Headlines
House Overturns New Ethics Rule as Republican Leadership Yields
Republicans said that they had surrendered to the Democrats...
This is the start of the description of the story on the front page of the NY Times website. The substance of the story is that House Republicans have agreed to reverse the changes in the ethics rules designed to protect Tom DeLay in order to counter the perception that they have been manipulating the ethics rules to protect Tom DeLay.
2 Comments:
Protect Tom Delay? The guy's begging to go before the committee and the Democrats won't let him. OK,so the rules have been changed,what are they waiting for? Although I didn't read the article there was a bit in the NYT about how this travel thing could turn into another House banking scandal,that is,something that could involve many congressmen.Is it time to say be careful what you ask for. Came across another tidbit,in the number of overseas junkets Delay ranks 114th among congressmen. Now we're going to have to investigate the other 113. I hope I didn't spoil your fun but the Republicans are not doing a Trent Lott el foldo on this,to much ammunition against the other side. Not to fear,the Times will come up with something else,just when they do remember this fizzle.
Thanks for stopping by and commenting, commenter. I don't expect Republicans to give in on the issue of Delay's alleged ethics abuses (although I did enjoy seeing the story about them folding on the ethics rule changes - that's why I linked to it). I look forward to the coming ethical/legal battles, and I agree with you that they'll extend to people besides Delay. I'm hoping that, once things have shaken out, we'll have a cleaner Congress, and a less Republican one. Your hopes may vary.
I believe that the rule changes at the start of the term were a response to Delay's other scandals, like his fundraising improprieties, not Traveldome. I don't even think that the travel story had broken when the rules were changed. Also, the scandalous thing about Delay's overseas junkets is not the number of them, but who has paid for them.
Post a Comment
<< Home