Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

“This year, Hefley’s committee has reprimanded DeLay three times for such sleaze as promising to support the political campaign of another congressman’s son if the congressman voted for a certain bill.”

I guess I don’t understand. I assumed that this was just politics as usual.

I assumed that this was just politics as usual.

And it will be, if you let it.

Lets work to keep watch over Joel Hefley and recognize that this is a significant victory. The Dems should enact similar rules for themselves.

Jack, if I’m not mistaken these are house rules aren’t they?

Tom Delay is the epitome of hypocrisy. In another time he would be a Democrat. He’s opportunist all the way.

I am ever hopeful that the Austin prosecutor or a Grand Jury may indict him yet. Apparently he was scared enough to attempt this rule change. He is selling political favors pure and simple.

I’m glad to see SOMEBODY in Congress that has some ethics about him.
We need more like him in Washington.
Way to go Joel.

CHOPS- Great post!! Makes me want to be a more resposible news consumer.

Greg - Some of the rules in questions are House-wide rules, others specifically Republican. The main rule in question was a GOP-specific commitment that anyone in a leadership position would have to step down even before proven guilty of corruption, in case of a grand jury indictment, inter alia. This pertains directly to DeLay.

Bettina - thanks for the kind words. I hope you can get some reading satisfaction out of WatchBlog, InstantReplay, and other sites.

Well Well
Didn’t we ride to power (1994) and the very grounds of smaller government and an end to the corruption or at least less corruption.
WHOO RA
This is a good thing yet there is some confusion in this issue as it is presented. We at the same time don’t want to cut someone’s head off because of an accusation and sometimes investigations go nowhere because of lack of evidence and sheer puffery on the part of those across the isle.
Yet even with that said the high ground is the right ground better to quench the fire before it spreads farther along. I’m glad to see that there are still men who will stand up to corruption when it is blatant. Hefley is to be commended for this takes courage to go against the grain and more of this is in order on both sides of the fence.

When the lawmakers change the laws to exempt themselves, there is no equal protection under the law. In fact, the very concept of law is jeopardized. It is encouraging to see Republicans speak up critically against their government on grounds of principle and ethics. It is only a shame that when non Republicans do it, they are called treasonous and traiterous. Animal Farm by Orwelle posits that some are more equal than others. We are witnessing the principle here and now.

Excellent article, Chops.

There’s a problem.

The Republican congress did indeed get rid of the most controversial changes. But that didn’t mean they suddenly reformed their ways. What they did strike down was a rule that an ethics investigation was automatic after forty days if a complaint was made, and replace it with one that would require a majority vote of the ethics committee to start an investigation.

The problem for Republican and Democrat constituents alike is that the GOP is fortifying it’s political position against dissent, complaint and reform.

Republicans should have additional concerns because when the tide turns against conservatism in one way or another, they will be at the mercy of the rules they created. The restraints they free themselves of today, will be the ones they free their adversaries of tomorrow. Mutual disarmament is the best strategy for restraint of unjust power.

Stephen -

Unfortunately, you’re right. When I wrote this post yesterday, it was my understanding that the change you mention was one being abandoned.

There are certain merits to the rule change; it makes it harder for either party to smear the other. Rep. McDermott (D-WA), whom Hefley and others on the Ethics Committee are currently investigating, probably appreciates the change.

However, the point Hefley made in his tirade is the salient one: ethics reform must be bipartisan. There is obviously room for improvement in the Ethics Committee, but for reform to be meaningful it needs support from both sides of the aisle. Thus, it is not the content of the change that is so reprehensible, rather the manner under which it is being undergone.