POL. Thread - What is this this?! Lower the Ethical benchmark?!

[gstelmack]

Wow. I had no clue Congress actually had a code of ethics...

[Flasch186]

Some one please explain to me why it is important to LOWER the ethical benchmark for those in congress!! Allow their relatives to accept foreign donations when theyre not!! I dont care what party you're in...this is just silly. Lower the expectations instead of setting a higher standard. Both sides of the aisle BLAST eachother for unethical behavior, shoot, some campaigns are run on the "Im more ethical than that guy" front. This is just dissappointing.

Most online leagues have rules like, "if you wonder if youre acting slimy, PM the commish." Not "catch me if you can, crap."





House to Consider Relaxing Its Rules

Fri Dec 31, 4:59 AM ET

By Mike Allen and Charles Babington, Washington Post Staff Writers

House Republican leaders are urging members to alter one of the chamber's fundamental ethics rules, which would make it harder for lawmakers to discipline a colleague.



The proposed change would essentially negate a general rule of conduct that the ethics committee has often cited in admonishing lawmakers -- including Majority Leader Tom DeLay -- for bringing discredit on the House even if their behavior was not covered by a specific regulation. Backers of the rule, adopted three decades ago, say it is important because the House's conduct code cannot anticipate every instance of questionable behavior that might reflect poorly on the chamber.

Republicans, returning to the Capitol on Tuesday after increasing their House majority by three seats in the Nov. 2 election, also want to relax a restriction on relatives of lawmakers accepting foreign and domestic trips from groups interested in legislation before the House.

A third proposed rule change would allow either party to stop the House ethics committee from investigating a complaint against a member.

Currently, if the panel, which is evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats, is deadlocked on a complaint, the matter automatically goes to an investigative subcommittee after 45 days. The proposed change would drop any complaint that is not backed by a majority vote to move it forward.

Government watchdog groups called the proposals startling and unjustified. If the proposed rules are adopted next week as GOP leaders suggest, they would amount to "the biggest backtracking on House ethics rules that we have seen," said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21.

The proposals are among the nearly two dozen House rule changes being circulated for comment this week by GOP leaders, in preparation for the 109th Congress. The majority Republican caucus plans to discuss the proposals Monday, with the full House scheduled to vote on them Tuesday.

Several Republicans have criticized the ethics process in the wake of three admonitions this year against DeLay (R-Tex.). A House official familiar with the new proposal on the rule about bringing discredit said the ethics committee could not have acted against DeLay if the change had been in place.

A high-ranking House GOP aide, who could speak only on background because of his office's rules, said many lawmakers support the rule change because they do not want the ethics committee to be able to act against a member by saying "we're not sure what he's done wrong, but we don't like it."

The House Code of Conduct requires members and aides to conduct themselves "in a manner which shall reflect creditably on the House." Over the years, the ethics committee has cited the provision in, for example, rebuking DeLay for his dealings with a Kansas-based energy company seeking legislative favors. DeLay's actions did not violate a specific law or House rule, the panel concluded this fall, but they reflected poorly on the House.

Under the proposed change, lawmakers would automatically be in compliance with the Code of Conduct if they met the narrower standard of following "applicable laws, regulations and rules."

A House official familiar with the ethics committee's rules and traditions said the proposed change is "an effort to say a member's conduct does not bring discredit on the House unless it violates a specific rule." The official, who cited committee guidelines in demanding anonymity, said this year's admonitions against DeLay would not have been possible under the proposed change because House rules are not specific and numerous enough to bar every instance of dubious behavior that might occur.

DeLay, responding to the ethics committee's findings in September, said that he "would never knowingly violate the rules of the House" and that he deeply believes that members "must conduct ourselves at all times in a manner that reflects creditably on this institution."

Earlier this year, House Republicans rewrote a party rule so that DeLay can keep his leadership job even if he is indicted by a Texas grand jury. The grand jury has indicted three of his political associates in an investigation of campaign finances related to a House redistricting plan that DeLay helped push through in Texas.

Republican aides said Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) is also leaning toward removing the ethics committee's chairman, Rep. Joel Hefley (news, bio, voting record) (R-Colo.), who oversaw the admonishments of DeLay.

Congressional watchdogs sharply criticized the proposed rule change on bringing discredit to the chamber, which they said would weaken the House's already lax system of policing its members' conduct.

"This would be a fundamental undermining of the ethics rules in the House and a direct attempt to vitiate the findings of ethical misconduct against Majority Leader DeLay," Wertheimer said. "If this is done, it would be an extraordinarily destructive action against the ethics rules and would fundamentally undermine the integrity of the House."



Another proposed change, labeled "restore presumption of innocence," provides that the ethics committee, formally known as the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, will act on a complaint against a member only if both the chairman and the ranking minority member -- or the entire committee, consisting of five Democrats and five Republicans -- agree that an investigation is merited. Currently, the failure to make a decision -- regardless of whether it stems from a partisan stalemate -- automatically sends a complaint to an investigative subcommittee.

Gary Ruskin, director of the Congressional Accountability Project, said the result would be "a climate more conducive to corruption."

"The most important part of a congressional investigation is at the outset -- whether to have one -- so Republicans are trying to make sure they don't have them," Ruskin said.

Wertheimer said the change would mean "one-party veto power" over complaints. "It's a clear backtracking on an already weak process," he said. "It looks like an effort to increase the capacity to bury complaints without even looking at them."

Hastert spokesman John Feehery said the change would put the ethics committee in line with traditional House committees, which block issues that lack a majority vote. Unlike the ethics panel, traditional committees are controlled by the majority party.

The proposal, in a section called "due process for members," also calls for lawmakers accused by the ethics panel to have the chance to be heard before they are summoned for questioning. Under the current rule, according to a summary provided to Republican members, the committee "can take action against a Member without a complaint, notice, or the opportunity to be heard."

The proposed rule on travel would benefit single members, who would be able to take a parent, according to an aide. Currently, a House member's child or spouse may accompany a lawmaker or staff person on a privately funded but officially connected trip at the sponsor's expense. The rule change would expand that to cover any relative.

[CraigSca]

I think this is retarded as well. However, politics makes me throw up in my mouth.

[Desnudo]

The fact that they can vote their own pay raises bothers me even more.

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

The fact that they can vote their own pay raises bothers me even more.

Desnudo, meet the Constitution:


Amendment XXVII - Congressional pay increases. Ratified 5/7/1992. History

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.


-Anxiety

[MrBigglesworth]

It's a truly Orwellian moment. The GOP took control of the house with their "contract with America", on an election platform partly based on cleaning up the ethical and moral violations that had plagued the government.

The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.

Power corrupts.

[Flasch186]

A little bit more is coming out on this and it still sounds shady as hell. This is garbage...if theyre so damn moral, more moral than the dems. they beat out than why should they need to lower the standards, make it more difficult to be investigated. Why should they be scared to be accused? What a load of crap.




House GOP to Discuss Ethics Rule Changes

Mon Jan 3, 7:55 AM ET

By Richard Simon Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — In the aftermath of ethics rebukes of their popular but controversial majority leader, Tom DeLay of Texas, House Republicans today are expected to consider rule changes that would make it harder to bring ethics complaints against lawmakers.

One proposal would require that a majority of House ethics committee members approve any investigation of a House member. Currently, an inquiry can move ahead even if the ethics committee, which has five Republicans and five Democrats, is deadlocked.

Another proposal, its critics argue, would make it more difficult to enforce ethics rules unless the improper conduct is clearly spelled out in the rules.

The proposed rule changes are among the first orders of business of the new, more Republican Congress, which convenes Tuesday.

Mary Boyle, a spokeswoman for Common Cause, one of several government watchdog groups that have come out against the proposals, said the rule changes would send a message that "there is going to be no accountability in the House, or very little accountability, for unethical behavior."

The proposals will come before House Republicans in a closed-door session today and then go to the full House on Tuesday. Democrats have criticized the proposed changes, but Republicans, as the majority, are expected to prevail.

The effort to change the rules comes amid reports that House leaders also are considering replacing Rep. Joel Hefley (news, bio, voting record) (R-Colo.) as chairman of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, as the ethics committee is formally known. Under Hefley's leadership, the committee rebuked DeLay twice last fall for his hardball political tactics.

DeLay was admonished for allegedly involving a federal agency in a Texas partisan matter and staging a fundraising event in a way that appeared to link access to the congressman with political donations. He also was criticized for saying he would support the campaign of a retiring congressman's son to succeed his father if the congressman voted for legislation adding a prescription drug benefit under Medicare.

The rebukes angered many of DeLay's fellow Republicans, who credit the House's No. 2 leader for helping the GOP expand its majority in the House and position itself to pass more of President Bush (news - web sites)'s legislative agenda. The Republicans picked up three seats in November and will now hold 232 of the chamber's 435 seats.

In November, House Republicans changed a party rule to allow DeLay to hold onto his leadership post even if indicted. Two months earlier, a Texas grand jury indicted three fundraisers with ties to DeLay for allegedly funneling illegal corporate contributions to GOP candidates for state office. DeLay's allies contend that the Texas inquiry is politically motivated and designed to weaken one of Congress' most powerful members.

Rep. David Dreier (news, bio, voting record) (R-San Dimas), chairman of the House Rules Committee, said in a letter to House Republicans that one of the proposed rule changes would restore a lawmaker's "presumption of innocence."

That proposal calls for no action to be taken on a complaint unless the chairman and the ranking member, or the committee itself, finds within 45 days that further investigation is merited. Currently, if the chairman and the ranking member take no action on a complaint within 45 days, the matter automatically goes to an investigative subcommittee.

"It would allow complaints to die from inaction unless a majority of the ethics committee agrees an investigation is needed," the Common Cause's Boyle said.

Dreier also expressed concern in the letter to colleagues about how lawmakers "may have complied with all applicable laws, regulations and rules, but nonetheless be found in violation of the Code of Conduct."

The Code of Conduct is a catch-all rule that calls for House members to conduct themselves "at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House."

But some lawmakers are concerned that the wording of the Code of Conduct is too broad. Some lawmakers thought it was unfair for the ethics committee to admonish DeLay last year for playing host to energy lobbyists at a golf fundraising event as the House was considering energy legislation.

An opponent of the rules changes, Rep. Howard L. Berman (news, bio, voting record) (D-North Hollywood), a former ethics committee member, said Sunday that members of Congress should be held to the same standard as U.S. soldiers, who must adhere to a standard of discipline in which they are held accountable for "conduct unbecoming a member of the armed forces."



A coalition of government watchdog groups, including Common Cause, is scheduled to hold a news conference today to speak out against the proposals and call for toughening the rules — including restoring one, rescinded in 1997, that would allow outsider groups or citizens to file ethics complaints against lawmakers. According to its proponents, that rule was amended to limit politically inspired complaints, though Common Cause at the time called it "blatant incumbent protection."

Gary Ruskin, who runs the Congressional Accountability Project, a Washington-based organization that examines ethical issues, says that the moves to change the ethics rules, including the House GOP's recent decision to allow DeLay to retain his leadership post even if indicted, are evidence that "the battle against corruption in Congress has collapsed."

"We're still waiting for a member of Congress in either party," he said, "to stand tall in a sea of midgets and say: Enough is enough."

A House Republican staff member who spoke on the condition that he not be named said that the sentiments for "adjustments point to serious flaws in the rules as they exist. This may not be music to the ears of Democrats, demagogues and editorial boards, but serious observers recognize that dangerous precedents were set last year."

"And while they will all moan and groan over this because they want to score points, the cagiest Democrats will silently be glad these changes are made," the staff member said. "None of the above will admit it, but their leaders are at least as vulnerable."

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

It's a truly Orwellian moment. The GOP took control of the house with their "contract with America", on an election platform partly based on cleaning up the ethical and moral violations that had plagued the government.

Power corrupts.

De lay and Hastert have spent much of their time since Gingrich left office rolling back the ethical provisions Gingrich put in place with the Contract with America. These morons are dismantling what was a very good thing. I do actually hope it comes back to bite them. There are a helluva lot of rules regarding paid junkets they have already rolled back. In Hastert's case the rules changes he championed benefited a charity event he sponsors anually quite a bit, not to mention the representatives who got their travel and accomodations paid for by third parties.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by Anxiety

Desnudo, meet the Constitution:


Amendment XXVII - Congressional pay increases. Ratified 5/7/1992. History

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.


-Anxiety

Which I read to say, they can vote themselves pay raises, but the pay raise does not take effect until after the following election? So what's your point, besides being condescending?

[Crapshoot]

Am I the only one who thought Gingrich got a raw deal ? I thought he was a decent guy, and not a crook, unlike the De Lay type, who happened to support an idiotic deal against the most popular president in a while.

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

Which I read to say, they can vote themselves pay raises, but the pay raise does not take effect until after the following election? So what's your point, besides being condescending?

My point is that they cannot vote themselves a pay raise, as you mentioned. They can only vote the next Congress a pay raise.

-Anxiety

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Anxiety

My point is that they cannot vote themselves a pay raise, as you mentioned. They can only vote the next Congress a pay raise.

-Anxiety

point, but a system with such gerrymandering that 95% of incumbents are re-elected is essentialy voting oneself a pay raise.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by Anxiety

My point is that they cannot vote themselves a pay raise, as you mentioned. They can only vote the next Congress a pay raise.

-Anxiety

Which the majority of the time is themselves.

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

Which the majority of the time is themselves.

Only if they are elected, which is an important distinction. If people don't like the pay raise, if they think it's unfair, then they can vote out the Representative and they'll never receive any of it. If, on the other hand, they are re-elected, then maybe it isn't such a big issue after all.

-Anxiety

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by Anxiety

Only if they are elected, which is an important distinction. If people don't like the pay raise, if they think it's unfair, then they can vote out the Representative and they'll never receive any of it. If, on the other hand, they are re-elected, then maybe it isn't such a big issue after all.

-Anxiety

Not really an important distinction considering that most incumbents are solid favorites to win a reelection. And you can think someone did a perfectly good job and still doesn't deserve the pay raise they voted for. If I remember correctly, that ammendment came about because of the public uproar over just such an attempt by congress. And I can picture an exchange going like this: "Hey Bobby Joe, I'm up for reelection this year, what say I trade you a yes vote on this pay raise so I can vote no and then I'll vote for your cow farting research program?"

It is, in principle, a big issue anytime a group of people can vote themselves a pay raise.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Am I the only one who thought Gingrich got a raw deal ? I thought he was a decent guy, and not a crook, unlike the De Lay type, who happened to support an idiotic deal against the most popular president in a while.

Absolutely Newt got a raw deal. He was demonized and marginalized like no politician I can think of in recent memory. Well perhaps Trent Lott, but I would have joined in his demonization, just not for what eventually felled him.

[Flasch186]

I guess since it wasn't flying under the radar they decided to shut it down. I still think its shady as hell and am glad that they couldnt sneak this by without the public seeing it.




House GOP Giving Ground on Ethics Rules

Tue Jan 4, 2:22 AM ET

By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The new Congress convenes with House Republicans, leery of a bruising floor fight, stepping back from plans to significantly relax ethics rules that ensnared Majority Leader Tom DeLay.


GOP leaders stressed that they didn't want the ethics issue to sidetrack their greater goals for this session of Congress, such as overhauling the Social Security (news - web sites) system.

"It would have been the right thing to do, but it was becoming a distraction," said John Feehery, spokesman for House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., referring to a relaxation in ethics rules including one that would have allowed party heads to retain their posts even if indicted.

The House and Senate were to open the 109th session of Congress at noon Tuesday with the swearing-in of new members, a ceremony that makes official the GOP gains of the November elections. Republicans picked up four seats in the Senate, to reach 55, and will command 232 of the 435 House seats, an increase of three.

The House will then take up the GOP-proposed rules changes, which, despite the modifications made by Republicans at a closed-door meeting Monday, are likely to generate Democratic protests.

The proposals will make it harder to proceed with an ethics investigation by requiring a majority vote of the evenly divided ethics committee. The current system allows an investigation to begin automatically if there is no action within 45 days.

Among other provisions of the package, lawmakers and their staff would be able to take a relative along on lobbyist-financed trips. Currently, they can be accompanied only by a spouse or child.

Another provision would expand the authority of the committee that oversees homeland security issues, a move that was strongly backed by the Sept. 11 Commission, which complained that too many committees in Congress have jurisdiction over security matters.

But the likelihood of a bitter fight over ethics was largely averted when DeLay, R-Texas, and Hastert made two startling announcements at the beginning of the GOP meeting.

First DeLay asked Republicans to overturn the party rule, enacted last November on his behalf, that allows party heads to retain their posts even if indicted. Three of DeLay's Texas associates have been indicted by a grand jury in Austin on fund-raising violation charges.

DeLay's spokesman, Jonathan Grella, said DeLay was confident that he would not be indicted, and decided to seek the elimination of the rule protecting him because he didn't want to give Democrats an issue.

"We want to make sure the substance comes first. Anything that could undermine our agenda needs to be nipped in the bud," said Grella.

DeLay's action won praise from his GOP colleagues. House Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier, R-Calif., said DeLay "made a very courageous statement that allows us to put this issue to rest."

Rep. Mark Kirk (news, bio, voting record), R-Ill., who opposed the rules changes, said: "It's a mark of a leader to take a bullet for the team and not for the team to take a bullet for the leader."

Secondly, Hastert withdrew a proposal that would have made it tougher to rebuke a member of the House for misconduct. Here too the dispute revolved around DeLay.

The ethics panel, while saying the DeLay broke no rule or law, has criticized him in the past year for his tactics in trying to win the vote of a colleague, for giving the impression of a link between donations and support for legislation, and for his office's contact with federal aviation officials, seeking their intervention in a Texas political dispute.

The code of conduct that was retained by the Republicans requires lawmakers and employees to conduct themselves "at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House." Some Republicans believed the standard is too general and wanted any discipline to depend on a more specific finding of wrongdoing.



Brendan Daly, spokesman for House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, said Republicans pulled back on the discipline rule because "the issue simply became too hot for them to handle."

Congressional watchdog groups have been strongly critical of the GOP-proposed ethics changes.

Joan Claybrook of Public Citizen, at a news conference joined by eight other groups Monday, said one change the Republicans did accept — to effectively kill an investigation if there is a tie vote among committee members — "is a recipe for deadlock and gridlock in the system."

Rep. J.D. Hayworth (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., said a more compelling reason for keeping the ethics rules was that members were hearing concerns from voters. "Constituents reacted and the House, and more importantly the House leadership, responded accordingly," he said

[QuikSand]

Joan Claybrook of Public Citizen, at a news conference joined by eight other groups Monday, said one change the Republicans did accept — to effectively kill an investigation if there is a tie vote among committee members — "is a recipe for deadlock and gridlock in the system."

The Ethics Committee is deliberately evenly split between the majority and minorty parties. Right now, if no action is taken (as in the case of a party deadlock) after a complaint is filed, there is an investigation to find out what happened. With the new rule, if no action is taken, it just goes away.

Simply translated: now, if either party circles ranks and supports its own member, there won't even be an investigation to see if something unethical happened.

This is a BIG deal, and amidst the other shenanigans, it's a serious shame that this rule was adopted.

[Flasch186]

mandate from the people my ass.

[oykib]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

The Ethics Committee is deliberately evenly split between the majority and minorty parties. Right now, if no action is taken (as in the case of a party deadlock) after a complaint is filed, there is an investigation to find out what happened. With the new rule, if no action is taken, it just goes away.

Simply translated: now, if either party circles ranks and supports its own member, there won't even be an investigation to see if something unethical happened.

This is a BIG deal, and amidst the other shenanigans, it's a serious shame that this rule was adopted.

not to mention the fact that they'll sneak the rest in as a rider on some other necessary bill before this session is up. The Congress-- and take this in the literal spirit in which I type this-- is a gang of crooks.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

The Ethics Committee is deliberately evenly split between the majority and minorty parties. Right now, if no action is taken (as in the case of a party deadlock) after a complaint is filed, there is an investigation to find out what happened. With the new rule, if no action is taken, it just goes away.

Simply translated: now, if either party circles ranks and supports its own member, there won't even be an investigation to see if something unethical happened.

This is a BIG deal, and amidst the other shenanigans, it's a serious shame that this rule was adopted.

We can only hope that the republican who ran the committee last year and spearheaded the investigations into DeLay is still on the committee, and hasn't had his wings clipped too severely to vote against the party line if this comes up. He did lose his chairmanship of the committee already. I do hope a few republicans on the committee stand up to DeLay and his cronies.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Am I the only one who thought Gingrich got a raw deal ? I thought he was a decent guy, and not a crook, unlike the De Lay type, who happened to support an idiotic deal against the most popular president in a while.

I guess this is my second SNL-related post in one day:
http://snltranscripts.jt.org/98/98jlivingston.phtml


What The Hell Happened?

Bob Livingston.....Will Ferrell
Newt Gingrich.....Chris Parnell
Bartender.....Tracy Morgan
President Bill Clinton.....Darrell Hammond


[ a glum Newt Gingrich sits in a bar, as a glummer Bob Livingston enters and sits next to him ]

Bob Livingston: [ to the bartender ] Double Crown Royal, one ice cube. [ sits down next to Newt Gingrich ]

Newt Gingrich: Well, if ain't my old buddy Bob Livingston. [ chuckles ] I didn't know you still drank here.

Bob Livingston: Ah, I got eighty-sixed at Hurley's for being beligerent and shouting obscenities.

Newt Gingrich: I figured you'd be back home in Louisiana by now.

Bob Livingston: Well, funny enough, after you tell the whole country you cheated on your wife.. you don't want to spend a lot of time around the house.

Newt Gingrich: Good point.

Bob Livingston: [ sips his Double Crown Royal, then contemplates the real issue ] What the hell happened?

Newt Gingrich: You know, I've been wondering that for two months. You know what the pisser is? Clinton has sex with that girl..

Bob Livingston: Right.

Newt Gingrich: Then he tries to get his friends to cover it up.

Bob Livingston: Sure.

Newt Gingrich: We have a dress.. with his semen on it!

Bob Livingston: Right. Right.

Newt Gingrich: He lies about it, under oath!

Bob Livingston: Uh-huh..

Newt Gingrich: Then we prosecute him, and he's still in the White House and we lose our jobs!

Bob Livingston: [ taking all that in and weighing it through his mind ] What the hell happened?

Newt Gingrich: Well, at least you weren't run out of town by your own party.

Bob Livingston: Oh, yeah.. it was much better being taken down by Larry Flynt. I had a moral judgment made on my life by the King of Porn.

Newt Gingrich: [ chuckling ] Then in your resignation speech you said you hoped Clinton would follow your lead and do the right thing and resign. You gotta admit, that was pretty lame!

Bob Livingston: [ also chuckling ] I know, I know! That was weak, I was grabbing at straws!

Newt Gingrich: You were, yeah..

[ the two men take another sip of their drinks ]

Bob Livingston: [ looking up ] Hey, Barkeep!

Bartender: Yeah?

Bob Livingston: What the hell happened?

Bartender: Hey, you're this close to gettin' cut off, Bro..

Bob Livingston: I'm sorry. Sorry.

Newt Gingrich: Hey. Look on the bright side. At least you got some strings! [ laughs ]

Bob Livingston: I don't care about that. You got to be Speaker for four years. I didn't even get fifteen minutes.

Newt Gingrich: [ laughing ] The Macarena lasted longer than you did!

Bob Livingston: [ laughing ] Yeah!

Newt Gingrich: You.. you're the Gerardo of the House!

Bob Livingston: I know!

Newt Gingrich: The Yahoo Serious of Government!

Bob Livingston: Mmm-hmm..

Newt Gingrich: [ laughing harder ] You're the "Magic Johnson Show" of politics!

Bob Livingston: [ getting angry ] Okay! Okay!

Newt Gingrich: Sorry. [ thinking ] You know what? I hope he doesn't get impeached.

Bob Livingston: Oh, Newt, you don't mean that..

Newt Gingrich: Screw the Party! Serves 'em right. [ sighs ] I just don't get it! I have no idea what the people want!

Bob Livingston: [ thinking ] Let me ask you something: What the hell happened?

[ Bill Clinton and two bimbos exit from a back room of the bar and approach the counter where Bob and Newt sit ]

Bill Clinton: [ straightening his tie ] Thanks for letting me use the coat room, Hank. I left a joint in the ashtray.

Bartender: I'll see you later, Slick.

Bill Clinton: [ noticing Bob and Newt ] Hey, fellas, how are you? [ to the bartender ] Hey, Hank? How about a drink for these two? From the President of the United States. [ exits the bar ]

Bob Livingston: [ still not sure what's really going on ] What the hell happened?

Newt Gingrich: [ grabbing hid glass and looking towards the bartender ] Hey, Hank? Can you tighten these up? And, uh, by the way.. "Live from New York, it's Saturday Night!

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I do hope a few republicans on the committee stand up to DeLay and his cronies.

Ask Arlen Specter about what happens when you try to have a mind of your own...