<p>^ I think your giving the Dems a lot of credit for strategy…</p>
<p>I’m waiting for Alcee, too. </p>
<p>He’ll probably be made Chairman of the House Ethics Committee.</p>
<p>From wikipedia: <a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcee_Hastings[/url]”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcee_Hastings</a></p>
<p>In 1989, Hastings was impeached by the Democrat-controlled U.S. House of Representatives for bribery and perjury. The Democrat-controlled Senate convicted Judge Hastings of accepting a $150,000 bribe in 1981 in exchange for a lenient sentence and a return of seized assets for 21 counts of racketeering by Frank and Thomas Romano, and of perjury in his testimony about the case. He became only the sixth Judge in the history of United States to be removed from office by the United States Senate. (The Senate had the option to forbid Hastings from ever seeking federal office again, but did not do so.)</p>
<p>Hastings filed suit in federal court claiming that his impeachment trial was invalid because he was tried by a Senate committee, not in front of the full Senate, and that he had been acquitted in a criminal trial. Judge Stanley Sporkin ruled in favor of Hastings, remanding the case back to the Senate, but stayed his ruling pending the outcome of an appeal to the Supreme Court in a similar case regarding Judge Walter Nixon, who had also been impeached and removed.</p>
<p>Sporkin found some “crucial distinctions”[2] between Nixon’s case and Hastings’, specifically, that Nixon had been convicted criminally, and that Hastings was not found guilty by two-thirds of the committee who actually “tried” his impeachment in the Senate. He further added that Hastings had a right to trial by the full Senate.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court, however, ruled that the federal courts have no jurisdiction over Senate impeachment matters, and Sporkin’s ruling was vacated, and Hastings’ conviction and removal were upheld.</p>
<p>“He’ll probably be made Chairman of the House Ethics Committee.” </p>
<p>Snort. Snicker.</p>
<p>In addition to the ethics issue, passing over a more qualified applicant because of personal animosity speaks of a catfight.</p>
<p>“Maybe the dems were serious about “draining the swamp.” Let’s see what happens now with Alcee Hastings.”</p>
<p>Yup, let’s see. No prison stripes for him. Not like some folks who are “searching for spiritual meaning”.</p>
<p>Workin’ on the chain gang, chain gang, chain gang…</p>
<p>Can’t wait for the Abramoff/Rove hearings; or the Halliburton/Cheney, no the Foley/Hastert (still can’t confirm that Denny is gay, or had a relationship with Foley that was other than platonic), or Katrina/Michael Brown, or…</p>
<p>They’re gonna need more cable channels. Maybe Duke can do color commentary…</p>
<p>Stay the course.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, Mr. Straight-Shootin’ Keating Five Alumnus displays his “consistency”:</p>
<p>In May 2006, McCain gave the commencement address at Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University. During his 2000 presidential bid, McCain had called Falwell an “agent of intolerance.” With significant coverage during the campaign, McCain said that he would never back down from his earlier statement. His later appearance at Liberty University prompted questions about the McCain-Falwell relationship and a possible presidential run in 2008. McCain stated that Falwell is no longer that divisive figure and the two have discussed their shared values."</p>
<p>Yup. Gotta head off Rudy and Newt before they get their next set of new wives.</p>
<p>Would you settle for Alcee being gay instead? How about Pelosi, Murtha or Hoyer? :)</p>
<p>Maybe they’re all gay? They do call it a ‘club’ after all. ;)</p>
<p>Democrats did give Studds access to pages all those years. </p>
<p>Again from Wikipedia: <a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Studds[/url]”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Studds</a></p>
<p>Studds was a central figure in the 1983 Congressional page sex scandal, when he and Representative Dan Crane were censured by the House of Representatives for separate sexual relationships with minors – in Studds’ case, a 1973 sexual relationship with a 17-year-old male congressional page who was of the age of legal consent. The relationship was consensual (which made it legal, in accordance with state law) but presented ethical concerns relating to working relationships with subordinates.</p>
<p>During the course of the House Ethics Committee’s investigation, Studds publicly acknowledged his homosexuality, a disclosure that, according to a Washington Post article, [color=blue]"apparently was not news to many of his constituents…Studds defended his sexual relationship with the minor as a “consensual relationship with a young adult.”[/color]</p>
<p>Well, as you can see Jerry and the Keating Fiver are an item. ;)</p>
<p>Stay the course.</p>
<p>I think it ws orchestrated…politicians go in knowing the outcome,that much of a spread, well, that is hard to not know about ahead of time</p>
<p>Democrats did give Studds access to pages all those years.</p>
<p>Can’t you come up with ANYTHING that’s less than 25 years old? I mean, I can, but don’t you think this is more than a bit lame? I know it’s hard, but after all, there has been a Republican Department of Justice, and a Republican Attorney General for the past six years, so I imagine if they had a bunch of dirt, they’d be makin’ good use of it?</p>
<p>Is Studds running for President?</p>
<p>While we have heard the constant rhetoric from the Bush admin. that the only issue in the world is Iraq and terrorism, if that were the case then Murtha most likely should have been the choice. Fortunately the new house majority has seen that there are more than a few fish to fry such as ethics and related government conduct being large issues and Murtha has a bit of “baggage” in that regard. </p>
<p>This was a pick looking to the bigger picture and in acknowledgement that this is a democracy and that unlike the world of the “Decider”, the leader doesn’t always get their way and the “rubber stamp” (and I’m sure Nancy will survive this and if not, oh well).</p>
<p>parent2noles, I’m sure you were just as disgusted by Foley and the Republican leadership that covered for him as I was of Studds and Barney Franks’ actions, actions I can relive if I step into the wayback machine. Of course, Studds isn’t in Congress, in fact, he’s not even on this earth anymore, so let’s put him to rest. Franks has certainly changed his ways, since he is in a committed relationship now. I know that Republicans have been very forgiving of the crimes and misdemeanors committed by their own party, I suppose it is too much to ask them to extend that forgiveness to the opposing…excuse me, MAJORITY party. </p>
<p>Now the people who stomp their feet when Democrats obstruct (as an opposition party should) will be fully in support of the obstructors; the people who supported any bill that was put forward no matter how much pork it contained will be complaining about pork…and if there is one thing we’ve learned in the past six years, it’s that anything - anything at all - is okay with 30% of the people as long as it’s a Republican who is doing it.</p>
<p>She didn’t “lose” anything - it wasn’t expected that Murtha would win the vote - it was a gesture.</p>
<p>I still love the way Speaker Pe<em>Lo</em>Si trips off the tongue, and how the good folks at Faux Gnus want to spit.</p>
<p>Stay the course.</p>
<p>She’s also the first speaker of Italian heritage in the good ole USA.</p>
<p>Well, we can all rest easy now - Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) is up for Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. We know he’ll see that his staff ‘connects the dots’ on those who’d commit mass murder of Americans and who want to see Israel destroyed and all Jews murdered, too, for good measure. Unless they convert to Islam…that is.</p>
<p>Unless, of course, some terrorists offer him at least $150,000 to look the other way? Then all bets could be off. Guess we’ll also have to give 'ol Alcee complete access to all US classified information, too - it’s ‘oversight’ you understand. Iran would have to offer at least $500,000 for such good stuff.</p>
<p>Sleep well. 
Democrats in '08!</p>
<p>Yup, you really CAN’T find anything that’s less than 25 years old, even with a Republican Department of Justice and Attorney General.</p>
<p>Not being one, I had no idea that the Dems were that clean! ;)</p>
<p>It’s not the freshness…it’s the quality of the offense that lasts. Some are just timeless. Like integrity violations, lying under oath, forgetting your oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution as a Federal Judge, for example. </p>
<p>Such offenses just, well, last and last.</p>
<p>Democrats - integrity is an optional quality for high office. It’s the Power, stupid!</p>
<p>Wait - The new majority leader of the Senate - Harry Reid (D-NV) - does not appear to believe that he needs to disclose business dealings. Great. What else has he not told us?</p>
<p>Hey, it’s a minor matter compared with Denny’s land deal.</p>
<p>Duke and Bobby and Jack are modeling the stripes now. There’s gonna be others - LOTS of others. Much “searching for spiritual meaning” on the chain gang.</p>
<p>Wonder if Guv Ryan and Denny will get to cohabitate! </p>
<p>Stay the course.</p>
<p>Denny’s a lame duck. The higher they go, the tighter the scrutiny. Nothings minor as Majority Leader - look at Trent Lott for an example of how closely Reid will be examined for his repeated disregard of the public’s right to know. Full disclosure. All the time. </p>
<p>Besides, two wrongs don’t make a right. Nothing Denny has done justifies Reid’s behavior.</p>
<p>By the same token…nothing Studds did justifies Foley’s behavior, either.</p>
<p>What just kills me about Alcee Hastings is that he violated his oath of office as a Federal Judge. </p>
<p>Appointed for life - immune to political pressure; supposed to watch out for the little guy and those who cannot defend themselves. The last objective person between an innocent person and prison. </p>
<p>He sold it all for $150,000! I find that significant. ;)</p>
<p>No, I won’t forget. I want him out. He is a disgrace. He is not fit to hold high office.</p>
<p>The title of this thread is so hypoctical.</p>
<p>IF the Dems had voted in Murtha, Barrons and the rat pack would have said look how radical the Dems are, they choose the troop-hater.</p>
<p>And if the Dems didnt vote Murtha in they’d say the lefties are weak.</p>