America voted for morality

[pope]

This is what we got. Makes gay marriage and Clinton's BJ's seem comparatively harmless.

[minx]

yeah these are the same people who are trying to save my son from seeing a breast during the super bowl but can't fund their own "no child left behind" bill.

 

way to go GOP.

[Freebird_AL]

I guess one could ask if Bill Clinton should have been removed from the presidency when he was indicted

And eventually disbarred. But I am sure we will hear from the Blue State Goon Squad that Bill’s Crimes was a Political Motivated event of tampering with evidence, Witness collusion, and perjury and in no way should apply to Democrats. The fact is, this rule doesn’t apply to Democrats (Democrats don’t hold their members to such high standard) only Republicans since it is a party rule, and not a congressional rule.

 

If you disagree with this Republican Rule change, why not ask the Democrats to adopt the original rule that was changed and then demand Republicans also reverse this change.

[catbirdseat]

Yes, he was disbarred for lying about a blow job. Your man Nixon was also disbarred for covering up a break in at the Watergate Hotel.

[Freebird_AL]

Yes, he was disbarred for lying about a blow job. Your man Nixon was also disbarred for covering up a break in at the Watergate Hotel.

 

Who every said Nixon was my Man? Now try to focus C.B.S., and quit sniffen the Catnip.

 

The relevant subject of discussion that this thread dredges up is not, Bill Clinton’s prosecution and conviction, but the Double Standard that Democrats apply in their adoption of rules to live by. While I may agree or disagree with the Republicans new Party stances on the Subject, Democrats surly shouldn’t complain when the Republican Party’s new stances on the Subject now mimic’s the long standing Democrat Party Rule on Committee Leadership.

 

Either yer fo' it is yer aginst it, no matter th' party! Which is It!

[catbirdseat]

I think it is a dumb rule. Anybody can be indicted for any reason. They are innocent until proven guilty. What I disagree with is putting rules on and taking them off again to suit a particular partie's interests.

[catbirdseat]

I think it is a dumb rule. Anybody can be indicted for any reason. They are innocent until proven guilty. What I disagree with is putting rules on and taking them off again to suit a particular situation.

Edited November 18, 2004 by catbirdseat

[Freebird_AL]

I think it is a dumb rule. Anybody can be indicted for any reason. They are innocent until proven guilty. What I disagree with is putting rules on and taking them off again to suit a particular situation.

 

Well on this we can agree But remember Rule changing has not been only a Republican Domain, Democrats have exercised the process as much as any for convenience.

[chucK]

Well, it makes sense to me. Some rules can be situational, or have a situational purpose.

 

The Republicans probably enacted this rule in order to attempt to gain some political high ground at a time when their party was mired in a scandal (AND losing). Now that they are heady with victory, and perhaps becoming a bit overconfident, they are removing a voluntary restriction on their liberties that they no longer feel is necessary. The fact that the rule change was catalyzed by DeLay's troubles is no biggie either. They had no reason to remove their selling point until it got in their way.

 

I'm glad that the press is making it known that the GOP no longer holds itself to this ethical level, but it's not like it's a scandal. The only people that really should be pissed are the GOP at DeLay, for making it necessary for them to remove something that helped sell the GOP to voters.

[catbirdseat]

I think that most short-sighted attempts to make political hay by playing to public sentiment of the moment end up as a wash over time.

[foraker]

I'm just waiting for the Republicans to live up to this mantle of morality that they've assumed.......

 

Still waiting.....

 

OK, still waiting....

 

Well, guess I'll just go home.