House Republicans Vote to Hobble Independent Ethics Office (1 Viewer)

[The Commish]

I copied Koya's original post above, which was in response to your post where you pulled out the "Hillary was the democratic nominee, therefore anything Trump or Republicans do can't be opposed because of Hillary's flaws" response.

I'm not sure why you feel that Koya's comments were so partisan while yours were not.  It was a pretty typical knee-jerk, "But Hillary was corrupt too " response, which is a partisan response.

Things can be wrong on their own.  They don't just have to be wrong relative to what the other side is doing.  When you go down that road, it's a partisan one.

Sometimes, this is true.  Sometimes it isn't.  Hillary didn't read as an excuse to me per say.  It's a valid point to illustrate how both parties are screwed up.  roadkill's initial comment addressing the GOP and not the Dems is where you need to start your sleuthing on this topic IMO.

 

[sho nuff]

Typical government.  The staff in the ethics office weren't acting independently and they are protected from removal, so just abolish or declaw the office. 

Elections do have consequences...,,,

Consequences like...everyone bend over and get ready to take it.

BTW...any real link that staff was not acting independently or doing their job?

 

[NCCommish]

Because you choose to ignore the post by Roadkill (which my comment was directed at) saying it was a GOP voter thing and implying the Democrats would never vote against ethics.  It is a crook of ####.  Pointing out both parties suck is not a partisan viewpoint.  Nice try though.  

The Democrats are the ones who used their majority to create an independent watchdog. The GOP used theirs to gut it. Pretty hard to spin this one on to Hillary.

 

[Koya]

This is why the people always lose.  Stop making it so damn partisan in your points.  The only purpose it serves is to divide and conquer honest people.  

Please point out where I was partisan? There is one Party that calls all the shots now.  It's partisan to call them out when their shots begin with dismantling ethics oversight?

YOU brought up partisanship by bringing up Hillary. Who does not represent me to begin with (I didn't vote for her).  My comment was directed at those in power, not along Partisan lines... unless being ethical is, by definition, outside the realm of being a Republican.  Perhaps that is the point you wanted to make? 

 

[Koya]

The Democrats are the ones who used their majority to create an independent watchdog. The GOP used theirs to gut it. Pretty hard to spin this one on to Hillary.

Which goes to my comment of OWNING this. Your "side" one the election, at all levels (well, all governmental levels, you got beat pretty solidly in a pure democratic up-down national vote).

Can't now push off the decisions made by those you support to the other party... it's cowardice. Have the balls to stand up for those you supported for goodness sake.  For a group so much about "calling things as they are" and getting over "political correctness" there seems a legitimate fear to actually have a sincere discussion of the matter and no willingness whatsoever to actually take accountability for the leadership you all so wanted to bring to bear.

You got it. You won. Now just have even the most minor amount of fortitude and stand behind those you supported.

 

[bigbottom]

Which goes to my comment of OWNING this. Your "side" one the election, at all levels (well, all governmental levels, you got beat pretty solidly in a pure democratic up-down national vote).

Can't now push off the decisions made by those you support to the other party... it's cowardice. Have the balls to stand up for those you supported for goodness sake.  For a group so much about "calling things as they are" and getting over "political correctness" there seems a legitimate fear to actually have a sincere discussion of the matter and no willingness whatsoever to actually take accountability for the leadership you all so wanted to bring to bear.

You got it. You won. Now just have even the most minor amount of fortitude and stand behind those you supported.

Why do they have to stand behind them?  Can't they be critical of them?  Jon's first post in this thread was to criticize the move.

 

[Thunderlips]

Tell me why citizens shouldn't be concerned when the independent accountability office for its elected officials is stripped of its responsibilities and given to those it's supposed to be holding accountable?

BECAUSE WE'VE HAD TO LIVE WITH 8 YEARS OF OBAMA!!!...THAT'S WHY!!!!!! 

 

[jon_mx]

The Democrats are the ones who used their majority to create an independent watchdog. The GOP used theirs to gut it. Pretty hard to spin this one on to Hillary.

I never blamed Hillary.  My point was Democrat voters are just as capable of flipping ethics the bird. How hard is this.  Why make it partisan by attacking GOP voters and attempting to get on the high horse.   All you do is piss off people who should be allies in this. 

 

[Koya]

Why do they have to stand behind them?  Can't they be critical of them?  Jon's first post in this thread was to criticize the move.

I did not read the entire thread... my point is (1) yes, they MUST criticize but even as such (2) stop blaming "Hillary" or the Dems... ball is in your court now in terms of who voted for the current folks in power.  Own that you voted for them and that these actions are in part the responsibility of those who voted for this "change" to take place.

Blaming Hillary is pathetic. If you voted for these fools, hold them accountable (criticism) and don't deflect blame for their actions upon others (i.e. Hillary or the "Dems")

 

[The Commish]

Why do they have to stand behind them?  Can't they be critical of them?  Jon's first post in this thread was to criticize the move.

I did not read the entire thread... my point is (1) yes, they MUST criticize but even as such (2) stop blaming "Hillary" or the Dems... ball is in your court now in terms of who voted for the current folks in power.  Own that you voted for them and that these actions are in part the responsibility of those who voted for this "change" to take place.

Blaming Hillary is pathetic. If you voted for these fools, hold them accountable (criticism) and don't deflect blame for their actions upon others (i.e. Hillary or the "Dems")

That's not how it works in this country.  It's easier to point fingers.  How long did we hear "but Bush" types of arguments when the Dems took over?  Hell we still hear them.  While I agree with the premise of your post, I know that the only thing that changes from one election cycle to the other is who is doing the deflecting.  It's sucks, but it is what it is.

 

[bigbottom]

I did not read the entire thread... my point is (1) yes, they MUST criticize but even as such (2) stop blaming "Hillary" or the Dems... ball is in your court now in terms of who voted for the current folks in power.  Own that you voted for them and that these actions are in part the responsibility of those who voted for this "change" to take place.

Blaming Hillary is pathetic. If you voted for these fools, hold them accountable (criticism) and don't deflect blame for their actions upon others (i.e. Hillary or the "Dems")

I get that (the Hillary deflection). But I'm pretty sure that this vote was by the last House, not the incoming one. Also, I'm not sure if it is even public which reps voted for the amendment and which voted against it, so it would be hard to know whether or not you should take responsibility because you voted for the rep in your district and he or she supported the amendment. 

 

[wikkidpissah]

i'm just here to say something inflammatory so i can come back a half hour and ask why people are so upset..........but now i forgot what i made up to say while i was writing the disclaimer.................it wasn't that important, but it was pretty juicy................i HATE gettin old..........be right back.

 

[Koya]

I get that (the Hillary deflection). But I'm pretty sure that this vote was by the last House, not the incoming one. Also, I'm not sure if it is even public which reps voted for the amendment and which voted against it, so it would be hard to know whether or not you should take responsibility because you voted for the rep in your district and he or she supported the amendment. 

Is it so much to ask for the people who vocally asked for this "change" to be held responsible and accountable for the choice they made? I hear your parsing of the facts, but I am not building a court case.

I'm just saying have a pair and own the leadership you yourself demanded.A good start, as shown by some here, is to criticise. But to then deflect with the Hillary crap is, imo, a demonstration of a lack of will to actually stand behind what you had been asking to happen on these very boards. It's intellectual cowardice.

 

[Fla\/\/ed]

Is it so much to ask for the people who vocally asked for this "change" to be held responsible and accountable for the choice they made? I hear your parsing of the facts, but I am not building a court case.

I'm just saying have a pair and own the leadership you yourself demanded.A good start, as shown by some here, is to criticise. But to then deflect with the Hillary crap is, imo, a demonstration of a lack of will to actually stand behind what you had been asking to happen on these very boards. It's intellectual cowardice.

Who is deflecting this onto Hillary?

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

That's not how it works in this country.  It's easier to point fingers.  How long did we hear "but Bush" types of arguments when the Dems took over?  Hell we still hear them.  While I agree with the premise of your post, I know that the only thing that changes from one election cycle to the other is who is doing the deflecting.  It's sucks, but it is what it is.

Not all partisan finger pointing is the same. I won't speak for everyone but at least from me most of the "but Bush" commentary had to do with Bush policies that were still affecting the economy after Obama took office. We were in the middle of a severe recession and our responses to it were shaped in part by Bush policies that had run up the national debt and deficits heading into the crash - tax cuts and wars that were paid for outside the normal budget process.

If Republicans want to complain that Obamacare is hard to replace because people are dependent on subsidies, for instance, that would probably be a fair "but Obama". Pointing to Hillary because Republican House members decide to weaken independent ethics oversight and discourage reporting of ethics violations by ending anonymous reporting is silly. 

My rule of thumb is to try as much as possible to take the party or person out of it and just look at the policies in play. 

 

[adonis]

I'm glad the discussion has finally turned to something really worthy of our consideration - Hillary Clinton and her shadiness.  

Lord knows we can't discuss any issues with Trump or republicans without refocusing to this issue at one point or another.  It's a new law of the internet, a rule I'll coin called "Adonis' law".  It's definition is as follows:

- Any political discussion on the internet about the faults of the republican party will inevitably result in a reference to the former democratic nominee Hillary Clinton as an attempt to point out that both sides are indeed corrupt.  This is often used in an attempt to prevent the critical party from claiming some moral/ethical/ideological high ground.

 

[The Commish]

Not all partisan finger pointing is the same. I won't speak for everyone but at least from me most of the "but Bush" commentary had to do with Bush policies that were still affecting the economy after Obama took office. We were in the middle of a severe recession and our responses to it were shaped in part by Bush policies that had run up the national debt and deficits heading into the crash - tax cuts and wars that were paid for outside the normal budget process.

If Republicans want to complain that Obamacare is hard to replace because people are dependent on subsidies, for instance, that would probably be a fair "but Obama". Pointing to Hillary because Republican House members decide to weaken independent ethics oversight and discourage reporting of ethics violations by ending anonymous reporting is silly. 

My rule of thumb is to try as much as possible to take the party or person out of it and just look at the policies in play. 

I'll ask FlaWed's question....who's doing the bold?  Because I agree with you that it's silly.  I have only read from jon_mx's post where he brought up Hillary in response to roadkill's comment which had nothing really to do with this policy.

 

[jon_mx]

Is it so much to ask for the people who vocally asked for this "change" to be held responsible and accountable for the choice they made? I hear your parsing of the facts, but I am not building a court case.

I'm just saying have a pair and own the leadership you yourself demanded.A good start, as shown by some here, is to criticise. But to then deflect with the Hillary crap is, imo, a demonstration of a lack of will to actually stand behind what you had been asking to happen on these very boards. It's intellectual cowardice.

I never deflected with Hillary.  I brought up Hillary in response to an attack on GOP voters and was pointing out why it was a BS point.   The spin in here is terrible. The point should be to make ethics important, not to make partisan attacks especially when they are extremely hypocritical and false. 

 

[jon_mx]

I'm glad the discussion has finally turned to something really worthy of our consideration - Hillary Clinton and her shadiness.  

Lord knows we can't discuss any issues with Trump or republicans without refocusing to this issue at one point or another.  It's a new law of the internet, a rule I'll coin called "Adonis's rule".  It's definition is as follows:

- Any political discussion on the internet about the faults of the republican party will inevitably result in a reference to the former democratic nominee Hillary Clinton as an attempt to point out that both sides are indeed corrupt.  This is often used in an attempt to prevent the critical party from claiming some moral/ethical/ideological high ground.

This whole issue side tracked by Roadkill saying only GOP voters would support this.   I took issue with that stupid spin and pitiful attempt to ride his high horse.  You have typed more BS and misinformation about this than anyone in this thread.  

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

I'll ask FlaWed's question....who's doing the bold?  Because I agree with you that it's silly.  I have only read from jon_mx's post where he brought up Hillary in response to roadkill's comment which had nothing really to do with this policy.

I only caught the string with jon's comment at the top so I guess there isn't more to it than that. My only hope for Republican voters is that they take this for what it is. There are plenty of corrupt Democrats and Republicans, hold your representatives accountable for votes like this and don't use reasoning like "the other side does it so it's okay for us now" which we get variations of way too often.  

 

[adonis]

I'm glad the discussion has finally turned to something really worthy of our consideration - Hillary Clinton and her shadiness.  

Lord knows we can't discuss any issues with Trump or republicans without refocusing to this issue at one point or another.  It's a new law of the internet, a rule I'll coin called "Adonis's rule".  It's definition is as follows:

- Any political discussion on the internet about the faults of the republican party will inevitably result in a reference to the former democratic nominee Hillary Clinton as an attempt to point out that both sides are indeed corrupt.  This is often used in an attempt to prevent the critical party from claiming some moral/ethical/ideological high ground.

This whole issue side tracked by Roadkill saying only GOP voters would support this.   I took issue with that stupid spin and pitiful attempt to ride his high horse.  You have typed more BS and misinformation about this than anyone in this thread.  

You have the honor of being the first person to have Adonis' law invoked.  Congratulations on your accomplishment

 

[The Commish]

I'll ask FlaWed's question....who's doing the bold?  Because I agree with you that it's silly.  I have only read from jon_mx's post where he brought up Hillary in response to roadkill's comment which had nothing really to do with this policy.

I only caught the string with jon's comment at the top so I guess there isn't more to it than that. My only hope for Republican voters is that they take this for what it is. There are plenty of corrupt Democrats and Republicans, hold your representatives accountable for votes like this and don't use reasoning like "the other side does it so it's okay for us now" which we get variations of way too often

His post was a response to roadkill's suggestion that GOP voters are those that don't care about ethics...fyi

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Of course this move is BS. And yes both parties are corrupt as hell. It's sad we all collectively accept this from our government at all. 

 

[jon_mx]

You have the honor of being the first person to have Adonis' law invoked.  Congratulations on your accomplishment

Thankfully we have BigBottom here as one of the few people who can read posts and understand points without getting lost in partisan rhetoric.  

 

[jon_mx]

Of course this move is BS. And yes both parties are corrupt as hell. It's sad we all collectively accept this from our government at all. 

Yes it is sad.  It is sad this election had boiled down to the most corrupt set of candidates being put on the ballot, which is why I could not vote for either.  This is not a good step and should be condemned.  But we should condemn the action, not one side or the other with partisan spin.   There were probably abuses of the ethics office, but this fix is terrible. 

 

[Plorfu]

Robert CostaVerified account‏@costareports

News: rules change to OCE has been pulled, just now at conference meeting in Capitol basement

 

[Van Dyman]

That's not how it works in this country.  It's easier to point fingers.  How long did we hear "but Bush" types of arguments when the Dems took over?  Hell we still hear them.  While I agree with the premise of your post, I know that the only thing that changes from one election cycle to the other is who is doing the deflecting.  It's sucks, but it is what it is.

Not all partisan finger pointing is the same. I won't speak for everyone but at least from me most of the "but Bush" commentary had to do with Bush policies that were still affecting the economy after Obama took office. We were in the middle of a severe recession and our responses to it were shaped in part by Bush policies that had run up the national debt and deficits heading into the crash - tax cuts and wars that were paid for outside the normal budget process.

If Republicans want to complain that Obamacare is hard to replace because people are dependent on subsidies, for instance, that would probably be a fair "but Obama". Pointing to Hillary because Republican House members decide to weaken independent ethics oversight and discourage reporting of ethics violations by ending anonymous reporting is silly. 

My rule of thumb is to try as much as possible to take the party or person out of it and just look at the policies in play. 

Exactly.  I was just about to post the same thing but you beat me to it.

 

[adonis]

I'm glad to see them reverse an obviously terrible decision.

It's likely they're just having to shake some of the rust off from 8 years of not actually voting for anything of significance.  I don't consider their 60-someodd votes to repeal Obamacare actual votes of significance.

It'll take them time to get back up to game speed, and along the way they'll have some of these growing pains.

 

[Capella]

@ericlipton HOUSE GOP REVERSES ITSELF: WILL NOT KILL OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS. Now just left with a blackeye

 

[Koya]

 Democrats nominated Hillary. Don't even try to play this as a GOP thing.  Both parties suck big time about caring about ethics. 

Who is deflecting this onto Hillary?

1. No need to go into more discourse on this sub-issue. Jon at least criticized this act, even if he utterly deflects any "responsibility" by the GOP or those who support their policies and their past electoral victory.

2. How is this not a "GOP thing" when the GOP was 100% behind this particular act, and it is 100% in line with their general tact in both approach and policy.  If anyone ever supported or repeated those words "drain the swamp" but does not call out both this vote and the GOP is being utter hypocritical, partisan and/or without the cahones to stand behind what they themselves said nor stand by those claims now that the GOP has unabated power.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

His post was a response to roadkill's suggestion that GOP voters are those that don't care about ethics...fyi

Thanks, and I think a problem we all fall into at times is overgeneralizing voters and their motivations. People are complex and make decisions for many varied and nuanced reasons. I think there are plenty of Republican voters who will accept whatever justification is rolled out for this... "improved due process" seems to be the current line, which is ironic for a bunch of reasons but whatever.

I don't think that means they don't care about ethics, they just trust a certain set of voices on it and can move past it. Others may see it more critically but will compromise because they prefer other Republican policy positions. I mean that's what I and many other Clinton supporters did, it's what I believe most Republican lawmakers are doing with Trump - they see him as corrupt and dangerous but have made a calculated gamble that they can live with that and try to get some preferred policy out of him since the alternative is blowing up the party and probably losing the ability to shape policy for another 4-8 years.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

@ericlipton HOUSE GOP REVERSES ITSELF: WILL NOT KILL OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS. Now just left with a blackeye

Good for them. Ryan, Trump, whoever wants to take credit. This was clearly the right move. 

 

[jon_mx]

1. No need to go into more discourse on this sub-issue. Jon at least criticized this act, even if he utterly deflects any "responsibility" by the GOP or those who support their policies and their past electoral victory.

2. How is this not a "GOP thing" when the GOP was 100% behind this particular act, and it is 100% in line with their general tact in both approach and policy.  If anyone ever supported or repeated those words "drain the swamp" but does not call out both this vote and the GOP is being utter hypocritical, partisan and/or without the cahones to stand behind what they themselves said nor stand by those claims now that the GOP has unabated power.

I never deflected responsibility.  I took issue with a partisan attack against GOP voters and an attempt to suggest only Democrata care about ethics.  Really folks, learn to read. 

 

[jamny]

I'm glad to see this is being pulled back and would not be surprised to read it was due to pressure from both Ryan and Trump

 

[Fla\/\/ed]

1. No need to go into more discourse on this sub-issue. Jon at least criticized this act, even if he utterly deflects any "responsibility" by the GOP or those who support their policies and their past electoral victory.

2. How is this not a "GOP thing" when the GOP was 100% behind this particular act, and it is 100% in line with their general tact in both approach and policy.  If anyone ever supported or repeated those words "drain the swamp" but does not call out both this vote and the GOP is being utter hypocritical, partisan and/or without the cahones to stand behind what they themselves said nor stand by those claims now that the GOP has unabated power.

Huh? Who said it wasn't a "GOP thing"? Try and relax!

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Actually they can put a slobbering right wing lunatic on the court and it's the same court it was. Kennedy is still the swing vote. That's not much solace but this idea that replacing Scalia with Scalia is the end times seems a little much. Now of course the stubborn wouldnt retire judges are the real problem. Holding power until the bitter end was their main concern so that leaves a precarious position. Their right to stay but they had a better chance of seeing someone appointed who would carry on their philosophy of they did it before it was a forced decision.

Scalia was conservative but ultimately he was a Constitutionalist, as all Supreme Court members are supposed to be.  As time has gone on more and more people have forgotten that the latter is the primary purpose of the Supreme Court and I doubt the public at large even cares about that requirement any more.  There is a difference between a conservative that adheres to the constitution and one that doesn't give a damn about it.

 

[Koya]

I never deflected responsibility.  I took issue with a partisan attack against GOP voters and an attempt to suggest only Democrata care about ethics.  Really folks, learn to read. 

I never saw that post then. All I saw was a deflection to Hillary...

and I at least never claimed only Dems care about ethics. What I do know is only Republicans were seeking to overturn ethics oversight, and I didn't hear nearly enough coming from the voices that supported them to make sure that didn't happen.

That said, kudos to those on all sides of the aisle who did vociferously speak against this.., including I must admit, Trump.  Granted, knowing his (lack of) character, Trumps opposition is based upon a perceived personal gain (more oversight for others, less for him? A chance for an easy grandstand and reach across the aisle?), but the action itself is still worth praise.

 

[Bruce Dickinson]

It's not just people in northern Wisconsin, it's everyone who doesn't agree with them. 

"I didn't like the tone of that pilot's voice.  Let's have one of the first class passengers fly the plane instead."

 

[jon_mx]

I never saw that post then. All I saw was a deflection to Hillary...

and I at least never claimed only Dems care about ethics. What I do know is only Republicans were seeking to overturn ethics oversight, and I didn't hear nearly enough coming from the voices that supported them to make sure that didn't happen.

That said, kudos to those on all sides of the aisle who did vociferously speak against this.., including I must admit, Trump.  Granted, knowing his (lack of) character, Trumps opposition is based upon a perceived personal gain (more oversight for others, less for him? A chance for an easy grandstand and reach across the aisle?), but the action itself is still worth praise.

That is because Adonis neglected to quote the post I responded too and then went on to completely misrepresent the point I was making.  He completely changed the context.  

 

[LAUNCH]

Charlie Wilson: Well, Jesus, Donnelly. Everyone in town knows I'm on the other side of that issue.
Donnelly: Ethics?
Charlie Wilson: Yeah!

 

[adonis]

I'm glad to see this is being pulled back and would not be surprised to read it was due to pressure from both Ryan and Trump

These votes happened despite party leadership pushing them not to do it.  It's unlikely Ryan had influence to overturn this, but more likely it came from either public pushback, Trump pushback, or both.

 

[urbanhack]

Good for them. Ryan, Trump, whoever wants to take credit. This was clearly the right move. 

 

[adonis]

I never saw that post then. All I saw was a deflection to Hillary...

and I at least never claimed only Dems care about ethics. What I do know is only Republicans were seeking to overturn ethics oversight, and I didn't hear nearly enough coming from the voices that supported them to make sure that didn't happen.

That said, kudos to those on all sides of the aisle who did vociferously speak against this.., including I must admit, Trump.  Granted, knowing his (lack of) character, Trumps opposition is based upon a perceived personal gain (more oversight for others, less for him? A chance for an easy grandstand and reach across the aisle?), but the action itself is still worth praise.

I may have missed it but where did Trump come out vociferously speaking against this?  It seemed like he was saying that it was OK to do, just not the first thing out of the gate.  Did I miss other comments?

 

[rascal]

Do we have a list of who voted for it?  I'd like to send a letter to my congressman if he was one.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Do we have a list of who voted for it?  I'd like to send a letter to my congressman if he was one.

Thought i read it was by secret ballot among the GOP caucus

 

[Fla\/\/ed]

Do we have a list of who voted for it?  I'd like to send a letter to my congressman if he was one.

I believe it was behind closed doors so there is no list of who voted for it.

 

[The Commish]

1. No need to go into more discourse on this sub-issue. Jon at least criticized this act, even if he utterly deflects any "responsibility" by the GOP or those who support their policies and their past electoral victory.

2. How is this not a "GOP thing" when the GOP was 100% behind this particular act, and it is 100% in line with their general tact in both approach and policy.  If anyone ever supported or repeated those words "drain the swamp" but does not call out both this vote and the GOP is being utter hypocritical, partisan and/or without the cahones to stand behind what they themselves said nor stand by those claims now that the GOP has unabated power.

Again (it's been pointed out several times at this point), you are attributing comments he made on a topic (ethics in general) to the topic you are talking about (gutting of the ethic committee).  You can either choose to acknowledge that or not.  If you don't, be careful with spouting off about who has to take responsibility for things they say.  

 

[Fla\/\/ed]

Again (it's been pointed out several times at this point), you are attributing comments he made on a topic (ethics in general) to the topic you are talking about (gutting of the ethic committee).  You can either choose to acknowledge that or not.  If you don't, be careful with spouting off about who has to take responsibility for things they say.  

 

[The Commish]

His post was a response to roadkill's suggestion that GOP voters are those that don't care about ethics...fyi

Thanks, and I think a problem we all fall into at times is overgeneralizing voters and their motivations. People are complex and make decisions for many varied and nuanced reasons. I think there are plenty of Republican voters who will accept whatever justification is rolled out for this... "improved due process" seems to be the current line, which is ironic for a bunch of reasons but whatever.

I don't think that means they don't care about ethics, they just trust a certain set of voices on it and can move past it. Others may see it more critically but will compromise because they prefer other Republican policy positions. I mean that's what I and many other Clinton supporters did, it's what I believe most Republican lawmakers are doing with Trump - they see him as corrupt and dangerous but have made a calculated gamble that they can live with that and try to get some preferred policy out of him since the alternative is blowing up the party and probably losing the ability to shape policy for another 4-8 years.

Agreed

 

[Van Dyman]

I never saw that post then. All I saw was a deflection to Hillary...

and I at least never claimed only Dems care about ethics. What I do know is only Republicans were seeking to overturn ethics oversight, and I didn't hear nearly enough coming from the voices that supported them to make sure that didn't happen.

That said, kudos to those on all sides of the aisle who did vociferously speak against this.., including I must admit, Trump.  Granted, knowing his (lack of) character, Trumps opposition is based upon a perceived personal gain (more oversight for others, less for him? A chance for an easy grandstand and reach across the aisle?), but the action itself is still worth praise.

I may have missed it but where did Trump come out vociferously speaking against this?  It seemed like he was saying that it was OK to do, just not the first thing out of the gate.  Did I miss other comments?

If they are selecting rules that will apply for the entire Congressional session (2017-2018), they'd probably have to do it now or wait two years.  That's my guess.  Could be wrong.