DeLay Rules Changes!
I know that the vote is over and that the Republican rules have already been changed, but, if I could have offered my advice to the Republicans in the House of Representatives it would have been to DELAY.
It is too self serving, looks and feels too much like the rules do not apply to Rep. DeLay to change the rules just before they may have an effect upon him.
As I see it, the rule is a good one, (so long as this prosecution is not being executed for the sole purpose of having this rule enforced) at least to force someone temporarily from a position of authority if indicted. At least until a conviction makes it permanent, or an acquittal reinstates the position.
I understand innocent until proven guilty. And I might even agree with the very same rule change just inacted IF it were not for the specific purpose of protecting a specific individual.
This is how I would have liked to see it play out:
First, the rule, as written last week, applies to Rep. DeLay. IF he is indicted, have him loose his position. If convicted, we do not need him in any position.
Assuming that he is acquitted, reinstate him to his previous position. THEN express your outrage that this politically motivated, frivolous prosecution cost the party a good leader for a period of time, and THEN suggest that the rules be changed so that no other leader has to go though such an ordeal.
We CANNOT change the rules for one person. Even if it is all political and he is completely innocent, the appearance is that Rep. DeLay is special and above the rules by changing them this way.
If you had DELAYED this as I outlined above, I could probably have been convinced agree with the rules change. Since you did not, I cannot.
Read more about it...
ABC News: House GOP Changes Rules to Protect DeLay
Think for yourself!
Make up your own mind!
It is too self serving, looks and feels too much like the rules do not apply to Rep. DeLay to change the rules just before they may have an effect upon him.
As I see it, the rule is a good one, (so long as this prosecution is not being executed for the sole purpose of having this rule enforced) at least to force someone temporarily from a position of authority if indicted. At least until a conviction makes it permanent, or an acquittal reinstates the position.
I understand innocent until proven guilty. And I might even agree with the very same rule change just inacted IF it were not for the specific purpose of protecting a specific individual.
This is how I would have liked to see it play out:
First, the rule, as written last week, applies to Rep. DeLay. IF he is indicted, have him loose his position. If convicted, we do not need him in any position.
Assuming that he is acquitted, reinstate him to his previous position. THEN express your outrage that this politically motivated, frivolous prosecution cost the party a good leader for a period of time, and THEN suggest that the rules be changed so that no other leader has to go though such an ordeal.
We CANNOT change the rules for one person. Even if it is all political and he is completely innocent, the appearance is that Rep. DeLay is special and above the rules by changing them this way.
If you had DELAYED this as I outlined above, I could probably have been convinced agree with the rules change. Since you did not, I cannot.
Read more about it...
ABC News: House GOP Changes Rules to Protect DeLay
Think for yourself!
Make up your own mind!
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home