Updated: 06:12 PM EST
GOP Approves New Party Rules in Light of DeLay
By LARRY MARGASAK, AP

WASHINGTON (Nov. 17) - 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.

The current party rule in this area requires House Republican leaders and the heads of the various committees to relinquish their positions if indicted for a crime that could bring a prison term of at least two years. It makes no distinction between a federal and state indictment. Three of DeLay's political associates already have been indicted by that Texas grand jury.

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.

There is no indication that DeLay, a 57-year-old Texan, will be indicted in connection with a Travis County, Texas, campaign finance investigation. But the majority leader has called the probe a partisan attack on him.

Bonilla said there was no vote count taken in the closed meeting but said the proposal passed overwhelmingly.

''This takes the power away from any partisan crackpot district attorney who may want to indict'' party leaders and make a name for himself, Bonilla said.

Lawmakers said that DeLay did not publicly push for the change and did not participate in the closed-door debate which lasted several hours.

Bonilla said the leader would not have to step aside while fellow party members considered whether an indictment was frivolous.

The grand jury is probing alleged irregularities in 2002 state legislative races. Republican victories in those contests enabled DeLay ultimately to win support for a congressional redistricting plan that resulted in the GOP's gain of five House seats in Texas in this month's elections.

House Democrats have a step-aside provision that applies to both federal and state proceedings similar to the current Republican rule, and their leader, Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California, was highly critical of the GOP proposal.

''If they make this rules change, Republicans will confirm yet again that they simply do not care if their leaders are ethical. If Republicans believe that an indicted member should be allowed to hold a top leadership position in the House of Representatives, their arrogance is astonishing,'' Pelosi said.

In September, the grand jury indicted three political operatives associated with DeLay and eight companies, alleging campaign finance violations related to corporate money spent in the 2002 legislative races. The corporate donations were made to Texans for a Republican Majority, a political action committee created with help from DeLay.

DeLay said he was not questioned or subpoenaed as part of the investigation, led by retiring prosecutor Ronnie Earle.

The majority leader said after the indictments, ''This has been a dragged-out 500-day investigation, and you do the political math. This is no different than other kinds of partisan attacks that have been leveled against me that are dropped after elections.''

In October, the House ethics committee rebuked DeLay for appearing to link political donations to a legislative favor and improperly persuading U.S. aviation authorities to intervene in the Texas redistricting dispute.

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/art...117023509990001

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Absolutely sickening. They are the ones who made this ethics rule a few years back, and now when DeLay is on the verge of being indicted for electioneering corruption, and he still is under a cloud for lying to a federal agency for political gain (the airplane search for Democrats opposing state redistricting).

I'm glad you Red Staters are so morally superior.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

In America one of the litmus tests for the Modern Left is to reject the notion of absolute right and wrong.

I'm not assuming you fall under that category, bill, but on what grounds can the left criticize the right on anything if they accept that?

It's like Chesterton said...the church can criticize the world, but the world cannot criticize the church, for being "too worldly."

In this case, moral relativists cannot criticize Republicans for being corrupt, even if they were free of blemish (which they are not).

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

I think that you confuse, to some extent, the Intellectual Left with the Democrats (who are clearly not, in general, the same thing).

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

quote:

---

In America one of the litmus tests for the Modern Left is to reject the notion of absolute right and wrong.

I'm not assuming you fall under that category, bill, but on what grounds can the left criticize the right on anything if they accept that?

It's like Chesterton said...the church can criticize the world, but the world cannot criticize the church, for being "too worldly."

In this case, moral relativists cannot criticize Republicans for being corrupt, even if they were free of blemish

---

And here I thought sophisry was an anethma to absolutists.

Physician heal thyself.

(And another thing, you might want to stop chareterising leftists by what you hear on the Saturday morning Rush Limbaugh show. He equates liberals, socialists, communists, nonpartisans, gays, and feminsts into one amalgous bunch he disagrees with. Should I charectize the right as a bunch of unprincipled, moralist, free-market zealot, abortion clinic bombing, redneck hick, wife beating, racists? (Only when they vote Bush.))

Truth is absolute. Reality is external. Time affects affects reality. Things change.
There maybe an absolute morality, but declareing you have it makes your judgment unquestionable and the only being who's judgement should be unquestionable is G-D.

"Killing indians was moral. It was god's will."

Better to forge an adaptable morality based on the conceptual analysis we call reason. And violating your own conceptual definitions of good by deed is surely the end of analysis and the beginning of blasphemy.

Repent ye sinners.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

I am not a "Intellectual Leftist" or whatever in the hell that is. I call it as I see it. The GOP made themselves an ethics law years ago - "House Republicans in 1993 -- trying to underscore the ethics problems of Dan Rostenkowski (D-Ill.), then-chairman of the Ways and Means Committee -- adopted the rule that requires a party leader to surrender his or her post if indicted by any grand jury, federal or state." (quote from Paint CHiPs in another thread). Now, when one of their own is a half-step away from having to step down because of their own rule, they change it to suit their need for power. Talk about moral relativists!

Stop apologising for the GOP and recognise this for what it really is - the belief that the end justifies the means.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

A grand jury felony indictment requires 12 yahoos off the street to find probable cause exists on a charge.

This investigation was launched in Austin, Texas-- a place where actually carving the sickle and hammer into your unwashed armpit hair is both a point of pride and a rite of passage. DeLay, however, was NOT indicted. Not even by 12 angry hippies.

In response to the media fenzy, the GOP has said that any indictment that is returned (from Austin) will now be subject to a 30 day review for cause.

What is the "unethical" problem here?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

"the rule that requires a party leader to surrender his or her post if indicted by any grand jury, federal or state.""

They made the rule. "Any" being the operative word here. There's no exception for the consistency of the grand jury.

I ask you too to quit being a GOP apologist and face the facts.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

The deal here is that the Dems are starting to play dirty, so the Reps have no choice but to defend themselves.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

By "facts" you mean that facts that 1) not even 12 angry hippies would indict DeLay; but 2) media pressure could alter that?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

We need to have Delusion Pernts. But since we don't, a Nanoceph pernt for you.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Yes, yes.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

They haven't indicted him yet, you mean. It seems fairly likely they will.

Good bit from a Boston Globe editorial:

quote:

---

DeLay said -- apparently with a straight face -- that the change was needed to protect Republicans from the Democrats' "politics of personal destruction."

Representative Henry Bonilla, who led the effort to benefit his fellow Texan, said, "This takes the power away from any partisan crackpot district attorney who may want to indict" party leaders.

Bonilla might take care about name-calling. It is true that a local Texas prosecutor has already indicted three DeLay associates on charges of illegal fund-raising for the 2002 legislative elections in Texas -- elections that gave Republicans the majority they needed to redistrict the congressional delegation, producing a swing of five more GOP congressmen from Texas.

However, one of the four admonishments of DeLay from the House's own bipartisan Ethics Committee concerned that same redistricting. And the US Supreme Court has intervened, telling lower courts to take a close look at the charges relating to that redistricting.

It should be noted that people are innocent until proven guilty, but many institutions require people to give up leadership roles if indicted.

It is also worth noting that Bonilla's own seat was made more secure by the redistricting.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Great quote:

quote:

---

Rep John Dingell (D-MI) on Majority Leader Tom DeLay (TX-R): "These folks talk about values and decency, but then think it's okay to change the rules once it appears one of their own may have broken them. This amounts to a work release program for the ethically challenged. We should all remember that a decade ago, Mr. DeLay helped to create this rule. Republicans said at the time they were the party of reform and good government. Now they've become the party of moribund hubris."

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Didn't Rove get people sent to jail in Texas over illegal fund raising?
http://www.documentaryfilms.net/Reviews/BushsBrain/

quote:

---

Perhaps the most significant damage Rove may have engineered against an opponent was to destroy members of Hightower’s team via the courts. An FBI agent started investigations of every Democratic officeholder in the state in 1990. The investigator just happened to be the same FBI man who had looked into the “bugging” incident in Rove’s office in 1986, Greg Rampton. Rampton’s investigation managed to nail Texas agricultural commissioner Mike Moeller and senior administrator Pete McRae for soliciting contributions for Hightower.

Glenn Smith comments that “that probably only happens, accidentally, a thousand times a day” in Texas. Says nationally syndicated columnist Molly Ivins, “There was too much zeal in that case; it smelled rankly from the beginning.” But it resulted in huge fines, jail time, and the end of their elective careers for Moeller and McRae. The general counsel for the Texas Agricultural Commission said he almost cried to see these good public servants get destroyed, basically in the course of a political maneuver. The consultants who actually solicited funds were excused from prosecution for age and ill health. The man who benefited most from this confusion, Rick Perry, was elected agricultural commissioner, and eventually ascended to the governor’s mansion in 2001 when Bush left for Washington.

---

Last edited by Thimbles worth of opinion on 11-18-2004 at 10:35 AM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Oddly enough, the Democrat-controlled state legislature of Massachusetts voted to strip the Governor's authority to name a replacement Senator if for one reason or another the elected Senator has to step down from (or up) office.
Once again I'm sure that this is all a coincidence, but a senator from Massachusetts was almost elected president, and at the same time, the sitting governor was a REPUBLICAN!!!
What are the odds?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Scoundrels! Charlatans!

Why, we oughta drum them out of office. We oughta go to the American people and say "these people have broken their faith with you, America." And we will promise to do better, and ask the American people to hold us to a higher standard. We will say "America, we promise that we will be better! This is our contract to you, a Contract With the United States Voters." We will have a big ceremony in the rose garden with a novelty oversized contract, and we will all sign it and say "America, this is our pledge that we can do better."

Then, in a fit of self-righteousness, let us pass a rule. That rule will say "America, we will not do what the Democrats in Mass just tried to do! We are better than that!" And we will sign that rule, and shove it in people's faces whenever the opportunity might arise. "Look at us!" we will say. "We have this rule!!! And they don't!!"

But of course we'll break that rule the second it becomes at all inconvenient. Because the American public want to hold their officials to a higher standard, but thankfully they're pretty dumb and have short memories, so fuck em, that's why.

Also, when we try to use the actions of the Democrats in Massachusetts to defend our obviously morally sub-standard ploy, we will try to ignore that the guy most affected by that ploy and rule in the first place just redistricted out of existence 5+ opposition congressional seats in his home state, not because it helped democracy or anything, just because he could; that such led to his criminal indictment in the first place. Because that is not at all relevant, and you guys are pig-fuckers and crackpots and partisan yahoos for bringing it up. Fuck you.

That, America, is our contract with you.

Because at the end of the day, it's all about accountability.

Last edited by Paint CHiPs on 11-20-2004 at 09:15 AM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Poetry, man. Pure poetry. *snaps fingers*

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Didn't the Governor of Alaska give his daughter a safe Senate seat? Or am I remembering wrong?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

And welcome back, DLR.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paint CHiPs
[B]They haven't indicted him yet, you mean. It seems fairly likely they will.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

quote:

---

Originally posted by Smug Git
Didn't the Governor of Alaska give his daughter a safe Senate seat?

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

quote:

---

Originally posted by tigerjez

In reality, however, this controversy & investigation has been going on for 2 years. 32 indictments were handed down two full months ago. The talk of indicting DeLay himself has been making the left wet since at least February.

---

Last edited by Paint CHiPs on 11-19-2004 at 11:47 PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Good editorial from, of all places, the New York Post (guh).

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Good article on the subject (from Steve and Cokie Roberts of all people).

Best bit:

quote:

---

Outside of Texas, only three incumbents lost their seats, a re-election rate of 99 percent. (Four Texas Democrats were defeated after being thrown into difficult new districts.) In California, with 53 House members, not a single race was even close.

This year's balloting was the least competitive in the nation's history. And two recent episodes demonstrate the corrosive effects of that trend.

House Republicans dropped an 11-year-old rule that requires any member facing indictment to vacate a leadership post. This ethical benchmark was casually dumped overboard to protect one man, Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas, probably the most powerful figure on Capitol Hill these days.

Three of DeLay's cronies have already been indicted in a money-laundering scheme back home, and Republicans worry that their leader could be the next target of Ronnie Earle, the Democratic district attorney of Travis County. As Rep. Henry Bonilla put it, Republicans didn't want some "partisan crackpot" prosecutor to determine their leadership.

But DeLay's ethical issues cannot be blamed on partisan sniping. During his long career, Earle has prosecuted far more Democrats than Republicans. More seriously, DeLay has been rebuked four different times by the House ethics committee. That panel is chaired by a Republican, and all five Republican members have joined in condemning DeLay's behavior.

A few Republican voices have protested the rule change. Rep. Chris Shays of Connecticut said: "We were elected in 1994 because we were different. I see a constant and steady erosion in what made us different." Conservative columnist David Brooks of The New York Times accused DeLay of "playing close to the ethical edge for years" and called him "a scandal waiting to happen."

But those critics were brushed aside for a simple reason: Republicans have no fear of electoral retribution. Virtually all of them are in safe seats. They run no risk in abandoning their own ethical standards.

---

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

I'm sorry that you guys apparently interpreted my questions as criticisms of bill's posts or some kind of apologetics for the GOP. I'm not so much sorry that you all showed your ass, but more because in doing so you completely dodged the question. The only worthwhile content I got was from smug, which is wholly predictable.

From Thimbles: "Truth is absolute, except when it changes. So it's better to be relativist." Er, our understanding of what is right and wrong can change, but that doesn't change the morality of, say, murdering the indians. We recognize indians as human beings now and so don't ride around on horses shooting them. This doesn't mean that murdering them was ok then, but is bad now--otherwise you would be unable to criticize the act.

Of course, you guys have never been able to wrap your heads around this concept no matter how many examples I give--willfully so.

In any case, this was nothing more than a tangent on ethics, since you all have such a hardon for the subject all of a sudden--I guess I expected you-all would do more than dodge my questions again, but instead I get the same old Matrix moves. I ough to quit wasting my time.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged