Wednesday, December 15, 2004

More DeLay Rule Updates

We have more information on where five additional members stand on the DeLay Rule, and we have updated our database. Cass Ballenger of North Carolina, Amo Houghton of New York, and Nathan Deal of Georgia abstained from the vote, bring the number of members not voting to 36. One more member copped to voting for the DeLay Rule, Dave Weldon of Florida, and one more refuses to answer how he voted, Tim Murphy of Pennsylvania.

The most interesting replies come from the most interesting places though:

Congresswoman Katherine Harris (R-FL) must have voted on a butterfly ballot: Staffers have told callers alternately that they didn't know how their boss voted, that she voted for it, or that she refuses to say. Maybe she just refused to tell her staff that she voted for it so therefore they don't know. In any case, time for more calls to her office, please.

Almost as interesting are the replies forwarded to us from calls into Tom DeLay's offices. Some staffers say he voted for the change, others that he won't say how he voted. Still more callers have been told he abstained. That is the most likely of all scenarios, but just cause the Hammer didn't vote doesn't mean he didn't loom menacingly in the room.

More later.


  • Just a note to say I finally heard back from my Wyoming Representative about the Delay vote. I wrote within a day or two of seeing it on the talkingpoints memo. Carol, Wyoming

    December 15, 2004
    Dear Carol:

    Thank you for contacting me regarding a variety of issues. I appreciate your comments.
    Turning to recent rule changes in the House Republican Conference, of which I am a member, I would like to take this opportunity to clear up some misinformation that has been circulated. Previously, Chairmen or members of leadership indicted for alleged felonies were automatically required to step down for the duration of their case. The rules were recently modified to require the Republican Steering Committee to review the charges, decide whether they have merit, and defend the decision within thirty days of indictment. The entire Conference would have to vote on the question of removal.

    While some have wrongfully characterized this rule change as a ploy to shield leadership from penalty, it is rather designed to protect against baseless, politically-motivated indictments. An indictment is simply an accusation, and it would be unfair for duly elected members of Congress to lose their ability to represent their constituents because of a frivolous charge that ends up being thrown out of court. It is also worth noting that individuals actually convicted of felonies are now required to step down immediately, making the new rule tougher than the old one. I fully support the rule change, which will prevent the manipulation of Conference rules for political gain, while still ensuring the removal of party leaders who commit serious crimes.

    With warm regards,

    Barbara Cubin
    Member of Congress


    By Blogger Carol, at 5:23 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home