Can you say...double standard!

[chelle]

Please discuss.

- - - - -

The New York Times

November 18, 2004

House G.O.P. Acts to Protect Chief

By CARL HULSE

 

ASHINGTON, Nov. 17 - Spurred by an investigation connected to the majority leader, House Republicans voted Wednesday to abandon an 11-year-old party rule that required a member of their leadership to step aside temporarily if indicted.

 

Meeting behind closed doors, the lawmakers agreed that a party steering committee would review any indictments handed up against the majority leader, Representative Tom DeLay of Texas, or any other members of the leadership team or committee chairmen, to determine if giving up a post was warranted. The revision does not change the requirement that leaders step down if convicted.

 

The new rule was adopted by voice vote. Its chief author, Representative Henry Bonilla of Texas, said later that only a handful of members had opposed it.

 

The Republicans' old rule was adopted in August 1993 to put a spotlight on the legal troubles of prominent Democrats. Mr. Bonilla said revising it had been necessary to prevent politically inspired criminal investigations by "crackpot" prosecutors from determining the fate of top Republicans.

 

"Attorneys tell me you can be indicted for just about anything in this country, in any county or community," said Mr. Bonilla, an ally of Mr. DeLay. "Sometimes district attorneys who might have partisan agendas or want to read their name in the paper could make a name for themselves by indicting a member of the leadership, regardless of who it may be, and therefore determine their future. And that's not right."

 

Mr. DeLay said he had not instigated the change. But he applauded it nevertheless, saying it could deprive "political hacks" of an ability to influence the makeup of the Republican leadership.

 

Republican lawmakers "fixed the rules so that Democrats cannot use our rules against us," he said.

 

Mr. DeLay said he did not expect to be indicted, but added, "This has nothing to do with whether I was going to be or not going to be.''

 

The comments of Mr. DeLay and Mr. Bonilla were clearly directed at Ronnie Earle, the district attorney in Travis County, Tex., including Austin, who won indictments earlier this year against three political associates of the majority leader. The investigation by Mr. Earle, a Democrat, involves charges of illegally using corporate money to help Republicans win state legislative races in 2002. Those Republican victories in turn gave the state party enough legislative muscle to win redistricting changes that helped Congressional Republicans gain five additional seats in Texas on Nov. 2.

 

Despite the indictments of his associates, Mr. DeLay has not been called to testify, and Mr. Earle has not said whether the congressman is a target.

 

Not all Republicans agreed with Wednesday's rule change, which was adopted after some two and a half hours of debate.

 

"This is a mistake," said Representative Christopher Shays of Connecticut.

 

When the Republicans gained control of the House in the elections of 1994, "we were going to be different,'' Mr. Shays said.

 

But "every time we start to water down what we did in '94," he said, "we are basically saying the revolution is losing its character."

 

Democrats and outside watchdogs bitterly criticized the change.

 

"Today Republicans sold their collective soul to maintain their grip on power," said Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, the Democratic whip. "They unabashedly abandoned any pretense of holding themselves to a high ethical standard, by deciding to ignore criminal indictments of their leaders as reason for removal from leadership posts in the Republican Party."

 

Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, a group that follows campaign finance issues, said: "With this decision, we have gone from DeLay being judged by his peers to DeLay being judged by his buddies. It's an absurd and ludicrous new rule and an affront to the American people."

 

Republicans said Democrats had no standing to criticize them, since House Democratic rules have no provision to remove indicted party leaders, though they do require indicted committee chairmen to step aside. The minority leader, Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, said Wednesday that her party would quickly expand the provision to cover leadership posts as well.

 

"Republicans have reached a new low," Ms. Pelosi said. "It is absolutely mind-boggling that as their first order of business following the elections, House Republicans have lowered the ethical standards for their leaders."

 

The change follows two admonitions that Mr. DeLay received from the bipartisan House ethics committee this fall, one involving a House floor vote, the other a fund-raiser. Mr. DeLay has built strong loyalty in the House over the years by helping raise campaign money and paying close attention to the personal legislative interests of Republican lawmakers, and the ethics committee's action angered some of his supporters in the chamber.

 

Mr. DeLay and many other House Republicans have criticized Mr. Earle's inquiry as highly partisan. "Ronnie Earle is trying to criminalize politics," Mr. DeLay said. "I think that is wrong."

 

Mr. Earle, in a statement issued by his office, said the Republican rule change would have no effect on the continuing investigation. But he added, "It should be alarming to the public to see their leaders substitute their judgment for that of the law enforcement process."

 

House Republicans did not dispute the idea that the change had been brought on by the events in Texas but said most of the majority's lawmakers had also concluded that the rule was simply unfair.

 

"In my sincere opinion, it only provoked the timing" of the change, Representative Trent Franks of Arizona said of the Texas inquiry. "When you look at the rule, it is an outrageous rule."

 

The new rule says that upon the return of an indictment against a committee chairman, a subcommittee chairman or a party leader, a steering committee made up of House leaders other than the accused lawmaker will have 30 days to recommend to the full Republican conference "what action, if any, the conference shall take concerning said member."

 

Though the change had been a subject of discussion for the last week, it was not submitted by Mr. Bonilla until right before a Tuesday deadline that Republicans had set to offer proposals for rules in the new Congress. Mr. Bonilla and others said the Republican conference, including many members elected only two weeks ago, had been insistent on the revision.

 

"It is the right thing to do," said Representative John Carter of Texas, a former judge.

 

While House Republicans were acting on the rule, Congress continued its reorganization for 2005. House Democrats and Senate Republicans re-elected their leadership teams for the most part. In the only real race, Senator Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina gained a one-vote victory over Senator Norm Coleman of Minnesota to head the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which provides guidance and money for Republican candidates.

[Doug]

Remember the golden rule....they that has the gold makes the rules.

 

Disclaimer - If it were a democratic controlled congress, and a fellow dem were facing indicment, they would probably do the same.

[AlpineK]

That may be true, however when the republicans took over congress they made a point to change the rules so that no member under inditement could hold a position of power. At the time it was a dig at, as they perceived it, the corrupt democratic leadership.

 

Now that their leader may come under inditement they want to change the rules...hypocritical to say the least.

 

Another way to put it is Calvinball

[Freebird_AL]

That may be true, however when the republicans took over congress they made a point to change the rules so that no member under inditement could hold a position of power. At the time it was a dig at, as they perceived it, the corrupt democratic leadership.

 

Now that their leader may come under inditement they want to change the rules...hypocritical to say the least.

 

Another way to put it is Calvinball

 

 

You must have missed this part in your selective reading.

Republicans said Democrats had no standing to criticize them, since House Democratic rules have no provision to remove indicted party leader

[AlpineK]

I think you're missing the point. The Republicans originally changed their rules to prove that they were better. That's fine, but when they change them back when one of their own might get indited...that's hypocritical.

[catbirdseat]

People need to understand these are PARTY rules that apply only to party leadership. The Republicans can make whatever rules they like, but it is still hypocracy, because the original reason for the rules was to take a dig at the democrats who at the time were having troubles.