Morals, huh?

[kyburg]

WASHINGTON - 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.

Nancy Pelosi can really be a big mouth, but I think this time she's got cause.

"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.

Mmm bop do wah.

I can't find a record of Clinton being indicted, BTW.

Comments

[diepunyhuman.livejournal.com]

god, i was young, but i remember what went on and i STILL miss clinton.

[scrapyard.livejournal.com]

I thought about that for a while, and I think he ought to at least get to keep his position until he's proven guilty, just so we can PRETEND we still do that whole "innocent until proven guilty thing." I know we don't, not really, but I like to pretend we do.

(If this is the indict that means 'charge with a crime by the finding of a jury' rather than 'accuse,' I stand corrected, the article I read made a point of saying he hadn't actually been convicted of anything yet, so I assumed it was just an accusation and not an actual proven charge yet.)

[supiluliumas.livejournal.com]

It's quite true that this is being done to protect corrupt, dishonest politicians from the consequences of their rapacious greed and material avarice at the taxpayer's expense, and no one's disputing that. However, luckily our nation is founded upon the principle that someone, anyone, including corrupt, dishonest politicians, are innocent until proven guilty, and as such entitled to equal protection under the law. Frivolous civil suits are bad enough. Hopefully this will prevent frivolous criminal indictments from ruining the careers and lives of innocent politicians (I realize how hard it is to say that with a straight face) simply because someone in the judicial system with an ax to grind is attempting to derail the democracy train for a political agenda.

This Pelosi person is protesting because she's a Democrat, and they're Republicans.

[kyburg.livejournal.com]

I just can't forget the screeching that went on daily while Clinton was in office - and there wasn't even an indictment to justify it, which is taking things a step further according to this example.

Frankly, I would think someone facing a case of this stature would need the extra time away to form a coherent defense. At least in this example, we're not talking about fibbing over a blowjob.

Kind of pre-emptive too, considering the indictment hasn't come down yet. Political agenda or no, you have to have something legitimate to bring a case, even I know that.

...and how long would it take to push an indictment through the courts again?

Pelosi is a big mouth - but I think she's wise to make some noise.

[murphymom.livejournal.com]

I think it's something akin to placing someone on "administrative leave" - innocent until proven guilty they may and should be considered, but the distraction of dealing with a defense (not to mention the need to respond to the concerns of the public) is likely to render them ineffective. As for the earlier poster's comment about Pelosi protesting because "she's a Democrat and they're Republicans", well, gosh, do you think maybe they're doing it because they're Republicans? I doubt they'd be in such a hurry to make the same kind of an exception for a Democrat.

...... And your point is .... ?

[supiluliumas.livejournal.com]

I'm quoting myself:

It's quite true that this is being done to protect corrupt, dishonest politicians from the consequences of their rapacious greed and material avarice at the taxpayer's expense, and no one's disputing that.

Of course they're doing it because they're Republicans, and it's a Republican in jeopardy. I understood that as a given. If it was a Democrat in jeopardy, Pelosi would be arguing just as hard in favor of this measure.

I wasn't arguing the point as an issue from the stance of partisan politics, but rather the principle behind it. I apologize if my argument was a little hard to follow. In fact I wouldn't even be surprised if the Democrapublicans were of one mind on the issue, but certain forms have to be observed for the sake of their audience.

[supiluliumas.livejournal.com]

If you're whining about the partisan politics behind it, I'm sorry if I changed the subject on you. However, the Republicans are the ones in power, it's their prerogative and probably their job to do everything in their power to support the Republican cause. For better or worse, that's the way the system is set up. Even if it's a measure that benefits everyone, in order to appear effective to their electorate they have to make it appear that the measure is being passed as a result of Republican Political Power.

Secondly, he doesn't need to take time off to form a coherent defense. That's what high-priced Washington lawyers are for. If he's innocent, all he needs to do is hand over his records and make the occasional deposition, and let his lawyers handle the rest. If he's guilty, it's exactly the same while he lets his crackerjack team of legal eagles engineer a technicality or legal loophole to let him off. That's what they're paid for!

Lastly - "Political agenda or no, you have to have something legitimate to bring a case, even I know that."

So basically your argument is "he has to be guilty of SOME-thing, otherwise he wouldn't be on trial". That is, in the event he is indicted, and this isn't all just a publicity campaign.

For one thing, I can tell that obviously you're not black. For another, if I'm ever arrested in California, and by some diabolically bad luck you're in my jury pool, I'm going to remember that comment. This will be to my advantage in two ways, one, that I'll have a fairer trial, and two, I'll be spared the necessity of suffering your presence.

[kyburg.livejournal.com]

Hey, they put the rule in place back when they were smacking Clinton around - and then, they took it out when it became inconvenient.

Uh, no. You can't bring a case and be indicted for no cause. I live in California - and you can be served for absolutely the most incredible things, daily. Do they get to court? The truly stupid ones? No.

An indictment indicates there is something more than "I think you did something" - it indicates there is evidence that has to be tried and examined in a court of law. Guilty or innocent. (A case can be filed, but an indictment indicates that it has to be tried. Cases get thrown out all the time.)

And even cops get put off on leave while they're investigated for whatever - right, wrong or sidewise. (And you do get investigated, whether you really did anything or not.)

If there's cause to indict, there is likely cause to try. And in most public offices, it is considered customary and ethical to back away -

What if he is convicted? What then? I don't think there's anything to prevent him from remaining in office - is there?

For one thing, I can tell that obviously you're not black. For another, if I'm ever arrested in California, and by some diabolically bad luck you're in my jury pool, I'm going to remember that comment. This will be to my advantage in two ways, one, that I'll have a fairer trial, and two, I'll be spared the necessity of suffering your presence.

I've been warned, and told to prepare myself going in to this foster parent gig - that I will be investigated by a report made by a child in my care, at least four times if I parent more than ten years.

My children will be taken out of my care. I will have to retain a lawyer, and be prepared to defend myself. The vast majority of the cases are found to be without any basis, but while they are tried, they won't take any chances. That's how I will be treated.

Reported for what? Abuse and molestation. I've been told to be ready for it, and not to take this on if I think I can't handle that kind of scrutiny.

Guilty of something? No. Indicted and facing a court? Yes. Does that distract from what he does for a living? I would hope so.

That statement made is truly out of line.

Foster what now?

[supiluliumas.livejournal.com]

That statement made is truly out of line.

Oh, marvelous! I was afraid I hadn't gone far enough. =D

after backtracking ...

[supiluliumas.livejournal.com]

I actually didn't know what you were talking about at the end of this comment, as I miss most of what you write, since you're not in any of my filters. However, I took a look back to read the post about you wanting to adopt a drug-exposed child. I just want you to know that despite the fact that I don't like you, and only consider you valuable because I figure to encounter more worthwhile and interesting people when you make posts about people you don't like or are arguing with, I totally support your efforts! After all, if there's anyone at all even slightly more preferable as a mother than a crackwhore, then I'm sure it's bound to be yourself. =)

[filkerdave.livejournal.com]

The rule was put in place during the Gingrich era by the Republicans, specifically to show that they would never do something like what they're just doing.

[supiluliumas.livejournal.com]

I find that interesting, and it makes perfect sense - Gingrich is from an earlier, extinct generation of Republicans. What most people don't realize is that Bush and his political allies (some would argue that Bush himself is just a front-man) effectively organized a takeover of the Republican party in double-0 by using the country itself as a springboard from which to eliminate his opposition. ... Largely passively. Anything else can't be proven. The Speaker of the House himself is now a Bush flunky!

The trick here that most people fail to realize is that they're lumping 'Republicans' into a single conglomerate entity, when in fact it has largely slipped right under their noses that the coalition running the country now is led by a single faction from within the Republicans who effected a takeover by offering a candidate as a desperate remedy to the Clintonian Democrats.

Recently I actually saw Bob Barr in a documentary about how the Bush Organization (most people just use the word 'Neocons' for short, although there are many different factions even of these) had exploited the 9/11 tragedy to steamroller civil rights with the Patriot Act. I mean, BOB BARR! Nobody was a worse enemy of Clinton than he was, except maybe Trent Lott. What are they doing now? Not much. Not that anyone misses them that much. That's the secret to the success of the Bush political machine.

So I guess it's no longer incorrect to lump all Republicans together, as the ones who express dissent find themselves sitting on the back porch, talking to documentarians. Just ask George Tenet!

[filkerdave.livejournal.com]

Well, like it or not, they ARE the face of the Republican Party, and by and large, the members of that party aren't standing up and saying "I don't agree with these people" -- they're saying "It's not Bill Clinton, so it must be OK!"

(Why yes, they're STILL running against Bill Clinton out there.)

[supiluliumas.livejournal.com]

And that, my filk-singing friend, is the raw and unromantic reason why they still have a job. Unless they're Schwarzenegger or Giuliani, most Repulicans simply don't have the clout or the ability to be their own man.

QOTD

[filkerdave.livejournal.com]

"We need new leadership which will act because it is right, not because they have been caught in cover-ups and scandals. Once again, what we are pointing out here is that we are outraged at the mismanagement of this House, and it is not just this last year. It has been going on for years. It is the arrogance of power, the lack of follow-through, the `Oh, yes, we can push that over in the corner and not address it.' "

-Tom DeLay, 1993

Re: QOTD

[supiluliumas.livejournal.com]

I'm not 100% sure why you're bringing this up, but you really have to sympathize with the guy. Working for years to undermine the Democratic power base, only to finally reach his goal, and discover that from now on, instead of enacting legislation he's simply receiving marching orders from the Bush White House.

[poetpaladin.livejournal.com]

Apparently it's okay to break the law and kill innocent civilians, but not okay to get a blow job from an intern. :P

[filkerdave.livejournal.com]

Personally, I'd rather get the blowjob than kill people.

[sunfell.livejournal.com]

Check this out: there are people here in Little Rock who are still protesting Clinton, and have been showing up at the events he's at, making a fuss about Whitewater and some "shadow government". I expect that the antt-Clinton people will try their best to mess with stuff.

Sunfell

No, no, no...

[turandot.livejournal.com]

See stuff such as "morals" is what keeps the populus down. It only applies to the electorate, and the other guy who opposed the elected.

Bitter? Yeah, and a little exausted by this new era of total selfishness. It reminds me of the 80's, and though I was young then, I knew those years were pretty bad for a significant amount of people while extremely good for a few others. I dunno, I shouldn't complain that it's not fair (I keep being reminded that life is never fair), but I guess I keep doing it anyway.

As for the remote, well meaning, fiscally conservative moderate Republicans: if they're just riding the coattails of the ultra conservative faction that took over and tacitly hang on... Does that not make them, in a small way, worse than the extreme right, unless they're having secret meetings while planning their revolt that we don't know about?