Guess they couldn't stand the heat...<smirk>...
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/04/27/eth...e.ap/index.html
Doc
Full Version: House Leader To Step Back On "ethics"...
OLD American Century / White Rose Society message boards > Political Discussion forums > Politics In General
I'll bet it's another trick. Besides, what about former Ethics Committee Chairman, Rep. Joel Hefley (R-Colo.), who got kicked off the ethics committee for trying to investigate DeLay? Does he get his job back? The current chairman Rep. Doc Hastings, (R-WA) took campaign money from DeLay's PAC. He's hardly unbiased.
| QUOTE (shoeless @ Wednesday, 27 April 2005, 11:01 am) |
| I'll bet it's another trick. Besides, what about former Ethics Committee Chairman, Rep. Joel Hefley (R-Colo.), who got kicked off the ethics committee for trying to investigate DeLay? Does he get his job back? The current chairman Rep. Doc Hastings, (R-WA) took campaign money from DeLay's PAC. He's hardly unbiased. |
Agreed, their Delay should be stripped of his position and then we investigate..the Repressives can't be trusted to investigate anyone...we need an independent counsel...
Doc
| QUOTE |
| In a letter to Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, Hastert wrote that the changes pushed through in January were an attempt to correct inequities. Given Democratic opposition, he proposed reverting to the old rules, "leaving the unfairness inherent in the old system in place." |
LOVE this bit from the CNN article. Don't try to out-spin an old spinner like Hastert!
lol. Who writes his stuff?
Karl Rove, most likely.
I wonder how many temper tantrums Bush has pitched this week. He's had a few setbacks!
Catherine
I wonder how many temper tantrums Bush has pitched this week. He's had a few setbacks!
Catherine
| QUOTE (Catherine @ Wednesday, 27 April 2005, 10:26 pm) |
| Karl Rove, most likely. I wonder how many temper tantrums Bush has pitched this week. He's had a few setbacks! Catherine |
Oh yeah, he must be in a fetal position in the Blue Room.....
Doc
What a bunch of lying hypocrites!
| QUOTE |
| Republicans had insisted that they were only trying to ensure fairness for all House members and prevent one political party from abusing the ethics process at the expense of the other by bringing frivolous charges against some representatives to embarrass them. But with DeLay currently caught in a daily barrage of questions about his connections to lobbyists and foreign agents paying for his overseas trips, GOP lawmakers said all House Republicans were being tarnished by the fight over the ethics panel rules. "I hope it gets us off of dead center with these ethics stories," said Rep. Ray LaHood (R-Ill.). "I think the editorial writers have had a heyday with it." Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) described himself as "thrilled" with the turn of events. "This paves the way for the ethics committee to begin its operations and begin a file on the majority leader and several other members who should be looked at," Kirk said. DeLay has said for weeks that he was looking forward to answering questions from the committee, formally known as the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. But without a working panel, the majority leader found himself without a venue to make his case. "I believe this House needs an ethics committee," DeLay said, explaining his support for changing the rules. "I have been trying to take certain matters before the ethics committee, and I am looking forward to taking it in the future." The key change to the rules would allow ethics investigations to begin even if the committee, which is split 5-5 between Democrats and Republicans, finds itself in a tie vote on whether to proceed with an investigation. Since January, the rules called for an automatic dismissal of charges against a lawmaker in case the committee was evenly divided. In a letter to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Hastert described the January revisions as "minor but important changes to the rules which provide all members with basic fairness." Hastert called them "common sense reforms" that "have sadly been twisted and distorted and used as political fodder" by Pelosi and the Democrats. Aides to Hastert said his decision to reverse course was extremely difficult for him because he so firmly believed that he was protecting all members of the House from political mischief. But in addressing the GOP conference, Hastert said he was offering them his best judgment on how to put the controversy to rest. "He feels like it's more important to have an ethics committee than to prolong the disagreement," DeLay said of Hastert. Rep. Judy Biggert (R-Ill.), a member of the ethics committee, called the decision to back off the new rules "the lesser of two evils. "The greater evil is to not allow the ethics committee to do its job," Biggert said, adding that she is in charge of an ethics investigation into a member of the House that has been pending for four months because of the partisan clash over the committee's rules. "Nobody should have to wait that long." All members of the Illinois delegation voted in favor of removing the new rules except Hastert, who did not vote. It is customary for the speaker to abstain unless his vote would affect the outcome. Link |
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.