DeLay more important than the rules?

[Mavdog]

The bottom line is that if you are powerful enough, you can just change the rules when you violate them. What a fine example to all the lawbreakers, uh, my mistake, the lawmakers out there.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Republicans Change Rule to Shield DeLay if Indicted
By Joanne Kenen
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - House Republicans voted on Wednesday to change their own rules to allow their powerful Majority Leader Tom DeLay to keep his post even if he is indicted in connection with illegal fund-raising activities.

In a closed-door session, House Republicans approved the rule change in a voice vote to allow a leader or chairman to keep his post after an indictment. The leadership would then make recommendations, based on whether the indictment was deemed legitimate or politically-motivated.

Three of DeLay's associates were indicted by a Texas grand jury in September in connection with illegal fund-raising and the prosecutor has said the investigation is not yet finished.

The controversy surrounding DeLay, a Texas Republican, does not seem to have dented his considerable power.

He is credited with helping Republicans increase their majority in the House in this month's elections and many Republican lawmakers feel indebted to him for his fund-raising prowess.

DeLay, who has been admonished by the House Ethics Committee three times this year, told reporters he was "not at all" worried about an indictment.

He said the change in party rules was necessary to protect Republicans against the Democrats' "politics of personal destruction."

Rep. Henry Bonilla (news, bio, voting record), a fellow Texas Republican who initiated the change, said it was essential because, "We are trying to protect members of our leadership from any crackpot district attorney in any state of the nation from taking on a political agenda."

Democrats complained that Republicans were lowering the ethical bar for leadership.

"Not only did the House Republicans vote to re-elect the most ethically challenged member of Congress in modern history to lead them ... now, in an act of unprecedented shamelessness, the Republicans have apparently changed their own rules to allow Mr. DeLay to be indicted for a felony and still keep his job as Majority Leader," said outgoing Rep. Chris Bell (news, bio, voting record), a Democrat who lost his seat because of Texas redistricting pushed by DeLay.

"That is a truly pathetic standard of leadership," added Bell, who brought a House ethics complaint against DeLay.

The new rule does, however, require anyone convicted of a felony to immediately relinquish a leadership position.

Rep. Trent Franks (news, bio, voting record), an Arizona Republican, said it was right to distinguish between an indictment and a conviction.

"Someone should not be punished on the basis of an indictment," Franks said.

The vote changes a decade-old rule passed when Republicans wanted to draw attention to the questionable ethics of such powerful Democrats as former Illinois Rep. Dan Rostenkowski, who eventually pleaded guilty to mail fraud and was sentenced to prison.

Connecticut Rep. Christopher Shays (news, bio, voting record), one of the few Republicans to openly oppose the rule change, said it was a return to "business as usual."

"If you are a cop, a judge, a prosecutor, and you are indicted, you step down," he said, adding that Congress should follow similar standards.

[Epitome22]

I don't know that there's much here. It's a party rule, therefor an in house issue that doesen't affect me. If they want to change their rules and lessen standards than more power to 'em. The only funny part about it is that Republicans adopted the rule in light of the Clinton scandal to paint a portrait of higher ethical standards. Now that they have their own, shall we say, 'ethically challenged' leader, they've come around full force with a 'come to think of it, ethical standards are overrated.'

I will say that I feel sorry for those handful of republicans who were against altering the rules. Knowing the kind of influence 'the Hammer' and his professional arm twisters wield over congress that took more than some guts. Their deeds won't go unpunished I'm sure.

[Drbio]

All things considered, I doubt that you would find many here who wish to see Delay remain in office.

[kg_veteran]

The D.A. in Austin is politically motivated. There's no question about that.

That said, I think that this is a questionable move by the House Republicans. I don't agree with Mavdog's assessment that "you just change the rules if you violate them," because DeLay has yet to be indicted (and one would think that if they had ammo on him, he already would have been). Still, it's a questionable move.

[FishForLunch]

What do you expect from politicians, those bastards are parasites. These guys ego's are so bloated.

[MavKikiNYC]

No doubt the "charges" against DeLay are politically motivated, but both parties would do well to replace their leadership. DeLay is both divisive and ethcially compromised, but Pelosi is EVEN MORE divisive. And her ethical lapses are merely waiting to be brought to light (I'm specualting--she's a politician, after all). If the poltical parties were serious about achieveing some sort of conciliation, they wouldn't have to rely on questionable and/or trumped up ethics charges to try to force the other side to change. But neither party wants to allow the other party to force changes in leadership. Thus, you have status quo.


OP-ED COLUMNIST
A Scandal Waiting to Happen
By DAVID BROOKS

Published: November 20, 2004


Tom DeLay is bleeding and he doesn't even know it.

This week, House Republicans bent their accountability rules to protect their majority leader from what they feel is a partisan Texas prosecutor. But they hated the whole exercise. They sat in a conference room hour after hour wringing their hands. Only a few members were brave enough to stand up and say they shouldn't bend the rule. But afterward, many House Republicans came up to those members and said that secretly they agreed with them.

Somewhere in the psychology of the caucus something shifted. That ineffable thing called political capital began seeping away from DeLay. Someday people will look back and say this could be the moment when his power begins to ebb.

It's shifted because many House Republicans know that DeLay has been playing close to the ethical edge for years. They've noticed the number of scandals - the latest involving lobbying fees for some Indian casinos - that trace back to DeLay cronies. They still remember that delicious feeling of possibility when they arrived in Washington and vowed they would not turn into the corrupt old majority they had come to replace. They know Delay symbolizes their descent from that reformist ideal.

Why didn't more members get up and say something against DeLay?

There are several reasons. The most obvious is self-interest. DeLay and the leadership can take away your hopes of getting a chairmanship or a vote on your bill.

But there's also the fact that most House Republicans like DeLay. It's always important to remember that most of the mythology that surrounds the Hammer is total nonsense. He is not the behind-the-scenes power who controls the House. Speaker Dennis Hastert controls the House and feels free to overrule DeLay.

He is not the vicious strongman who terrorizes members and reduces them to tears to get their vote. Roy Blunt and Eric Cantor are the whips, not DeLay, and they are anything but vicious.

He's not even a terror to his peers. He can be firm, but he and his staff are noted for their graciousness. Connecticut moderate Chris Shays, who has tangled with DeLay more than anyone else, believes that DeLay is actually uncomfortable with personal confrontations. He's much better at offering carrots than wielding sticks.

In fact, DeLay has been a thoughtful majority leader. He rarely keeps the House in session beyond its scheduled hours. That means members, especially those with young families or marginal seats, can spend more time in their districts. That is deeply appreciated.

Finally, House Republicans did not rise up to denounce DeLay because while they know he represents some of the political tendencies they came to Washington to reform, none of them is pure enough to cast the first stone. They've all voted for the big deficits they vowed to combat. They've all watched the walls between the public servants and the private lobbyists get washed away.

If Republicans are going to recover the reformist spirit, they're going to have to do more than lessen the influence of Tom DeLay.

But let's face it, the problem starts there. Tom DeLay is a scandal waiting to happen. He casts himself as the enemy of Washington, but he's really a conventional (if effective) pol who wants to use dollars to entrench power. He represents the greatest danger the Republicans face, bossism. He wants to be the G.O.P.'s Boss Tweed.

Deep in the recesses of their minds, many Republicans know that voters around the country may never hear of Tom DeLay, but if the Republicans become just another self-dealing power clique, there will be hell to pay.

You could begin to hear a slight shift in Republican voices yesterday. Several were looking around and noticing that they have a very good and effective leadership team even without DeLay. Hastert has gone from being obscure to being beloved. Roy Blunt is efficient and smooth. Eric Cantor of Virginia is a rising star.

When people start gossiping about what the world would be like if you were gone - as Republicans are now starting to do with DeLay - you are in the first stages of political decline. It means that members start regarding you with a little less awe, and they start regarding your potential successors with a little more.

He doesn't face an immediate threat. But the next time a scandal licks up against him, DeLay will find his support is not as strong as he thought it would be. He'll turn around and find that his caucus has remembered its core values.