In a strong push to convince Americans that it was not, after all, the concept of moral values that pushed them to victory on November 2, House Republicans yesterday changed an internal rule requiring GOP leaders indicted for felonies to step down. Coincidentally, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay stands a chance of being indicted for a felony in Texas in the context of an investigation of allegedly illegal political contributions. AP story on the stain at 1010 WINS.
| GOP |
I think we should let Dem congressmen run against Tom DeLay in 2006 the way we used to run against Newt Gingrich. Find out who supported the change in this party rule and hound them.
Comment #1 :: link :: November 18, 2004 12:27 PMQ: Do you fellows know what the House Democrats' rule is on members who are indicted?
A: There is no rule, no suspensions, no consequences at all for members who are indicted. They may continue serving in any capacity they were serving in before the indictment.
Does this lessen the wind in your pious sails? Does it make you feel a little less morally superior?
Look, the GOP made this party rule to "prove" that they were morally superior to the Dems. Now that the rule has proven to be inconvenient for them, they abandon it. According to TPM, only one GOP Member has owned up to voting for the rule change, so far. Fact is, Tom DeLay is a political liability -- albeit a very powerful one. Read more on DeLay.
Comment #3 :: link :: November 18, 2004 11:33 PMC-roc:
No, it has no effect on my feelings of moral equivalency with them. Especially since I was talking about the Republicans, not the Democrats, the Libertarians, or the Right-to-Life Party. If a party wants to run on moral values and then shows those values to be as fickle as their taste for pursuing Osama bin Laden, that's situational ethics. Go read up on ethics -- situational ethics are no ethics at all.
