A small price to pay...

[Bullypulpit]

<center><h2><a href=http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/1/2004/992>A long four years</a></h2></center>

<blockquote>November 17, 2004

AUSTIN, Texas -- My, my, gonna be a long four years. House Republicans have rewritten the ethics rules so Tom DeLay won't have to resign if indicted after all. Let's hear it for moral values. DeLay is one of the leading forces in making "Republican ethics" into an oxymoron.

The rule was passed in 1993, when Rep. Dan Rostenkowski, chairman of the powerful Ways and Means Committee, was being investigated for ethics violations. And who helped lead the floor fight to force him to resign his powerful position? Why, Tom DeLay, of course. (Actually, it's sort of a funny story. The D's already had a caucus rule that you had to resign from any leadership position if indicted. The R's changed their rules to match the D's, except they deliberately did not make their rule retroactive, so the highly indicted Rep. Joseph McDade, senior Republican on the House Appropriations Committee, could, unlike Rostenkowski, retain his seat.)

DeLay has already been admonished by the House ethics committee three times on separate violations of ethics rules. Please note, that is the Republican-dominated ethics committee. The hilarious rationale offered by the R's for the new rule to exempt DeLay is that no one can accuse them of taking the moral low road here because, "That line of reasoning accepts that exercise of the prosecutor in Texas is legitimate."

Uh, that would Ronnie Earle of Austin, who is a known Democrat. One the other hand, Earle is quite noted for having indicted more Democratic officeholders than Republicans, so it's a little hard to argue that this is a partisan political probe. Or it would be, if facts made any difference these days to talk-show screamers. - <i>Molly Ivins</i></blockquote>

Yep...A long four years indeed. And you gotta love the unmitigated gall of the House Reichpublicans for their dazzling display of ethical and moral behavior. Hypocrisy never entered into the conversation or the equation.

It's beginning to look more and more like one party rule in the next Congress. Of course, Tom DeLay might be incovenienced, what with having to attend sessions of Congress in an orange jump-suit and wearing shackles and leg-irons. But hey, its a smalee price to pay for bringing ethics and vaues back to Congress.

 

[Mr. P]

I really missed this somehow..
What was Ole Tom convicted of, Bully?

 

[GWBfan]

YAWWWWNNNsourgrapesYAWWWWNNNNNN..

 

[5stringJeff]

The charges against Tom DeLay are pretty pathetic, to say the least. I seriously doubt he will ever be convicted of any wrongdoing.

 

[Merlin1047]

<center><h2><a href=http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/1/2004/992>A long four years

You gotta quit hanging out on that free press site. That shit will rot your brain - or make you go blind. I forget which.

 

[Mariner]

when you take liberals to task you pull out every moral value in the book and slap them with it. Here's one of the most unbelievable displays of hypocrisy in the history of modern politics are you're going to yawn? That suggests you don't actually have morals--you have an agenda, and use moral righteousness to justify it when convenient.

Any moral Republican should be arguing for canning DeLay.

Mariner.

 

[Merlin1047]

when you take liberals to task you pull out every moral value in the book and slap them with it. Here's one of the most unbelievable displays of hypocrisy in the history of modern politics are you're going to yawn? That suggests you don't actually have morals--you have an agenda, and use moral righteousness to justify it when convenient.

Any moral Republican should be arguing for canning DeLay.

Mariner.

This post is a perfect example why I don't place much stock in the opinions of most lefties.

"one of the most unbelievable displays of hypocrisy in the history of modern politics"? Really? You don't think that you're engaging in just a teeny bit of hyperbole here? Or could it be that in your view that when a Repub is SUSPECTED of having his finger in the cookie jar, you view that as being of the same magnitude as when a Demo drowns his date?

"That suggests you don't actually have morals--you have an agenda, and use moral righteousness to justify it when convenient." Well there's another leap of logic. Buster, if bullshit were an art form, you'd be Picasso.

"Any moral Republican should be arguing for canning DeLay." Perhaps. But any REASONABLE Republican would wait until all the facts are in before deciding what to do. But you probably wouldn't understand that concept since libs tend to jump on anything - the Bush AWOL "documents" prove that.