Keeps getting worse for Dems

and of course they look like hypocrites chasing Delay the excact same thing they are doing. Would love to see the numbers reran for when the libbys controled the House

It's obvious, even from your linked article, that too many politicians on both sides of the aisle have been doing this. Hopefully the attention it's getting will change things.

the Democratic hypocracy. The manner in which Democrats are revealing themselves as complete hypocrites.

Not just with trip taking but with paying relatives and immediate family for campaign work.
http://reviews.cnet.com/5208-6130-0.html?forumID=50&threadID=97015&messageID=1149863

And not with just those issues, but with the abolishment of filibustering. In 1995 Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) And Eight Other Democrats Now Serving In The Senate (Bingaman, Boxer, Feingold, Harkin, Kennedy, Kerry, Lautenberg, And Sarbanes) supported ending all filibusters. Not just filibusters of nomineees but ALL Filibustering. Look up the 4 January, 1995 Harkin-Lieberman Proposal to amended senate rules to allow a Simple Majority to overcome ANY Filibuster. On introducing it Sen. Harkin emphasized that, while preserving the Senate tradition of extended debate, they wanted to eliminate filibusters designed to kill legislation or nominations that have "a majority of support." He urged the Senate to "embrace the vision of [the Senate] that our Founding Fathers had ... a place to ... deliberate and discuss, but not as a place where a handful ... can totally stop legislation or nominations."

Under the Harkin-Lieberman proposal (follow link and click on Ammendments), the number of votes required to end debate would steadily decline as the debate proceeded. At first it would take 60, then 57, then 54, and finally 51 votes to end a filibuster. That sounds pretty good and maybe their old proposal SHOULD be brought up again excepting that it be reworded for nominations only.


The Senate voted 76-19 to table the Harkin/Lieberman proposal at that time. The 19 senators voting against the motion to table were all Democrats, and 10 serve in the Senate today. One might guess that Frist can count on ALL TEN still serving to vote for the rule change might'nt one.

As a simple matter of historical interest, every time you hear one of the Democrats ranting about 200 years of tradition or "upsetting the Constitution" take note that judicial nominations for the Supreme Court didn't even have nominees appear before the Senate until 1925 and then no more were compelled to appear until 1939 and in that appearance Justice Frankfurter's prepared statement said that he would not express his personal views. It wasn't until 1955 that the "modern tradition" of confirmation hearings cam into vogue and even then they were very brief hearings.

http://www.fed-soc.org/pdf/Filibusters.pdf

...in the late 90s we got to watch adulterers like Henry Hyde and Newt Gingrich excoriate Bill Clinton for his personal indiscretions, and Al D'Amato head up an Ethics committee.

Hypocrisy is not confined to one party.

For a Republican to be a hypocrite, s/he has to do something illegal. This rule does not apply to Democrats.

Thanks, I have it now.

Clinton tried the "if it isn't intercourse, it isn't sex" defense, which of course is silly. But he wasn't the first to try it:

http://www.salon.com/news/1998/08/28news.html

Gingrich pioneered a denial of adultery that some observers would later christen "the Newt Defense": Oral sex doesn't count. In a revealing psychological portrait of the "inner" Gingrich that appeared in Vanity Fair (September 1995), Gail Sheehy uncovered a woman, Anne Manning, who had an affair in Washington in 1977 with a married Gingrich.

"We had oral sex," Manning revealed. "He prefers that modus operandi because then he can say, 'I never slept with her.'" She added that Gingrich threatened her: "If you ever tell anybody about this, I'll say you're lying."

It was about politics, pure and simple. "Because we can," (Newt's own words) not "because we have no choice."

if you quoted Newt correctly (no link), but there were a lot more people involved than Newt. They were focused on obstruction and perjury.

The "investigation" had been going on for years before the "obstruction and perjury" ever took place. The Lewinsky affair merely provided a means to the end they'd been seeking from the get-go.

We should feel proud though. The US Congress spent roughly $80 million and six years to find out something we all knew before Clinton ever took office -- that he cheats on his wife.

BTW, Google "Gingrich" and "because we can" and you'll find many references to it.

Looks like you might not have actually read much there as I referenced none--just the fact of Democratic hypocracy in charging DeLay with exactly what they and others do and have done.

This link might interest you as it mentions both Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones (Ohio Democrat) and Rep. Tom Feeney (Florida Republican) who both just happen to actually be ON the ETHICS COMITTEE.
http://www.opinioneditorials.com/guestcontributors/cmuth_20050424.html

a personal indiscretion Josh, it was a criminal act.

The hypocracy is readily visible in the current crop of Democrats who do exactly what they accuse others of and then get upset and defensive when their own acts are pointed out to them.

Think those 10 Democratic Senators are going to vote to end nomination filibustering AGAIN as they did in 1995? A couple are likely to do so as their personal stance hasn't changed but others in the group appear to have forgotten their previous stand and now after publicly accusing Frist of destroying a tradition don't want the mud they are slinging to splash back on them as is inevitable.

obstruction of justice, petty theft, bribery, and other assorted governing acts. He even gave our missile technology to the Chinese. Did someone say adultery? That's bad too, but....

He was ACCUSED of all of them but never CHARGED or CONVICTED of any.

The confusion is understandable though.

receive a contempt citation

I don't recall it but I'll take your word for it. Even if true, it's a far cry from "perjury, obstruction of justice, petty theft, bribery" which is what KP said he was "nailed" for.

Let's not forget that although Clinton was impeached, he was acquitted in the Senate. So far the only President to leave office in disgrace before his term was up was Richard Nixon.

practice law for several years.

Really?

DeLay is innocent because John Kerry wasn't exactly where he said he was on Christmas Eve 1968.

Get with the program, man!

Sure, but so would about half of the currently seated House. Are you going to start calling out the Liberals that are guilty too?