Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   House Republicans unveil new ethics plan. Said to be modeled after the "throwing deck chairs off the Titanic to prevent it from sinking" plan   ( divider line
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

4982 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Jan 2006 at 6:14 PM (12 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

137 Comments     (+0 »)

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

2006-01-17 06:16:55 PM  
Ethics are for losers!
2006-01-17 06:17:54 PM  
ethics shmethics.
2006-01-17 06:19:37 PM  
Thing is, they already had an ethics plan. Newt Gingrich wrote it up sometime in 1994, and a bunch of Republicans got elected running on it. What happened to that plan?
2006-01-17 06:19:38 PM  
I doubt this will save them now. At least they tried.
2006-01-17 06:19:56 PM  
Who taught them to spell "ethics?" And more important, did this person define it for them?
2006-01-17 06:20:43 PM  
Will they ignore the new ethics plan too?
2006-01-17 06:21:05 PM  
And speaking of ethics, here's some fun regarding Republicans and their "ethics" regarding judicial nominees.

Blue Slips

Before a nomination is passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee, it is screened by both senators from the nominee's home state, who endorse or object to the nominee on a piece of paper called a blue slip. Until 1995, a nominee would not be removed from committee consideration unless both home-state senators objected to the nominee.

In 1995, Republicans gained control of the Senate and modified the rules governing the judiciary committee process. The first such modification pertained to the blue slip rule. In the 104th Congress, 18 states had split Senate delegations, one Republican and one Democrat. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), chairman of the Judiciary Committee, changed the rule so that a nominee would be removed from consideration if only one of the home-state senators objected. The wording on the blue slips was also revised to say, "no further proceedings on this nominee will be scheduled until both blue slips have been returned by the nominees home state senators." This allowed senators to delay nominations by not returning blue slips. Some of President Clinton's nominees were delayed years waiting for blue slips to be returned from Republican senators.

After President George W. Bush took office in 2001, Hatch reversed positions on the "two blue slip" requirement and rewrote the rule to require both home-state senators to object to a nominee in order to block the nomination. The text of the blue slip was also modified to remove the sentence saying no further proceedings would be scheduled until the blue slip was returned to the committee. These changes were overturned when Democrats regained control of the Senate, after Jim Jeffords (I-Vermont) changed his party alignment.

After the 2002 congressional elections, Republicans returned to majority party status. At that time, the blue slip requirements were again changed to require two dissenting blue slips to reject a nominee before the committee. Nevertheless, there have been hearings in which two dissenting blue slips were submitted but the nomination process was not halted. In 2003, the Judiciary Committee heard testimony on the fitness of Henry Saad. This occurred after both home-state senators, Senators Debbie Stabenow and Carl Levin, had objected to Saad's nomination. With no committee options left to derail nominations to which they objected, Democrats began threatening to filibuster nominations once they reached the full floor of the Senate.


A "hold" is a procedure in which a senator communicates to the Senate leadership that he or she would withhold support for a unanimous consent agreement if a matter were to be brought before the Senate. The reason this has power is that in the absence of a powerful Rules Committee like the United States House of Representatives has, the Senate's ordinary business depends on unanimous consent agreements to specify what bills will be considered when, who may speak, what amendments (if any) may be offered, and when votes will take place. The quiet threat of a hold ordinarily is enough to take an issue -- including a judicial nomination -- off of the agenda, at least temporarily.

Republican Senators used this method to postpone votes on nominees in the Judiciary Committee under the Clinton Administration. In late 1999, New Hampshire Republican Bob Smith blocked a vote on 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals nominee Richard Paez for months by putting an anonymous hold on the nomination. Anonymous floor holds were abolished in 2003.

The term nuclear optionwas partially abandoned by some of its supporters, who preferred to call it "the Constitutional option" or "the Byrd option" To make matters more confusing, in April 2005 Republicans began to attempt to redefine the 'nuclear option' as a description of the Democratic filibuster, rather than the rule change that would end it. Important Republicans in the controversy included Majority Leader Bill Frist, who was one of the strongest opponents of the filibuster (and whose support from the religious right for his 2008 election bid may have depended on ending it), and the those like John McCain that would have broken with their party in opposition to the nuclear option, possibly denying Frist the necessary majority.
2006-01-17 06:21:12 PM  

I hope its not the same person who taught Bush the word "nuclear."
2006-01-17 06:21:46 PM  
House Republicans Unveil New Ethics Plan

[image from too old to be available]

Available soon in hardback ...
2006-01-17 06:24:00 PM  
The hits will keep on coming until we put voter forced term limits on all incumbants. In other words, vote them ALL out. No matter what party they are in, vote all incumbants out.
2006-01-17 06:24:16 PM  
This is all useless as long as Republicans and their representatives in the media try and make excuses for the numerous ethics violations.
2006-01-17 06:24:29 PM  
damnit, people, if you're going to cite entire paragraphs, name your source... it's not that much more effort.
2006-01-17 06:24:34 PM  
It's really too late for this. Now it's time to pay.
2006-01-17 06:24:47 PM  
[image from too old to be available]
But chief we are headed for that iceberg!!!!
Quite Condi, we must stay the coarse, I don't want to second-guess myself!
2006-01-17 06:25:39 PM  
Actually the phrase is "rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic" and is supposed to denote someone doing something pointless after the thing their supposedly doing it for is over.

Revised headline:House Republicans unveil new ethics plan. Calling it "Closing the Barn Doors". Plan to unveil it tommorow as soon as the last equine has left the barn.
2006-01-17 06:25:43 PM  
radiumsoup: damnit, people, if you're going to cite entire paragraphs, name your source... it's not that much more effort.

It's from the Discussion page for Filibuster in Wikipedia. The guy who posted it cited his sources. I removed the citations for clarity.
2006-01-17 06:26:05 PM  
This genius idea brought to you because we got busted.
2006-01-17 06:26:06 PM  
[image from too old to be available]
2006-01-17 06:26:18 PM  
What's the record for a thread being Godwinned?
2006-01-17 06:26:34 PM  
Rebublicans = Nstional Socialists

/godwin wins again
2006-01-17 06:26:36 PM  
The plan is to make what they have been doing all along legal. That is always the plan. Make the action legal.

/Is it possible to be unethical and still be legal?
2006-01-17 06:26:51 PM  
elchip: It's from the Discussion page for Filibuster in Wikipedia

all I'm asking for :0)

Thank you
2006-01-17 06:26:56 PM  
check the other article on the page.

Abramoff produced Red Scorpion?

2006-01-17 06:26:59 PM  
Nah, "closing the barn doors" doesn't quite get it either.

Foxes guarding the henhouse is more like it.
2006-01-17 06:27:05 PM  
They're weaving the new policy around their loopholes, I'm sure....
2006-01-17 06:27:26 PM  
RandomExcess: /Is it possible to be unethical and still be legal?

Some would say abortion.
2006-01-17 06:27:28 PM  
Who taught them to spell "ethics?" And more important, did this person define it for them?

[image from too old to be available]
[image from too old to be available][image from too old to be available][image from too old to be available][image from too old to be available][image from too old to be available][image from too old to be available][image from too old to be available][image from too old to be available][image from too old to be available]
2006-01-17 06:27:46 PM  
How about banning coming back as a paid lobbyist for 2 years after you leave office?

Who thinks that a legislator can be bought for a couple of tickets to the Knicks? They know the value of the graft they are handing out.
2006-01-17 06:27:46 PM  
Ethics? If their anything like morals you can throw 'em out right now.
2006-01-17 06:28:08 PM  
"OK Tom, we want you to start buying up options on self-righteousness. Rob, you can start investing in holier-than-thou-ness. Dave, we'd like you to spend the war chest on hypocritical finger pointing. George, you can get on to the patriotism-as-a-bludgeon account sometime this week. And someone get Pat to get God to give us that exclusive endoresment we've been working on the last twenty years."
2006-01-17 06:28:11 PM  
Good job BruceDickinson...

[image from too old to be available]

...and in only 9 posts.

And congrats also to elchip for not saying that ethics were not particularly useful against an insurgency.

It's a red letter day for the both of you.
2006-01-17 06:28:48 PM  
[image from too old to be available]
2006-01-17 06:28:50 PM  
way2muchsense: Thing is, they already had an ethics plan. Newt Gingrich wrote it up sometime in 1994, and a bunch of Republicans got elected running on it. What happened to that plan?

They violated it. At least Gingrich did, in that whole deal where Rupert Murdoch tried to pay him for pushing through the legislation that reduced restrictions on foreign interests holding US media properties. Murdoch tried to give Newt an insane payment for a book deal through the book company that he owned. Gingrich got caught in a blatant ethics violation and returned the money.

Of course this is why Fox News, The New York Post and any other Murdoch-owned media source is so fanatically loyal to the Republican party.
2006-01-17 06:29:13 PM  
Here's ethics:

(1) If you're guilty, admit it and resign.

(2) If you're not, prosecute those who are and remove them from office if they don't do so themselves.
2006-01-17 06:29:34 PM  
Love the headline submitter.

*golf clap*
2006-01-17 06:29:49 PM  
Glad the GOP is restoring dignity to government. I'd hate to see things if lawlessness of BJs was allowed to continue. I know Clinton was sent up on perjury, but this WH has done just as bad, they just don't have the opposition in the House and Senate to grind the ax.

I agree with an earlier post. Toss them all out. Anybody who takes corporate money needs to be tossed too.
/won't happen
//Americans are too stupid to think
///What's on Idol?
////Planning on running in 2012
2006-01-17 06:30:15 PM  
[image from too old to be available]
2006-01-17 06:30:17 PM  
(The Democratic package also will include doubling the current one-year cooling off period that former lawmakers or senior aides must observe before they are allowed to lobby without restriction.)

Package will also include a copy of "My Senator and Me: A Dogs-Eye View of Washington, DC" written by ethics aficionado Teddy "Waterboarding" Kennedy.
2006-01-17 06:30:32 PM  
Sen Cornyn: Your civil liberties don't do you any good when you are dead.

With leadership like that, is it any wonder that the republicans have lost their way?
2006-01-17 06:30:45 PM  
Hey, I think that's also close to a record for a visual "But Clinton-"
2006-01-17 06:31:03 PM  
Where can I park my 10 semi trucks of inconsequential items?
2006-01-17 06:31:26 PM  

Is it possible to be unethical and still be legal?

Slavery and segregation ring any bells?

Of course it's possible.
2006-01-17 06:33:09 PM  
Do any righties out there agree that something can be unethical and legal? Or is it fair to set the "ethics bar" at the same level as "I didn't break any laws"?
2006-01-17 06:33:11 PM  
A nice ethics plan would involve senators and congressmen wearing portable webcams and mics 24/7 so we can see who the fsck it is that's trying to bribe them.
2006-01-17 06:33:21 PM  

Is it possible to be unethical and still be legal?

The surest way to have a farked up moral code is to believe that legality and morality (or ethics) follow the law.

2006-01-17 06:33:22 PM  
What's the point? They'll just change it when it becomes inconvenient:

GOP Pushes Rule Change to Protect DeLay's Post
2006-01-17 06:34:01 PM  
America has capitalism as a form of government.

/Had, Has, Will Have, get over it.
2006-01-17 06:35:31 PM  
radiumsoup: damnit, people, if you're going to cite entire paragraphs, name your source... it's not that much more effort.

Neither is downloading the Farkode plug-in, which allows for Google searches directly from the selected text. That is, if copying it and Googling is too much work.

Just sayin'.
2006-01-17 06:37:14 PM  
I love the fact that the Christian Right got used by Abramoff like they did. That alone was worth the price of admission. But I doubt that what Ralph Reed and others did in the name of Jesus will really sink in to the sorts of people who take their orders from James Dobson.
2006-01-17 06:37:20 PM  
I don't trust ethical people.
Displayed 50 of 137 comments

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.