Again, House Republicans show that ethics are for sale.

By -
Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Washington, made the proposal at a news conference yesterday. (Note that the proposal was made in the press; NOT to Democrats directly.) The offer: Democrats agree to the weakened House ethics rules (weakened in order to protect Tom DeLay) and the Republicans on the committee will "vote at the earliest opportunity to empanel an investigations subcommittee to review various allegations concerning travel and other actions by DeLay".

The primary objection is to a rule that would automatically dismiss cases in a tie vote -- allowing either party on the evenly divided committee to stop an investigation. As the ethics committee is comprised of an equal number of Democrats and Republicans, one can see how easy, under these new rules, it would be to stop an investigation.

Under Hastings' proposal, the Republicans are asking the Democrats to trade their principles for a shady promise of action on DeLay.

Here is a quick analysis of what would happen if Dems accept this Faustian contract:
First, the weakened ethics rules go into effect. Then the Republican "empanel and investigations sub committee". Next, the Republicans on the committee conveniently find no compelling reason to investigate DeLay. Tie vote. No investigation. Evil wins.

Let us pray (to which ever deity you chose*) that the Dems stand their ground.


*Best to enjoy this freedom now. If the Christian Right continues gaining influence over our government, you will have only one option.

Comments

Anonymous said…
The basic fallacy in your argument is in putting the words "ethics" and "Republicans" in the same sentence. These two words are fundamentally opposed. To Republicans, ethics are just a suggestion; something to be ignored whenever convenient.
9:21 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Those who control the language govern the sphere of debate.

By -
I came across an interesting “euphemism” if this is the correct word for it. The U.S. Forces in Iraq refer to insurgents as “anti Iraqi forces”. Considering that US soldiers in Iraq have killed far more Iraqis than insurgents have, it seems that US forces are more anti-Iraqi than the insurgents. Language is not a transparent medium for representing reality, but rather a cultural system that shapes our values and beliefs. As the US certainly has the upper hand in Iraq, we are in a position to write their history in any manner we see fit. The language we use to describe present history in Iraq will influence how present and future generations perceive the US war on Iraq. Let us please, please hope that the term “anti Iraqi forces” as defined by the US military does not replace “insurgent” in the US media’s reporting of the events in Iraq.
Read more

Gonzales Questions Habeas Corpus

By -
In the most shockingly cynical, mis-directed and mind-boggling statement by an Attorney General in perhaps the history of the world, Gonzales offered his own feeble-minded re-interpretation of the United States Constitution. In an further attempt to somehow justify the criminal activities of the Bush Administration, Gonzales stated, "There is no expressed grant of habeas in the Constitution; there’s a prohibition against taking it away,". So in order to take it away, does not one have to have it in the first place? My god, where did Bush find this guy? Answer: the same pea pod of neocons who are bent on taking away the rights of the US people, imposing imperial rule on the United States and expanding US hegemony to the rest of the world. It may be time to dust off those Hitler references.
Read more

Giant Jesus in Monroe, OH

By -
This seems very odd. A 62 ft. statue of Jesus just seems . . . odd, to me. And I think of myself as a pretty spiritual, if not actually religious, person. I'm not an atheist. But I kind of wonder if Jesus even likes 62 ft. statues of Jesus. I did enjoy the quote from Larry Flynnt at the end of the article.
Read more