Went to Ariel’s school concert last night. Unlike other school systems where specifics of the season are being meticulously expunged, here they actually sing Christmas songs (along with, of all things, a medley from “Fiddler.”) I find that preferable. I think inclusive is always preferable to exclusive. What kind of message are schools sending kids if they effectively stick their heads in the sand and try to ignore all signs of the holidays.
Also, as a Jew, I have to say I don’t understand how it’s possible for the “true meaning” of Christmas to be lost. Yesterday, as I went to the post office to buy a $5 money order and encountered fifteen people on line, each juggling half a dozen packages…or when a local strip mall where I buy groceries had no parking places because it was choked with holiday buyers…or when street after street, normally easy driving, was clogged with traffic…in short, when even the simplest errand took forever, I cannot tell you the number of times I shouted, “Jeeeeesus Chriiiiist.”
PAD
• 
Karl Malone and Kobe Bryant are both idiots.
Well, Jim — just to be pedantic, there IS documentation out there for the allegations about Bush’s National Guard days. There’s simply not documentation you happen to believe.
There is no clear documentation that demonstrates he was AWOL, etc. There are incomplete records that some suggest he was. The problem is, the official record shows he received an honorable discharge and says that he fulfilled his obligations. This is quite different than what happened with Ryan.
Me, I take issue with your implicit claim that Democrats don’t think “character matters.” Trust me, every Democrat I know cares about such things — it’s just that we don’t give the sexual arena of same more focus than it deserves (IMO) in evaluating a person’s fitness for office. As I’ve said on many occasions (though possibly not here), I’m not voting for Husband of the Year — I’d like a leader, please.
This is where it is crucial to define terms. We both can say we believe character matters. It then matters how we define character.
Let me give an example: As a rule (there are exceptions), conservatives would say that sex outside of marriage is harmful and wrong. As a rule, a liberal would not condone rampant promiscuity, but most liberals I know do not believe sex outside of marriage is that bad of a thing.
Based on your moral value, it will determine how important it is to know whether Newt Gingrich or Bill Clinton had an affair. I do think, for most conservatives, it is an indication of a moral failure that has implications on their ability to lead. While having an affair does not mean someone is not a good leader in other ways, I don’t believe you can compartmentalize your life and say it has very little impact on the moral values of a leader.
I also have observed that most of my liberal friends (and yes, there are exceptions), do not condone an affair, but they do think life is more compartmentalized. In addition, since they do not think sex outside of marriage is that big of a deal, the example set by a leader in this area is not as big of a deal.
Bottom line, character matters to most people, but how we define character makes a difference.
My point can be seen in a very practical way. Compare Newt Gingrich to Bill Clinton. Both were guilty of sexual misconduct while in office. Both showed themselves to be very competent political leaders (whether you agree with them or not). Bill Clinton is still seen as a very important political AND moral leader in the Democratic party. Newt Gingrich is still respected for his political wisdom, but he is not seen as an important political leader, and definitely not as a moral leader.
Jim in Iowa
The Democrats knew this, which is why they went to extraordinary lenghts to bring it out.
Uh, no. It was the Chicago Tribune and a local TV station that went to court to have the records unsealed, no the Democrats.
You can’t be serious! You don’t mean to imply Democrats had no hand in it do you? Not to mention the fact that independent surveys have clearly shown that most journalists do have a strong democratic bent in their personal lives, far out of proportion to the number of democrats in this country.
The Republicans did not “throw him under the bus,” some Democrats did.
Again, wrong. He was forced to withdraw from the race under pressure from several prominant Republicans, including Speaker Dennis Hastert.
But, far be it from me to let facts get in the way of a good political diatribe.
Cute. But you missed my point. And I made it very clearly. Once the allegations were brought out, there was a clear drop in Ryan’s support. I think he still would have done better than Keyes, but the revelations took what was a somewhat close race and basically handed it to Obama.
In addition, I would NOT call it “throwing him under the bus” if they were acting on moral convictions. Since I don’t know their motives, I can’t prove it. But it is grossly unfair to say they threw him under a bus when their actions were in compliance with their convictions. If they had not, you would then have some on this site calling them hypocrites. So it is grossly unfair to say they simply threw him under the bus. (I am not sure if he wanted to continue after all of the allegations came out since continuing would have just meant further digging into his past.)
Jim in Iowa
It was idiocy to go to a sex club and try to convince his wife to have a threesome in the first place and not expect word to get out!
On this, Den, you and I agree.
It is, however, interesting to see Jim in Iowa quick to accuse the Democrats of digging up dirt on Ryan’s sex life, considering the GOP went after Clinton’s sex life with guns blazing under the guise of investigating an obscure land deal.
Your point is invalid for two reasons. First, there is a huge difference between the cases. If the allegation was that Ryan was guilty of sexual harrasment of an intern at his company, and there was some evidence that it was true (such as happened with Bill O’ Reilly), then I would say it was valid to dig it up. Second, I have been quite clear that I DO think this issue matters. I think there are crucial differences between the two examples (the most important one being Ryan was not having sexual activities while on the job in a government office), but I do think character matters and these revelations would cause me to be less supportive of Ryan if I was living in Illinois and could vote for him.
While the Democrats were not on the front line with this, do you really expect me to believe they were not looking for this kind of dirt? Do you really expect me to believe they did not pass on the info to a sympathetic news reporter? If the roles were reversed (and it was Fox News breaking the story), I guarantee Democrats would be saying Republicans were behind it!
Jim in Iowa
it’s hard to deny that the Republicans threw him to the wolves, after first running over him with a bus. And this was only after the pushed him out of an airplane with a parachute that, when he pulled the cord, released various picnic items–forks, a basket of food, that sort of thing.
Ok, I give up. He was run over with a bus, burned at the stake, and put up for public humiliation. Whatever.
Jim in Iowa
Important clarification:
I wrote: As a rule, a liberal would not condone rampant promiscuity, but most liberals I know do not believe sex outside of marriage is that bad of a thing.
I meant to say: As a rule, a liberal would not condone rampant promiscuity, but most liberals I know do not believe sex BEFORE marriage is that bad of a thing.
I did not mean to imply most liberals tolerate adultery, but rather sex before someone is actually married (i.e., premarital sex, living together, etc.).
Jim in Iowa
Jim,
Let’s put aside the Bush/AWOL question, since my statement and your response aren’t actually contradictory.
Now, as for “character matters…”
This is where it is crucial to define terms. We both can say we believe character matters. It then matters how we define character.
Agreed — but by immediately jumping on a sexual issue as your chosen example, you’re basically arguing my case for me. When I’m voting for someone to serve as president (or senator, judge, etc.), the question of “has he/she ever cheated on his/her spouse?” is extremely low on the list of questions I’m going to ask.
[Aside: does anyone else remember the Python sketch with the accountant wanting to become a lion tamer? Cleese’s line comes to mind: “When I call up Mr. so-and-so and tell him that I’ve got a chartered accountant here who wants to move into lion taming, his first question will not be ‘does he have his own hat?'”]
I care about qualifications for the job, and whether he/she will fulfill the obligations of the office to the best of his/her ability. (Lest we forget, the presidential oath of office includes a pledge to defend the Constitution. Bush appears to be shredding large chunks of it, or at least employing people who consider it quaint and outdated.)
Let me give an example: As a rule (there are exceptions), conservatives would say that sex outside of marriage is harmful and wrong. As a rule, a liberal would not condone rampant promiscuity, but most liberals I know do not believe sex outside of marriage is that bad of a thing.
Y’know, it’s a really, REALLY good thing you posted a later clarification saying that you meant sex before marriage, not adultery — otherwise this would be fairly legitimate grounds for a “Bite me” response.
Unfortunately, said clarification utterly undercuts your Gingrich/Clinton argument, since in both of those cases we ARE talking about adultery and not premarital sex.
So … er … which is it, Jim? Do you believe liberals tolerate adultery, or not?
(And perhaps you can use an example that isn’t sexual in nature next time, unless you want my argument that the right wing cares more about sex than any other “character issue” to carry even greater weight.)
TWL
Tim wrote, Well, Jim — just to be pedantic, there IS documentation out there for the allegations about Bush’s National Guard days. There’s simply not documentation you happen to believe.
Again being pedantic, I think the common everyday usage of the word “documentation” excludes forgeries, so it’s not at all clear Jim’s wrong about this. There’s a significant difference in someone disregarding the alleged Texas ANG memoranda because there are legitimate questions about their authenticity, and someone disregarding evidence of, say, evolution because it doesn’t fit in his world view.
You can’t be serious! You don’t mean to imply Democrats had no hand in it do you?
Oh, I’m sure there were Democrats working for the Chicago Tribune. You original statement implied that it was the Democratic Party behind it, which wasn’t the case.
Cute. But you missed my point. And I made it very clearly. Once the allegations were brought out, there was a clear drop in Ryan’s support.
So, in other words, the GOP gave him the boot not out of morcal conviction, but because he was going to lose.
In addition, I would NOT call it “throwing him under the bus” if they were acting on moral convictions.
Well, when we’re talking about “politicians” and “moral convictions” you have to realize that the two terms are contradictory.
but I do think character matters and these revelations would cause me to be less supportive of Ryan if I was living in Illinois and could vote for him.
So does “less supportive” translate into not voting for him? Hypothetical question: You have a choice between two candidates. One is a squeaky clean guy who’s never cheated on his wife, but his politics are very centrist. The other is a strong conservative but he’s cheated on his wife multiple times, including with his assisstant, and forced his first wife to sign divorce papers while she was recovering from cancer treatments (ie, he’s Newt Gingrich). Who would you vote for?
I meant to say: As a rule, a liberal would not condone rampant promiscuity, but most liberals I know do not believe sex BEFORE marriage is that bad of a thing.
Actually, the only difference I see is that to a conservative sex before or outside of marriage committed by a liberal is unforgivable, but sex committed before or outside of marriage committed by another conservative is just a “youthful indescretion.”
Just an FYI, the Chicago Tribune publically endorsed Bush this past election, and is considered to be somewhat conservative in nature.
And from talking about the matter with my non-conservative friends, we didn’t really think the allegations were that big a deal. What we did find funny was the Illinois GOP throwing away any chance at winning that seat from Obama by dumping Ryan. Even funnier when Keyes started flapping his lips in front of reporters.
After the numerous scandals the IL GOP has had over the past years (including another Ryan, the former Governer), you’d think that the GOP would find a candidate where the worst thing you can say about him is that he wanted to have sex with his wife would have been a real winner.
I’m a little curious to know if it’s really a conservative stance to be against adultury, or it it’s a religious stance. Depending on how you define it, adultury can be any sex outside of marriage, sex with someone who is not your spouse, or sex with someone else’s spouse.
Besides which, Ryan didn’t want to have sex outside of marriage. Maybe outside the bedroom, but still, with his wife. So even by “conservative” standards, he didn’t want to do anything all that wrong.
And they were still just statements. Maybe something like “wow, this show is so exciting, I want you right here and now.” Hyperbole, meant to indicate that he’d like to head back to their room for some consensual within-marriage sex. And maybe at the time she totally understood what he meant, but come a few years later during the divorce, she listens to her lawyer and uses that statement out of context to demonstrate how unbearable he made the marriage.
So … er … which is it, Jim? Do you believe liberals tolerate adultery, or not?
Um, good question. Let me put it this way: I think more liberals tolerate adultery than conservatives do. Which is not to say conservatives are not guilty of adultery, nor is it to even say that conservatives commit less adultery than liberals. But from a philosophical standpoint, I think the “liberal” mindset has more room to accomodate adultery without being hypocritical than the “conservative” mindset.
(And perhaps you can use an example that isn’t sexual in nature next time, unless you want my argument that the right wing cares more about sex than any other “character issue” to carry even greater weight.)
Since Ryan’s issues were sexual, it was necessary to use such an example. Because your point is correct, there are bigger issues about character than even sex. For example, I would say a congressman who was taking a bribe is far worse than one who happens to be cheating on his wife. A president (be it Clinton or Bush) who truly and deliberately tells a willfull lie to the American people is worse than a president who happens to have an extramarital sexual relationship while in office.
Let me suggest, though, that the reason sex is brought up so much is because my earlier comment is true, that SOME (not all) liberals are more tolerant of sexual misconduct than conservatives. So while conservatives don’t see it as the only character issue, it is one they are more alone in pointing it out.
Jim in Iowa
So does “less supportive” translate into not voting for him? Hypothetical question: You have a choice between two candidates. One is a squeaky clean guy who’s never cheated on his wife, but his politics are very centrist. The other is a strong conservative but he’s cheated on his wife multiple times, including with his assisstant, and forced his first wife to sign divorce papers while she was recovering from cancer treatments (ie, he’s Newt Gingrich). Who would you vote for?
To answer your first question, I would have voted for Ryan. As many of you have noted, while I think what he wanted to do was wrong because of my religious convictions, he was only guilty of asking. He did not force his wife to do something. He did not seduce another woman taking advantage of his power or office or position. But I would not have been strongly recommending him to friends and family. I would understand if friends who share my political views simply did not vote.
In regards to your hypothetical, I probably would vote for the Centrist IF he was pro-life and against gay marriage. If Newt ran today for office, I would not vote for him if I knew the things you listed were true. However, if he had clearly repented and had a clear (say 10 year) track record of actually having changed, I would down the road. I don’t think most past indiscretions disqualify someone from ever being considered. It is whether it is still true that counts.
To get political for the moment, I never bought and never really got into the “Swift Boat” stuff about Kerry. Assuming for a moment that it was true, I believe it is very possible for someone to change. So my vote was based on what I perceive to be a candidate’s current character. Now the past (such as you described with Newt) should not be ignored. He would have to convince me he had changed. In a similar way, I believe the focus on Bush’s national guard service is pointless. He has a clear public record for the last 15 or 20 years to show what he is currently like. He admits his achohol problems, and made a clear change. It is not simply that he says he “found Jesus.” It is clear that things actually did change. For me, I saw changes that affirmed his character and I voted for him all 4 times I had a chance (twice as governor, twice as president). Others look at what he has done and the positions he takes and don’t agree with him and so vote differently.
Actually, the only difference I see is that to a conservative sex before or outside of marriage committed by a liberal is unforgivable, but sex committed before or outside of marriage committed by another conservative is just a “youthful indescretion.”
I have already answered this above. But let me add that what you say may be true of some conservative politicians, but it is not an accurate description of the so called religious right. As noted above, with perhaps more validity than I originally wanted to give it, Ryan was not even guilty of actual adultery, and he was “crucified” by some Republicans. Sexual misconduct is a huge character flaw that is a problem for religious conservatives whether it is a Republican or Democrat who is guilty.
Jim in Iowa
I’m a little curious to know if it’s really a conservative stance to be against adultury, or it it’s a religious stance.
There is overlap. It is not just a religious stance. Almost by definition, the basic concept of a conservative would include moral values that would see adultery as wrong. But it most definitely is a religious stance (particularly a conservative Jewish, Christian, and Muslim conviction). Not all political conservatives are as against adultery, but virtually all religious conservatives are.
Jim in Iowa
(And perhaps you can use an example that isn’t sexual in nature next time, unless you want my argument that the right wing cares more about sex than any other “character issue” to carry even greater weight.)
I forgot to add something. The reason I do take sexual misconduct (namely, having an affair) seriously is because if someone is willing to break the trust of their closest, most intimate relationship, then it raises a reasonable doubt of whether the person will do so in other relationships. It is not automatic, but it does demonstrate a character flaw that can carry over into other areas of life.
In addition, it opens someone up to blackmail. By definition, I am not simply talking here about someone who is living together with his or her girlfriend/boyfriend. I am talking about someone who cheats on his or her spouse or boyfriend/girlfriend. Whether it is a threat to tell the press or the other party, it does open someone up to being pressured in any number of ways. So while actually taking a bribe is worse than simply having an affair, having an affair is not a minor indiscretion on the part of a politician.
Jim in Iowa
I think the past is irrelevant unless the candidate makes his past an issue. Kerry opened himself up for attacks on his war record by making it a central theme of his campaign. In the same vain, Bush has created this myth that he’s this great military leader (ie, calling himself a “war president” and posing in a flight suit) so his military credentials are open for scrutiny. Unfortunately, nobody seems to know exactly what he did during those missing months in the guard. It’s true that he received an honorable discharge, but his suspension from flying after missing a required physical and the missing time in the raises some questions about favoritism that, I think, should be answered.
As for Newt, he was diddling one of his assistants at the same time he was leading that attacks on Clinton. If you’re going to take the moral ground, then you’d better not be as a big a dog as your target.
For example, I would say a congressman who was taking a bribe is far worse than one who happens to be cheating on his wife.
I wouldn’t. To me the sex is a secondary issue. I’m looking at the character of the person, and if he can cheat and lie and betray someone that he’s supposedly close to and loves more than anyone else on the planet, I have no doubt at all that he’d be willing to sell me out for a quick buck. And if he’s more concerned about his career than his loved ones, that tells me that his concern with me is only about how much I’ll donate to help keep in in office.
I mean, sure, it’s a worse crime, but I’d EXPECT him to sell me out before he sells out his wife and kids, wouldn’t you? And what does it say about your character if you’d expect him to sell out his wife and kids before he sells you out?
Of course, I’m not married and don’t have kids. What do I know?
“I’m looking at the character of the person, and if he can cheat and lie and betray someone that he’s supposedly close to and loves more than anyone else on the planet, I have no doubt at all that he’d be willing to sell me out for a quick buck.”
I don’t know–it’s possible that he is just weak in this area and it will have little effect on his other actions. On the other hand, if he is accepting bribes then he is DEFINITELY willing to sell you out for a quick buck.
It may depend on the bribe, I suppose. If he is accepting money from one company in order to do business with the state, with little or no overall effect on the public other than increased costs it’s not as serious a crime as it would be if he were accepting money from a group that wants to use bricks made from soldified toxic wastes to build a children’s cancer ward. Both should go to jail, of course, but only the second guy should be raped repeatedly while there.
As for Newt, he was diddling one of his assistants at the same time he was leading that attacks on Clinton. If you’re going to take the moral ground, then you’d better not be as a big a dog as your target.
Well, all I can say is that at least, Newt had the decency to GET a divorce. It’s not much, but I’d rather you leave than stay married and continue to cheat, and continue to cause them pain.
Did Newt have any choice in the matter? Hillary opted to stay and work things out. How ever they managed to do that is between them.
I’d say that getting a divorce, especially for a conservative, would be worse that controlling your libido and staying in the marriage you opted into. Now, not only is Newt a cheater, he’s also a quitter. One more strike, and he’ll be a 3 time loser.
As for Newt, he was diddling one of his assistants at the same time he was leading that attacks on Clinton. If you’re going to take the moral ground, then you’d better not be as a big a dog as your target.
I agree.
Your points about Bush & Kerry have some merit. I think Kerry made himself more of a valid target because he so emphasized his past. Bush may have portrayed himself as a “war president,” but he always downplayed his national guard time in regards to it being the same as combat experience.
Well, all I can say is that at least, Newt had the decency to GET a divorce. It’s not much, but I’d rather you leave than stay married and continue to cheat, and continue to cause them pain.
Newt cheated on his first wife with the woman who became his second wife. He then cheated on her as well, leaving her for yet another younger woman. Plus, according to some reports, while he was in Congress, his first wife and kids were living on food stamps.
And that makes him decent?
As Kingbobb said, the Clintons have for whatever reason, decided to stay married. That is their choice. Newt is every bit of a serial adulterer as Bubba is. The fact that he ruinned two marriages in the process is hardly a virtue.
Newt cheated on his first wife with the woman who became his second wife.
My memory may be wrong, but I thought he was separated from his first wife when he began a relationship with his second wife. Not to say that makes it right, but it is a little different if you are already separated but not yet officially divorced versus cheating on your wife and pretending you still have a relationship.
Jim in Iowa
I’d say that getting a divorce, especially for a conservative, would be worse that controlling your libido and staying in the marriage you opted into. Now, not only is Newt a cheater, he’s also a quitter. One more strike, and he’ll be a 3 time loser.
Agreed. Except I would leave out the “especially for a conservative” part. 😉
Jim in Iowa
I googled “Newt Gingrich adultery”. I couldn’t find anything to support the idea that he and his first wife (the one he served with divorce papers while she was in the hospital) were separated when he began his affair with wife number 2, but I did find out a few interesting things. Here’s one quote from an admittedly anti-Newt site:
“As a young campaigner in the ’70s, he had one main drawback, according to Dot Crews, his campaign scheduler at the time. “We would have won in 1974 if we could have kept him out of the office, screwing her [a young volunteer] on the desk.””
The other thing is he apparently pioneered the “oral sex isn’t really sex” argument in the 1970s.
What a decent guy.
Touche’, Jim.
And I hope you didn’t take that as a jab aimed at you. Such was not my intention, but upon re-reading it, I can see how it could easily be taken as such.
It’s just that I’m also of the opinion that indiscriminate sex is more of an issue for most conservative than liberals.
Which is not to say that liberals can’t be equally disgusted at Newt’s amoral behavior.
And I hope you didn’t take that as a jab aimed at you.
No, I didn’t. I think your opinion is correct, in general it is more of an issue for conservatives than liberals.
Jim in Iowa
Newt cheated on his first wife with the woman who became his second wife. He then cheated on her as well, leaving her for yet another younger woman. Plus, according to some reports, while he was in Congress, his first wife and kids were living on food stamps.
And that makes him decent?
Did write that it made him decent?. No. I only stated that he at least HAD the amount of decency it took to stop stringing his wife along in a loveless marriage.
As for the story about his wife and kids on food stamps, I can’t find anything to corroborate so I can’t comment on it. Since you found it, why don’t you post the link so I can read it?
IMO, the gravity that should be attributed to an act of adultery is entirely dependent on how much weight the two married folks give to it. Other people’s opinions are irrelevant. Just because you think it’s an unforgivable sin if Person A cheated on Person B doesn’t oblige them to give it the same level of consideration — and if Person B does not react with your expected level of anger/grief/rejection/whatever, that’s your problem.
And Den wrote:
“Unfortunately, nobody seems to know exactly what [Bush] did during those missing months in the guard. It’s true that he received an honorable discharge, but his suspension from flying after missing a required physical and the missing time in the raises some questions about favoritism that, I think, should be answered.”
If I remember correctly, receiving an honorable discharge is fairly routine for the guard — you’d have to really screw things up to get a dishonorable discharge, even today. And as the then-son of a Congressional Representative, George W. Bush would’ve had to commit murder and/or treason before he ran into any risk of getting a “dishonorable.”
Or, to summarize, the term “honorable discharge” doesn’t mean a whole lot in this context, methinks.
–R.J.
Let me put it this way: I think more liberals tolerate adultery than conservatives do.
If you add “in their political leaders”, then I think I can go along with that. If you say “in their personal lives”, then I think your realm of experience is misleading you.
(And perhaps you can use an example that isn’t sexual in nature next time, unless you want my argument that the right wing cares more about sex than any other “character issue” to carry even greater weight.)
Since Ryan’s issues were sexual, it was necessary to use such an example.
No it wasn’t, unless you’re conceding the point. My original argument was that Republicans tend to overemphasize sexual character when saying “character matters”, and underemphasize everything else. I said nothing about Ryan or any other specific politician. You’re choosing to focus on the ones with interesting sexual histories, not me.
But hey, thanks for the support.
A president (be it Clinton or Bush) who truly and deliberately tells a willfull lie to the American people is worse than a president who happens to have an extramarital sexual relationship while in office.
Ah. You mean like “I never said I wasn’t concerned about Osama Bin Laden”, for example?
Let me suggest, though, that the reason sex is brought up so much is because my earlier comment is true, that SOME (not all) liberals are more tolerant of sexual misconduct than conservatives. So while conservatives don’t see it as the only character issue, it is one they are more alone in pointing it out.
Granted that they’re more inclined to point it out … but frankly, I have to ask “so what?” It’s not that sex is brought up “so much”, it’s that it’s brought up to the exclusion of other facets.
I swear, there are several times over the last four years that I think there could be unimpeachable video footage of Bush picking Iraqi children out of his teeth while wiping his ášš with the Constitution, and so long as he wasn’t cheating on Laura half the country wouldn’t care…
TWL
Speaking of ethics and such, there is this article today:
House to Consider Relaxing Its Rules
Fri Dec 31, 4:59 AM ET
By Mike Allen and Charles Babington, Washington Post Staff Writers
House Republican leaders are urging members to alter one of the chamber’s fundamental ethics rules, which would make it harder for lawmakers to discipline a colleague.
The proposed change would essentially negate a general rule of conduct that the ethics committee has often cited in admonishing lawmakers — including Majority Leader Tom DeLay — for bringing discredit on the House even if their behavior was not covered by a specific regulation. Backers of the rule, adopted three decades ago, say it is important because the House’s conduct code cannot anticipate every instance of questionable behavior that might reflect poorly on the chamber.
Republicans, returning to the Capitol on Tuesday after increasing their House majority by three seats in the Nov. 2 election, also want to relax a restriction on relatives of lawmakers accepting foreign and domestic trips from groups interested in legislation before the House.
A third proposed rule change would allow either party to stop the House ethics committee from investigating a complaint against a member.
Currently, if the panel, which is evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats, is deadlocked on a complaint, the matter automatically goes to an investigative subcommittee after 45 days. The proposed change would drop any complaint that is not backed by a majority vote to move it forward.
Government watchdog groups called the proposals startling and unjustified. If the proposed rules are adopted next week as GOP leaders suggest, they would amount to “the biggest backtracking on House ethics rules that we have seen,” said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21.
—–
This is about half the article, and the rest is
here
I swear, there are several times over the last four years that I think there could be unimpeachable video footage of Bush picking Iraqi children out of his teeth while wiping his ášš with the Constitution, and so long as he wasn’t cheating on Laura half the country wouldn’t care…
That may have been your impression, but it was not reality. However, most of the current allegations about Bush’s actions in office are NOT dealing with a clear ethical issue. They deal with policy and approach to a problem and with assumpitons about his motives. If you could PROVE that Bush actually knew Iraq had no WMD’s, AND that he solely invaded to bring financial profit to Haliburton, I would be first in line to impeach him. However, the fact that Bush’s opponents who don’t like his policy in the first place claim this is true means nothing. (National Guard service is a different issue. I am talking about his actions as President.)
Jim in Iowa