reps would be all over him/her, quoting the rule book. By the way, I hadn't heard about this issue...been out of touch for a while with work and being sick, so thanks for the info.

Similar example in Cincinnati involving Hamilton County Prosecutor Mike Allen. He had a sex scandal going on, but the rules say that sex with coworkers or subordinates is against the rules, but since he was the man in charge, there was nobody to force him to resign. So did he do it on his own? Kinda of, but not immediately...he finished his term and decided not to run again and left it up to write-in candidates.

That's it, I'm taking over the world.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Turns out that Tom De Lay, House majority leader just re-elected, is in a passel of legal trouble back home in Texas. His gerrymandering/contribution soliciting has led to the indictments of three close associates, and the supposition is that he's next.

The issue is this: there's a House/Senate set of rules that members may not hold such positions as majority leader while under indictment. In advance, the Republicans are plannbing to change that rule so he can continue to serve.

One was wondering what those who associate morality and decency with Republicanism might have to say about the ethics of this.

On a less than serious note:

Well, if those Replublicans that change it are Catholics they can go to confession and confess their sins.

If they are in some other Christian religion they can ask for forgiveness
themselves.

If they are non religious then I guess they are doing what they think is best for themselves and the their next campaign, to be able to obtain as much money as possible.



On a serious note:

I think this would suck. I think it shows a prime example of who they claim Morals and Values only to get people afraid, and to not address real issues, Yet, then again I have been wrong before, and I could be in for a visit from those Moral authorities who do not like my attitude.

Peace
:asian:

 

[Ping898]

Well they changed it for themselves, surprise, surprise....

House Republicans approved a party rules change Wednesday that could allow Majority leader Tom DeLay to retain his leadership post if he is indicted by a Texas grand jury on state political corruption charges.
By a voice vote, and with a handful of lawmakers voicing opposition, the House Republican Conference decided that a party committee of several dozen members would review any felony indictment of a party leader and recommend at that time whether the leader should step aside.

Here's the new rule:
Rep. Henry Bonilla, R-Texas, said that under the change embraced Wednesday, the House Republican Steering Committee would have 30 legislative days to review a felony indictment and recommend to all House Republicans whether a lawmaker who is charged could remain as a committee chairman or leader.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Congress changing the rules so that they favor them over us?

I'm shocked. I mean, that has never happened before.

Wow.

 

[Xequat]

Trying to look at it from the Congress' perspective...maybe they could argue that the rule should only apply to convictions, not just indictments, but they haven't had reason to change it until now? I could maybe accept that. It's all I can come up with.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Absolutely. This has nothing whatsoever to do with a Bible-thumping ideologue who's become notorious for selling his constituents out to corporations attempting to weasel out of the consequences of getting caught with both hands in the cookie jar. Nor has it anything to do with political power. And oh yes, it is in no way connected to Republican arrogance and bullying.

Not at all.

 

[Xequat]

I kind of agree with you, Robert; just trying to look at it from a different perspective.

 

[michaeledward]

We asked for this. This is the government that 51% of the voting citizens endorsed. A 51% majority earns us an 80% ideology of rule.

My hope is that the democrats fight poorly, and the country gets the leadership it voted for, which, I hope, will create a backlash.

Thread Gank!

I don't know who saw the opening of Monday Night Football the other night (I didn't) but, I don't think there is anything particularly wrong with the Terrell Owens clip. But, apparently, some of those who voted on Moral Values didn't like to see a sweet little naked white girl jumping into the arms of a big strong strapping black man. Catch it a www.ifilm.com

 

[RandomPhantom700]

I'm hoping that the democrats actually put up a fight so that the potential for rights violations and loss of civil liberties won't be quite as harsh. If there wasn't a backlash after the 2000 term, I think it'd take nothing short of Bush literally crowning himself King of America to get any real response from the public.

 

[Phoenix44]

Well, that's their "values."