Republicans move to protect DeLay Wednesday, November 17, 2004 Posted: 8:52 AM EST (1352 GMT) WASHINGTON (AP) -- Moving to protect Majority Leader Tom DeLay, House Republicans want to change party rules to ensure that DeLay retains his post if a Texas grand jury indicts him as it did with three of his political associates. The House Republican Conference, composed of all GOP members in the chamber, planned to vote Wednesday to modify a requirement that would force DeLay to step aside if charged with a felony requiring at least a two-year prison term. Party rules require leaders to relinquish their posts after a felony indictment, but the change would eliminate the requirement for non-federal indictments. A grand jury in Travis County, Texas, is investigating 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. There is no indication that DeLay faces charges, but the majority leader has called the investigation -- led by a retiring Democratic prosecutor -- a partisan attack on him. The new language was proposed by Rep. Henry Bonilla, R-Texas, who was helped by the redistricting. Bonilla was re-elected in 2002 with less than 52 percent of the vote. After the boundaries were changed, he won this month with 69 percent of the vote. Jessica Boulanger, spokeswoman for third-ranking House Republican Roy Blunt of Missouri, said Tuesday her boss supported the proposal. The majority whip "believes the allegations are baseless, and they were political in nature. So he supports the proposed rules change by Congressman Bonilla." Bonilla spokeswoman Taryn Fritz Walpole said the proposed change is intended to "prevent political manipulation of the legislative process" and reduce the possibility of "political exploitation and intimidation of House leadership and chairmanship positions." House Democrats have a step-aside provision that applies to 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. --------------------------- Republicans in congress wanted this measure passed in 1993 so they could hold themselves and their fellow Democrats to higher standards.With help of the Dem's, who were in the Majority back then, it got passed. Who was the first victim of this measure? Democrat Dan Rostenkowski of Illinois. Now that one of their own is facing a possible indictment, the GOP controlled Congress is going to change a measure they wanted passed 11 years ago to save one, not a few or several, but ONE person who means so much to them. Apparently the gop can't stand to see Delay go the way of Gingrich. I knew the gop were a bunch of hypocrites, but this is a new low.Changing your own rules to save your skin. I would like to hear our esteemed members to the right of the aisle of this forum explain their way out of this one. Go on and try, I need a good laugh.
Honestly....are you surprised?? Has the Whitehouse and the GOP done anything in the last 4 years that would surprise you with the level of audacity they have reached in blatantly advancing their radical-conservative agenda regardless of it's means? Well, I'm sure the "liberal" media will pick this story up and run with it...to quote Wayne's World, "NOT"...
What's next, keeping judicial appointments from coming to a vote because you disagree with the appointee's politics?
So I gather from your response that you're okay with a person indicted in a felony to remain in a leadership role in congress?
Actually, yes I am. I think that our judiocial system is based on the principal that one is innocent until proven guilty. I do not that a person convicted of a felony should be able to remain in any role in congress, but an indictment is not enough for me. That is why we have trials, yes? If Democrats were following the regular, well established procedures for confirming nominees, then Republicans would not have to try to change the rules to disallow what they are doing. When one party has a clear majority in both houses of congress, holds the presidency, and took the popular vote by a decent sized majority of the voters, it seems obvious that filibustering to keep nominations and legislation from coming to a vote is not serving the will of the people. In fact, I would not be opposed to eliminating the filibuster altogether. Any matter that is brought to congress should be able to get a vote in commitee within 60 days and then, if necessary, a vote on the floor within 90 days. I don't think that two wrongs make a right, but I also don't think that changing rules that are not working is wrong.
Then why was the GOP so all fired up to get the rule put in place in the early 90s? That's right, because one of the Democrats had been indicted and they wanted him out. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, they want to rescind the rule because it doesn't suit them. So I take it you disagreed with the GOP controlled congress filibustering dozens of Clinton appointments when they were in power? The Democrats only blocked 5 out of nearly 200 appointments. I would disagree that the rules are not working, they are in place to assure that judges that are too radical should not be on the bench and if they cannot get the support of more than 60 Senators, they are far too radical to have a lifetime appointment. When less than 3% of the appointments are blocked, I don't see that as an outrageous rate of rejection. They are rejecting only the judges that are clearly not right for Federal judgeships.
Clinton said, under oath, "I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky." Monica produced the dress with his man juice all over it. Clinton then said that he had , in fact, had sex with her. That is called being proven guilty (of perjury). I don't think Clinton should have been removed from office over whitewater and Vince Foster allegations, and he was not. Fortunately for me, I am not the GOP so I do not have to defend all of their actions. I don't think it was right to put the rule in place then, so I have no problem with changing the rule now. It is hardly surprising that a political party is playing partisan politics. The fact that leads them to doing the right thing is lucky though, isn't it? Wouldn't you be happy if they ended prohibition, even if it was because Tom DeLay got caught with a bunch of weed? Actually, I didn't really follow it at the time, but in retrospect, I would have to say that I disagree with congress filibustering Clinton appointees as well, yes. If it was a GOP controlled congress, I don't understand the need to filibuster a Clinton appointment though, couldn't they just vote them down?
I would be happy if they ended prohibition, though it would take a LOT more than DeLay getting caught with weed. IMO, this rule should remain in place because anyone who has had enough of an appearance of wrongdoing to be indicted for a felony should not have a leadership role in the US Congress. If he is cleared of all charges, he should be reinstated, but someone under felony indictment should not hold one of the most powerful positions in our government. At the time, the Dems still controlled Congress and the GOP filibustered many of Clinton's appointees. They weren't even appointees to the USSC, they were federal and appeals court posts. Filibuster is a rule that remains in place so that a bare majority cannot simply run roughshod over the minority. It is a procedure that is well defined, has a long history in our country, and is a good thing in my book. I don't want a bare 51 Senator majority to just be able to rubber stamp any whacko that Bush decides to nominate. The minority party HAS to have a say or the Senate becomes a bunch of yes-men for the president and that is not what we need.
I am a conservative that did not vote Bush. I dislike Delay. I do think the filibuster is anti-democratic snatch of power from the people not representated by filibusters.
Filibusters are anti-American? Funny, if Democrats held the White House, Congress, Senate, Supreme Court and media, Republicans would be screaming for more filibuster powers. And they should. The voice of the (relative) minority should never, never, never be minimized to appease the (relative) majority. Never, never, never. If the voice of the opposition party is silenced, our great country becomes a One Party State. And nobody wants that. Filibusters are a necessary -- if rarely used -- evil. This Tom DeLay garbage is not about Republicans or Democrats. It's about abuse of power, plain and simple.
This thread is about hypocrisy.Specifically Republican hypocrisy. You're right that abuse of power and hypocrisy are endemic to both parties.But if the shoe were on the other foot,conservatives would be screaming and ranting about how morally and ethically corrupt Dem's are. Well now's the time to face the music and call a spade a spade,but they won't.They talk it and soft soap it but they definitely can't walk the walk.
