This was in reference to his suggesting a Democratic congressman hostile to Gingrich had broken the law by The Times having received a transcript of a cellular phone call recorded by someone in Florida.

Do you know what this writer thinks is even more sad? Armey is acting as if he is concerned about a politician committing felonies although, by his support of Gingrich's activities, one surely would not think he really cares at all.

One would think, instead, all Armey is interested in is party politics. Defend Gingrich because Gingrich is a fellow party member, not because he is innocent of felon activities. Gingrich finally admitted to unethical, immoral, and possibly feloneous acts after two long years of being pressured to do so.

It seems of little importance to Armey that Gingrich has admitted to acts which have high probabilities of being felonies (and would be for the general public) even though Republican defenders call the transgressions mere ethics violations.

Let's review what has transpired before the initial reports of admissions by Gingrich get lost in the political 'shuffle' or 'Potomac two-step' we are getting so accustomed to.

By his own admission, Gingrich admitted he used tax-exempt funding to finance a college course taught by himself from 1993 to 1995 and also financed three television programs, all of which were political in nature. Furthermore, because the programs were political in nature, they should not have qualified as tax-deductible donations.

Simply put, Gingrich tried for and received tax-deducted contributions. He then used the money for his own purposes.

Let's think for a minute. If you took money from the business you work for and used it for your own purposes, wouldn't that be considered stealing?

Also, because of the amounts involved being far more serious than a misdemeanor, the taking and use of the funds by Gingrich should qualify as a felony. As we all know, anyone committing a felony is a 'felon'.

Just a thought, Gingrich supporters, but did Gingrich record in official records the true purpose of every cent taken? (This is assuming, of course, that Washington politicians are held accountable for spending funds.)

If not, or if not accurately recorded, he knew he was taking and using the money for other than permitted purposes. He was hiding his use of the funds and thought he had succeeded in doing so.

But, he was wrong. His violations of public office, political contributions, and tax laws were discovered and, after lying for two years, an additional moral violation, admitted to the allegations.

Think about that - two years of lying. And the Republican Party is poo-pooing it away as an unfortunate mistake. If Gingrich was innocent in what he was doing, if he didn't know that he was violating laws, then why did he lie about his activities for two years?

Also, if Gingrich did know what he was doing when taking contributions and telling contributors they could deduct the contributions, then it is tax fraud.

Tax fraud is a felony. (This may also apply to the contributors. Did they know that their tax-deductible contributions would be used by Gingrich for political purposes?)

It would seem to this writer that if Gingrich didn't know what he was doing, then he is too stupid to be in the job he has. Ignorance is really no excuse and certainly not in the eyes of the law.

However, this writer believes one could safely bet that Gingrich knew exactly what he was doing and didn't think he would ever be confronted with his wrong-doings. He thought he had a full-proof plan for both himself and his donators.

At any rate, it seems as if Armey and other supportative politicians would first be interested in finding out the amounts of the contributions, who they were from, the amounts deducted, and the total amounts taken and spent by Gingrich.

Second, it also seems if Armey is more interested in the welfare of this country rather than making less of misdeeds of his fellow party member (as the writer believes our leaders in Washington should be), that he and the other politicians in Washington would be trying to determine the answers to the above.

Isn't the complete disclosure of Gingrich's activities more important, especially with the high potential of felonies having been committed, than his party affiliation and the effect on his party?

Or, is Armey's only goal to protect Gingrich and, thus, his party? Or, even more serious, does Armey consider Gingrich's behaviors the norm for his party? If so, it is time for a 'house' cleaning.

Third, what if - just what if - a leading Democrat had done the same thing as Gingrich? How would supporters of Gingrich reacted then? Would people, such as Armey, have reacted the same, that it was okay, the person had used poor judgment by acting in ignorance. Would they have termed it a minor ethics violation?

Or, would they have vigorously pursued a complete investigation?

The answer to that is simple after witnessing the Whitewater case for nearly four years. There is still not any evidence that the allegations against the Clintons should have even been made, let alone been made public.

Consider the quite expensive investigation against the Clintons started on possibilities which seemed to lack in probabilities while the allegations against Gingrich are rich in probabilities filled with possibilities.

Now, Armey is worried about a Democrat possibly violating a law, if the recording made by a person who is unsympathetic to Gingrich is used. Presumedly, there is a possibility there may be some sort of wiretapping violation. No one is certain at the time of this writing as the matter needs to be investigated.

Again, Gingrich's violations (even his apparent predisposition to lie) are certain and far more serious than a potentially illegally obtained recording. Why isn't the Republican leader just as concerned he is supporting a person who has almost certainly violated not only civil laws, but also moral laws?

Do you think, Ladies and Gentlemen, that it might just be Washington politics as usual, that concern over wrong-doing only presents itself when allegations are against the opposition? Hence, the utter hypocrisy of Armey's statement leading into this article.

Shouldn't the target of concerned citizenry, including politicians, be to rid Washington of all violators of our laws, whether ethical, moral, or legal.

Or, must we continue to put up with the irrational, often rather poorly thought out, political game-playing that is done by our leading politicians at our expense?