# Repubs unveil new ethics plan **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 17, 2006, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/repubs-unveil-new-ethics-plan/340405 "2006-01-17T20:32:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2006, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/repubs-unveil-new-ethics-plan/340405/41 "2006-01-18T20:28:33Z")
> [@UncleBeer](#): > > Which is the same point I’m arguing. So, I’m not sure why you’re pickin’ on me, when Otto is the guy who seemed intent on making a distinction. Followed by several others, of course. Oh for fuck’s sake. It was a little swipe at the party in power who, facing several ethical scandals and indictments, probably with more to come, are now moving to implement ethics. A “closing the barn door after the horse has stolen your tractor” kind of thread. If it makes you feel any better, I will cheerfully concede that there are politicians on every possible side of the aisle who are unethical. I just didn’t happen to see stories on the rest of them that day. And it was Neil Bush who was a player in the S&L scandal. He later went on to work for a semi-conducter manufacturer despite having little knowledge of semi-conducters, and during a deposition given during his divorce expressed [surprise](http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/11/25/bush.brother.reut/) that while on business trips for his employer Asian women would spontaneously show up at his hotel room and have sex with him. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2006, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/repubs-unveil-new-ethics-plan/340405/42 "2006-01-18T21:06:16Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > [The APPEARANCE of Ethics](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/17/AR2006011701311.html) is “teh new hotness”: In other words, the Republicans are tired of dodging the existing laws, and want something new to weasel out of. > [@Otto](#): > > And it was Neil Bush who was a player in the S&L scandal. He later went on to work for a semi-conducter manufacturer despite having little knowledge of semi-conducters, and during a deposition given during his divorce expressed surprise that while on business trips for his employer Asian women would spontaneously show up at his hotel room and have sex with him. Wow, hadn’t heard about _that_ before. :eek: I guess he just chalked it up to his animal charisn’tma or something… ---
**Author:** ![Syntropy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Syntropy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Syntropy)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2006, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/repubs-unveil-new-ethics-plan/340405/43 "2006-01-18T23:16:21Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > How broadly do you have to define your terms to make that statement, one which conforms to the current “liberal media” talking points? Every single pol who took money from Abramoff is a member of just one party. 1st: I am a liberal, so it’s not like I’m trying to smear Dems. 2nd: I took it from this [SF Chronicle](http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/12/19/MNGMJGA6RO1.DTL&hw=Abramoff&sn=008&sc=615) article. The Chron is pretty liberal, I would say. > [@](#): > > The research by the Center for Responsive Politics shows that of the top 25 congressional recipients of political money linked to Abramoff, 19 are Republicans and six are Democrats. > > \ > > The Democrats include, at No. 19, Harry Reid of Nevada, his party’s Senate leader, who received a total of $30,500. Asked if Reid was considering whether to return the money, his office said in a statement that he was “reviewing the circumstances of the donations.” > > The top Democrat on the list, who took in $42,500, is Rep. Patrick Kennedy of Rhode Island, who sits on the House Appropriations Committee, which determines how the federal budget is divided. Sean Richardson, a spokesman for the lawmaker, said Kennedy was a founder of the congressional Native American Caucus and had a “direct personal relationship with tribes” and “none of it has anything to do with Jack Abramoff.” Certainly the majority are Republicans, but Dems aren’t allergic to money, either. ---
**Author:** ![Chefguy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chefguy/32/138_2.png) [@Chefguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chefguy)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2006, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/repubs-unveil-new-ethics-plan/340405/44 "2006-01-19T01:37:42Z")
> [@UncleBeer](#): > > Knock yourself out. I’m not married. Never have been and in all likelyhood, never will be. But, whatever. Feel free to take shot at my mother. > Oops. You’re right; I booted that one. At least, though, you get one point in this thread. > Actually, I’m saying the reverse. The Democrats _didn’t_ do “it.” > Odd. I thought we were talking about Congress here, not the Executive branch. But if it’s Democratic scandals ya want, how 'bout the S&L fiasco? And ya might wanna take another look at ABSCAM; the first guy ejected from Congress over that sting (since 1861, I should add) was Michael Joseph Myers - a _Democrat_ from PA. Also convicted of accepting bribes were: John Murphy (D. NY), Frank Thompson (D. NJ). Other Democrats convicted were: Harrison Williams, Raymond Lederer & John Jenrette. And let’s not forget Angelo Errichetti, the on-time Democratic mayor of Camden, NJ. The only convictions of a Republican, Richard Kelly, were overturned in 1982. > > Sou much for that vaunted memory of yours. It’s not only selective, it’s wrong about things it does store for you. Wow, nice way to misread things, shit for brains. I keep forgetting that I shouldn’t argue with witless fools. I can see why you’re “never married and probably never will be”. Women around the world will be breathing a huge sigh of relief on that news. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2006, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/repubs-unveil-new-ethics-plan/340405/45 "2006-01-19T13:34:10Z")
> [@Maureen](#): > > Certainly the majority are Republicans, but Dems aren’t allergic to money, either. Never said they weren’t. “Linked to Abramoff”, in this article, though, means “Took money from some of the same people who gave money _to_ Abramoff”, not “Took money _from_ Abramoff.” ---
**Author:** ![Syntropy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Syntropy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Syntropy)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2006, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/repubs-unveil-new-ethics-plan/340405/46 "2006-01-19T21:51:15Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Never said they weren’t. “Linked to Abramoff”, in this article, though, means “Took money from some of the same people who gave money _to_ Abramoff”, not “Took money _from_ Abramoff.” Okay, that sounds like the kind of hair-splitting Tom DeLay is trying to pull off. According to the [Washington Post](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/02/AR2005060202158_pf.html): > [@](#): > > But Abramoff didn’t work just with Republicans. He oversaw a team of two dozen lobbyists at the law firm Greenberg Traurig that included many Democrats. Moreover, the campaign contributions that Abramoff directed from the tribes went to Democratic as well as Republican legislators. > > Among the biggest beneficiaries were Capitol Hill’s most powerful Democrats, including Thomas A. Daschle (S.D.) and Harry M. Reid (Nev.), the top two Senate Democrats at the time, Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.), then-leader of the House Democrats, and the two lawmakers in charge of raising funds for their Democratic colleagues in both chambers, according to a Washington Post study. Reid succeeded Daschle as Democratic leader after Daschle lost his Senate seat last November. I’m not saying that the little ethics policy shuffle the Pubs are trying to pull off is legit, and I’m not saying they shouldn’t be called on it. I’m saying that as Democrats, we can’t point fingers and expect Republicans to call their leaders on the bullshit if we’re not willing to do the same thing. If Tom Daschle and Harry Reid took money and favors from Abramoff, either directly or laundered, they should be held accountable for doing so. As should every member of congress, _regardless of party affilliation_, who did so. ---
**Author:** ![lonesome\_loser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c68b51/32.png) [@lonesome\_loser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lonesome_loser)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2006, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/repubs-unveil-new-ethics-plan/340405/47 "2006-01-20T01:39:16Z")
> [@Maureen](#): > > 1st: I am a liberal, so it’s not like I’m trying to smear Dems. > 2nd: I took it from this [SF Chronicle](http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/12/19/MNGMJGA6RO1.DTL&hw=Abramoff&sn=008&sc=615) article. The Chron is pretty liberal, I would say. > Certainly the majority are Republicans, but Dems aren’t allergic to money, either. The Dems who received money got the money from the tribes themselves. They are allowed to make campaign contributions to whoever they wish. Abramoff gave no money to a democrat. Just as an aside. Didn’t the republicans come into power saying they would clean up the corrupution in the congress? And now they have to clean themselves up? There are not enough :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![duffer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duffer/32/1026_2.png) [@duffer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/duffer)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2006, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/repubs-unveil-new-ethics-plan/340405/48 "2006-01-20T02:12:46Z")
> [@lonesome loser](#): > > Didn’t the republicans come into power saying they would clean up the corrupution in the congress? > > And now they have to clean themselves up? > > There are not enough :rolleyes: Kind of like in 1992 when we heard the WH would be the most ethical administration in history. Rolleyes indeed. By the way, even golden boy Harry Reid is [apologizing](http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/01/19/D8F81ICG6.html) for trying to make it so political. > [@](#): > > Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid on Thursday apologized to 33 Republican senators singled out for ethics criticism in a report from his office titled “Republican Abuse of Power.” > > “The document released by my office yesterday went too far and I want to convey to you my personal regrets,” Reid said in a letter. > > I am writing to apologize for the tone of this document and the decision to single out individual senators for criticism in it." > > \*\*Reid came under attack Wednesday over the report, which was issued by his staff on Senate letterhead, even as he and fellow Democrats released ethics overhaul proposals. \*\* Nice to see how “Ending the politics of personal destruction” is still in play. Now if we can just get a playbook on when and how these cute soundbites actually apply. It’s all well and good to apologize, but I think most of us know that the accusation is more often remembered than the retraction. Once it hits the press, the backtrack is often forgotten. And yes, both sides are guilty. It’s funny, though, that around here certain paties are always guilty, and the other always forgiven. Rolleyes, indeed. ---
**Author:** ![lonesome\_loser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c68b51/32.png) [@lonesome\_loser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lonesome_loser)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2006, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/repubs-unveil-new-ethics-plan/340405/49 "2006-01-20T02:28:43Z")
> [@duffer](#): > > Kind of like in 1992 when we heard the WH would be the most ethical administration in history. Rolleyes indeed. > By the way, even golden boy Harry Reid is [apologizing](http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/01/19/D8F81ICG6.html) for trying to make it so political. > > Nice to see how “Ending the politics of personal destruction” is still in play. Now if we can just get a playbook on when and how these cute soundbites actually apply. It’s all well and good to apologize, but I think most of us know that the accusation is more often remembered than the retraction. Once it hits the press, the backtrack is often forgotten. > > And yes, both sides are guilty. It’s funny, though, that around here certain paties are always guilty, and the other always forgiven. > > Rolleyes, indeed. Ethics in '92…just what did the Clinton WH does that was unethical? You aren’t talking BJ’s are you? And besides. The WH ain’t congress. And I agree Reid should apologize. It isn’t the Senate where the problem is. ---
**Author:** ![duffer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duffer/32/1026_2.png) [@duffer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/duffer)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2006, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/repubs-unveil-new-ethics-plan/340405/50 "2006-01-20T02:41:36Z")
> [@lonesome loser](#): > > Ethics in '92…just what did the Clinton WH does that was unethical? > > You aren’t talking BJ’s are you? > > And besides. > > The WH ain’t congress. > > And I agree Reid should apologize. It isn’t the Senate where the problem is. Oh, nothing unethical there. So you really want. Links to. Accusations? That’s what we’re dealing with. And no. I’m not talking about blowjobs. And I realize the WH ain’t Congress. Besides. I thought it was an overall argument of ethics in politics. Didn’t know we were talking about different rules based on each political arm. Sorry. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2006, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/repubs-unveil-new-ethics-plan/340405/51 "2006-01-20T03:25:26Z")
> [@duffer](#): > > And yes, both sides are guilty. It’s funny, though, that around here certain paties are always guilty, and the other always forgiven. > > Rolleyes, indeed. False equivalence again, duffer. All the evidence indicates that the Republicans are one hell of a lot more guilty than the Dems. Abramov was a huge Republican partisan , it’s little wonder he’d use the watering can on his fave party rather than sprinkle it around equally. Saying both sides are guilty is like saying both sides scored in a 42-7 route. Yeah, it’s technically true, but it’s deeply misleading. ---
**Author:** ![duffer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duffer/32/1026_2.png) [@duffer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/duffer)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2006, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/repubs-unveil-new-ethics-plan/340405/52 "2006-01-20T03:45:22Z")
So guilt only applies if the other side is more guilty? As long as the other side scores more points, your team didn’t play? Got it. Thanks for the clarification. ---
**Author:** ![lonesome\_loser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c68b51/32.png) [@lonesome\_loser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lonesome_loser)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2006, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/repubs-unveil-new-ethics-plan/340405/53 "2006-01-20T03:49:45Z")
> [@duffer](#): > > So guilt only applies if the other side is more guilty? As long as the other side scores more points, your team didn’t play? Got it. Thanks for the clarification. Tell me you aren’t really that stupid. What a minute. You are the smartass. You are that stupid. You believe that if you have 50 guilty guys on one side and two on the other side. They are equal. Right? ---
**Author:** ![Syntropy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Syntropy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Syntropy)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2006, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/repubs-unveil-new-ethics-plan/340405/54 "2006-01-20T17:24:49Z")
> [@lonesome loser](#): > > The Dems who received money got the money from the tribes themselves. They are allowed to make campaign contributions to whoever they wish. There were four hours between this post and the one directly above it (mine). You didn’t read it before you posted this? > [@](#): > > Didn’t the republicans come into power saying they would clean up the corrupution in the congress? > > And now they have to clean themselves up? > > There are not enough :rolleyes: Agreed. And I think the harsher resolutions put forth by Pelosi should be put into place. The vague peice of pap put forward originally by the Republicans was damage control. I can’t believe anyone here would deny that. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/repubs-unveil-new-ethics-plan/340405.md?page=2)