Perhaps Democrats could take inspiration from the Republican playbook and introduce ethics charges as retaliation for the fall of Dan Rostenkowski (D-IL) back in '94.  Force the Republicans to campaign on the "He started it when he hit me back" defense.

I think it's more that the Democrats are afraid that if they break the truce, the Republicans will someday retaliate with frivolous complaints even if the Dems aren't corrupt, just for the sake of revenge. But that's foolish: if/when the Democrats ever do regain control of the Congress, the Republicans will probably break the truce at that time anyway.

Let's not be so deferential to the Democrats.  The reason there is an ethics truce is because both sides have much to fear.  They've all got skeletons.

I can't help but think there's an opportunity for Democrats buried in this ethics mess.  While I understand that Pelosi is upholding the truce to avoid retaliation, it may not be a bad idea for the Democratic Party to tackle the ethics issue head-on and, if it means having to stand shoulder to shoulder while one of their own is fed to the wolves, then so be it.  There is, in my opinion, far more political "hay" to be made by cleaning out your own party and then attacking the other party for their failure to do so than there is by keeping it in the closet.

Hizzhoner

On one hand the House Democratic leaders are frankly outgunned, outmanned, and underfunded vs. the Republican majority. The House rules can be downright punitive to the minority party and it is really tough being a minority leader (ask any of the GOP minority leaders from 1954-1994). 
However, neither Gephardt or Pelosi seemed or seem to understand the fundamental shift in the way the House of Representatives works nowadays.  Its time they understood that the ethics process can be a key weapon in waging war (yes, WAR) against the Republican majority.  That, and a variety of other tactics such as primetime speeches on C-SPAN (a la Newt v. Jim Wright).  Additionally, the occassional ethics charge here and there this Congress alone will not accomplish much.  Pelosi and crew need to think of setting the stage for a future Democratic majority, be it 5, 10 and even 20 years down the road. 
In 1979, people thought Newt was a moron for starting to lay the groundwork for his plan to take over the House.  However, these plans do not happen overnight or even 1-2 election cycles.  If Democrats do not form a long-term, concerted strategic plan then we will deserve to continue losing. 

I've heard at least one senior-level person from the DNC argue (in private) that getting involved in ethics complaints is just not smart politics.

The Republicans have a majority on the ethics committee, so, guess what happens to our side if we take a matter before the committee? Whomever the complaint is brought against is cleared by a majority vote, and the Republicans can say that a bipartisan committee addressed the baseless charge and cleared the member.

It strikes me as a very sound argument. I agree with Ellen (above)--perp walks always make the evening news. And when someone like Duke Scumingham is brought down by his own party's DOJ, all the better.

--Ken

Silence is consent.
There's a talk the late Colonel John R. Boyd used to give about serving in the U.S. Air Force that sounds like it also applies to Congress. (It can be found in <span class="Apple-style-span">Robert Coram's stemwinding </span&gt<span class="Apple-style-span">biography of John Boyd</span&gt)
<span class="Apple-style-span">"One day you will come to a fork in the road. And you're going to have to make a decision about what direction you want to go." [Boyd] raised his hand and pointed. "If you go that way you can be somebody. You will have to make compromises and you will have to turn your back on your friends. But you will be a member of the club and you will get promoted and you will get good assignments." Then Boyd raised the other hand and pointed another direction. "Or you can go that way and you can do something - something for your country and for your Air Force and for yourself. If you decide to do something, you may not get promoted and you may not get the good assignments and you certainly will not be a favorite of your superiors. But you won't have to compromise yourself. You will be true to your friends and to yourself. And your work might make a difference." He paused and stared. "To be somebody or to do something. In life there is often a roll call. That's when you will have to make a decision. To be or to do? Which way will you go?"</span&gt
I'd say it's not hard to tell what choice most people in Congress on both sides of the aisle have made.

The House Democratic leadership are so risk averse.  Winners take risks...why don't congressional Democrats?  Worse, they pander to this crowd that wants to relitigate going to war in Iraq. 

in my opinion, is just a weighted political consideration, and probably suitable.
Why have a commission on jaywalking when you've got Fitzgerald and Abramoff working through the criminal justice system?
"Censure" just doesn't have the same ring as "four fifteen year sentences to be served consecutively."

Old Linebacker has it right.

The House Ethics Committee was gutted in January when Joel Hefley was replaced with a DeLay acolyte and the rules governing its operation were changed. It's no longer a person, it's a vampire that looks like that person.

The most noxious rule of the bunch, the "DeLay Rule" that would have allowed TD to remain as Majority Leader even while indicted, was repealed. For example of what remained, though, it now takes a majorityon the evenly-divided committee to start an investigation rather than to thwart one.

Pelosi's particular objection regards staffing issues. The evenly divided staff was eliminated, and virtually all the staff researchers are now Republicans. (I heard an NPR feature on the issue back then.) The outcome of any investigation, or determination as to whether there needs to be an investigation, is pre-ordained.

If the truce is broken without this and other changes to the rules being revoked, the Committee's sole function  will be to allow Republicans to claim that "The House Ethics Committee has thoroughly investigated the charges and found that the complaint is without merit", or some such. Do you really want to hand them that?

(Whoops. Missed a function- the Chairman controls the debate and proceedings, and any investigation of any Democrat, not to name any  Jeffer names, could be drawn out into a media circus. Hand them that one, too?)

I'd be interested in hearing from Melanie about whatever mechanics of Committee operation have her believing it would be productive to submit the complaint CREW has drawn up. Lacking a persuasive argument from someone with experience in the process, though, Pelosi is absolutely right in keeping anything from going in front of the House Ethics Committee until it actually becomes one again.  

I can't agree with this vaguely naive outrage either.  The House ethics process is only politically effective when you have a House majority representing a popular minority and the Party with the minority of seats but popular majority filing and winning the complaint.  As for criminal referrals, the House ethics process is unnecessary for it.

When the Abramoff thing erupts and DeLay loses in Texas, then I see a Republican Party split on its own 'ethics' and unable to hold the unified front.  At that point I see Pelosi breaking the 'truce' to exploit it, but not otherwise.

I don't see the truce as naive or per se cowardly.  It's coldly pragmatic by both sides.

Ethics committee has an equal number from both parties. At least it used to before it was rendered irrelevant by Delay's rules change and Democrats boycotted. I presume that if it were to return to a functional state, it would have an equal # of Ds and Rs again.

HSR wins the thread!


But given that the ethics committee is broken, the Democrats need to use every other tool they can to make this incredibly pervasive corruption in the modern GOP a partisan issue.

We need to help the American people understand that this level of corruption is the natural end-state of the GOP governing philosophy?

Why did the average GOP congressperson decide to get into politics?  Because they are a seedy religious fraud on the make!

Why did the average Democrat?  Because they care about their community!

That kind of thing.  All the time.  Just like Gingrich with his GOPAC wordlists back in the 90s.  Send out a GOPACKING memo and get everyone using the same vocabulary.  Tie their failed political philosophy to their absent ethics and impoverished morality.

When Congress becomes a mutual protection league democracy suffers.  When an overwhelming majority of incumbents are reelected democracy suffers.  When congressional districts are gerrymandered with the mutual consent and design of both parties democracy suffers.  When representatives and senators spend half of their time shaking down "constituents" for political contributions democracy suffers.  When our representatives claim that there is no connection between donations and votes and the press and the people do not call them on it democracy suffers.  When politicians decry earmarks as waste without pointing fingers at their peers who put these into budget bills democracy suffers.  When politicians campaign on the muddle they produce in Washington and are reelected democracy suffers.  When the people lose sight of what crap passes for democracy in their nation's capital we are lost. 

I don't think we will ever get anywhere so long as the goal is to nail a pol for something almost all pols do. Instead we might have to offer an amnysty of sorts for things done in the past and start fresh with new rules. It might let a few sleaze bags off, but the country would be better off in the long run.

Amen.  Just look at the newest round of budget-busting tax cuts.  Straight party-line vote.