Dear Harry | Main | Report: No Abuse of Schiavo

April 18, 2005
Bad Baghdad Jim McDermott

While the Democrats pretend to be appalled at phony ethics violations of Tom DeLay, they are refusing to convene the ethics committe in order to protect one of their own, Baghdad Jim McDermott.

The House ethics committee last year began looking into a complaint filed against Rep. Jim McDermott, Washington Democrat, over a 1997 incident in which he gave reporters an illegally recorded phone conversation among House members.

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, Texas Republican and a recent target of Democrats' ethics charges, said in an interview with The Washington Times on Wednesday that he would be cleared by a committee investigation, but that Democrats are refusing to convene as a way of shielding Mr. McDermott.

According to a Republican aide, "The Democrats have frozen the committee and have frozen the investigation, and it's helping one of their own."

Unlike Tom DeLay, McDermott's actions were illegal. Funny how his party is protecting him.

Posted by Matt Margolis on April 18, 2005 06:34 PM

Comments

Can someone please explain why the Ethics Committee has "traditionally" been comprised of a 50/50 split of Republicans and Democrats? Whatever happened to "majority rules"? I'm really curious about how this came about!

Posted by: DagneyT [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 18, 2005 07:27 PM

Oops. Sorry. Forgot to thank you for addressing the issue. ((((((((((((THANKS!!!!))))))))))))

Posted by: DagneyT [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 18, 2005 07:28 PM

My understanding (and I welcome correction if I'm wrong) is so that it keeps one party from becoming corrupt. If it is equally split, the minority party can investigate crimes that the majority party does. If it is divided like all other committees are, then the majority could get away with abusing the system and nothing could be done about it. Basically it's a safe guard against the old saying "Power corrupts, but absolute power corrupts absolutely."

While I would generally agree with this idea, the way the Democrats behave makes me wish there were some other way around it.

Posted by: Carstairs38 [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 18, 2005 07:46 PM

Carstairs is correct; a 50-50 is ethically necessary.

Could you imagine how things might have been before Newt Gingrich's Contract with America...?

Posted by: Charlie On the Pennsylvania Turnpike [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 19, 2005 11:49 AM