Repubs seeking rollback of ethics laws

The surprising thing is you reported this a month after it was news, and on the same day that they pulled it off the table!

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/03/delay.rule/index.html

YOu really do have a lousy sense of timing.

The surprising thing is you reported this a month after it was news, and on the same day that they pulled it off the table!

Why did they pull it off the table? Because it was a nightmare of hypocricy for them. They insisted the original rules be instituted to punish Democrats when Repubs were in the minority, but then pull it off the shelf when they come to power. It was lose/lose for them.

Reply #2 By: whoman69 - 1/4/2005 1:29:30 PM The surprising thing is you reported this a month after it was news, and on the same day that they pulled it off the table! Why did they pull it off the table? Because it was a nightmare of hypocricy for them. They insisted the original rules be instituted to punish Democrats when Repubs were in the minority, but then pull it off the shelf when they come to power. It was lose/lose for them.

This is a pure crock of dung. If what you say is true then *why* did they reinstate the rule from 2 months ago about any leader accused of a crime must step aside. Your theory holds about as much water as a sieve. Which is to say *none*.

Why did they pull it off the table? Because it was a nightmare of hypocricy for them. They insisted the original rules be instituted to punish Democrats when Repubs were in the minority, but then pull it off the shelf when they come to power. It was lose/lose for them.

I will agree that it was definitely the stink of hypocrasy, but I will not say it was lose/lose. They just did something the democrats would never have thought of. Killing a bad move. Democrats would have just gone ahead and done it (with the proverbial egg on their face). Now, dont they at least deserve an 'atta-boy' for doing something right?

Joe Republican: Et-hics? What dis et-hics? That like the hiccups you git from somthin' ya et? Et-hics? Don't know nuthin' 'bout et-hics...

(please, remember your beta blockers)

Actualy DR...It was the day before. And i wouldnt be talking about timing your posts if i were you. The only reason the repubs pulled it was because of the uproar heard yesterday when all the major media outlets were covering it all day. They pulled it late last night. Plain and simple, they got caught! The "party of ethics"? My ass!

Actualy DR...It was the day before. And i wouldnt be talking about timing your posts if i were you. The only reason the repubs pulled it was because of the uproar heard yesterday when all the major media outlets were covering it all day. They pulled it late last night. Plain and simple, they got caught! The "party of ethics"? My ass!

Actually, as I said it broke a month ago.  And I did not see any coverage yesterday.  And there has been an uproar since it broke (dont know what networks you watch, but CNN, Fox, MSNBC were all carrying it).

And I never claimed 'party of ethics'. And I never supported this rule change (find someone who did - I doubt you will find many).

If you note, I noted that they did do the right thing.  WHich is more than I can say for the democrats.  Who have yet to do something like that, in or out of power.

The only reason the repubs pulled back is because they got caught at it. So don't sit there and preach about how the dems are unethecial. Comes off as a tad bit hypocritical.

Reply #8 By: thatoneguyinslc - 1/4/2005 6:32:27 PM The only reason the repubs pulled back is because they got caught at it. So don't sit there and preach about how the dems are unethecial. Comes off as a tad bit hypocritical.

I see you missed my post. So I'll quote it for you.

This is a pure crock of dung. If what you say is true then *why* did they reinstate the rule from 2 months ago about any leader accused of a crime must step aside. Your theory holds about as much water as a sieve. Which is to say *none

And BTW DrGuy is correct there was NO media coverage on this yesterday or the day before. So take your left-wing liberal attitude and try singing a different tune.

This is a pure crock of dung. If what you say is true then *why* did they reinstate the rule from 2 months ago about any leader accused of a crime must step aside. Your theory holds about as much water as a sieve. Which is to say *none*.

They pulled it because the ca ca was hitting the fan. The rule from 2 months ago was installed during the period of time when the Democrats held a majority. When it came back to bite them in the but, they wanted to drop it. Have you not been paying attention?

Drmiler, It was on MSNBC, Airamerica covered it. CNN, The Salt Lake Tribune, and the LA Times. Headline news ran a blurb about it.

And while you're at it. Don't com into my blog and call folks names because you have nothing relevant to add. That really makes you look like a bigger twit than you already appear to be....ok?

I love how when the right gets caught pulling some hanky panky, all you guys can do is sit there and take shots at anybody and scream "liberal".

I'm no liberal. Never have been, never will be either.

Just shows your ignorance about who's who and what's what here on JU.

Reply #1 By: Dr. Guy - 1/4/2005 12:46:56 PM The surprising thing is you reported this a month after it was news, and on the same day that they pulled it off the table! http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/03/delay.rule/index.html YOu really do have a lousy sense of timing.

Actually DR, God I hate to say this. These guys are right. What he posted was NOT a month old. A month ago was about a leader holding office while under investigation. Yesterday was about something entirly different.

WASHINGTON — In the aftermath of ethics rebukes of their popular but controversial majority leader, Tom DeLay of Texas, House Republicans today are expected to consider rule changes that would make it harder to bring ethics complaints against lawmakers. One proposal would require that a majority of House ethics committee members approve any investigation of a House member. Currently, an inquiry can move ahead even if the ethics committee, which has five Republicans and five Democrats, is deadlocked. Another proposal, its critics argue, would make it more difficult to enforce ethics rules unless the improper conduct is clearly spelled out in the rules.

The only reason the repubs pulled back is because they got caught at it. So don't sit there and preach about how the dems are unethecial. Comes off as a tad bit hypocritical.

Actually, I was not preaching.  I was merely stating your timing was off.  If that is preaching, ok, I still stand by it.  As well as my other statements.  I dont see how you can say they got 'caught'.  It was never covert, always overt.  So the best one may say is that they got a conscious.

Actually DR, God I hate to say this. These guys are right. What he posted was NOT a month old. A month ago was about a leader holding office while under investigation. Yesterday was about something entirly different.

DR, no he was mentioning the Indicted one.  I think the prorposed rule change, as I have already stated elsewhere to be a good one.  As it stands now, a rep is guilty with no evidence and can be stripped if he pisses off the other party.  with the rule change, they must convince at least one member of the other party that there is a 'there there' to start an investigation.

That is no more rights than we give all citizens of this nation.  I dont see that as bad, and indeed I think that part will pass.

Any time the Investigation panel is either deadlocked or in majority in my opinion is just cause to investigate. I agree with you for the most part Guy. But, what happened a couple of days ago was *NOT* the same as what was discovered two months ago. The House tried to pull a fast one. They got caught. Say what you will about the "liberal" media, but this time, they were on it.

Any time the Investigation panel is either deadlocked or in majority in my opinion is just cause to investigate. I agree with you for the most part Guy. But, what happened a couple of days ago was *NOT* the same as what was discovered two months ago. The House tried to pull a fast one. They got caught. Say what you will about the "liberal" media, but this time, they were on it.

Actually, I was not even addressing the liberal media (I did include FOX, BTW).  I may be missing a nuance tho, but all that happened on Monday was that the Republicans took off the table the revision to allow an indicted member to maintain a leadership post.  If that was the gotcha, then I am saying they (the media) outed them back in early December.

Part 2 of the issue was the 50% rule, which did pass.  Is there a part 3?

Here's a Link to a USA Today OpEd that sums up how i feel.