Rethugs want to keep DeLay if indicted on felony charges.

[spanone]

If Tom DeLay is indicted on a FELONY charges, our fine moral republican house members want to keep him on. He's just such a sweet guy, I guess.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/17/delay.ap/index.html

[Freddie Stubbs]

1. Not CONVICTED, just indicted

Please read the article.

[Lerkfish]

4. oh, well, that's MUCH better, then.

:think: :crazy:

[Freddie Stubbs]

6. Innocent until proven guilty

Just becasue someone is charged with a crime doens't mean that they will be convicted.

Do I think that DeLay has pulled some underhanded, illegal stuff? You bet. Will he actually be convicted if he is indicted? I'm not too sure of that. It would require someone to rat him out.

[LynnTheDem]

9. That's NOT the POINT; when it was a DEM, the rethugs made it a RULE

to DISALLOW ANY OFFICIALS from remaining in their positions if indicted.

NOW that it's a RETHUG up for indictment, they CHANGE THE RULE SPECIFICALLY TO PROTECT THE RETHUG.

[Freddie Stubbs]

11. Wrong! This rule never applied to Democrats

This is a party rule that only applies to Republicans.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Moving to protect Majority Leader Tom DeLay, House Republicans want to change party rules to ensure that DeLay retains his post if a Texas grand jury indicts him as it did with three of his political associates.

<snip>

Party rules require leaders to relinquish their posts after a felony indictment, but the change would eliminate the requirement for non-federal indictments.


Please read the article.

[LynnTheDem]

12. I never said it did apply to Dems. Let me rephrase my point...

I read the article hours ago, but thank you ever so much for your kind advice.

Now to get back onto my point;

House Republicans in 1993 -- trying to underscore the ethics problems of Dan Rostenkowski (D-Ill.), then-chairman of the Ways and Means Committee -- adopted the rule that requires a party leader to surrender his or her post if indicted by any grand jury, federal or state.

The rethugs put in a rule to use AGAINST the Dems and are now CHANGING that rule when it's a RETHUG being indicted.

[Freddie Stubbs]

13. Then perhaps it is time for the Democrats to adopt a similar rule

:shrug:

[LynnTheDem]

14. Which one? The rethug-rule-before-DeLay, or the rethug-rule-after-DeLay?

Rethugs have no integrity whatsoever, so the Dees adopting a rule of NOT allowing indicteds to keep their posts as a means of showing up the rethugs wouldn't work anyways.

Only non-rightwingnuts have any integrity.

[Beer Snob-50]

2. Let's face it

He is the driving force behind the House having the majority it currently has. Short of him going to jail, he is there to stay.

[NVMojo]

3. look who has a values problem now...

[DelawareValleyDem]

5. They're the party that was going to

restore integrity to Washington, right?

[highplainsdem]

7. Republican "moral values" in action.

[LynnTheDem]

8. Rethugs; bad when it's a Democrat, ok when it's a rethug.

That is their whole entire "golden rule".

Make it a rule to disallow indicted officials to keep their jobs when it's a Democrat; change the rule when it's a rethug.

NO ONE but NO ONE does total absolute hypocrisy like a rethug.

[Brewman_Jax]

10. SOP for the republicans

oh, the hypocrasy! :crazy:

Responsibility, ethics, and rules are always for someone else. Non-responsible sorry rat bastards! :grr: