Tom Friedman is angry this Thanksgiving, and if you ask me, he has every damned right to be. You should be pissed, too, especially if you are a Republican:
In my next life, I want to be Tom DeLay, the House majority leader.
Yes, I want to get almost the entire Republican side of the House of Representatives to bend its ethics rules just for me. I want to be able to twist the arms of House Republicans to repeal a rule that automatically requires party leaders to step down if they are indicted on a felony charge – something a Texas prosecutor is considering doing to DeLay because of corruption allegations.
But most of all, I want to have the gall to sully American democracy at a time when young American soldiers are fighting in Iraq so we can enjoy a law-based society here and, maybe, extend it to others. Yes, I want to be Tom DeLay. I want to wear a little American flag on my lapel in solidarity with the troops, while I besmirch every value they are dying for.
If I can’t be Tom DeLay, then I want to be one of the gutless Republican House members who voted to twist the rules for DeLay out of fear that “the Hammer,” as they call him, might retaliate by taking away a coveted committee position or maybe a parking place.
Yes, I want to be a Republican House member. At a time when 180 of the 211 members of the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit in Iraq who have been wounded in combat have insisted on returning to duty, I want to look my constituents and my kids in the eye and tell them that I voted to empty the House ethics rules because I was afraid of Tom DeLay.
Simply inexcusable. I understand that Ronnie Earle is a partisan hack who has a history of political prosecution, but after all of DeLay’s shenanigans with redistricting and who knows what else, it was kinda hard not to see this coming. Now, for no reason whatsoever other than arrogance, DeLay and is minions (morons??) have given the Democrats the ability to tar all Republicans as hypocrites. And you know what? They may be on to something, even though the Democrats have no such rule themselves.
platosearwax
I agree with you. And that is something to give thanks for.
Random Numbers
So you favor Zero-Tolerance rules?
clang
Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that DeLay is actually guilty of the alleged corruption (and AFAIK, the matter is supposed to be decided by a jury, not a partisan hack behind closed doors and without recourse to legal remedies).
What is the proper course of action to deal with such corruption?
And if DeLay is in fact guilty and indicted for it, why should those ethics rules be relaxed for his sake?
“And you know what? They may be on to something, even though the Democrats have no such rule themselves.”
Fair enough. But why was that rule installed back then?
clang
“So you favor Zero-Tolerance rules?”
We’re talking about (a) congressional leadership, and (b) felonies. What do you propose, three strikes and you’re out? So by that logic, somebody with two felonies should be allowed to be House Majority Leader and representative of their party?
John Cole
I am not going to deal with hypotheticals. I have said my piece.
Random Numbers
Speaking as someone who has been indicted for a heinous crime, had that charge dismissed, and who still has trouble getting some jobs due to the indictment being on my public record, I think that the rule of actually examining the indictment to determine it’s veracity is a good one.
IT IS NOT A FELONY TO BE INDICTED FOR ONE!
Random Numbers
I will, however, go so far as to say that this is entirely the wrong time to make this rule change. It would be better to wait until DeLay is aquitted or the charges dismissed to make this change, but it is still a better rule than the “zero-tolerance” crap in place now.
Terry Ott
It’s a bad rule, because these things should be decided case-by-case. If not that, then the alleged offender should step aside, not step down, and let someone else do the job until the matter is resolved.
So the first mistake was made when the rule was written as it was (why was that done? I can’t recall). And the second mistake, as noted by another, was in repealing it when this particular matter is pending.
Two wrongs do not make a right … they just make for embarrassment.
platosearwax
IIRC the Republicans put the rule in place in 1993 to get rid of Rostenkowski.
I agree that indictments are not felonies or proof of wrongdoing. However, the party that decries the democrats lack of attention to the rule of law is showing themselves to be pretty hypocritical in changing the “rule of law” when they might be subject to it.
I think the rule should be that a conviction triggers the punishment. But changing it now, for this reason, is really sleazy.
slickvguy
I disagree.
That rule should never have been there in the first place. Good riddance.
And what would be hypocritical of the Republicans. You didn’t say. The Dems don’t need a similar rule to charge hypocrisy, but what is the GOP being hypocritical of?
Ramrod
I’m not a fan of DeLay but I think you should correct your record. The report I have heard is that the rule that was changed in his favor was not a House rule but a Republican rule. I am further informed that the Democrat Party has no similar rule.
I also argee that we ought to hold our judgement until the facts are in. We have just been through a campaign that was rife with lies about another parties members. [For example, the Rather forgery issue.] It seems to be a fact that the person bringing the charges is a partisan Democrat. Let’s see how it plays out.
Kimmitt
Sounds about right — the Republicans adopt a rule to try to make the Dems look bad, then rescind it when it might affect them. That pretty much sums up the Republican attitude toward laws in general; use them against your opponents, then change them when they get inconvenient.
Jason
Sounds about right — the Republicans adopt a rule to try to make the Dems look bad, then rescind it when it might affect them. That pretty much sums up the Republican attitude toward laws in general; use them against your opponents, then change them when they get inconvenient.
Yeah… that pretty much sums up the Democratic attitude towards the law, as well. Remember the Office of Independent Counsel?
This kind of partisan gamesmanship cuts both ways.
Rick
DeLay and is minions (morons??) have given the Democrats the ability to tar all Republicans as hypocrites.
John,
Oh, the Dems would never think of doing that otherwise? Where have you been the last 35 years?
Cordially…
Al Maviva
I say we fucking shoot Delay right now. Castrate his dead body then hang him from a street lamp at 2nd and East Capitol, and then set the body alight. And we’ll do the same thing to any Republicans indicted (or under an attempted but failed indictment). That will show the Marines we take ethical violations seriously. Hopefully, Ronnie Earle doesn’t indict the President since we’ll have to do that to Dubya, too.
On the other side of the coin, I’d have preferred if Delay stepped aside for a while until Earle’s stupid attempt to indict him was quashed. Delay is a low-rent partisan game player, who happens to be of ideoligically conservative leanings. Somehow, I have trouble summoning outrage over what Ronnie Earle is trying to do to him, and I have equal trouble summoning outrage over the Republican caucus easing the rules for him. Maybe it’s because I’m corrupt and immoral myself, or maybe it’s because I remember the ethics wars of the 80’s and 90’s, and how house ethics rules and proceedings were played for partisan advantage by both parties, along with the independent prosecutor law. Lawrence Walsh, anybody?
Uncle Mikey
What Delay and company recently did with respect to redistricting was first done in 1991 by Democrats, led by Martin Frost. Don’t remember Democrats having a problem with it then, nor do I remember Texas Republicans running off to Oklahoma or New Mexico to avoid it. It’s a non-issue regardless of your opinion of Delay.
CadillaqJaq
I think it’s a dumb rule, regardless who it benefited initially.
Somewhere around here, one is still considered innocent until proven guilty except in the eyes of former House Speaker Tom Foley, D-WA, who considered the “seriousness of the charge” paramount regardless of it’s provity.
I don’t like either Ron Earle or Tom DeLay. DeLay reminds me of a greasy snake-oil salesman or an Elmer Gantry. IMO he’s making an attempt to follow in the steps of several other crafty Texas politicians: former Speakers Jim Claud Wright and Sam Rayburn to name a couple. Above all, don’t forget the craftiest of them all, LBJ.
Maybe it’s something in the water down there.
Mark L
It is said that hard cases make bad law. Ronnie Earle has a history of filing indictments against those with whom he has political differences, both Democrats and Republicans. He has done this irrespective of the evidence against the individual, if he felt an indictment would yield political gain. In at least one case (a corruption charge against Kay Bailey Hutchinson), when a case came to trial, Earle then stated that he was not ready to proceed with the prosecution, and the case was dismissed at that point, with the defendent getting an acquittal.
Given a prosecutor with a history of filing bogus indictments, and seeing that man has an opportunity to deny one of most powerful Republicans in Texas from serving as Majority Leader — just by filing an indictment that will never get prosecuted — what would YOU do, John? Give the little weasel his pound of flesh?
There is not a rats chance that Delay will get convicted of anything. There is a strong likelihood that if Earle does file charges he will again plead that he is unready to proceed when the case comes to trial. The bipartisan House Ethics Committee rebuked the loser that filed the complaints that led to Earle’s empaneling a grand jury, because they felt his charges were baseless. This is just another example of the Democrats using the law to mug someone.
Noel
Tom DeLay has not been indicted of anything, yet is spoken of as if he’d already been indicted, tried, convicted and sentenced.
Ronnie Earle doesn’t get a veto over the House majority. So far, the only crime I’ve seen any evidence of at all is malicious prosecution.
That rule put a big, fat target on his back so it had to be changed. Now, the House Republicans would review any charges to see if they pass the stink test. If so, he’d be gone. That’s sounds reasonable to me.
Based on his track record of seeking in court what he cannot win at the ballot box, Earle is just another Travis County Democrat, cooking things up down in Texas like Dan Rather and his Gang of Forgers.
The rule had to be changed because yet another Democrat, yet again, has proven he can’t be trusted with power.
Andrew | BB
Noel, that’s your view. No one is speaking as if he is already indicted – that’s the !@#$% point.
Uncle Mikey, This also isn’t only about the redestricting; it’s about Indian gaming and about lobbying groups playing both sides.
John Cole is the only Republican / conservative I’ve read / seen to see the sleeze for what it is from the Republicans on this. And that is shameful.
PS it’s not a Republican rule. You can’t get rid of Democrat Dan Rostenkowski, with a Republican party rule. ?????
It is a House rule. The final “DeLay rule” was slightly altered from what it was – to allow that “stink” review
A lot of half-assed opinion here and very few facts. It’s why I will never consider 99.99999999999 percent of blogs as a news source. That and having to address someone as “Uncle Mikey” on a serious point.
“I’m a grown-ass man” – Cedric the Entertainer