This doesn’t make sense. The point of the impeachment is to decide whether or not he should step down. If the Dems had a rule where someone in thier party who is impeached had to step down, then their wouldn’t be much point in actually going through with the impeachment.
I agree that it’s kind of a silly rule and of course the Repubs can change it if they want, but it smacks of hypocracy to pass a rule and then keep it until just before it actually become relavant, then toss it.
See post 14.
What “power” is being abused? You do realise, don’t you, that the Republicans could do this even if the Democratcs controlled both Houses of Congress, right? Of course, they wouldn’t have any leadership positions at that time, but it’s still an internal party rule, not a Senate-wide rule.
Well, no. As rjung said, it’s their party. The shamelessness of the timing is breathtaking to behold, to be sure, but we’re talking about Republican rules created by Republicans which only ever applied to Republicans. I just don’t think “abuse of power” is an accurate term here.
I’m, personally, not going to say that we shouldn’t question whether or not this action seems shady; I’m only commenting on the rule itself.
The rule seems out of place, in a system where we tout “innocent until proven guilty.”
LilShieste
Wrong. It stated that those in a Republican leadership positin resign the post if indicted of a felony crime. It was a caucus rule, not a House rule.
Wrong. It did not apply to Democrats.
See above.
Wrong. The Democrat’s internal caucus rule applies only to committee chairmen, not to leadership positions. They now propose to expand their caucus rule.
Let’s leave that as an exercise for the reader.
Now do you understand why I asked? You have no freaking idea what you’re talking about and yet want to start a debate on it. And you think I’m smug?
DeLay and the Republicans made a huge political blunder. This could have been a chance to make political points against the Democrats now, perhaps even bigger points later and at the least eliminate negative ones down the road.
DeLay should have resigned blasting the partisan Democrats. Republicans choose a straw man, say ‘Dan’, who is leader in name only – DeLay will still run things. If Delay gets cleared, then they could bring him back in a wave of self-rightous indignation.
If Delay is actually indicted and/or convicted, the Republicans need say nothing and the item will be like three sentences on page 2 for one news cycle, then forgotten.
What we have now however is if Delay is indicted, every news story of it will include the fact the Republicans changed the rules earlier to keep him and if he is also convicted, the story is even bigger. The Republicans will then have to officially dump him.
I thought it was understood that it only applied to Republicans - if that’s not clear from context, it’s what I meant. It was certainly clear that I understood that once you read the rest of my answer. If that’s all you were after, fine - the Republicans changed their rules so that Republicans don’t have to step down if indicted, although they got on the warpath about it when they passed the rule.
I’ve looked all over hell for something about that, and I can’t find it. Do you have a cite?
Well, yeah. I think I have a freaking idea what I’m talking about, but I don’t see where it would make me smug if I didn’t. You? Yeah, smug.
And, you promised if I delivered my answers, you’d defend what the Republicans did. Defend it.
It’s mentioned in this Yahoo News article:
Here’s a defense of it, if you’d like. The Republicans are allowed to pick their leaders however they want. Yeah, this is kind of weasily of them, but it’s internal party business.
And an indictment is to decide whether or not he should be convicted and suffer the consequences of the crime of which he was convicted. So impeachment and indictment are fairly equivalent.
The point being that Democrats are arguing that “anyone in a position of leadership who is indicted should step down” when Clinton was in a position of leadership, was (the equivalent of) indicted, and there was no great outcry from Democrats that he should step down.
I think manhattan’s analysis should suffice to show some of the other problems Democrats are encountering in their attempts to make political hay of this.
But, as has been pointed out, “innocent until proven guilty” ought to be enough of a defense in itself.
Regards,
Shodan
And did you think that when the Republicans were chest-thumping about it in 1993? Tom DeLay sure didn’t.
Is ethics just a game for conservatives? Argue whatever side benefits you right now strategically, and don’t let morals enter into it?
Sure it was, chief.
See Captain Amazing’s post above. Which is conveniently located in a Pit thread on this exact subject. Posted by someone on the left who took five seconds to find out what was going on.
And wait just a minute. You looked all over and couldn’t find it and you therefore just made something up for your initial response? Do you think anyone is buying that?
I’m a bug in a rug, baby. Or is that for people who are snug? Whatever. I’m right. You’re wrong.
It’s a heart-stoppingly stupid rule for either party to impose on itself, as it leaves the party’s leaders vulnerable to every politically motivated (or even merely capricious) prosecutor in the leader’s home state (and sometimes elsewhere). Much better is the new rule, where an indictment triggers a process by which the seriousness and potential validity of the charge is evaluated. Accordingly, the rule change was a good one.
Now here’s the bipartisan part. That the rule was dumb and needed to be changed does not excuse the Republicans from derision here. They were stupid and shortsighted when they passed it in the first place to score a short-term political point. Now that they’re learning the hard way just how stupid it was, a heaping serving of political pain is good for them. It might even reinforce the lesson[sup]1[/sup].
[sup]1[/sup]: No it won’t.
Nice try, but you obviously don’t know the difference between being impeached and being convicted. A presidential impeachment is the equivalent to being indicted of a crime; it is only an accusation. Unless you are suggesting that all those merely accused of crimes should step aside, in which case DeLay is already overstaying his welcome. Is that what you meant?
For those of you with a sardonic turn of mind, I recommend you check in with Mr. Josh Marshall, of Talking Points Memo, the informed citizens friend.
He is tracking as well attempts to get congresscritters to go on record as to which way they voted. (The act of whoredom was committed by voice vote, a trusty ally in the quest for accountability by way of anonymity. Which is to say, no actual recording of the vote is ever made, no potentially embarassing “yea” or “nay”.)
I am happy to note, in the spirit of robust non-partisanship, that friend Manny is much, much less wrong than usual.
Why would I say, “the Democrats still have the rule,” if I didn’t know it was only for Republicans, Skip?
WTF? I couldn’t find anything that said the Democrats’ rule was different; in fact, I had a cite which said they were the same. Didn’t make it up.
I wrote to my congressman that by accomplishing it with a voice vote, they’ve made me hold the entire Republican House responsible.
Actually, I think that was Shodan’s point. He was saying that DeLay right now is in the same position as Clinton was after he was impeached, and if you say that DeLay should be removed as leader because he was indicted, even though he hasn’t been convicted yet, that’s like saying that Clinton should be removed when he was impeached, before Clinton’s conviction.
That was his point, yes, but it’s still wrong, and still derived from the typical hardcore GOP approach of looking for a tu quoque whenever their own morality is in question. A criminal indictment is a statement by a number of ordinary citizens that there is probable cause to believe the defendant committed a crime. An impeachment, as we’ve seen, can be just a partisan-political act of spite. DeLay’s apologists have been trying to spin his problems that way, naturally, but not with any credibility.
Idealy, an impeachment is a statement by the house of representatives that there’s probable cause that a member of the executive or judicial branch has committed a crime, as well. Of course, it can be used as a partisan act of spite, but so can an indictment.
What reason is there to believe that the DeLay indictment would be a “partisan act of spite”?
I hasten to point out to friend Elvis that Mr. DeLay, whose corpse-like pallor and demeanor is an inspiration for “Goth” afficianados everywhere, is not only a politician, but a Texan as well. Thus, a paragon of candor and a palladin of civic virtue fused in one flesh!