Replies

But the thing is they DIDN'T.

Yes, they did, in November of 2004. And then changed it back in January 2005 (sorry, might have put the wrong years in my earlier answer.) And I'm not comparing it to the Dems - Jefferson ought to resign his seat - but simply taking issue with the statement that DeLay immediately stepped down.

Oh, so you're thinking someone should step down even BEFORE they are indicted? If there is a rumor that they might have done something you think they should step down? Because Delay wasn't indicted until Sept of 2005. The rules were changed because everyone knew that the indictement was false and the prosecutor had a reputation for being a crackpot and issuing false indictments. I think that's a bit different from what is happening with the FBI (have you heard much about the FBI issuing false warrents for political gain?)

Democrats always have a problem distinguishing the differences in things, they always attempt to say one thing is the same as another. It's sort of like saying taking an ink pen home from work is the same as embezzeling $1 million of taxpayers money. Yes, both are thefts, but come on, even THEY have to see the difference. It's almost like they are missing something important inside, don't you think?

DeLay immediately stepped down when he was officially indicted. At the time, it was a temporary move, and Blunt took over for him.

In January, when it was clear he couldn't get a speedy trial, or get all the charges dismissed, he gave up the position permanently so the republicans could elect a new majority leader.

In November of 2004, realising that a state/local prosecuter could pretty much indict anybody just by asking a grand jury to do so, changed their rule to be JUST LIKE the democrats rule -- which is no rule at all.

The Democrats screamed about it, the newspapers screamed about it, and they immediately reversed themseles (BEFORE January 2005).

In January, they passed the new rules regarding the ethics committee. By April, the democrats had managed to play THAT into a MSM barrage on the republicans, and the republicans allowed a NEW vote in the house, which restored the old ethics committee rules.

However, at that time the democrats came up with ANOTHER excuse not to allow the ethics committee to meet -- so that they could "accuse" republicans of ethical violations, and there would be no committee to prove their charges wrong.

The ethics committee went 16 months with the democrats blocking it from meeting. The democrats could do that because the committee is bi-partisan, split 50/50, and you need a majority of committee members for a quorum.