It says that while some people thought what Clinton did was so "horrible", they were willing to look the other way while Newt lead the lynch mob, all the while having an affair during the hanging party. It says too many bought into the WMD b.s. The dems,not wanting to appear "unpatriotic" lost their spine and played along to get along. Along came 2006/2007,the tide changed for the dems and they did NOTHING. They bought into the hope and change b.s. of 2008,didn't want to call obama on his b.s. for fear of being termed rascists and now we have a fraudster about to take office.
You have to fight the good fight....what else is there?
Here in Massachusetts the people voted on a referendum to decriminalize marijuana. Now, town by town, city halls are trying to recriminalize it. Tonight, 3 city halls are (Quincy, Metheun, and Framingham). Worcester tried and failed.
boston freedom rally has been organizing the protests.
If you don't get out and fight, this will become a police state. Voting matters very much...and we have the tools to make our voices count.
This is a far simpler question than it appears to be at first glance.
It has very little at all to do with 'the country,' or 'us.' What it has to do with were the majority parties controlling the House in the given time frames in question.
Consistently, all during the run up to impeaching Clinton, the public opposed the effort by at least 2-1. The Republican leadership pursued this anyway, to their electoral peril, as it turned out-- unusually, for a midterm election, the president's party didn't lose any seats, and Speaker Gingrich faced such an uprising against him in his own caucus that he decided not to run for Speaker and resigned from Congress altogether.
Once the Democrats had regained the majority in the House, they decided not to take any chances that an impeachment bid (which would probably have failed to earn conviction in the Senate by the supermajority required) might backfire against them (ala the Gingrich experience). They figured that Bush and the GOP were unpopular enough that they had an excellent chance to prevail in '08, unless they impeached him and threw that wild card into the mix.
So the GOP's high level of zealotry saw them overreach, against their own interests, as it turned out. The Democrats, by contrast, arguably under-reached, out of over-caution that overcame whatever zealotry might have existed in their ranks.
Bush Jr was not interested in running the country. His brother was supposed to be the man but people pushed JR to run so we had to live with his mistakes.
When the allegations against Clinton were first raised, I felt like I'd been punched in the gut, and almost personally betrayed. What he did was surely wrong, undignified, unbecoming of his high office, tawdry, stupid and selfish. Any number of CEOs, school principals or superintendents, military officers, etc., would have been forced out of office for anything similar. His disgraceful actions were worthy of his resignation and official censure, and I mean the original actions, not even including his verbal gymnastics (i.e., lying) under oath in depositions and before the grand jury.
There is simply no doubt the above is true, and no partisan for Clinton ought to argue differently. However much I thought his resignation would be warranted, I was happy he didn't do that, given his enemies and how they did their setup job, and considering that impeachment was illegitimate (IMO), given that he had committed no high crimes.
Of course, even the majority GOP Senate couldn't muster a majority of 'yes' votes for conviction (50 for one count, less for any others), with every GOP senator who had been a prosecutor or state attorney general voting 'no' for conviction.
MAYBE that's the hidden clue. Impeachment as a political blood sport can only be done when there is no underlying high crime (hence, no conviction or removal from office). Should there actually BE such a high crime, impeachment cannot be raised, lest it succeed?
11 comments:
It says our values are hopeless screwed up. It also tells us about the power the GOP had during the Clinton years and most of the Bush years.
The game is rigged in favor of the Right.
We, the people, don't elect our presidents. The rich and the corrupt press elect our presidents.
This is it for me and my family. I will no longer vote or support any potilical candidates from now on.
That'll teach 'em.
It says that while some people thought what Clinton did was so "horrible", they were willing to look the other way while Newt lead the lynch mob, all the while having an affair during the hanging party.
It says too many bought into the WMD b.s. The dems,not wanting to appear "unpatriotic" lost their spine and played along to get along.
Along came 2006/2007,the tide changed for the dems and they did NOTHING. They bought into the hope and change b.s. of 2008,didn't want to call obama on his b.s. for fear of being termed rascists and now we have a fraudster about to take office.
You have to fight the good fight....what else is there?
Here in Massachusetts the people voted on a referendum to decriminalize marijuana. Now, town by town, city halls are trying to recriminalize it. Tonight, 3 city halls are (Quincy, Metheun, and Framingham). Worcester tried and failed.
boston freedom rally has been organizing the protests.
If you don't get out and fight, this will become a police state. Voting matters very much...and we have the tools to make our voices count.
I happen to like President George W. Bush and am very grateful that he kept us safe after 911
This is a far simpler question than it appears to be at first glance.
It has very little at all to do with 'the country,' or 'us.' What it has to do with were the majority parties controlling the House in the given time frames in question.
Consistently, all during the run up to impeaching Clinton, the public opposed the effort by at least 2-1. The Republican leadership pursued this anyway, to their electoral peril, as it turned out-- unusually, for a midterm election, the president's party didn't lose any seats, and Speaker Gingrich faced such an uprising against him in his own caucus that he decided not to run for Speaker and resigned from Congress altogether.
Once the Democrats had regained the majority in the House, they decided not to take any chances that an impeachment bid (which would probably have failed to earn conviction in the Senate by the supermajority required) might backfire against them (ala the Gingrich experience). They figured that Bush and the GOP were unpopular enough that they had an excellent chance to prevail in '08, unless they impeached him and threw that wild card into the mix.
So the GOP's high level of zealotry saw them overreach, against their own interests, as it turned out. The Democrats, by contrast, arguably under-reached, out of over-caution that overcame whatever zealotry might have existed in their ranks.
XIslander
It says morals only apply to sex.
Bush Jr was not interested in running the country. His brother was supposed to be the man but people pushed JR to run so we had to live with his mistakes.
A few thoughts left to mention.
When the allegations against Clinton were first raised, I felt like I'd been punched in the gut, and almost personally betrayed. What he did was surely wrong, undignified, unbecoming of his high office, tawdry, stupid and selfish. Any number of CEOs, school principals or superintendents, military officers, etc., would have been forced out of office for anything similar. His disgraceful actions were worthy of his resignation and official censure, and I mean the original actions, not even including his verbal gymnastics (i.e., lying) under oath in depositions and before the grand jury.
There is simply no doubt the above is true, and no partisan for Clinton ought to argue differently. However much I thought his resignation would be warranted, I was happy he didn't do that, given his enemies and how they did their setup job, and considering that impeachment was illegitimate (IMO), given that he had committed no high crimes.
Of course, even the majority GOP Senate couldn't muster a majority of 'yes' votes for conviction (50 for one count, less for any others), with every GOP senator who had been a prosecutor or state attorney general voting 'no' for conviction.
MAYBE that's the hidden clue. Impeachment as a political blood sport can only be done when there is no underlying high crime (hence, no conviction or removal from office). Should there actually BE such a high crime, impeachment cannot be raised, lest it succeed?
XIslander
Post a Comment