Congressman Tom DeLay is to have his say before the House Ethics Committee:
Retreating under pressure, Republicans on the House ethics committee said Wednesday they were ready to open an investigation into allegations of wrongdoing against Majority Leader Tom DeLay.
Four of the five Republicans on the committee were ready to move ahead, said Rep. Doc Hastings, the panel's Republican chairman. The panel also has five Democratic members.
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, he said.The ethics committee has authority to start an investigation based on information it receives ''through public and other sources,'' Hastings said.
A good opportunity to clear his name.
That's sarcasm, right? I mean, given that Delay himself had the Committee purged of all Republicans that DARED vote to censure him last time....and replaced them all with personal loyalists, I can't see this being 'fair' -- even by partisan standards.
Posted by: Morat | April 20, 2005 at 04:20 PM
I hope the Ethics Committee doesn't use that "internet" thing in its research.
Posted by: Anderson | April 20, 2005 at 04:27 PM
let me guess... there's some procedural trick that will prevent any negative findings from being made public, or even investigated.
Posted by: cleek | April 20, 2005 at 04:27 PM
Slart's Law: If a rule works toward your purpose, it's a "rule". If it works counter to your purpose, it's a "procedural trick" or a "loophole".
Posted by: Slartibartfast | April 20, 2005 at 04:36 PM
Slart's Law
thanks. i'll make a note of that.
and i'll take your snark as an implicit defense of DeLay.
Posted by: cleek | April 20, 2005 at 04:46 PM
You know, I had no idea when I woke up this morning that I'd have quite so many of my positions invented for me. Thanks, that saves me quite a lot of time and effort. Still, the annoyance at my completely made-up positions should be directed at the one who made it up to begin with.
Just sayin'.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | April 20, 2005 at 04:57 PM
gotta side with Slart here cleek
he was just having fun, and you took it the wrong way.
Posted by: Edward | April 20, 2005 at 04:58 PM
Thanks, Edward. It's got to be said, though, that I was semi-serious. But regardless of whether it was serious or not, it's hard to see where the defense of Delay comes in. Probably it would be much more obvious to those more practised to reading between the lines than I.
Now, if it's a law about rules, does that make it a meta-rule? This is an area of my education that's sadly lacking.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | April 20, 2005 at 05:03 PM
semi-serious or not, it was a generic observation and not a defense of DeLay (as far as I could tell).
Posted by: Edward | April 20, 2005 at 05:05 PM
Correct, Edward.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | April 20, 2005 at 05:13 PM
Correct, Edward.
Yes, but how do you square that with your assertion that Edward loves to eat Spam® while listening to Roy Orbison? Defend yourself man!
Posted by: Macallan | April 20, 2005 at 05:18 PM
it's hard to see where the defense of Delay comes in.
Just another instance of a "if you're not 100% with me then you're against me" mentality that pops up here from time to time.
Posted by: kenB | April 20, 2005 at 05:19 PM
hmmmmm....Spa-a-a-a-a-mmmmm®
slightly whorish move here (but only slightly*): one of my artists is responsible for this photo. (and yes, that's what you think it is in the river.)
*The edition is sold out, so you couldn't buy it if you wanted to.
Just another instance of a "if you're not 100% with me then you're against me" mentality that pops up here from time to time.
And by "here" you mean the White House? ;-p
Posted by: Edward | April 20, 2005 at 05:25 PM
Spam as flotsam. Brilliant!
Posted by: Macallan | April 20, 2005 at 05:35 PM
one of my artists is responsible for this photo.
But what does it mean??? I don't want to spend 15 years staring at it before I figure it out. Are there vikings faintly visible below the surface?
Posted by: kenB | April 20, 2005 at 05:39 PM
"Slart's Law: If a rule works toward your purpose, it's a "rule". If it works counter to your purpose, it's a "procedural trick" or a "loophole"."
Sometimes it's a "technicality."
Posted by: tonydismukes | April 20, 2005 at 05:43 PM
But what does it mean??? I don't want to spend 15 years staring at it before I figure it out.
Some could spend 15 centuries and still not "figure it out" kenB...others would just enjoy the image for what they get from it immediately, if anything. Individual choice.
No vikings, just rocks...although I like that you went there.
Posted by: Edward | April 20, 2005 at 05:43 PM
Spaaaaam in the waaaater,
Square pigs in the sky-y.
As sung by Deep Pink.
Posted by: rilkefan | April 20, 2005 at 05:44 PM
would just enjoy the image for what they get from it immediately, if anything.
I immediately enjoyed the gaffney_3 image with the frozen river and the 2 rocks and colorful item in the mid-foreground, but I'm not sure why I did. Is that one sold out too?
Posted by: kenB | April 20, 2005 at 05:46 PM
that's one of my favorites too, kenB....not sold out though...although I feel odd doing anything even approaching "business" on the blog. If you found that image, you've found what you need to contact the gallery for more info...happy to talk about my artists all day in some other forum.
Posted by: Edward | April 20, 2005 at 05:51 PM
Luke Skywalker's helping Tom Delay?!!?
Posted by: Ugh | April 20, 2005 at 05:52 PM
Or maybe:
Spaaaaam in the waaaater,
Square pigs in the sky-y.
Pooooork in the waaaater.
Oink oink oinkoink, oink oink oi oinkoink, oink oink oinkoink, oink oink...
BTW, anybody see the Monty Python adaptation on Broadway?
Posted by: rilkefan | April 20, 2005 at 05:54 PM
I can make you feel, but I can't make you think.
Your Spam's in the gutter, your love's in the sink.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | April 20, 2005 at 05:59 PM
Slart, that makes about as much sense as the original. "Thick as a brick of spam"...
By the way, all Jethro Tull fans out there who aren't familiar with Ian Anderson's The Secret Language of Birds should rush out and get it.
Posted by: rilkefan | April 20, 2005 at 06:04 PM
he was just having fun, and you took it the wrong way.
hmm. i thought i was having a little fun, too. guess i need to indicate my mood better. more smileys ?
Posted by: cleek | April 20, 2005 at 06:07 PM
"Slart's Law: If a rule works toward your purpose, it's a "rule". If it works counter to your purpose, it's a "procedural trick" or a "loophole"."
I'll be watching for you in the filibuster/nuclear option threads...
Posted by: liberal japonicus | April 20, 2005 at 06:14 PM
Something along the lines of Slart's law.
Posted by: rilkefan | April 20, 2005 at 06:31 PM
BTW, anybody see the Monty Python adaptation on Broadway?
No, but we did see Tim Curry and David Hyde Pierce at a restaurant with cast members this past Sunday.
Posted by: Edward | April 20, 2005 at 06:32 PM
I saw Spamalot and it was hysterical. I saw it in preview, so it may have changed a bit since then. But it's a tremendous production.
Posted by: Chuchundra | April 20, 2005 at 07:46 PM
I've said much the same thing in those places, though less concisely.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | April 20, 2005 at 09:54 PM
I like it.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | April 20, 2005 at 09:57 PM
Every word you post,
Every chat you host,
Every slice you toast,
I'll be watching you.
Posted by: ral | April 20, 2005 at 10:18 PM
Every slice you toast,
Every newbie you roast?
Posted by: liberal japonicus | April 21, 2005 at 12:19 AM
Every claim you boast,
Every petard you hoist,
I'll be watching you.
Posted by: CaseyL | April 21, 2005 at 12:44 AM
The important thing is that we look at all the ethic issues both Delay and Pelosi's problems.
www.washingtontimes.com
Posted by: 123concrete | April 22, 2005 at 11:44 AM
The important thing is that we look at all the ethic issues both Delay and Pelosi's problems.
I totally agree. Pelosi broke the rules she needs to pay.
Same for DeLay.
Anyone taking bets?
Posted by: Edward | April 22, 2005 at 11:51 AM
In the end, both Dem's and Rep's will work to protect the system and indirectly each other.
It will take more than what is currently going on to cause change.
Posted by: 123concrete | April 22, 2005 at 12:02 PM
In the end, both Dem's and Rep's will work to protect the system and indirectly each other.
So long as DeLay doesn't get his way, you mean.
Posted by: Edward | April 22, 2005 at 12:09 PM
Let me see if I understand the strategy here.
Attack Delay loudly...
Silently ignore Democrat's...
http://www.sfgate.com
Posted by: Tinker | May 03, 2005 at 03:24 PM
I can still hear the sounds of silence... and hypocracy.
Posted by: Tinker | May 04, 2005 at 03:08 PM