Pelosi Considers Rewriting Ethics Rules, Dems Can't Meet High Ethical Standards

TomCat84 · 06-18-2010

The reason that gays tend to always vote for Democrats over Republicans are the parties' respective stances over gay rights. I consider myself a pragmatic liberal, in that I will sometimes vote for a Republican if he/she is liberal enough on gay rights. I absolutely REFUSE to vote for any candidate that is not at least pro civil union/domestic partnership, and I categorically reject any notion that this stance makes me a single issue voter. However, I will concede that it is a bit of a personal litmus test- which is not the same thing as being a single issue voter. I agree with lurker in that a lot of gays (especially the establishment HRC-type gays) tend to give the Democratic Party a free pass on A LOT of things...but I think this is starting to change as a younger generation of gays is brought up. Remember- the Democrats in presidential years only get about 75% of the reported gay vote- which is less of a percentage than African Americans, and about the same as the Jewish vote. If there's ANY group that needs to re-examine its relationship with the Democrats, it's black voters- who routinely give 90% or so to the Dems. As for me- I voted for Kerry in 2004 and Obama in 2008. But I also voted for a Republican for Mayor, and the Green Party in the gubernatorial races that I have been old enough to vote for. My personal representative- Susan Davis (D), is an excellent congresswoman who is pretty liberal, so I'll vote to re-elect her. But, lurker, for a 100% gay man to vote for ANY Republican in TN just astounds me- why would you vote for someone who thinks our kind (gays) are an abomination? Hell, even the Democratic governor is anti gay marriage/civil unions. Don't lecture gays over their vote, and we won't lecture you for voting for anti gay Republicans.

TurkeyWithaSunburn · 06-18-2010

Hooray another anti-Democrat anti-Obama thread, who'd a thunk it?!

I wonder if Pelosi was to run for President who would be her most ardent supporter...

B_VinylBoy · 06-18-2010

Funny how there hasn't been a single mention as to how the GOP modified the Ethics Rules back when Tom Delay was the House Majority Leader. Precisely, a rule that would have forced him to resign if he was indicted for criminal acts in his home state. But I guess when that happened, that wasn't supposed to be a sign of weakness or a sign that they couldn't "meet high ethical standards" either. Or was it? I'm not sure anymore... so many people have been spinning so much they can't even form a statement without getting dizzy.

But hey... Democrats are evil, right? That's the only thing that matters until Obama is out of office, right?! Rah, rah, sis boom-bah! Three cheers for political hypocrisy!!!

Can someone put a fork in this thread already?

Trinity · 06-18-2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by TomCat84

Don't lecture gays over their vote, and we won't lecture you for voting for anti gay Republicans.

This is about Pelosi watering down the ethics rules because of "unintended" consequences for Dems.

Quote:

Originally Posted by x704

Hooray another anti-Democrat anti-Obama thread, who'd a thunk it?!

Why is it that when Democrats fail to live up to their principles and promises it is turned around and called an anti-Democrat / anti-Obama thread?

It is the Democrats own actions that are anti-themselves because they are destroying their own credibility.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VinylBoy

Funny how there hasn't been a single mention as to how the GOP modified the Ethics Rules back when Tom Delay was the House Majority Leader. Precisely, a rule that would have forced him to resign if he was indicted for criminal acts in his home state. But I guess when that happened, that wasn't supposed to be a sign of weakness or a sign that they couldn't "meet high ethical standards". But hey... Democrats are evil, right? That's the only thing that matters until Obama is out of office, right?! Rah, rah, sis boom-bah! Three cheers for political hypocrisy!!!

You know since the title of the thread says "Tom Delay and the Republicans"...wait - it doesn't. And Tom Delay and the Republicans are still in control in Congress...wait - they're not. And Bush is still President...wait - that's not quite right...so uh...yeah...considered it mentioned. As if saying "the Republicans did it and worse" (as I mentioned before) in ANY way absolves Democrats from maintaining their principles, their ethics and doing the right thing.

B_VinylBoy · 06-18-2010

Silence, hypocrite.

Trinity · 06-18-2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by VinylBoy

Silence, hypocrite.

You could only be talking to Pelosi and the Dems.

B_VinylBoy · 06-18-2010

Last time I checked, the name Pelosi didn't start with the letter "T".
Are you through being a hypocrite today? Please say you are.

mikeyh9in · 06-18-2010

I thought long an hard about the motivations of the folks like Trinity and I believe that it is a form of self denial and deflection.

I believe they are deeply ashamed for not standing up during the Bush era. Standing up for what is right for people and America.

They stood silent when Bush gave Billions in needless tax cuts to the rich.

They stood silent when the patriot act stripped Americans of the most fundamental rights.

The stood silent when we entered a needless, unprovoked war in Iraq.

The stood silent when they displayed their bigotry against their fellow Americans by seeking to institutionalize it in the constitution.

They stood silent and tried to justify torturing people.

They called Americans protesting the Iraq war "un-American."

They stood silent as New Orleans flooded and people died.

Now they have this sudden need to react to something, anything -- because what the left has been screaming and protesting during the bast 9 years has come to be.

Did you not hear the left saying that Bush is destroying America? And now that we are in the post-Bush era and we have everything that he has sown, you are seeking anything to blame but the truth.

It is quicker to destroy than create. We will be in the land that Bush created for many many years to come

The smart folks saw it coming and were prepared. The rest are scrambling and blaming (blaming illegal immigration, the gays, the Democrats).

But instead of blaming, they should be helping.

-Mike

Trinity · 06-18-2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikeyh9in

It is quicker to destroy than create. We will be in the land that Bush created for many many years to come

The smart folks saw it coming and were prepared. The rest are scrambling and blaming (blaming illegal immigration, the gays, the Democrats).

But instead of blaming, they should be helping.-Mike

Pelosi is considering rewriting the rules of ethics so that her Party won't get caught in "unintended circumstances" and you believe any criticism of Democrats losing their principles and all credibility is a call to write a laundry list of what you deemed was Republican wrongdoing.

Instead of talking about the past and the wrongdoing of those out of power you need to be examining the present and wrongdoing of the Democrats currently in power. But you are too embarrassed to do that...so you deflect.

Industrialsize · 06-19-2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by TomCat84

Right, and Congress rightly censured him for it. Why are you digging this up?

Let's get this right. Mr frank was NOT censured for anything having to do with a prostitution ring. From wikipedia:
A 1990 investigation by the House Ethics Committee was prompted by Steve Gobie, a male prostitute Frank befriended and housed, who attempted to profit on his allegations that Frank knew he was using the home to see clients. Frank confirmed that he had once paid Gobie for sex, hired him with personal funds as an aide and wrote letters on congressional stationery on his behalf to Virginia state probation officials, but Frank said he fired Gobie when he learned that prostitution clients were visiting his apartment. "Two years [after Frank fired Gobie], Gobie tried unsuccessfully to sell his story to the The Washington Post. He then gave the story to the The Washington Times for nothing, in hopes of getting a book contract for the male version of Mayflower Madam."
After the investigation, the Committee found no evidence that Frank had known of or been involved in the alleged illegal activity and dismissed all of Gobie's more scandalous claims; they recommended a reprimand for Frank using his congressional office to fix 33 of Gobie's parking tickets. The House voted 408-18 to reprimand Frank.

TurkeyWithaSunburn · 06-19-2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by VinylBoy

Can someone put a fork in this thread already?

This thread does need a fork in it before it's driven into the ground.

Well since you asked, here ya go.

B_VinylBoy · 06-19-2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by x704

This thread does need a fork in it before it's driven into the ground.

Well since you asked, here ya go.

Thank you, dear. LOL!!

Trinity · 06-19-2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by Industrialsize

Let's get this right. Mr frank was NOT censured for anything having to do with a prostitution ring. From wikipedia:
A 1990 investigation by the House Ethics Committee was prompted by Steve Gobie, a male prostitute Frank befriended and housed, who attempted to profit on his allegations that Frank knew he was using the home to see clients. Frank confirmed that he had once paid Gobie for sex, hired him with personal funds as an aide and wrote letters on congressional stationery on his behalf to Virginia state probation officials, but Frank said he fired Gobie when he learned that prostitution clients were visiting his apartment. "Two years [after Frank fired Gobie], Gobie tried unsuccessfully to sell his story to the The Washington Post. He then gave the story to the The Washington Times for nothing, in hopes of getting a book contract for the male version of Mayflower Madam."
After the investigation, the Committee found no evidence that Frank had known of or been involved in the alleged illegal activity and dismissed all of Gobie's more scandalous claims; they recommended a reprimand for Frank using his congressional office to fix 33 of Gobie's parking tickets. The House voted 408-18 to reprimand Frank.

LoL. It is funny that somehow you believe that that clarification of fixing parking tickets affiliated with Frank paying for sex to the same person conducting a sex ring in Franks home actually changes something.

b.c. · 06-19-2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by VinylBoy

Funny how there hasn't been a single mention as to how the GOP modified the Ethics Rules back when Tom Delay was the House Majority Leader. Precisely, a rule that would have forced him to resign if he was indicted for criminal acts in his home state. But I guess when that happened, that wasn't supposed to be a sign of weakness or a sign that they couldn't "meet high ethical standards" either. Or was it? I'm not sure anymore... so many people have been spinning so much they can't even form a statement without getting dizzy.

But hey... Democrats are evil, right? That's the only thing that matters until Obama is out of office, right?! Rah, rah, sis boom-bah! Three cheers for political hypocrisy!!!

Can someone put a fork in this thread already?

Well not only that, but, THE WHOLE PREMISE AND TITLE OF THIS THREAD IS BOGUS!!

First of all, according to one of the articles linked by the o.p., the Ethics Rules come under review and revision every two years. It's a standard practice.

Secondly, Pelosi is only taking the revisions under consideration, with input from various Republican and Democratic members of Congress.

Third the objections to the OCE's procedures (Office of Congressional Ethics) according to the cited article come from both Republicans and Democrats in Congress (quote):

"Bipartisan anger over the OCE has flared at times in the 111th Congress as members have reacted to being investigated by an independent body. The OCE’s creation at Pelosi’s urging in 2008 marked the first time members of Congress have handed over some power to police themselves to an outside group." http://thehill.com/homenews/house/10...cs-rule-change

Conclusion: Bogus topic and bogus thread full of ASSumptions and RIGHT WINGED spin.

Next.

Trinity · 06-19-2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by b.c.

Well not only that, but, THE WHOLE PREMISE AND TITLE OF THIS THREAD IS BOGUS!!

Wonder if the Hill knows the whole premise and title of their article is bogus...?

Pelosi considering rewriting ethics rules - TheHill.com

Quote:

Originally Posted by b.c.

First of all, according to one of the articles linked by the o.p., the Ethics Rules come under review and revision every two years. It's a standard practice.

You know what is not standard practice?...changing the rules of ethics because you can't meet the high standard. The New York Times and the Washington Post blasted the Democrats move to change the rules because:

Quote:

Undercutting OCE's authority would be backsliding. The point of creating an outside watchdog was to prevent the ethics committee from sweeping things under the rug; all those on the committee are members of Congress. The panel is too often inclined not only to dismiss a complaint but to do so quietly, without airing the evidence. Lawmakers are understandably concerned that the ethics process not be used to tar them unfairly, providing fodder for attack ads in the next election, but there is also a public interest in full disclosure and robust enforcement. So far, the OCE -- which is made up of former members of Congress and experts chosen by the speaker and minority leader in equal numbers -- has proved a helpful force, and the ethics panel's unhappiness with the arrangement only underscores its importance.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington - from the Washington Post

Quote:

Originally Posted by b.c.

Secondly, Pelosi is only taking the revisions under consideration, with input from various Republican and Democratic members of Congress.

The resolution was "clumsily" already introduced with 19 co-sponsors which alerted the New York Times, Washington Post and numerous Watchdog groups to the Democrats' shananigans. Pelosi is trying to figure out how to get rid of those "unintended consequences" created by the OCE:

Quote:

At the meeting, which was also attended by CBC lawmaker and Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.), sources said Pelosi heard complaints about the OCE’s new powers and investigation tactics.

Pelosi and Clyburn were sympathetic, because the OCE has produced some unintended consequences, according to two sources in the room.

The Hill.com

Quote:

Originally Posted by b.c.

Third the objections to the OCE's procedures (Office of Congressional Ethics) according to the cited article come from both Republicans and Democrats in Congress

Please - it also says this:

Quote:

Bipartisan anger over the OCE has flared at times in the 111th Congress as members have reacted to being investigated by an independent body. The OCE’s creation at Pelosi’s urging in 2008 marked the first time members of Congress have handed over some power to police themselves to an outside group.

The Hill.com

And it also says this:

Quote:

“There was a problem a few years ago with corruption in this institution, and that’s why it was created,” Davis said. “I would hate to see the leadership walk away from this commitment — as I look back as a private citizen. No member should be threatened by a more vigilant ethics system.”

The Hill.com

Quote:

Originally Posted by b.c.

Conclusion: Bogus topic and bogus thread full of ASSumptions and RIGHT WINGED spin.

Next.

Topic - on point. Thread - backed up by articles from The Hill, the Washington Post and Talking Points Memo.

Your response? a combination of spin and inaccuracy.