You have GOT to be kidding me
Jan. 3rd, 2005 07:23 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
forsythRight, okay. So, the Republicans are the party of personal responsibility and morality. Right. Okay.
So, when the Majority Leader gets slammed numerous times by the House Ethics Committee, you'd expect they'd act instantly, right?
And they are.
First, they removed the GOP caucus rule that required anybody indicted for a felony to step down from a leadership position.
And now, they're cracking down even more on those villains!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A37888-2004Dec30?language=printer
They're trying to remove the clause in the House Ethics rules that says "A member . . . officer or employee of the House shall conduct himself at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House."
Because, see, it's far too easy for such a provision to be abused by aggressive lawmakers seeking to score partisan points on inflated charges. Or something.
I don't think I even need to get into the comparison with the six year long witch-hunt against Bill Clinton, do I?
Anybody who's in America, go to http://www.house.gov and punch in your zip code and write to your congresscritter. I actually think they might have voted on it today, but it's still worth a shot. If nothing else, it's something you can use against (or for) your Congresscritter come election time.
[meta: politics]
So, when the Majority Leader gets slammed numerous times by the House Ethics Committee, you'd expect they'd act instantly, right?
And they are.
First, they removed the GOP caucus rule that required anybody indicted for a felony to step down from a leadership position.
And now, they're cracking down even more on those villains!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A37888-2004Dec30?language=printer
They're trying to remove the clause in the House Ethics rules that says "A member . . . officer or employee of the House shall conduct himself at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House."
Because, see, it's far too easy for such a provision to be abused by aggressive lawmakers seeking to score partisan points on inflated charges. Or something.
I don't think I even need to get into the comparison with the six year long witch-hunt against Bill Clinton, do I?
Anybody who's in America, go to http://www.house.gov and punch in your zip code and write to your congresscritter. I actually think they might have voted on it today, but it's still worth a shot. If nothing else, it's something you can use against (or for) your Congresscritter come election time.
[meta: politics]
