Thanks for the link.
In the cited examples, Barney Frank should have been censured.
Some of those censured deserved a public flogging.
To earn censure according to some of these wimps, I guess you have to be convicted of a felony (or something).
Doesn't matter. Peter King is the the teflon RINO. He can do whatever he wants, and a bunch of freepers will still love him. He's betrayed us over and over again on major policies for at least the past decade and there are always numerous "conservatives" to go to bat for him and claim he's a good conservative who hasn't done anything wrong since impeachment. If ANYONE besides King votes the way he does, there's hell to pay for it. For example, Newt Gingrich's presidential chances were deep sixed after he went out pimping for Dede Scozzafava and attacked Doug Hoffman, whereas Peter King got a bunch of conservatives to fawn over the prospects of him running for the U.S. Senate. Lindsey Graham faced an outpouring of attacks from conservative blogs for suggesting a McCain-Lieberman ticket, Peter King got a pat on the back after doing that. And so on, and so on, and so on. And even when you post extensive proof of King's consistently treasonous record, his fan club will just make up false information about the demographics of his distict ("it's a very liberal district out there and King is the last Republican left in long island, he has to vote that way..."), when it reality his district is drawn to be Republican and voted AGAINST Obama, making it one of the most heavy GOP districts in a state where Hussein won 2/3rds of the vote.
>> Isn't a censure already a reprimand without any repercussions? Other than showing up in the Congressional Record, I don't see any difference. Should they just be given a "timeout" and a clean slate? I think not. <<
Yeah, it's pretty much the same thing, with the only difference being that a censure is read out loud in the well of the House and the person being censured has to stay there and listen to it, whereas a reprimand is just written "you've been a bad boy" notice. Reprimand is a fairly recent invention, it didn't exist historically and I believe they didn't start using it until 1978. They came up with it because some Congressmen decided that censures were "too harsh". That just goes to show you how out of touch Congress is, when they think telling one of their members he's been a bad boy might go too far and hurt his widdle feelings.
>> In the cited examples, Barney Frank should have been censured. Some of those censured deserved a public flogging. To earn censure according to some of these wimps, I guess you have to be convicted of a felony (or something). <<
Possiblity that wouldn't even "raise the bar" high enough for many Congressmen.Gery Studds got a censure for having sex with an underage congressional page boy, and he laughed off the "harsh rebuke" and got re-elected six more times. It didn't affect his seniority or clout in any way. Kinda like Peter King's and his conservative fan club. King could pass legislation to abolish capitalism or make Obama President for Life, he'd still have conservatives on here gushing about what a great patriotic conservative he is.
>> I do hope that Peter King and Don Young get TEA Party primary challenges. <<
Clintonfatigued; weren't you the guy who dismissed that months ago as a waste of time because King is "likely to be redistricted out of existence anyway". Have you changed your mind? In any case, conservative challengers have emerged to run against King for the last decade. The problem is they gain little traction because his adoring "conservative" fans go to bat for him no matter what he does. If the other 8,436 times King betrayed conservatives on a huge issue didn't result in backlash against him, this latest effort certainly won't.