Republicans Change Mind Again On Ethics.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Well, what's it going to be, ethics or no ethics? Whatever it is apparently Delay is going to lead the way. Is this republicans best example of what ethics should be about?

---------------------------------------------
GOP Abandons Ethics Changes
Dissent in Party Halts House Move

By Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 4, 2005; Page A01

House Republican leaders last night abandoned a proposal to loosen rules governing members' ethical conduct, as they yielded to pressure from rank-and-file lawmakers concerned that the party was sending the wrong message.

The proposal would have made it more difficult for lawmakers to discipline a colleague for unethical behavior and would have allowed Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) to keep his post if he is indicted by a Texas grand jury that is looking into his campaign finance practices.

The sudden reversal came amid growing indications of dissension within the GOP. Just before House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert's office announced that the measures were being dropped, the chairman of the House ethics committee issued an unusual statement denouncing the leadership's plan.

Rep. Joel Hefley (Colo.), who appeared on the verge of being forced out as chairman after his committee voted three times last year to admonish DeLay, issued a statement criticizing the proposed rule changes as highly partisan and not in the best interests of the House. "Ethics reform must be bipartisan and this package is not bipartisan," Hefley said in the statement after sending Republican colleagues a letter outlining his objections.

Republicans voted to go ahead with another of their controversial ethics proposals and will ask the full House to approve a change that could curtail ethics committee investigations. Under the change, a Republican vote would be required before an inquiry can begin. The committee is evenly divided between the two parties, and under current rules a deadlock means an investigation begins automatically.

The actions came during a closed-door meeting of House Republicans, who had just returned to Washington for the start of the 109th Congress today. The decisions were made by Hastert and by DeLay, who asked his colleagues to reverse their decision in November to rewrite an 11-year-old party rule so that he could keep his leadership job even if indicted. A Texas grand jury has indicted three of his political associates in an investigation of campaign finances related to a House redistricting plan that DeLay helped push through in the state.

DeLay told the caucus last night that he is confident he will not face indictment, said a DeLay spokesman, Jonathan Grella. Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-Ariz.) said during a break in the meeting that the "indictment rule" was restored in part because of complaints that members had heard back home.

"Constituents reacted," he said. "We're blessed with a leadership that listens."

Aides said DeLay made the decision quite a while ago that he would propose changing the rule on indictments back to the previous version, saying that he could see Democrats would continue using the change as a basis for personal attacks. The aides said DeLay did not want to put Republicans through it, and wanted to deny Democrats the opening.

At their own private meeting, Democrats added a rule requiring party leaders to step down if they are indicted. Democrats planned to try to embarrass Republicans by proposing such a rule in the full House today.

The other proposed rule change abandoned by the Republicans last night would have negated an ethics rule that was used last year as the basis for admonishing DeLay three times -- for hosting a golf fundraiser for energy lobbyists before House consideration of the energy bill, for offering to endorse the political campaign of a lawmaker's son in exchange for the lawmaker's vote on Medicare legislation, and for enlisting Federal Aviation Administration officials to help track down Democratic Texas lawmakers who were trying to foil the redistricting plan. (continued)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45573-2005Jan3.html?nav=hcmodule

[Rock Chalk]

This just in....

no one gives a sh*t anymore, the election is over.

[alkemical]

translation:

it doesn't matter when our team does it

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

This just in....

no one gives a sh*t anymore, the election is over.

Um, the thread topic has nothing to do with the election, Einstein.

It addresses the GOP's shifting positions, i.e., flip-flops, on ethics.

translation:

it doesn't matter when our team does it

Bingo.

The rethugs are exactly the thing they are always accusing liberals of being:

Ethical relativists.

First they try to reverse their own rules to cover for DeLay, and now they're flip-flopping on the reversal. And just think - during the debates, Oil Boy constantly accused Kerry of shifting positions for political expediency. The hypocrisy and duplicity of these people never ceases to astonish.

http://objective.jesussave.us/kidzart-lambueloffersbible.png

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/ethics-burden.gif

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Proof Tom DeLay is now politically radioactive?

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/editorial/outlook/2978085

Monday's stunning reversal by U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Sugar Land, and the Republicans in Congress on the so-called DeLay Rule caught all by surprise, including those of us in the midst of the effort to hold politicians accountable for these types of actions.

But it shouldn't have. There are three reasons why DeLay caved on the provision, which was enacted by the House Republican conference back in mid-November and was designed to protect him if he gets indicted for his role in the on-going investigation into corporate fund-raising in Texas politics: constituent anger; a measurable rebellion among House members that emboldened House Democrats; and the growing sense that DeLay is becoming politically radioactive.

But first some background. Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle has been conducting an investigation into possibly illegal corporate campaign fund-raising in the 2002 elections by a DeLay-created political action committee known as TRMPAC. Eight corporations and three individuals have already been indicted by a grand jury for their role. All three individuals have strong ties to DeLay, making DeLay's potential indictment a matter of great speculation.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

AUSTIN, Texas -- Oh boy! Starting the year off briskly, lending it such tone already, such cachet, such je ne sais quoi -- those Republicans are so special, aren't they? Their first move, first rat out of the trap, top priority: lower ethics standards. Yessiree, this 2005 is going to be quite a year.

Let's put that to a vote. Many problems before us -- Iraq, a Social Security "crisis," a real health care crisis, world terrorism, our international reputation possibly at its lowest ever... who is in favor of lowering ethics standards first? Who thinks ethics standards in Washington are too high?

House "Republican leaders" -- that would be your Tom DeLay, Dennis Hastert and other moral heroes of our time -- want to repeal the rule that makes it possible for the House to censure members for bringing "discredit" on the House, even if their behavior does not fall under a specific rule.

http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=18328

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

DeLay’s Tactics Work On House Republicans

What the latest rules reversal proves is that while Mr. DeLay may be crude, he certainly isn’t stupid. Blistered by criticism from editorial boards and nonpartisan groups, the Republican boss realized that he and his members are now vulnerable to the same moral arguments they once used to oust the Democrats from power. That danger was emphasized by a coalition of eight citizen organizations, ranging from Judicial Watch on the right to Public Campaign on the left, which gave voice to public outrage. Suddenly, as angry e-mails poured into their offices, the people’s elected representatives understood that voting to weaken ethics rules on the first day of the 109th Congress wouldn’t look so good.

http://www.observer.com/pages/conason.asp

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/ele-ethics-values.gif

[orangeatheist]

http://www.bartcop.com/ele-ethics-values.gif

This is rich, coming from the unethical 'tard who alters his sources. I despise hypocrites like you.

[Rascal]

Hey moderators...how is the above posts by LABF not spam?

[MLB]

All posts by LABF are spam.

[alkemical]

I try to keep my spam in my own thread(s) :)

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Hey moderators...how is the above posts by LABF not spam?
Hey moderators? Maybe if you PMed them they would hear you.

[Rascal]

Hey moderators? Maybe if you PMed them they would hear you.

what makes you think I didn't?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

what makes you think I didn't?
Did they answer back they would take care of it "right away"?

[Rascal]

Did they answer back they would take care of it "right away"?

I got a response.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Oh my.

The amount of venom (and the charges of "spam") always seem to be directly proportionate to the degree to which repubs are confronted with the truth, doesn't it?

You can always tell when you've scored a direct hit on these people: They start lobbying the mods in earnest to make this a "republicans only" forum.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Kentucky State Senator leaves the GOP over their tactics

Hmm, every once and a while you do find one that actually has some principles. Repub bullying other Repubs doesn't always work that well. Don't know how much effect this will have, but at least there's the suggestion that they can't just run rampant now.

"FRANKFORT, Ky. - A state senator whose party switch 5 1/2 years ago helped the GOP take control of the chamber said Wednesday he will leave the Republican Party over its actions in a disputed election.

Sen. Bob Leeper said he will register as an independent later this week, becoming the lone independent in the General Assembly and the first since 1984.

His protest came after Senate Republicans voted to seat the GOP candidate who received the most votes in a Jefferson County election in November, even though courts have ruled Dana Seum Stephenson did not meet constitutional residency requirements.

A court hearing is scheduled Friday on whether Stephenson should continue as a senator.

The GOP has solid control of the Senate, but would need to keep both Leeper and Stephenson to have a "super-majority" needed to pass constitutional changes. In odd-numbered years, super-majorities are also needed to pass budget and tax measures. "

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=703&e=8&u=/ap/20050112/ap_on_re_us/kentucky_senate

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Seems if Delay has taken over the party now. What a fine representative for the right to hang their hat on!

------------------------------------------------------------------
Ethics switch gives GOP black eye

February 4, 2005

The House Republican leadership has done Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., no favors.

Speaker Dennis Hastert this week made Hastings the new chairman of the House ethics committee, the panel charged with investigating members who may have violated House rules. And Hastert was indeed acting by the book. The former chairman, Rep. Joel Hefley, R-Colo., had served the prescribed two terms and Hastings was next in line in seniority to take over the panel.

But the change has raised a stink. It was widely seen as a reprisal against Hefley because during his tenure the committee had admonished House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, for his political shenanigans, and Hastert is desperate to protect DeLay. Certainly Hefley believes that is the case. And The Washington Post cited House leadership aides as saying outright that they needed to have the ethics committee controlled by lawmakers they can trust.

On every case that comes before the committee - at least those the public hears about - Hastings will be in the unenviable position of having to prove a negative: that he is not a leadership stooge.
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/opinion/article/0,1299,DRMN_38_3521805,00.html

House GOP Leaders Name Loyalist to Replace Ethics Chief
By Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, February 3, 2005; Page A01

House Republican leaders tightened their control over the ethics committee yesterday by ousting its independent-minded chairman, appointing a replacement who is close to them and adding two new members who donated to the legal defense fund of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.).

Republican officials have spent months taking steps to ensure DeLay's political survival in case he is indicted by a Texas grand jury investigating political fundraising, and House leadership aides said they needed to have the ethics committee controlled by lawmakers they can trust.

Rep. Joel Hefley (R-Colo.), who clashed with DeLay so often that they barely spoke and was considered wayward by other leaders, was replaced yesterday with Rep. Richard Hastings (R-Wash.). Hastings has carried out other sensitive leadership assignments and is known as a favorite of Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), who made the decision.

Hefley said in an interview yesterday that he believes he was removed because he was too independent. He said there is "a bad perception out there that there was a purge in the committee and that people were put in that would protect our side of the aisle better than I did."

"Nobody should be there to protect anybody," he said. "They should be there to protect the integrity of the institution."

The replacement of Hefley is the latest in a series of actions by GOP leaders to crack down on a rebellious ethics committee that posed a threat to DeLay and other Republicans.

DeLay and other Republicans were angered in October when the ethics committee admonished DeLay for asking federal aviation officials to track an airplane involved in a Texas redistricting controversy, and for conduct that suggested political donations might influence legislative action.

It was the third time that the panel had admonished the powerful majority leader. And many Republicans were miffed because the complaint that led to the committee's findings was filed by then-Rep. Chris Bell (D-Tex.), a freshman who lost his primary last year under the redistricting plan that DeLay had promoted.

Hastert had signaled for months that he would refuse to waive a rule that limited Hefley's term as chairman. The leadership not only stripped Hefley of his chairmanship yesterday but also removed him from the committee.

Hastings, 63, was the second-ranking Republican on the committee, known formally as the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. Colleagues described him as unassuming and deliberative, and not excited about taking on the job. He ran his family's paper supply business before being elected to the House in 1994, the year Republicans regained control of Congress.

Hastings was in the speaker's chair in 2003 when the vote on the bill to add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare was kept open for nearly three hours while GOP leaders rounded up enough votes.

He also was chairman of an ethics subcommittee that looked into wrongdoing by former representative James A. Traficant Jr. (D-Ohio), who was expelled from the House in 2002. Traficant was later sentenced to prison for accepting bribes and evading taxes.

Republican leaders put on the committee two new members who have donated to a DeLay legal fund: Rep. Lamar S. Smith (R-Tex..) and Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.). Smith gave DeLay $10,000, making him among the seven largest donors among congressional members, and Cole gave $5,000, according to an analysis of disclosure records by the watchdog group Public Citizen.

DeLay's defense fund continues to operate, aides said. Public Citizen found that the DeLay Legal Expense Trust had collected $1 million from its inception in 2000 through the end of last year. Of that, $352,000 was from members of Congress and their political action committees, and $646,721 consisted of corporate money and donations from individuals and ideological organizations. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a coalition of eight government watchdog groups, said the donations suggest the lawmakers are there to serve as "Mr. DeLay's defenders."

Democrats and public interest groups said that changes made to the composition of the committee made it unlikely that DeLay's power would be threatened by committee action, no matter how many questions are raised about his activities.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said the removal of Hefley sent "a chilling message to members who value upholding the highest ethical standard over partisan loyalty."

Fred Wertheimer, president of the watchdog group Democracy 21, said Hastert had "seriously damaged the integrity of the House as an institution and his own credibility as the leader of the House."

Hefley said he "would not have changed the committee members, because I've sat there and watched them work with great integrity."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58884-2005Feb2.html