Ethical Schmethical.
Rallying around their embattled leader, House Republicans yesterday moved to change the House rules to allow Tom (the rules do not apply to me) DeLay to continue on as Leader even if he’s indicted:
The conservative Texas Republican was reconfirmed to his post by House GOP members Tuesday without objection, despite an ongoing criminal investigation into his political activities by Travis County, Texas, District Attorney Ronnie Earle that so far has led to the indictment of three of DeLay’s political associates.
DeLay has denied any wrongdoing in the matter.
Under existing House rules, DeLay or any GOP leader would be required to automatically leave a leadership position if indicted on charges that carry a sentence of two or more years in prison.
But a proposal made Tuesday by Rep. Henry Bonilla, R-Texas, would protect party leaders from having to automatically leave their post if indicted on state-level charges. Bonilla’s proposal would leave the rule in place solely for federal charges while still allowing a member to be removed from a leadership post by the conference.
As Wonkette notes
"Naked hypocrisy, opportunism, corruption at the highest levels, blah blah blah." We don’t understand what the problem is. In fact, we think he should be able to serve from prison. Works for drug lords, right?
Waiter! Check please! Balance please! Will someone throw us a friggin’ bone here?
Welcome to the new world order, part 2
And where are the democratic leaders on this? They should be all over this.
Bueller…Bueller…
I hate to say this, but he may have a point. After all, Texas has quite a record of convicting innocent people.
(Though not according to George W. Bush. Perhaps Bush ought to be pushing for DeLay to stand down. Yeah, right.)
And where are the democratic leaders on this?
You mean Nancy (Spineless) Pelosi?
Don’t expect the Dems to holler that much about a rule change they’ll expect to take advantage themselves one day.
oops
html-challenged workers Unite!
Geez, Edward, he’s denied any wrongdoing in the matter, whaddaya want?
More seriously, I don’t see why an indictment should have been considered sufficent cause to force a resignation in the first place. The whole Caesar’s wife thing breaks as soon as you start legislating it, and violates presumption of innocence. (just ask a West Point plebe 😉 I do have to say that my idea of a healthy organization is one that would take a cold hard look at whether the leader in question is able to effectively perform their duties while under indictment, but not being a Republican I guess I’m not crushed by the idea that my party leadership might not be effective leaders.
On the matter of whether what’s sauce for the Democratic goose should be sauce for the Republican gander, well… “hypocrisy, opportunism, corruption at the highest levels, blah blah blah.”
Ack. Everything else I wrote (and subsequently deleted) was pathetically insufficient, so allow this to stand as a placeholder for my unhappiness.
I am Jack’s raging bile duct.
Frankly, I don’t see what is so special about DeLay that Republicans should bother to try to keep him as speaker.
Sebastian, you forget: Monsieur DeLay is the Federal Government.
More seriously, I don’t see why an indictment should have been considered sufficent cause to force a resignation in the first place.
I believe the rule was a partisan move by the Republicans back when either Rostenkowski or Wright was under investigation — I don’t remember which.
It was Rostenkowski.
In Colorado, where Democrats won both houses of the State Legislature for the first time in 40 years, Dem head Ken Gordon has offered Republicans vice-chairmanships of Senate committees, unprecedented in Colorado history.
Some Dems are very wary, citing the behavior of Republican majorities over the past 10 years or so, from ideological bludgeoning to petty perk eye-poking. Not too much Republican reaction yet, except for lauding Gordon as courageous (said the wolf dressed in wolves’ clothing as he ate Little Red Riding Hood courageously walking through the woods alone).
This should be the national model for Dem leadership going forward. It will provide stark relief to the bloodbath erupting in Washington. Plus it’s the bipartisan right think to do.
I hope it works. Colorado Republicans should take the proffered hand.
But here’s my opinion. If they spit on the hand, it’s time for the nuclear or nucular option on the part of the Democrats. Which they may choose anyway, given the lines perhaps irretrievably crossed in recent years.
Nucular or nuclear: it will be grating and the half-life of the resulting contamination will be some version of permanent in dog years.
Actually now that I read Slart’s rather pithier comment I realize that I’m also more pissed than I thought.
The problem is not just that certain pols are flaming hypocrites, it’s that this shows how little genuine leadership there is on either side of the aisle.
I guess my offhand comment about plebes is what I was really getting at. Honor codes really do make for more effective leaders, and duplicity and secrecy really do make for less effective ones. The whole point of “honor codes” is to help you with the process of internalizing the views not only of people who have explicit authority over you, but also of your peers; of people you admire but who have no power over you; perhaps most importantly of people over whom you have or will someday have authority. The people for whom you agree to take responsibility are the ones from whom your legitimacy ultimately emanates. Or not. Those are the people who lend you the authority you need, as a leader, to do what needs done.
From a purely practical point of view, your “conscience” is just the sum of these internalized voices, blended together into a single voice that you can (sometimes) actually understand. If you can’t hear that voice all the power and confidence in the world can’t make you a good leader.
And what really gets me is that we’ve all become such boiled frogs that we just take it in stride. Hypocrisy is fine. Really. I’m not in a position to cast stones. But hypocrites can’t be leaders, and people who don’t stand up for their followers can’t be leaders, and I see nothing but rankest hypocrisy and self-absorbed capitulation in this case.
I’m truly more and more disgusted the more I think about it. Perhaps I will dash off a note to my rep (a Dem as it happens) and remind him that if he resigns in protest right now, what he loses in statutory authority and congressional perks he will more than make up for in moral legitimacy. Plus I’ll commit to busting my butt to get him re-elected next time.
I’m Andy’s apoplectic adrenals BTW 😉
Glandular refereces
___________________
Me
Heh. I forget what you call those, but I don’t think I’ve seen anyone leave one as a comment before. Thanks for the chuckle, Edward.
Slarti, Sebastian: Are you expecting your President to echo your feelings in any way whatsoever?
Just wondering. You know he won’t, don’t you?
Er, what do you call those, and what do they mean? I interpreted that as meaning “over my head” since I frequently use a similar hand gesture in real life. (in which case it’s a famous line from Fight Club, but I haven’t actually seen the movie either)
I think Edward was saying he’s beneath glandular references.
Ah, that would also make sense. thanks…
Jes,
“Are you expecting your President to echo your feelings
Don’t you mean “our” President?
Don’t you mean “our” President?
No.
radish was right, I’m sorry to admit…they went right over my head.
Ah. Well, I guess I’m always expecting the best from you, Edward.
Ah. Well, I guess I’m always expecting the best from you, Edward.
which is nice and all (really), but I STILL don’t get the Jack’s bile duct bit…
I STILL don’t get the Jack’s bile duct bit
Fight Club is full of these little spots where the narrator breaks in and says something like “I am Jack’s …” ex.:
“I am Jack’s smirking revenge.”
“I am Jack’s cold sweat”
“I am Jack’s raging bile duct”
“I am Jack’s broken heart”
“I am Jack’s complete lack of surprise”
these happen when the narrator is speaking as if he is the mood of main character … in a hip, self-referential, kitchy kind of way, of course.
Context: Jack discovers a set of books that are entitled (IIRC) I am Jack’s Intestines, and the like. After that, he’s constantly injecting this stuff into the narrative. Very odd movie.
And one of my favorites. My wife broke down and watched it one night, and she looked askance at me for…well, she hasn’t really stopped.
I really hope that my side of the lawmaking houses doesnt back this any further than it has gone.
Even if it gets to a vote, I hope its voted down. I doubt it though – politicians are jackasses.
Hey here’s a really good one:
(LA Times – subscription required, and let me just say man, do I hate the media. Which Republican members of Congress!?!? Why can’t you give a quote from a source!?)
Anyway, chew on that for a minute.
Follow it out to its logical conclusion.
No, chew on it some more, you don’t get it yet. Seriously. I’ll just wait over there.
Has the light dawned?
Okay. The disclosure of assets over $2.5M belonging to appointees to the exec branch poses a threat to national security. Republicans are good at stories; somebody tell me a story wherein such a disclosure poses a threat to national security WITHOUT the alternative being to allow the disclosee to profit from classified information.
I’m dead serious about this guys. Slart, joe-joe, Sebastian. Put your money where your voter reg card is. Tell me why patriots of all parties should not be denouncing this at the top of their lungs.
Yeah, well that much is true. But what kind of person are we trying to attract exactly? And why does it now apply to “all executive branch officials” instead of just intel? Seriously. Tell me a story. Throw us a friggin’ bone, as Edward says…
I’ll just wait over there by the autographed Katrina Leung poster…
Ah. You too Bender. No shirking. And don’t feel sorry for yourself — you can ignore me. My brother-in-law can’t.
I’ve got nuthin’. Bupkus. Nada. e to the minus infinity. Limit as x goes to infinity of one over x.
In other words, yes, I agree that this is utter crap, and needs to be stepped on, hard.
Wait…what’s that? Sorry, just had a Cheech and Chong flashback. Back to the subject, full disclosure should remain mandatory. I’m going to have to write some more letters, it seems.
radish, I don’t think any of the Republican regulars here would be inclined to defend every single act by the Republican leadership. They could probably point to many venal acts on the part of Democratic leaders in the past, though, at which point we could play the fun game of Who’s Worse?
BTW, re Edward’s wordplay, my favorite is the following mailing address on an envelope (supposedly correctly delivered):
WOOD
JOHN
MASS
Answer to be supplied later in the unlikely event that no one has either seen it or can figure it out.
John Underwood, Andover, Massachusetts
Francis
p.s note the lack of zip code.
Thanks Slart. I hope it helps, and I’m still not gonna move to Canada.
kenB: They could probably point to many venal acts on the part of Democratic leaders in the past…
Fair enough, but I’m not talking about every single act. I’m talking about this particular transparently unconscionable act.
…at which point we could play the fun game of Who’s Worse?
I think the reason Who’s Worse has such a bad rep is that people don’t bother to lay out reasonable rules before they start playing. Once you do that it can be astonishingly instructive for both sides.
Am I the only one who was momentarily perplexed as to why Edward’s 3:21 post involved fractions?
Am I the only one who was momentarily perplexed as to why Edward’s 3:21 post involved fractions?
No, I was too… 😉
Being contrarian: in our awful political climate laws like this allow the minority party to attack the majority party through frivolous indictments. The solution is to elect reps who won’t put people under reasonable indictments into leadership roles and not to countenance people who bring partisan indictments. Of course it’s not the right time to take down a law when it will benefit only yourself – Delay should take one for the country and then the rule should be revoked.
Guess that was more Being stupid and naive than contrarian.
fdl,
Yep, I’m skeptical that such a letter was actually delivered, but it makes a good story.
radish:
people don’t bother to lay out reasonable rules before they start playing. Once you do that it can be astonishingly instructive for both sides.
Probably just the process of laying out rules would be instructive — the outrage triggers for people on the left seem not to entirely match those for people on the right.
rilkefan,
through frivolous indictments
Pardon my ignorance, but what does it take to get someone indicted? I assume a simple accusation isn’t enough. If it requires convincing someone who can be expected to be reasonably non-partisan, then I’d be OK with the rule.
in our awful political climate laws like this allow the minority party to attack the majority party through frivolous indictments.
rilkefan,
I don’t think this is a law. It was a self-righteous rule adopted by the Republican House caucus to demonstrate their superior moral values.
Why do you think the possible indictment of DeLay would necessarily be frivolous? Just because the prosecutor is a Democrat doesn’t mean DeLay is innocent.
Pardon my ignorance, but what does it take to get someone indicted? I assume a simple accusation isn’t enough. If it requires convincing someone who can be expected to be reasonably non-partisan, then I’d be OK with the rule.
Isn’t there a saying that a grand jury could be persuaded to indict a ham sandwich? I don’t think imagine the bar for getting an indictment is all that high, so I think this rule is pretty dumb.
Of course waiving it just for DeLay is pathetic. The appropriate thing to do would be enforce it for DeLay and then abolish it afterward.
Josh is pushing an amusing poll of the pols on this over at talkingpointsmemo.com.
How long did the Democrats run things before they became a pack of corrupt crooks? Decades? The Republicans have been in charge for 5-10 years and they’re already hitting Jim Wright and Dan Rostenkowski territory. Actually those guys were two-bit chumps just interested in feathering their nests a little bit.
Josh is pushing an amusing poll of the pols on this over at talkingpointsmemo.com.
And the results are hilarious. These guys don’t even have the guts to admit how they voted. Well, it would be hilarious, if they weren’t running the country.
The “moral values” party strikes again.