Ethics? Who Needs Ethics?

Republicans are now attempting to remove watch-dog triggers that get tripped when a House member may have done something that threatens the House's credibility, and in Tom Delay's case, the voting rights of Texas citizens. According to the Washington Post (by no means a liberal rag), their plans include not allowing colleagues to bring investigations against one another unless there is a majority of members who want the investigation. And we all know who they mean by "majority" don't we?

The Republican-controlled house wants to decrease their moral accountablility. And ironically, they want to divert moral eyes away so they can keep their sinful indescretions from spoiling their pseudo-religious, neo-conservative hootenany. I hope when the 2008 election is stolen they have the good sense to install Jimmy Swaggert as president. He's the only one who could possibly maximize having the burden of ethics lifted from representative government during the "see how moral I am" years.

In a country where people only half listen to moral charges anyway (unless they are brought up as the focus of a Karl Rove/Ken Star Screamfest) there is one certainity in public relations: If you can keep someone from bringing charges against you for something you did, it's as if you didn't even do it! Score!

Am I a ranting liberal? Maybe, but I also prefer to think of myself as a morally attentive (if not morally perfect) U.S. citizen. Morality does matter, and I mean the kind of morality that hurts or helps the U.S. citizenry. For all the Republican party's sqwawking about the importance of character, they seem remarkably un-gung-ho when it comes to tracking it amongst their elected officials.