DeLay gave up his leadership position the day after he was indicted. So your “eventually” doesn’t hold much water. The GOP’s own rule about giving up certain congressional positions when under indictment had been modified by DeLay prior to the indictment because he and the Republicans felt that the investigation was politically motivated and groundless. However, it was put back in before DeLay was actually indicted, when the indictment came down, he immediately stepped down as required.
Actually I was mistaken, his leadership ended the same day he was indicted, 9/28/05, not the day after.
I also know that back in 1993 when the GOP implemented their rule concerning indictments, it was done to highlight the fact that the Democrats had no such rule. Have they even instituted one in the 14 years since then?
Even the GOP rule change would still have required someone like Jefferson to step down, it only made an exception for people indicted by State grand juries (which are most susceptible to partisan prosecutors like Earle), anyone indicted by a Federal grand jury would still have to relinquish their leadership position.
In any case, functionally speaking two similar enough cases, two identical results. GOP Congressman indicted, GOP congressman loses leadership position that same day. Democrat congressman indicted, Democrat congressman loses committee position that same day.
Yet the reaction to both events was markedly different here on the SDMB. No one is really criticizing the Democrats, except for one poster, the rest recognize that this is a pretty reasonable response to an indictment. However, it’s only a reasonable response when a Democratic politician is under indictment, not a Republican one. When the Republicans do the exact same thing, it shows they’re soft on corruption.
Did you miss my post above? As I said, the rule change was in November almost a year before he was indicted. And, as I said, the decision to reverse course on that was also, before he was indicted. Your own article is dated back in November of '04, another history lesson would include looking up when DeLay was indicted. That was Sept. 28, 2005. You can also look up when he stepped down from his leadership position, it was the same day he was indicted.
And done precisely because the indictments of their leader were expected.
Come on now.
I’m having trouble precisely understanding what your problem is.
You’re basically repeating things that I’ve already said, I said, in an above post:
So yes, you’re right, they changed the rule because they expected an indictment which they felt was groundless and political in nature. The fact that I had already said that in the thread makes me question why you’re “introducing” this information.
You’re getting close to actually putting together everything I said clearly already. But to end the suspense: The GOP did change their rules on requiring leaders to step down when indicted. For the record, I think the indictment was unfounded and in relation to DeLay was incredibly non-specific.
However, all of that is beside the point. Whether it’s justified that the GOP considered not removing DeLay over the indictment is a moot point, because ultimately they decided to go back to the original rule, and DeLay was forced to step down the very day he was indicted.
No, I am not.
Yes, they changed the rule, but the reason was that one of their own was getting caught. It does not follow that, if it’s one of your own getting caught, it’s groundless and political in nature. Is it an article of faith for you that a Republican can do no wrong? Please.
You’re already *at * the point of misrepresenting statements which do not comport to your preferred view.
The jury thought otherwise. Deal with it.
quote]Whether it’s justified that the GOP considered not removing DeLay over the indictment is a moot point, because ultimately they decided to go back to the original rule, and DeLay was forced to step down the very day he was indicted.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, they did indeed get shamed into maintaining the rule enforcing a bare minimum of responsibility for ethicality, even though they absolutely hated to. Be proud of that if you like.
And this sentence, right here, is the difference between the two cases. The GOP looked at a totally corrupt member of their own party and, so blinded by partisanship that they couldn’t see straight, concluded that prosecuting him must be politically motivated. So they proposed a change to the rules specifically to protect him.
The Dems did not.
The timing of the indictment is a red herring, because it has nothing to do with the timing of the change in rules; and that change in rules is what folks criticized, not the timing of the indictment. My “eventually” above referred to the change in rules, of course. “Ultimately” may have been a better adverb.
I really think that if you step back from this and try to evaluate it without partisan influence, you’ll be able to see the point here. Try swapping out words if that’ll help, words that you find less emotionally charged; try looking at it in a week without anything vested in winning the argument.
Daniel
The big difference is that Pelosi removed Jefferson from his posts back when he was being investigated. The Republicans delayed for months while fighting the investigations and only removed DeLay after he was indicted. The Republican handling of Duke Cunningham and Mark Foley weren’t exactly swift justice either.
As for Gary Condit, it’s been six years and he was never convicted of any crime or involvement in Chandra Levy’s death. Nor was he ever indicted for anything or found guilty in any civil action. You might want to start to consider the possibility that he’s innocent.
Can we please stop this bickering about whether the Pubs or the Dems are more corrupt?
We, the people, despise you both very much! Don’t ask us to pick favorites!
Nothing will change as long as congressmen and senators are allowed to accpet payments from lobbyists. Congress should adopt a rule: lobbyists are free to roam the halls of governemnt-on one condition: they submit YEARLY reportsd on how much they spend on gifts to congress. These will be audited, and the results published in the national newspapers. then the electorate can learn who is being bought, and for how much… We might find that quite a bit of graft is quite legally awarded. in any case, we’d know who is working for whom.
That’s a defeatist attitude (and a lazy one). If you expect all politicians to be corrupt, you’re helping to support a corrupt system.
Make an effort. Learn which individuals are actually corrupt and distinguish them from the crowd. Even if everyone is corrupt, learn who is doing what and find out who are the worst offenders. Censor corrupt politicians and stop accepting their behavior as being typical. Vote against the most corrupt politicians. If corrupt politicians have nothing more to fear from you than a sigh of resignation, then you’re encouraging them to commit their crimes.
Oh please. While I’ll agree that Huey Long, David Duke, Edwin Edwards, and now Coldcash Jefferson haven’t done much to help the image of the Louisiana politician, you’re painting with a rather large brush here. Kathleen Blanco, our current governor, may be incompetent, but there’s no suggestion of impropriety. See also Mary Landrieu, David Vitter, and John Breaux. The current frontrunner in the gubernatorial race is squeaky clean Bobby Jindal.
Louisiana hasn’t cornered the market in corrupt politicians. Examples from elsewhere include Marion Barry, California’s Wille Brown, James Traficant, Richard Nixon, George Ryan, etc., etc. See here and here for more.
So let’s see if we can debate the issue without tarring an entire state and its citizens in the process. Thanks.
Me too. In our defense (he represents my district) the feds did not indict him on even one charge prior to the election. He was able to run as uncharged, despite the cash in the freezer, and prominent and electable challengers chose to sit out the race figuring (1) he’ll get indicted and have to step down and there will be a special election and (2) why risk losing to him when at worst we’ll have another election in 2 years?
So, just like with Ray Nagin’s reelection, a decent-sized field developed but with only one serious challenger. Given that scenario his reelection, while sad, was hardly surprising.
Ralph, where are you from? Do you know anything about what you write about with regards to South Louisiana, or are you just making things up?
The US Army Corps of Engineers has been in control of levee construction and maintenance since the Federal government stepped in and took jurisdiction after Hurricane Betsy. Cite. The parish levee boards, staffed by appointees at the state level and by the state governor, are not analagous to Congressman Jefferson’s Federal legislative post.
You’re somewhat correct in your assessment that the New Orleans levee board was a political patronage plum whose appointees engaged in shady dealings that didn’t get adequate investigation by the state. (Remember - - the levee boards are a state entity under state jurisdiction. Congressman Jefferson has a Federal post under Federal jurisdiction.) However, there were a lot of levee boards in SE LA that were not staffed by political hacks and worked hard to protect the citizens in their parishes. That point, however, is somewhat moot. Recently reformed, the levee boards have been consolidated into two large boards, one for the West Bank of the Mississippi River and one for the East Bank.
As for your assertion that a white legislator would have received a pass had he/she committed the same crimes for which Mr. Jefferson has been indicted, I don’t think that there are enough roll eyes smilies to convey my disagreement. Unless you have rock solid proof that this is the case, you shouldn’t go making such statements.