23% approve of Democrat congress - had enough?

[R.R.]

Jefferson, it appears, is on his way out.

He’s still sitting in congress. Where does it "appear" that he's on his way out? He pled not guilty. Pelosi hasn't expelled him from congress. He was caught with a freezer full of cash, and mind numbed libs, such as yourself, voted to reelect him. The Dems do not have a rule that if you get indicted you have to resign from congress, as they should.

John Murtha was exposed on an FBI tape contemplating accepting a bribe, and he was voted back into office by mind numbed libs, such as yourself. A criminal liberal is better than a Republican in your minds, I guess.

The Dem congress only has a 23% approval rating. What have they achieved to warrant their reelection in 2008? Have they cut off funds for the war in Iraq or voted to deauthorize it, as they suggested they would? Why did they break every single pledge they had in 2006, including ending earmarks and making the earmark process more transparent?

When an incumbent dips below 49% in the polls, they are in trouble. The Dem congress only has a 23% approval rating. At the least, if Mary Landrieu is defeated and all else remains the same, the senate will flip back to the GOP in '08.

[R.R.]

I am hardly the greatest admirer of this Dem congress.

You may not be the greatest, but you are an apologist for this failed Dem congress.

[fatman]

He’s still sitting in congress. Where does it "appear" that he's on his way out? He pled not guilty. Pelosi hasn't expelled him from congress. He was caught with a freezer full of cash, and mind numbed libs, such as yourself, voted to reelect him.
 

Well, if the voters voted to re-elect him (tasteless I know), isn't that the "will of the people"?  Kind of like these marriage amendments and anti-abortion things the right is always trumpeting about?  Or do you only acknowledge the will of the people when it conforms to your beliefs?

The Dems do not have a rule that if you get indicted you have to resign from congress, as they should.

Why?  Do the Republicans have such a rule?  What about due process?  I have little doubt that Jefferson is guilty, but what about the next case that might not be so clear?  Poor judgement of the Democrat leadership on this case should not result in unilateral action for all time.

John Murtha was exposed on an FBI tape contemplating accepting a bribe, and he was voted back into office by mind numbed libs, such as yourself.

Again, that pesky will of the people thing.  Were charges filed in this case?  I'm pretty sure bribery is a crime.  What was the outcome?  Aquittal?  Conviction?

A criminal liberal is better than a Republican in your minds, I guess.

Apparently to the voters in his district, which could be construed as an indictment of Republican principles if one so wished.

The Dem congress only has a 23% approval rating.

So?  Bush's is what, 10 points higher?  Oh, I get it, Dems are worse than Repubs, okay.  Fact is, both have an approval of under 50%, which is a piss poor argument for you to use.

What have they achieved to warrant their reelection in 2008?

What, pray tell, have Repubs done?  At least they at least got a minimum wage increase, which is at least somewhat useful, instead of rubber stamping a President.

Have they cut off funds for the war in Iraq or voted to deauthorize it, as they suggested they would?

No

Why did they break every single pledge they had in 2006, including ending earmarks and making the earmark process more transparent?

Because they're politicians?

[Plane]

Jefferson, it appears, is on his way out.

He’s still sitting in congress. Where does it "appear" that he's on his way out? He pled not guilty. Pelosi hasn't expelled him from congress. He was caught with a freezer full of cash, and mind numbed libs, such as yourself, voted to reelect him. The Dems do not have a rule that if you get indicted you have to resign from congress, as they should.

John Murtha was exposed on an FBI tape contemplating accepting a bribe, and he was voted back into office by mind numbed libs, such as yourself. A criminal liberal is better than a Republican in your minds, I guess.

The Dem congress only has a 23% approval rating. What have they achieved to warrant their reelection in 2008? Have they cut off funds for the war in Iraq or voted to deauthorize it, as they suggested they would? Why did they break every single pledge they had in 2006, including ending earmarks and making the earmark process more transparent?

When an incumbent dips below 49% in the polls, they are in trouble. The Dem congress only has a 23% approval rating. At the least, if Mary Landrieu is defeated and all else remains the same, the senate will flip back to the GOP in '08.

    Polling in each district generally finds a much higher approval for the district Congressman than for the Congress as an institution. Incumbancy has a great advantage and many of the earmarks being earmarked are revenue and infrastructure for the Congressmans home district.

     I still like the term limit idea .

   

[Amianthus]

The Dems do not have a rule that if you get indicted you have to resign from congress, as they should.

Why?  Do the Republicans have such a rule?

Yes.

[fatman]

I still like the term limit idea .

Agreed!

The Dems do not have a rule that if you get indicted you have to resign from congress, as they should.

Why?  Do the Republicans have such a rule?


Yes.

Sorry ami, I was unaware of this.

[Lanya]

November 17, 2004
The intersection of criminal law and politics
Mike

Should a Congressman be required to resign his leadership position if he is indicted?  Before today, internal Congressional rules mandated, "Yes."  The rules were spawned by Republicans after Dan Rostenkowski, a Democrat, refused to resign his leadership position after being indicted.  But the Republicans now want to change the rules, since their own Tom DeLay is in warm water.

At first, I agreed with Profs. Bainbridge and Heller, who called the rule change "unseemly" and "hypocritical."  Then Amy Ridenour changed my mind:

    When the House GOP caucus originally approved the rule saying a party leader should step down if indicted, I agreed with it. I no longer do. I've seen too much use of the criminal justice system as a political tool here over the last ten years, the vast majority of the cases never receiving media coverage. Keep in mind, too (as I suppose most of you don't know), that I've been running a DC think-tank for 22 years, so I have some basis for comparison. There are good, honest people in town you've never heard of (let alone the high profile targets) who could probably wallpaper a room with copies of subpoenas. And put their kids through college on the legal fees they've paid.

I agree with Ms. Ridenour.  An indictment, sadly, often has little to do with legal gulit or innocence.  All one need do is tick off a powerful person - whether that be a local police officer or United States Senator.  You don't have to be in D.C. to witness a witch hunt.

Prof. Bainbridge makes a compelling counter-argument here.  Citing James Joyner he themes his case as one of procedure:

    Don't change the rules in the middle of the game is an excellent way of capturing the problem with this maneuver. The GOP adopted the rule to highlight their claim of ethical superiority over the Democrats; to repeal it now smacks of hypocrisy.

It's a very close call for me, but I will error on the side of the presumption of innocence.  Until DeLay is convicted, he should hold his position.  Of course, the counter is that by removing DeLay, they're not saying he does not deserve the presumption of innocence.  Rather, they're saying that even if the rule is a bad one, changing it now causes Republicans to lose the moral high ground.  After all, what looks shadier than adopting a rule that hurts your enemy, and then repealing that rule to help your ally?

Although I see that point, there is no higher ground than the presumption of innocence.  When we remove someone's honor merely because he's indicted, we necessarily prejudge him.  Any rule that goes against the presumption innonce is a bad one, and should be shucked, even mid-stream.
http://federalism.typepad.com/crime_federalism/2004/11/the_intersectio.html

[sirs]

Interesting op-ed and highlighting coming from the person that apparently had Cheney, Rove, and even Bush doing the perp walk.  Fitzgerald just needed to complete his investigation and ............................. ooooops.  What was that about pre-judging and the presumption of innocence, until all the facts are uncovered?  Has that been given our troops, regarding the claims of widespread atrocities at their hands??

[Amianthus]

[snip]

You will note that the GOP never repealed the party rule.

And the Democrats never had it.

[R.R.]

The Dem congress only has a 23% approval rating.

So? Bush's is what, 10 points higher?[/i]

Bush is not standing for re-election in '08. The Dem congress is, with all of their corruption, and their failure to govern. John Murtha will be up again. William Jefferson will be up again. The Donald Trump of the senate, Harry Reid, will ask to be Majority Leader again. When you get to 23% approval, as the current Dem congress is, that's pretty much paid staffers and relatives at that point. Races that looked to be long shots, like Mary Landrue's senate senate seat start to come into play. The Dems promised change in '06 ? and they pretty much lied. They have made things worse.