From: "Mark" 

Oh, I agree that they can't change the rule now in midstream of its
invocation. I meant that they never should have passed it in the first
place. I agree too, that they only did so originally to show how honest
they were , but it was still a poor method of conveying that
message. 

"Robert G Lewis"  wrote in message
news:433b627d$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>I think the dems require it for committee positions , not the political
>leadership.
>
> Personally I think the Republicans made the rule so let them live by it,
> After this is over if they want to change it fine Delay was elected to his
> position while this rule was in effect. Shoot I think he really push for
> some of the tight ethics rules at one point.  To change it now would say
> that he ( or Mt Smith ) was above the rules. Not an appropriate message
> for our country imho.
>
> IIRC the rule was a reaction to Dan Rostenkowski , who should have been
> removed by the House.
>
> Bob Lewis
>
>
> "Mark"  wrote in message
news:433b600d{at}w3.nls.net...
>>I maintain that they should have changed the rules. Forget Delay,
>>substitute "Smith." IOW, I mean that it shouldn't be that
way for anyone.
>>The way it is now, anyone, anywhere could lodge a complaint against any
>>member of congress and if a DA gets an indictment, they have to give up
>>any leadership position they hold while it's resolved. >do, I'm not sure the Dems abide by that same rule>
>>
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5