Centerfield

The rule change actually makes sense, as state indictments are often politically motivated grandstanding that leads to nothing. Federal indictments should still result in suspension. They're much less likely to be frviolous.

The amusing thing to me is that the rule was originally implemented in 1993 by Republicans to highlight Democratic ethical abuses. Use tool, throw away tool before it's used on you....

Hoist. Petard. Irony and poetic justice.

They have done away with most of their rule changes after 1994, I think. Nobody will care about this accept for those who already hate Delay.

I don't know if I find it disturbing so much as distasteful. To me it looks like a total disregard of the ethical standards that the republicans seem to value so highly. All I can think now is, "hypocrits." Of course, we *are* talking about politicians here, so I guess this moral ambiguity should come as no surprise. It would be so nice if we had leaders who just had one face instead of two.

You can always tell how powerful someone is by their ability to exempt themselves from moral and ethical behavior.

Ah! It's a new session of congress and the smell of freshly blooming hubris is in the air.

Maybe the democrats should try using the "Seven daggers of Meggado" from "The Omen" : )

Oh Amy, come one! It's a stupid rule that should have never been put in place. They are not saying that criminals should be in leadership positions, they are saying that leaders shouldn't be removed because of frivelous claims. It is a rule, I might add, that for 40 years of power, the Democrats never lived by.

Well, neither side holds a lock on ethics, Mathew--I certainly never claimed that the democrats were golden (Bill Clinton, anyone?). They're both hypocrits. But I sort of want my leaders to be *ethical,* whether they're democrat or republican. And Jeff is right, DeLay has been censured multiple times by the House Ethics Committee. Are they into censuring individuals who've done nothing wrong and who have just been the victims of frivilous claims? Why should DeLay be rewarded for questionable character?

Mathew, by the way, have you been keeping up on the Governor's race here? Have you seen how close it is? Amazing, huh?

My rule when I see stories like this is that I don't pass judgement until I find out what the accused is supposed to have done, what the evidence for it is, and then decide whether I think what they did is a big deal or some sort of technical rule violation.

Tully's right. Rules like this can be vehicles for pious grandstanding.

Very often, what I find is that someone found a way to accuse someone else of breaking the rules but what we're really talking about is the sort of low-level political shenanigans that both sides love to employ and also love to criticize the other side for using.

Fundraising abuses? Zzzzzzzzzzz. Unless he was taking bribes from Al Quaeda(foreign nationals) or beating up senior citizens(forcing donations), and it can be proven, I say party on.

Amy,

I am NOT defending Tom Delay, I just don't expect Republicans to abide by a rule that was made in haste to prove that they where reforming 40 years of Democratic rule. It is a dumb rule. I think the House ethics Committee is as political and bias as anything else in Washington D.C.

I am following the Governor's race. It looks like Dino is barely going to pull it off, but there will be a recount. That has never happened in Washington State! The whole surprise ballots appearing in King County situation bothers me. It seems that always happens when a Democrat is involved in a close election statewide, but I hear that the only votes left are Republican Counties and it is looking good.

Either way, the Republicans in Washington State have shown that with moderation and message control you can win in a blue state. McKenna's election as Attorney General, the close Governor's race, Reichert's victory in the 8th and McMorris's in the 5th, are all huge victories for a state GOP that had all but been written off. Maria Cantwell better hope Rossi loses, or she may have a formidable challenge on her hands in 2006. Even if he wins, with her fundraising problems, and the fact that she hasn't garnered much clout, she is going to be a big target.

It figures. I move away and Republicans start to win.

Expect not just a recount but also litigation in the WA governor's race. Even money says it gets really ugly.

The rule was adopted for political grandstanding, as I detailed here. But it could have been repealed at any time in the past decade. That the rule is being repealed now, when it threatens Tom DeLay but he still retains control, smacks of a power broker who senses an opportunity to be subjected to challenge eliminating the threat before it becomes real. If DeLay were forced to step aside as Majority Leader, even briefly, his iron grip on the strings of the caucus would begin to slip--and would slip more as each day went by.

I know, that whole surprise ballots thing in King County bugs me, too. I was surprised to hear that the judge ruled that those had to be counted. I've just been amazed by this whole race--I never thought it would be *this* close.

I did some state research on Washington for a state profile that we did for CC, and I'm sort of starting to think that Washington is becoming more of a purple state. I think if the Republicans play their cards right, it could go red without too much trouble. We'll see.

Absolutely, Tully (regarding WA litigation). Count on it.

REgarding Delay, great timing? Wasn't Jim Wright from Texas too?

Hmmm!

I think this falls under the "parties should be allowed to elect their own leaders" rule.

However, they then must be willing to take the heat. If it's Delay they want, let them. All they are doing is making themselves look bad.

Just as a response to all the comments, I can certainly see the reasoning behind the change, and if it was attempted a couple of years ago, I wouldn't have even paid much attention. As Jaded JD points out, though, the timing of this stinks.

As pretty much a lifelong Republican, I feel like it sends a bad message, though one that few in the general public will hear. I thought Chris Shays did a nice job explaining his opposition to this.

As far as the fundraising scandal, I have actually been following this story for some time. The accusations involve a PAC created by DeLay, I believe TRMPAC, and it's possible violation of Texas law regarding contributions to candidates for state office. The relation of this to us as centrists is that it was a big part of DeLay's efforts to give the GOP a stranglehold on the state legislature so it could carry out the gerrymandering he wanted for House seats.

Finally, I will certainly admit that I am a DeLay hater, so there is something to that Mathew. I feel like he represents the worst of the party. He, and those like him, are the reason that I have come to feel uncomfortable calling myself a Republican after a lifetime of never having to think twice about it.

I find it perversely amusing at how many of the people who, like myself, describe themselves as life-long Republicans, and who hate Tom DeLay.

I also find it perversely amusing, if not wholly unpredictable, that my Congressman, Eric Cantor, whom I found most reasonable in our state legislature and most amiable in our discussions together during his tenure there, has transformed into a party line parrot and avid DeLay support since joining the House Republican leadership.

Now if they could solidly hook DeLay up to the Westar/Wittig scandal I'd help lead the lynch mob. But that's a federal case, and if they could hook him up enough for indictment it'd be a federal indictment where the rule change would make no difference.

Before Democrats try to pile on DeLay for Westar as a partisan game, though, they better look in their own closets. Wittig was best buddies with Democratic Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius and family. Westar was an equal-opportunity corrupter.

Another disturbing point is how the WaPo has marginalized itself to the degree that when a serious issue pops up like this one, no one takes it seriously. I started thinking this way during the unhappiness with the new Bush cabinet appointments: after the great-hate of 2004, no one has an ear to listen with. I mean, we know how every pundit feels about Bush, pro or con.

Until at least 1 out of 4 things you say about Bush is not the party line, all you can ever do is fire up your base.