I wrote this on my phone on the way to lunch because I really am addicted and can't stay away. Plus, apparently writing about how Morning People are out to get me isn't controversial enough to generate comments. This is about Tom DeLay's ethical trip ups and his current adventures in the Ethics Committee.
I heard this comment on Neal Boortz: "How concerned are the Democrats about ethics really?" My thought: "Who cares?" The issue is whether or not DeLay had serious breaches of ethics. It is not the Dem's motivations for pursuing them. For the record, I am concerned about ethics. I don't want Democrats beholden to crooked lobbyists any more than the Republicans. I fully support ethics investigations on anyone suspected of violations. (And no, extra-marital sex is not an ethical problem, as far as I'm concerned. It's a moral problem.) Can we just agree that Tom DeLay is a crooked Congressman who uses his position of power for personal gain, but that he excels at his job of Majority Leader?
And speaking on moral problems because I know this will come up - getting an independant prosecutor for Clinton on the Whitewater deal was appropriate (partisan, but appropriate) because the people involved were crooked and lots of money changed hands. But when it got to be about extramarital affairs, it stopped being ethical and started being moral. And you don't get fired for being immoral in your personal life. He did lie under oath, which is an ethical problem, but since it was about a moral problem unrelated to the investigation here's how I look at it. I feel it's like the seat belt law. It's a secondary violation, meaning that you can't get pulled over for not wearing your seat belt. But if you do get pulled over for say, speeding, you can be ticketed for not wearing your belt. If Clinton had lied to cover up his involvement in a crime, I would have supported punitive measures. But since there was no crime (Clinton was never found guilty of any crime, even by the "independant" prosecutor, Ken Starr), there was no coverup and the lie about having sex with Lewinsky should have been dropped. His lie about Lewinsky was the definition of entrapment - in which the police or prosecution were the ones inducing the crime. Had Starr not asked about the girl, there would have been no oath-breaking. Again, see my previous argument - had there been a real crime committed, I would not have been so forgiving.