...Is there any Republican on this forum that support this?

maybe they are "cafeteria" moralists

What a pathetic meaningless rule. Why even have it in the first place if it can be changed so easily? I mean who is going to vote against the change, implying that they think their party leader might be a crook?

__________________
"The belief that nothing exists outside your own mind--surely there must be some way of demonstrating that it was false" - 1984

....but a rule is a rule. It was instituted in 1993 by the Republicans in Congress to be directed towards the Democrats. The Democrats have a rule which, does not remove the "offending leader" but asks him or her to step aside from the leadership postion.

But this move by the Hammer's buddies is simply "snubbing" their nose against the process. When Trent Lott got into trouble a few years ago (NO crime), he was lambasted and he lost his leadership role. Delay has not been charged yet but if he is indicted, then it means the GJ has a strong case against him. And yet the Republicans would want an indicted Congressman to lead them...

It is unethical for either party to do so.

Is this the message to send to your constituents?

No matter the backstory, changing your rules so that someone can keep their leadership post even if indicted is just a bad PR move. What message are you sending?

I appreciate the problem of politically motivated or badly flawed indictments. But such instances should be plainly obvious — enough that an exception to the rule could be made without actually dismantling the rule. And besides, someone who has been indicted should step aside at least temporarily for the good of the party — it's hard to be an effective leader when you're distracted by legal problems.

The Republicans are acting more and more like a majority party all the time, in the most unsavory senses of that phrase. I suppose that was inevitable. But we could have hoped that the transformation wouldn't be quite so quick.[/i]

__________________
Man up.

some Republicans wanted a secret ballot so that they could vote how they wanted but Delay's friends wouldn't allow it so they had to vote out in the open. STILL a huge chunk voted AGAINST the change with Delay and his friends standing right there.

...I was HOPING it wouldn't happen too, Ray..and if it did, it wouldn't be so obvious or blatant.. But this..this is simply sticking "the finger in our collective eyes" and saying we will do whatever we "GD WELL PLEASE" coz me are the Majority, we don't have to live by our own rules!!

Its very brazen, I must say..Just like the GOSS email yesterday about the CIA doing the administration's bidding. And here I was thinking that the CIA is supposed to be one of the more non-partisan and clandestine non-political agencies.