A challenge for the partisan Republicans

Post by **SonomaCat** » Wed Nov 17, 2004 2:19 pm

Will somebody please try to justify/rationalize this one for me?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,138845,00.html

For all of the rancor about making sure that felons didn't vote, and the years of investigations and hearings on Clinton (to try to get him out of office), how is it not mindblowing that they are changing the rules of the House in order to allow a convict (I know he hasn't been convicted yet, but that's the rule that's being changed) sit as a head of a committee?

Is there no shame at all in politics? Is this really the same body of government that spent so much time and effort impeaching Clinton?

Note -- it was much harder to find this story on Foxnews.com than any other news website. Interesting editorial decision.

velochat · Post by **velochat** » Wed Nov 17, 2004 2:23 pm

I'm surprised it was mentioned on Fox News at all. Gotta love The Hammer! Corruption? Me?

'93HonoluluCat · Post by **'93HonoluluCat** » Wed Nov 17, 2004 3:46 pm

It may be the party with which I agree most, but I deplore this decision.

El_Gato · Post by **El_Gato** » Wed Nov 17, 2004 4:50 pm

I'm sorry; refresh my memory here. Wasn't our former Democratic President actually CONVICTED of perjury while he was in office? I'm sure bay & velo had no problem with THAT, so why all the fuss now?

I'm sorry, I don't like this DeLay situation much either, but I do see the point of the possible political "neutering" of a parties leadership if this kind of thing proved successful in removing someone from an important position. I think the Repubs would have been wiser to wait and see if he's actually convicted of anything before they made this kind of decision. It would look bad then, too, but I think it looks worse now.

I really haven't heard the "low-down" on what DeLay is being accused of; what I've seen has been pretty vague. Can anyone guide me to a link of the "guts" of the accusations against him?

Post by **SonomaCat** » Wed Nov 17, 2004 5:02 pm

El_Gato wrote:I'm sorry; refresh my memory here. Wasn't our former Democratic President actually CONVICTED of perjury while he was in office? I'm sure bay & velo had no problem with THAT, so why all the fuss now?

I'm sorry, I don't like this DeLay situation much either, but I do see the point of the possible political "neutering" of a parties leadership if this kind of thing proved successful in removing someone from an important position. I think the Repubs would have been wiser to wait and see if he's actually convicted of anything before they made this kind of decision. It would look bad then, too, but I think it looks worse now.

I really haven't heard the "low-down" on what DeLay is being accused of; what I've seen has been pretty vague. Can anyone guide me to a link of the "guts" of the accusations against him?

It's interesting that your immediate reaction is to talk about Clinton (which is a favorite diversion tactic from the talk shows I listen to too often). For the record, I had no problem with Clinton being convicted -- I thought he should have been and I think he really messed up. That's the beauty of not picking a party and defending it to the end (I vote more for Republicans than Democrats, actually) and point to absurdities in both parties.

However, in reality, Clinton has nothing to do with this situation, except in terms of the hypocrisy on the part of the House in making this move. Regardless of whether DeLay is indicted and convicted or not, it shows that they really don't give a rat's ass about the dignity of any office as long as it is their guy that is getting a free pass. That's just wrong and a horrible message for them to be sending to the country.

We need some gridlock -- this is what happens when one party has too much power.

BobCatFan · Post by **BobCatFan** » Wed Nov 17, 2004 8:36 pm

It's interesting that your immediate reaction is to talk about Clinton (which is a favorite diversion tactic from the talk shows I listen to too often). For the record, I had no problem with Clinton being convicted -- I thought he should have been and I think he really messed up. That's the beauty of not picking a party and defending it to the end (I vote more for Republicans than Democrats, actually) and point to absurdities in both parties.

However, in reality, Clinton has nothing to do with this situation, except in terms of the hypocrisy on the part of the House in making this move. Regardless of whether DeLay is indicted and convicted or not, it shows that they really don't give a rat's ass about the dignity of any office as long as it is their guy that is getting a free pass. That's just wrong and a horrible message for them to be sending to the country.

We need some gridlock -- this is what happens when one party has too much power.[/quote]

You were the one who brought up Clinton.

'93HonoluluCat · Post by **'93HonoluluCat** » Wed Nov 17, 2004 8:45 pm

BCF wrote:
BAC wrote:
It's interesting that your immediate reaction is to talk about Clinton (which is a favorite diversion tactic from the talk shows I listen to too often). For the record, I had no problem with Clinton being convicted -- I thought he should have been and I think he really messed up. That's the beauty of not picking a party and defending it to the end (I vote more for Republicans than Democrats, actually) and point to absurdities in both parties.

However, in reality, Clinton has nothing to do with this situation, except in terms of the hypocrisy on the part of the House in making this move. Regardless of whether DeLay is indicted and convicted or not, it shows that they really don't give a rat's ass about the dignity of any office as long as it is their guy that is getting a free pass. That's just wrong and a horrible message for them to be sending to the country.

We need some gridlock -- this is what happens when one party has too much power.

You were the one who brought up Clinton.

BAC, BCF does have a point here.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Wed Nov 17, 2004 11:30 pm

'93HonoluluCat wrote:
BCF wrote:
BAC wrote:
It's interesting that your immediate reaction is to talk about Clinton (which is a favorite diversion tactic from the talk shows I listen to too often). For the record, I had no problem with Clinton being convicted -- I thought he should have been and I think he really messed up. That's the beauty of not picking a party and defending it to the end (I vote more for Republicans than Democrats, actually) and point to absurdities in both parties.

However, in reality, Clinton has nothing to do with this situation, except in terms of the hypocrisy on the part of the House in making this move. Regardless of whether DeLay is indicted and convicted or not, it shows that they really don't give a rat's ass about the dignity of any office as long as it is their guy that is getting a free pass. That's just wrong and a horrible message for them to be sending to the country.

We need some gridlock -- this is what happens when one party has too much power.

You were the one who brought up Clinton.
BAC, BCF does have a point here.

I did bring up Clinton first in a completely different context, and I addressed the context in which I brought it up a couple times already. The only way in which Clinton was relevant to this discussion was because this was the same body that spent so much time, effort and money impeaching him. They then turn around and proactively change the rules so one of their own can break the law and not suffer any loss of power. That hypocrisy is the only point upon which any mention of Clinton seems vaugely relevant.

To bring up the point of "Well, Clinton broke the law too" is nothing more than the same old tired partisan idea that as long as you can say "well, the other guys are even worse than us, so our f-ups don't count" instead of both sides taking responsibility for the own f-ups and aspiring to do the right thing -- not just the thing that promotes their own power.

So the only point that BCF really has is that he was more concerned with trying to score literal "gotcha" points and less concerned with the actual content and logic of the discussion.

'93HonoluluCat · Post by **'93HonoluluCat** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 2:21 pm

Based on everything I've heard and read about this grand jury investigation, I suspect that it has a partisan motive. The grand jury is being run by an Austin, Texas-based DA who is a Democrat. Texas Democrats are incredibly mad at Delay for his role in the redistricting of the Texas congressional map, which generated 4 new GOP seats. The DA may well be out to give a little payback.

Even if that's what's going on, however, it doesn't justify such a blatantly partisan response by the GOP. The rule that would be changed was adopted by the House GOP in response to Democrat Congressman Dan Rostenkowski's refusal to step down from his leadership post after he was indicted. It was supposed to be a blow against the old Congressional power structure and a blow for better ethics in government. To undo the rule now to benefit Delay is unseemly--indeed, hypocritical. The House GOP caucus should require Delay to step down if he is indicted and let the judicial process vindicate Delay (assuming this really is just a partisan witch hunt) or find him guilty (if otherwise).

El_Gato · Post by **El_Gato** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 9:24 am

Just to make it clear: I don't like what the Republicans did either.

I'm NOT a Republican. I'm a conservative and there are precious few of us anywhere these days...