It’s becoming clear why you moved the hell out.
bup: You still haven’t explained why this action is an “abuse of power”. If you like, you can retract the claim instead.
Precisely. Democrats are saying that if DeLay is simply accused (as you say) of a crime, he ought to step down. If they weren’t being hypocritical, they would have said the same when Clinton was impeached, since impeachment and indictment are fairly equivalent (as I mentioned earlier - scroll up). But they aren’t saying that. They are, in other words, being hypocritical.
I am not suggesting it. The Democrats are suggesting it, by saying that those in leadership positions ought to step down when indicted or impeached. Unless they are Democrats.
Regards,
Shodan
I don’t think it would be. I’m not defending DeLay, who seems to be pretty corrupt and scummy. I’m saying that it’s possible for a district attorney with a grudge to draw up an indictment against a member of the Congressional leadership, just as it’s possible for the House to impeach the president or a judge out of spite, and that neither an impeachment or indictment is itself proof of guilt.
It’s clear that the motivation of the Republicans in this case is to protect Tom DeLay, and (to the extent that the congressmen favoring the rules change favored the rule in the first place) is hypocritical, but that doesn’t mean that changing the rule is in itself a bad idea.
I could accept that if they would fess up to the fact that they originally adopted the “bad rule” for no other reason than cheap posturing.
That sums up my feeling on the matter – they adopted the rule 11 years ago to get a cheap shot at the Democrats, and now it’s only fair that its repeal gives the Democrats a chance to get a cheap shot back.
What do you think the big hoo-hah being made of this in the press is? If it makes you feel better to get your ounce (not pound) of flesh on this, that’s great. Because when all is said and done, nothing will change, and the Republicans will still be in control of the presidency and both houses of Congress.
And blaming Clinton and the Democrats for all the ills in the country.
the Democrats are not getting a “cheap shot” back. They are merely pointing out obvious hypocrisy on the Repubs’ part. That is not a “cheap shot” it’s completely fair and aboveboard.
Again, if it makes you feel better to think that, go right ahead.
Until DeLay is actually proven guilty, there is no reason to do anything “to” him. An indictment is just a “reading of the charges” and a “test” to see if there is grounds to go further - trial, exile to Siberia, narfle the Garthok, etc. If DeLay is shown to be guility, then get rid of him. Presumption of innocense until proven guilty.
Making the other party seem corrupt (well both parties are corrupt, but pointing that out about the other guy) is no doubt a very old political tool. It worked for the Repubs in the 80’s and 90’s, and will probably work for the Dems today. Sure this particular psuedo-scadal won’t hurt them too much, but if added to by another few misdemeanors over the next few years, it will help add to a general preception that the Repubs can’t be trusted, and they may in fact loose some seats over it.
I wish elections were decided based on calm analyisis of policies, but the fact is that dumb little scandals like this one are probably a larger factor.
Of course, Steve, quite right. What one notes with mounting glee is that the Pubbies, those paragons of civic virtue, had not discovered this abiding principle until Rep. DeLay (R, Undead) was at risk.
One also notes, with the ongoing assistance of Mr. Josh Marshall, of Talking Points Memo, the odd sort of modesty that has overcome some Repubs. One would think they might be trumpeting their new-found moral clarity from the roof tops, and yet, strangely enough, few are willing to have their names firmly attached to this.
Must be that becoming modesty which is so much the lodestone of our congresscritters, that they shy away from associating themselves with such actions as might bring avalanches of feverish approval and approbation. Yes, that must be it.
Elsewise, how to account for their insistence on anonymity, in an effort to protect one of our finest and wisest from the scurrillous mongerings of a “crackpot” District Attorney and his trumped up array of documents, canceled checks and testimony? Why, one need only look upon the face of the driven snow pure Mr. DeLay, and see the innocence and prudence etched on every crater-like pore, a man whose gentle guidance and persuasion has earned him the nickname, “the Hammer”.
If we forget about the political parties and their rules for the moment, assume that you have a coworker who thinks he is the authority on “moral values” and keeps saying “I am so honest and moral, that, if I ever so much as get indicted, I’ll resign from the company”.
Then, one day, he is gets indicted and fails to resign.
When you ask him why, he says, “It was my rule, and I can change it whenever I want. Besides, by law, I’m innocent until proven guilty”
The issue is that, though he is technically correct, such behavior would show that he is a complete asshole and a hypocrite.
I would hold the door open for him to leave, with a big smirk on my face. If he chose not to leave, I would take sadistic glee in teasing him about his flipflop from then on.
Well, you’re right about that - just wrong phrase, or just overstated. It’s more accurately “Republicans are behaving like those who abuse power might behave.” It’s still disgusting, and I think the Republicans’ point of view at the moment is entirely dependent on the situation, rather than any principle.
You’re assuming the GOP had any principles to begin with.
(Okay, okay, there’s the “Win at any cost” principle, but that’s not exactly something to be proud of, is it?)
I won’t push you further on this, but you’re statement is simply unsupportable because there is no “power” in this instance at all.
I can agree with that. And the point is that they made a stupid rule several years ago and now they are correcting it-- and paying some small political price for doing so. What would be REALLY foolish would be to keep the rule, to the detrimant of the party, just to look good. The error was made in the past, not in the current action, so if anythign should be condemned it’s the act of creating the rule in the first place.
I’m about as disturbed by this as I am about politically motivated redistricting. Both parties do it, and shame on them when they do.