(Politics) Tom DeLay, whiny maggotweasel.

[Arles]

Axxon, to be fair, I don't think what either McCain or Delay did was all that wrong given the info we know. Both appeared to be doing business as usual (attending a fundraiser/ accepting a donation). But, both were the result of "20-20" hindsight in that after a period of time had passed, there was a bit of an overlap between an event (fundraiser/donation) and legislation (energy, cable). Of course, no one likes to point out that both McCain's and Delay's opinions on both sets of legislation involved were extremely consistent with those each had given over the past decade.

Both of these cases seem to be a case of a group knowing a congressmen is a champion of their cause going in, they donate/invite to a fundraiser, and later we see both McCain and Delay keep with their prior views in votes/legislation. I don't see where the big hub-ub is one this - again given what we know to this point.

But, it is interesting to see the stark contrast in how both similar situations are being covered.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Arles

Axxon, to be fair, I don't think what either McCain or Delay did was all that wrong given the info we know. Both appeared to be doing business as usual (attending a fundraiser/ accepting a donation). But, both were the result of "20-20" hindsight in that after a period of time had passed, there was a bit of an overlap between an event (fundraiser/donation) and legislation (energy, cable). Of course, no one likes to point out that both McCain's and Delay's opinions on both sets of legislation involved were extremely consistent with those each had given over the past decade.

Both of these cases seem to be a case of a group knowing a congressmen is a champion of their cause going in, they donate/invite to a fundraiser, and later we see both McCain and Delay keep with their prior views in votes/legislation. I don't see where the big hub-ub is one this - again given what we know to this point.

But, it is interesting to see the stark contrast in how both similar situations are being covered.

Again, the perception of DeLay as a scum crook and McCain as a war hero play a part here. That in and of itself suggests a media bias but doesn't prove it. The characterizations may well be right after all.

It's a bit disconcerting that if indeed DeLay is a scum crook but hasn't been officially proven as one that he could use that lack of proof as a shield to continue business as usual.

It's just as bad if McCain uses the cloak of war hero to do the same thing.

While I've read ample on both I'm not able to speak knowledgeably on either opinion of either man so I won't but it's harder to think a wolf innocent of sheep killing than a sheep of wolficide if you know what I mean and it's even harder to think that in today's age ( with it's increased accessability in regards to information dissemination ) that such labels were spun from virgin cloth and hold no real truth.

It seems that the accusations against DeLay tend to reinforce the public's opinion of his character while the accusations against McCain tend to contradict our opinion of him and no matter what the actual facts of the situation are, these are going to more easily stick.

Know what I mean?

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Axxon

It seems that the accusations against DeLay tend to reinforce the public's opinion of his character while the accusations against McCain tend to contradict our opinion of him and no matter what the actual facts of the situation are, these are going to more easily stick.

Know what I mean?

Certainly, but I think a big part of "the public's opinion of his character" for both men is forged by the media. If columnists around the US decided tomorrow to attack McCain for the next three months on this issue as they have done Delay, you'd be amazed at the shift in public opinion towards McCain.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Arles

Certainly, but I think a big part of "the public's opinion of his character" for both men is forged by the media. If columnists around the US decided tomorrow to attack McCain for the next three months on this issue as they have done Delay, you'd be amazed at the shift in public opinion towards McCain.

I wouldn't be surprised actually. It would merely reinforce my opinion that the best course for a true leader to follow is one that doesn't alienate the public or it's now self appointed guardians.

There are many leaders I didn't agree with but had to respect, who understood this. Reagan was one, for example and for those who feel the opposite, so was Clinton ( though he had more figures against him he never lost the media or the public ).

There's a reason neither of these men were damaged by those who would bring them down. They knew how to play the media like a violin.

I can't remember a recent successful leader who didnt actually and DeLay went about business like a bull in a china shop ( as did Gingrich )and it's coming back on him in spades. Since I disagree with their goals I'm pretty glad they chose to march to the beat of their own drums.

Really though, I'd have thought that the Gingrich example would have served both parties well. Can you really trust a guy who didn't learn such a basic lesson on appeasing the media? Since we've seen it work both ways since at least Nixon ( which I consider the start of the media power in modern politics ) shouldn't they know better by now and if they don't why would you want them to represent you ( see Trent Lott )?

[Mr. Wednesday]

Originally Posted by Axxon

Again, the perception of DeLay as a scum crook and McCain as a war hero play a part here. That in and of itself suggests a media bias but doesn't prove it. The characterizations may well be right after all.

It should also be noted that McCain is not exactly new to ethical lapses. See the Keating scandal in the late 80's.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Axxon

I wouldn't be surprised actually. It would merely reinforce my opinion that the best course for a true leader to follow is one that doesn't alienate the public or it's now self appointed guardians.

There are many leaders I didn't agree with but had to respect, who understood this. Reagan was one, for example and for those who feel the opposite, so was Clinton ( though he had more figures against him he never lost the media or the public ).

There's a reason neither of these men were damaged by those who would bring them down. They knew how to play the media like a violin.

I don't disagree with their results, but Reagan was despised by the media - even more than Gingrich or DeLay. The reason he was successful was because he mastered the art of using the bully pulpit and going directly over the media. That's a luxery someone like Gingrich or DeLay does not have access to.

I can't remember a recent successful leader who didnt actually and DeLay went about business like a bull in a china shop ( as did Gingrich )and it's coming back on him in spades. Since I disagree with their goals I'm pretty glad they chose to march to the beat of their own drums.

Really though, I'd have thought that the Gingrich example would have served both parties well. Can you really trust a guy who didn't learn such a basic lesson on appeasing the media?

But, if you are a hard-line conservative, how do you "appease the media" without sacrificing your ideals? In fact, I can't think of the last hard-line conservative that was depicted in a positive manner by the media. So, either they are all bad guys or the media is simply unwilling to give someone they vehimently disagree with any kind of credit on the national stage.

Just look at Tom DeLay, Trent Lott, Newt Gengrich, Dick Army, John Kyl, John Ashcroft (before his AD position), Norm Coleman, Mitch McConnell and J.D. Hayworth. These are some of the more conservative congressmen over the past 5-10 years and all have been vilified by the national media.

Since we've seen it work both ways since at least Nixon ( which I consider the start of the media power in modern politics ) shouldn't they know better by now and if they don't why would you want them to represent you ( see Trent Lott )?

Name one pro-life, socially conservative and fiscally conservative congressman depicted in a positive manner by the media. It just doesn't happen.

[Blackadar]

1. Deny everything
if that fails...
2. Attack the sources
if that fails...
3. Attack the other party
if that fails...
4. Bring up Ted Kennedy or President Clinton
if that fails...
5. Try to change the ethics rules
if that fails...
6. Blame the "liberal" media

We've seen some great examples of all of these tactics in this thread!

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

1. Deny everything

I didn't have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky...check

if that fails...
2. Attack the sources

"Look at the very people who are involved in this. They have popped up in other settings. The great story here for anybody willing to find it, write about it and explain it is this vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president." -- Hillary Clinton...check

if that fails...
3. Attack the other party

Republicans are mean-spirited, are controlled by religious zealots, and practice the politics of personal destruction....check

if that fails...
4. Bring up Ted Kennedy or President Clinton

Not applicable here, so let's substitute Newt Gingrich, Tom Delay or President "Dumbya"...check

5. Try to change the ethics rules

It depends on what your definition of 'is' is....check

if that fails...
6. Blame the "liberal" media

again not applicable, so let's substitute Rupert Murdoch and his Fox News Network....check

We've seen some great examples of all of these tactics in this thread!

Good list Blackie....it absolutely checks out.

[Glengoyne]

You know what. The latest charges against Delay are pretty much as Dutch and a couple of others have protrayed them. They are garbage. Having his family on his campaign staff, and taking a trip paid for by some group that registered for a classification that made their paying for the trip illegal just a few days before the trip departed. These range from No big deal to earning a slap on the wrist. They are unfounded attacks even, beyond the ridiculous Halliburton "scandals".

On the other hand. I don't care. He is still a slimey maggot weasel. Newt Gingrich, while being portrayed as evil incarnate by the left, did much to reform the way politics were done in the House. He led the charge to remove corruption from political junkets to free trips. Delay has silently led the charge to repeal most of the ethics reforms Gingrich put in place through the contract with America. That, and having the gaul to pull the teeth from the ethics committee, soon to be investigating him, is why he is a slimey maggot weasel. It has nothing to do with the latest bogus charges against him.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

I didn't have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky...check

"Look at the very people who are involved in this. They have popped up in other settings. The great story here for anybody willing to find it, write about it and explain it is this vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president." -- Hillary Clinton...check

Republicans are mean-spirited, are controlled by religious zealots, and practice the politics of personal destruction....check

Not applicable here, so let's substitute Newt Gingrich, Tom Delay or President "Dumbya"...check

It depends on what your definition of 'is' is....check

again not applicable, so let's substitute Rupert Murdoch and his Fox News Network....check

Good list Blackie....it absolutely checks out.

I didn't say the list was just used by Republicans.

[chinaski]

Since when is it ok to pay your wife and daughter 500K for 2 years worth of "work"??? There isnt a single campaign worker who wouldnt love to make 125k a year, dont you agree? So then when you add on that both his wife and daughter had NO REAL POSITION in the campaign, i cant see why you would defend this shitball. Not only that, HE (DeLay) did not pay them out of his pocket (of course), they were paid with campaign (TAX FREEEEEEEEEEE) contributions.

I saw a list of all the senators who have had relatives on their campaign payroll, the 2nd highest paid AFTER Delays wife & daughter made 35k a year.

[Blackadar]

From CNN today...

DeLay criticizes Supreme Court justice

Wednesday, April 20, 2005 Posted: 10:42 AM EDT (1442 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- House Majority Leader Tom DeLay says Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy's work from the bench has been outrageous, his latest salvo at the federal judiciary in the weeks following the courts' refusal to stop Terri Schiavo's death.

DeLay also labeled a lot of the courts' Republican appointees as "judicial activists," a term applied by conservatives to judges they dislike for not following what they call strict interpretations of the Constitution.

The No. 2 Republican in the House has been openly critical of the federal courts since they refused to order the reinsertion of Schiavo's feeding tube. And he pointed to Kennedy as an example of Republican members of the Supreme Court who were activist and isolated.

"Absolutely. We've got Justice Kennedy writing decisions based upon international law, not the Constitution of the United States? That's just outrageous," DeLay told Fox News Radio on Tuesday. "And not only that, but he said in session that he does his own research on the Internet? That is just incredibly outrageous."

A spokeswoman for the court, Kathy Arberg, said Kennedy could not be reached for comment.

Although Kennedy was appointed to the Supreme Court by President Reagan, a conservative icon, he has aroused conservatives' ire by sometimes agreeing with the court's more liberal members. Nevertheless, it is unusual for a congressional leader to single out a Supreme Court justice for criticism.

Dan Allen, a DeLay spokesman, declined comment on the interview.

Democrats jumped on DeLay's comments Wednesday morning.

"Has the Internet become the devil's workshop?" said Dick Durbin of Illinois, the Senate's No. 2 Democrat. "Is it some infernal machine now that needs to be avoided by all right-thinking Americans? What is Mr. DeLay trying to say, as he is stretching to lash out at judges who happen to disagree with his political point of view."

Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, retorted: "Doesn't the other side have anything to talk about nowadays?"

DeLay has been criticized for his comments following Schiavo's death, which came despite Congress' passage of a law giving the federal courts jurisdiction to review her case. They declined to intervene.

"The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior," DeLay said in a statement.

He apologized last week, saying he had spoken in an "inartful" way. (Full story)

Conservatives have been pushing to get the Senate to confirm President Bush's most conservative judicial nominees, which Senate Democrats are blocking. The House has no power over which judges are given lifetime appointments to the federal bench.

However, DeLay has called repeatedly for the House to find a way to hold the federal judiciary accountable for its decisions. "The judiciary has become so activist and so isolated from the American people that it's our job to do that," he said.

One way would be for the House Judiciary Committee to investigate the clause in the Constitution that says "judges can serve as long as they serve with good behavior," he said. "We want to define what good behavior means. And that's where you have to start."

---------------------------

Just as a reminder, isn't much of our law still based on Old English law? Wouldn't that mean that "international" law still applies?

[SirFozzie]

Um.. quite frankly Blacky, I may hate DeLay, but I don't know if he's far off on being upset about judges using other countries laws to determine if ours are constitutional are not.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Um.. quite frankly Blacky, I may hate DeLay, but I don't know if he's far off on being upset about judges using other countries laws to determine if ours are constitutional are not.

In the interest of fairness, I'd like to know which ruling he wrote referenced only International Law.

[chinaski]

Whatever happened to the days of the senate sticking to its OWN business? Its reaaal comforting knowing we have senators who are actively working to rule our courts thru their own bible. ANY form of religious zealot can suck my balls. "Christlandia!!! Screw everyone else who thinks differently than I!!!!"

[Blackadar]

This is what DeLay is referring to:

DeLay and other conservatives were angered last month when the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling, found the Constitution forbids executing convicts who committed crimes before turning 18. The court majority opinion noted that the views of international courts had been taken into account.
----------

My own opinion is that the Constitution doesn't answer questions like this (underage executions, etc.) directly. It's meant to be a "living" document - otherwise, this would be a *very* different country. So how else do make these decisions if you aren't looking at the norms of countries we profess to be like ours?

-------------------------


By the way, here's O'Connors views on international law:

O'Connor praises international law
Calls foreign code 'vital' if judges are to faithfully discharge duties
Posted: October 27, 2004
9:10 p.m. Eastern

© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

WASHINGTON – Judges would be negligent if they disregarded the growing role of international law in U.S. courts, asserted Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in a speech today at Georgetown Law School.

It was the second time O'Connor has made a point of affirming the place of international law in U.S. courts.

O'Connor said the Supreme Court is taking more cases that demand a better understanding of foreign legal systems and procedures. She cited, as a recent example, terror cases involving the U.S. detention of foreign-born detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

"International law is no longer a specialty," said the appointee of President Reagan. "It is vital if judges are to faithfully discharge their duties. Since Sept. 11, 2001, we're reminded some nations don't have the rule of law or (know) that it's the key to liberty."

Later this term, the Supreme Court is scheduled to decide the constitutionality of executing juvenile killers – a case that has attracted wide interest overseas, with many foreign nations filing briefs pointing to international human rights norms as a justification for banning the practice. O'Connor did not specifically mention the case.

She said recognizing international law could foster more civilized societies in the United States and abroad.

"International law is a help in our search for a more peaceful world," said O'Connor.

At least five members of the current U.S. Supreme Court align themselves with O'Connor's position that international law has a role in U.S. courts.

In 2003, Ruth Bader Ginsburg told the American Constitution Society her colleagues are looking beyond America's borders for guidance in handling cases on issues like the death penalty and homosexual rights.

In a decision earlier that year in a Texas case in which anti-sodomy laws were overruled, the justices first referred to the findings of foreign courts. The year before, the court said executing mentally retarded people is unconstitutionally cruel, noting the practice was opposed internationally. Ginsburg cited an international treaty in her vote in 2003 to uphold the use of race in college admissions.

She said, "Our island or lone-ranger mentality is beginning to change." Justices, she added, "are becoming more open to comparative and international law perspectives."

Ginsburg, O'Connor and Stephen Breyer discussed the death penalty and terrorism with French President Jacques Chirac during a European tour that included a conference on the European constitution that same year. France outlawed the death penalty in 1981. Five members of the court attended the conference.

"While you are the American Constitution Society, your perspective on constitutional law should encompass the world," she told the group of judges, lawyers and students. "We are the losers if we do not both share our experiences with and learn from others."

Ginsburg also tipped that the Internet is making it easier for the justices to keep up with the decisions of foreign courts.

Earlier, a New York Times story explained that extensive foreign travel has made both Anthony Kennedy and O'Connor "more alert" to how their peers on other constitutional courts see similar issues.

"Justices have always traveled, teaching or taking part in seminars," the story said. "But these are trips with a difference."

The story said Ginsburg, Breyer, O'Connor and Kennedy have held extensive sessions with judges in Europe. Kennedy, it said, has met with numerous Chinese judges – both in the United States and in China. O'Connor has been involved in the American Bar Association's reform initiative in Eastern Europe.

"With emerging democracies groping toward the rule of law, with colleagues on the federal bench volunteering for constitution-writing duties in Iraq, it is not surprising that the justices have begun to see themselves as participants in a worldwide constitutional convention," the New York Times story said ominously.

Not all of the justices agree, however. In his dissent in the Texas sodomy case, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that the court should not "impose foreign moods, fads or fashions on Americans."

[cartman]

If that is what DeLay is referring to, then he is telling only half the story.

Once the Senate ratifies an international treaty, and the President signs it, then the US agrees to abide by the language of the treaty. Any disputes are taken before the World Court. So in these instances, International Law is something the Supreme Court should definitely take into account when making their decisions.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

You know what. The latest charges against Delay are pretty much as Dutch and a couple of others have protrayed them. They are garbage. Having his family on his campaign staff, and taking a trip paid for by some group that registered for a classification that made their paying for the trip illegal just a few days before the trip departed. These range from No big deal to earning a slap on the wrist. They are unfounded attacks even, beyond the ridiculous Halliburton "scandals".

On the other hand. I don't care. He is still a slimey maggot weasel. Newt Gingrich, while being portrayed as evil incarnate by the left, did much to reform the way politics were done in the House. He led the charge to remove corruption from political junkets to free trips. Delay has silently led the charge to repeal most of the ethics reforms Gingrich put in place through the contract with America. That, and having the gaul to pull the teeth from the ethics committee, soon to be investigating him, is why he is a slimey maggot weasel. It has nothing to do with the latest bogus charges against him.

Best post of the thread. Delay is at best a dull pit bull. Newt, on the other hand, is probably my favorite politician of the last 50 years.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by chinaski

Since when is it ok to pay your wife and daughter 500K for 2 years worth of "work"??? There isnt a single campaign worker who wouldnt love to make 125k a year, dont you agree? So then when you add on that both his wife and daughter had NO REAL POSITION in the campaign, i cant see why you would defend this shitball. Not only that, HE (DeLay) did not pay them out of his pocket (of course), they were paid with campaign (TAX FREEEEEEEEEEE) contributions.

I saw a list of all the senators who have had relatives on their campaign payroll, the 2nd highest paid AFTER Delays wife & daughter made 35k a year.

Not true. Here's an interesting piece on just how common this is:

hxxp://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-campaign14apr14,1,2347989.story?coll=la-headlines-politics

By the way, according to the LA Times piece, his daughter served as campaign manager. What the heck "strategic guidance" means, I have no idea, but living in Washington it doesn't surprise me that someone is getting paid well for it.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by cartman

If that is what DeLay is referring to, then he is telling only half the story.

Once the Senate ratifies an international treaty, and the President signs it, then the US agrees to abide by the language of the treaty. Any disputes are taken before the World Court. So in these instances, International Law is something the Supreme Court should definitely take into account when making their decisions.

Dola: I'm almost postive that the treaty Ginsberg referred to has not been ratified by the US Senate. And in the other instances (sodomy, death penalty for juveniles) there was NO reason to invoke decisions by foreign governments or popular sentiments among the rest of the world.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

"And not only that, but he said in session that he does his own research on the Internet? That is just incredibly outrageous."

Ha! Outrageous!! Oh, Tom Delay. You're so silly...

[cartman]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Dola: I'm almost postive that the treaty Ginsberg referred to has not been ratified by the US Senate. And in the other instances (sodomy, death penalty for juveniles) there was NO reason to invoke decisions by foreign governments or popular sentiments among the rest of the world.

They weren't using foreign decisions as their sole basis for their findings, but were rather using them as another point of reference in their decisions. They already stated that they found laws pertaining to the two areas you mentioned (sodomy and death penalty for juveniles) as being unconstitutional. They merely pointed out that other countries had made similar findings in their rules of law. I personally don't have a problem with them making correlations and references to laws in other countries, as long as they are in support of a constitutional position, not as replacement of a constitutional position.

And I was very against their ruling on the death penalty for juveniles. I was personally involved in one of the cases here is Texas where one of the people had their sentence commuted from death to life in prision a few months back. But I support their decision and trust they made the right one.

[chinaski]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Not true. Here's an interesting piece on just how common this is:

hxxp://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-campaign14apr14,1,2347989.story?coll=la-headlines-politics

By the way, according to the LA Times piece, his daughter served as campaign manager. What the heck "strategic guidance" means, I have no idea, but living in Washington it doesn't surprise me that someone is getting paid well for it.

Senators having relatives on their payroll is not the issue. Ive seen a couple lists online (which i cant track down at the moment) that shows every single relative who is employed by a Senator, the highest paid out of all of them was Liebermans kids at 34 and 36k each for one year. Whenever you hear a republican defending Delay over this issue they always raise the "look they do it too" flag, when thats not at all the issue. They are grossly overpaid, its a sham.

Personally, i think this is the lesser of all of Delays evils, but it shouldnt be ignored no matter who does it to this degree.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by chinaski

Personally, i think this is the lessor of all of Delays evils

Frankly, I don't think anyone should be leasing Tom Delay's evils..

[Flasch186]

I think its awesome that with new GOP rules passed the ethics committee can now use investigations as a negotiation tactic instead of just simply doing what is right. I can hear Cyndi Lauper's rendition of "true colors" ringing in my head:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...o/house_ethics


Ethics Chairman Proposes Probe of Delay

Thu Apr 21, 1:53 AM ET

Add to My Yahoo! Politics - U. S. Congress

By LARRY MARGASAK, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - In an ethics stalemate that is rivaling the most partisan legislative struggles, House Republicans are proposing an investigation of Majority Leader Tom DeLay while threatening to put several Democrats under scrutiny as well.


Republicans made their second attempt in two weeks Wednesday to get a deadlocked House ethics committee functioning again, adding the new proposal to blunt Democratic demands for an investigation of DeLay. Some House Republicans have acknowledged the steady Democratic attacks have made them nervous.

Democrats gave no ground. They said they wouldn't allow the evenly divided committee to conduct investigations unless Republicans reversed a rule providing for automatic dismissal of cases.

The ethics committee's Republican chairman, Rep. Doc Hastings (news, bio, voting record) of Washington state, made the surprising offer to investigate DeLay, R-Texas. The proposal will go nowhere unless the Democrats provide votes to allow the committee to conduct business.

Democrats have criticized DeLay for taking foreign trips that may have been financed by clients of a lobbyist.

Lawmakers cannot accept trips from lobbyists, but DeLay has said he believed a nonprofit organization financed the travel as permitted under House rules.

Hastings proposed the DeLay investigation at a news conference flanked by three of the four other Republicans on the ethics panel. The committee also has five Democrats.

Senior committee Democrat Alan Mollohan of West Virginia quickly rejected the offer, saying his party would continue blocking the panel unless a bipartisan task force was appointed to write new rules for investigating lawmakers.

"The first principle in doing it right is that it be bipartisan," said Mollohan. "That's a beginning point for me."

Mollohan would not say whether he supported an investigation of DeLay, commenting that his effort to change the rules is "totally independent from any specific case."

Democrats want to revert to a rule in effect until last January, which provided for an automatic investigation if no action was taken on a complaint of wrongdoing. The new rules provide for automatic dismissal if the committee doesn't act within 45 days — a period that can be doubled if necessary.

While Democrats have kept up a stream of accusations of unethical conduct against DeLay, they also have attempted to gain political mileage by attacking the Republican rules.

While Mollohan and Hastings spoke at dueling news conferences, Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., warned Democrats that Republicans are ready to investigate allegations of Democratic wrongdoing.

In a radio interview with broadcaster Sean Hannity, Hastert said there were "four or five cases out there dealing with top level Democrats." He did not name them.

"There's a reason they don't want to go to the ethics process. As long as they can keep somebody dangling out there like they have with Tom DeLay, they take great glee in that," Hastert said.

DeLay has offered to appear before the committee to defend himself and repeated his request after Hastings' announcement.

"I've sent letters to the committee asking to appear before the chairman and ranking member to discuss matters," he said. "And for more than a month I've said I hope for a fair process that will afford me the opportunity to get the facts out and set the record straight. I welcome the opportunity to address this with the committee."



The second-ranking House Democrat, Steny Hoyer of Maryland, called Hastings' offer "an absolute nonstarter with Democrats" and an "attempt to divert attention from the fact that the Republican majority has neutered the ethics committee in the House by imposing partisan rules." Democratic leaders have said the automatic dismissal rule was designed to protect DeLay.

The Republicans were "prepared to vote at the earliest opportunity to empanel an investigations subcommittee to review various allegations concerning travel and other actions" by DeLay, Hastings said.

The ethics committee has authority to start an investigation based on information it receives "through public and other sources," he added.

The ethics committee admonished DeLay last year on three separate issues but did not find that he violated House rules. A district attorney in Texas is investigating potentially illegal corporate contributions to a Texas political committee started by DeLay.

Hastings was joined at the news conference by Reps. Judy Biggert of Illinois, Melissa Hart of Pennsylvania and Tom Cole of Oklahoma.

Republican Rep. Lamar Smith (news, bio, voting record) of Texas did not attend. Hart would lead any investigation of DeLay, Hastings said.

Hastings would not comment on whether he had spoken to DeLay about the proposal — but he did say he could not speak with a member "about matters that may or may not come before the ethics committee."