Rolling politics thread...

by **phdave** » Mon Jul 09, 2007 15:11:04

Here is another way we can have a good comparison between the Clinton and Bush clemency investigations:

When President Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich stirred its own controversy back in 2001, former President Clinton took the forthright step of waiving Executive Privilege and permitting some of his closest aides to testify about the facts of the matter. On March 1, 2001, President Clinton's former Chief of Staff John Podesta, his former Counsel Beth Nolan, and one of his closest counselors Bruce Lindsay testified before Chairman Burton's House Government Reform Committee on this matter. As Chairman Burton acknowledged in his opening statement: "We asked the president not to claim executive privilege so his aides could testify, and he's done that, and that's a positive step." (Transcript of March 1, 2001 hearing of the House Government Reform Committee.)

I'm starting to like the fact that Libby's clemency is being compared with Clinton's pardons.

by **dajafi** » Mon Jul 09, 2007 15:30:22

phdave wrote:
dajafi wrote:I was thinking about this earlier tonight when CNN--that "liberal" network--ran something at the gym about how Clinton had abused the pardon power. They were right. Mark Rich (represented by Scooter Libby, btw) never should have been pardoned. I found it indefensible then, and I do now.

My growing horror at the Clintons comes from my increasing conviction that they nudged open doors, in terms of partisan gamesmanship and abuse of power, that the Bush Crime Syndicate then blew off the hinges.

I was not a fan of those pardons at the time and I think a lot of Democrats were against them as well. HOWEVER, to say that the current abuse has its roots in Clinton's behavior is ridiculous. How many things has the Bush administration done over the last 6 years that have no roots in anything that Clinton did? The Bush administration has done plenty of rule/law breaking/bending to conclude that they are not too concerned with precedent when it comes to making decisions on how to use executive power. Do you seriously think that had Clinton not pardoned Marc Rich that Bush would not have pardoned Libby? I think that is a major stretch of the imagination.

I wouldn't make that very reductionist argument. But I do believe that the Clintons created an environment in which the media, and the public, came to more easily accept baldly political actions.

What I hate more than anything else about the Bush Gang is their transparent belief that government isn't about serving the public, but merely a tool to reward friends and punish enemies. I believe--as you evidently don't--that there was a tiny glimmer of this view inherernt in the Clinton administration.

Did Bill Clinton always act this way? Of course not; he appointed Republicans to important Cabinet positions, and even worked with the Gingrich Congress--which was far more rabidly partisan--on issues aside from those for which they tried to stage a coup against him.

But if you read Sidney Blumenthal's memoir (a really good read, btw) and other statements from key figures in that period, it's clear that political considerations were unusually, maybe unprecedentedly, important. I do think this helped set the stage, just a little, for the total politicization and shameless self-dealing of the Bush years.

by **phdave** » Mon Jul 09, 2007 16:49:37

dajafi wrote:I wouldn't make that very reductionist argument. But I do believe that the Clintons created an environment in which the media, and the public, came to more easily accept baldly political actions.

What I hate more than anything else about the Bush Gang is their transparent belief that government isn't about serving the public, but merely a tool to reward friends and punish enemies. I believe--as you evidently don't--that there was a tiny glimmer of this view inherernt in the Clinton administration.

Did Bill Clinton always act this way? Of course not; he appointed Republicans to important Cabinet positions, and even worked with the Gingrich Congress--which was far more rabidly partisan--on issues aside from those for which they tried to stage a coup against him.

But if you read Sidney Blumenthal's memoir (a really good read, btw) and other statements from key figures in that period, it's clear that political considerations were unusually, maybe unprecedentedly, important. I do think this helped set the stage, just a little, for the total politicization and shameless self-dealing of the Bush years.

Please tell me what I wrote that suggested I believe that politics were not very important to the Clinton White House. I don't think that I did ever suggest that but perhaps I wrote something that I should re-write.

My objection to your argument is the causality (the Clinton WH politicization set the stage for Bush politicization) not the assertion that there was politicization in the Clinton WH. The Clintons may have upped the ante as far as politicization went, but the Bush administration has gone so far in this direction and politicized its activities to such a degree that I don't see any evidence that they have been concerned at all about what any other administration has or has not done. Cheney and Rove were going to do what they set out to do without reference to how far the Clintons involved politics in their decisions.

Yes the administration defenders like to point to things that Clinton did to justify Bush's actions, but I see this as post-hoc red herring argument that is often successful. Frankly, I think you fell for it. This is a very typical play in the playbook: (1) Bush does something bad, (2) his supporters mitigate the negative reaction to Bush by getting people to think about (and argue about) the bad things that Clinton did years ago instead of focusing in on what Bush is doing right now, (3) Bush's actions don't seem as bad. It usually works. They did it with wire tapping, they did it about Bin Laden, they did it with Saddam, etc. That doesn't mean that Clinton didn't do bad things or things worthy of criticism, but the reason for bringing them up isn't to explain why Bush is doing something but to distract from what he is doing.

I would have preferred that Clinton never pardoned Rich and this was not a convenient talking point to use to justify the Libby commutation, but that does not mean that the Rich pardon justifies Bush's actions or had anything to do with them in a causal way, even slightly.

It may be reductionistic, but if you believe that Bush would still have commuted Libby's sentence even if Marc Rich was still a fugitive, then bringing up Bill Clinton is just an irrelevant distraction...unless you are looking for a precedent in how a controversial pardon should be dealt with by congress, the justice department and the administration. In this case, that would mean a full investigation that included Bush releasing key personnel from the clam of executive privilege in order to testify.

by **Woody** » Mon Jul 09, 2007 17:25:11

phdave wrote:causality...politicization...post-hoc...mitigate...commutation...causal...reductionistic

YOU'RE SMART,

WE GET IT.

:lol:

by **phdave** » Mon Jul 09, 2007 17:34:25

Woody wrote:boobies

by **Disco Stu** » Mon Jul 09, 2007 18:21:17

Executive privledge.

If I were president, I'd be raping women and killing children, cause, you know, Executive Privledge.

by **phdave** » Mon Jul 09, 2007 18:22:58

Disco Stu wrote:Executive privledge.

If I were president, I'd be raping women and killing children, cause, you know, Executive Privledge.

No, that's Executive Pillage.

by **Phan In Phlorida** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 02:34:38

phdave wrote:
Woody wrote:boobies

Speaking of...

Senator's Number on Escort Service List

Sen. David Vitter, R-Louisiana, apologized Monday night for "a very serious sin in my past" after his telephone number appeared among those associated with an escort service operated by the so-called "D.C. Madam."

by **dajafi** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 10:39:45

phdave wrote:My objection to your argument is the causality (the Clinton WH politicization set the stage for Bush politicization) not the assertion that there was politicization in the Clinton WH. The Clintons may have upped the ante as far as politicization went, but the Bush administration has gone so far in this direction and politicized its activities to such a degree that I don't see any evidence that they have been concerned at all about what any other administration has or has not done. Cheney and Rove were going to do what they set out to do without reference to how far the Clintons involved politics in their decisions.

Yes the administration defenders like to point to things that Clinton did to justify Bush's actions, but I see this as post-hoc red herring argument that is often successful. Frankly, I think you fell for it. This is a very typical play in the playbook: (1) Bush does something bad, (2) his supporters mitigate the negative reaction to Bush by getting people to think about (and argue about) the bad things that Clinton did years ago instead of focusing in on what Bush is doing right now, (3) Bush's actions don't seem as bad. It usually works. They did it with wire tapping, they did it about Bin Laden, they did it with Saddam, etc. That doesn't mean that Clinton didn't do bad things or things worthy of criticism, but the reason for bringing them up isn't to explain why Bush is doing something but to distract from what he is doing.

Whether or not "I fell for it" isn't important, and misses my point. That point was whether the Clinton-era politicization helped create a context in which wastes of oxygen like Chris Matthews could, if they so chose, justify the excesses and arguable crimes of the Bush Gang--in other words, if Clinton's own actions enabled the Fourth Estate to "fall for it." I say yes.

Looking forward as well as backward, what bothers me even more about a Clinton Restoration is that I think Sen. Clinton would have a similarly broad view of Presidential Superpowers that Bush and his merry band of hacks and nutjobs have shown. If the Unitary Executive view solidifies as accepted doctrine, we'll never get our Republic back.

by **TomatoPie** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 13:14:31

dajafi wrote: If the Unitary Executive view solidifies as accepted doctrine, we'll never get our Republic back.

Bush is a Methodist, and Hillary an atheist, so I don't think you need to worry.

by **phdave** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 13:20:05

TomatoPie wrote:
dajafi wrote: If the Unitary Executive view solidifies as accepted doctrine, we'll never get our Republic back.

Bush is a Methodist, and Hillary an atheist, so I don't think you need to worry.

Maybe this was some kind of joke I missed, but Hillary is not an atheist.

by **dajafi** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 13:28:44

TP's... joke? remind me that the only thing that ever makes me sympathetic to Sen. Clinton is when the right-wingers start attacking her. I'll admit that after the Libby get-out-of-jail-free episode last week, I had a brief period of badly wanting her to win only because nothing would upset the righties more.

Then I remembered that if I give in to the spite-voting temptation, I'm no better a citizen of a democracy than most of them are.

by **phdave** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 14:06:22

phdave wrote:My objection to your argument is the causality (the Clinton WH politicization set the stage for Bush politicization) not the assertion that there was politicization in the Clinton WH. The Clintons may have upped the ante as far as politicization went, but the Bush administration has gone so far in this direction and politicized its activities to such a degree that I don't see any evidence that they have been concerned at all about what any other administration has or has not done. Cheney and Rove were going to do what they set out to do without reference to how far the Clintons involved politics in their decisions.

Yes the administration defenders like to point to things that Clinton did to justify Bush's actions, but I see this as post-hoc red herring argument that is often successful. Frankly, I think you fell for it. This is a very typical play in the playbook: (1) Bush does something bad, (2) his supporters mitigate the negative reaction to Bush by getting people to think about (and argue about) the bad things that Clinton did years ago instead of focusing in on what Bush is doing right now, (3) Bush's actions don't seem as bad. It usually works. They did it with wire tapping, they did it about Bin Laden, they did it with Saddam, etc. That doesn't mean that Clinton didn't do bad things or things worthy of criticism, but the reason for bringing them up isn't to explain why Bush is doing something but to distract from what he is doing.

dajafi wrote:Whether or not "I fell for it" isn't important, and misses my point. That point was whether the Clinton-era politicization helped create a context in which wastes of oxygen like Chris Matthews could, if they so chose, justify the excesses and arguable crimes of the Bush Gang--in other words, if Clinton's own actions enabled the Fourth Estate to "fall for it." I say yes.

I guess I get what you are saying better now and I agree to an extent. One of my main disappointments with Clinton was the fodder he provided for right wing talking points, so I agree with you there.

However, I think that the strategy of the right is to scream loudly and relentlessly whenever any Democratic politician does anything so that they can keep the media repeating their attacks and distract everyone from the behavior of their politicians. I think that the attention that Clinton gets is a symptom of this, not the cause. I think that Clinton gets a lot of attention because he was a very successful politician, not because his behavior warrants it.

I think discussing what Clinton did wrong and why these are good reasons to not vote for Hillary is entirely appropriate. However, I think that discussing them in relation to creating an atmosphere for Bush to do what he wants is not appropriate and plays into the hands of those who want Bush to get away with everything. Look at the way that Gore and Kerry were treated by the media. The media were all too happy to treat them like monsters because they were pushed by the right wing. The media also likes to go after Clinton for fictitious things all the time.

The same thing does not happen at all in the other direction. Do you remember the media mentioning GHW Bush's pardons as justification for Clinton's pardons? I don't. I don't think the media is bringing up Clinton because of what they did. I think they feel like they should be discussing this because they try to be fair to the concerns of Republicans who are constantly screaming about him. If it wasn’t Clinton it would be something else.

I look at Clinton’s behavior and the treatment of Clinton in the media as two separate issues. I don’t think one caused another.

I am extremely disappointed in many of the things that Clinton did that allowed the right to justify their treatment of Clinton in the media. But I think we shouldn’t forget that they were attacking him from the very start and were going to do it no matter what because they were afraid of his political success.

dajafi wrote:Looking forward as well as backward, what bothers me even more about a Clinton Restoration is that I think Sen. Clinton would have a similarly broad view of Presidential Superpowers that Bush and his merry band of hacks and nutjobs have shown. If the Unitary Executive view solidifies as accepted doctrine, we'll never get our Republic back.

This is why I think that no real conservative is still defending Bush. The self identified conservatives still on his side are party first country second Republicans, not conservatives. The Bush administration has been a revolutionary movement and true conservatives have abandoned him a long time ago. The next president is going to have a lot of precedent to do whatever he/she wants and ignore the power sharing written into the constitution. I don’t understand why more Republicans have not realized this and objected to the things that Bush has done at the very least because of what it will enable future presidents to get away with.

I would really like the candidates to address this issue head on and say what they will do to work with Congress on returning to our constitutional checks and balances. It’s a shame that I am hoping for a candidate who will run a campaign based on supporting three branches of government.

by **TomatoPie** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 14:12:28

Hillary indeed believes devoutly in a higher being.

Every time she looks in the mirror.

Thanks a lot, we're here all week, try the roast beef.

For S&G, I googled for some Hillary dirt and found that not only is she an athiest, but a lesbian athiest who has had an abortion. Who knew?

http://www.halfsigma.com/2007/01/hillary_clinton.html

by **The Red Tornado** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 14:16:12

Not to perpetuate stereotypes, but why are republican's idea of a joke completely unfunny?

by **uncle milt** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 14:23:06

The Red Tornado wrote:Not to perpetuate stereotypes, but why are republican's idea of a joke completely unfunny?

to give them credit, the creation museum is an effing riot.

by **phdave** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 14:30:45

uncle milt wrote:
The Red Tornado wrote:Not to perpetuate stereotypes, but why are republican's idea of a joke completely unfunny?

to give them credit, the creation museum is an effing riot.

the link that TP posted is also very funny

I predict that the reason a Republican will be the next president is because the Democrats will nominate Hillary Clinton. Being the divisive figure that she is, she will surely turn out the vote for the opposition better than anyone else.

I also suspect that Hillary has some skeletons in her closet that key Republican operatives are saving for late in the election. What might these skeletons be?

(1) Lesbian lovers. There are so many rumors of Hillary's lesbianism that there has to be some truth in there. Yet the funny thing about these kinds of rumors is how good people are at ignoring them until the ugly truth is really shoved in their face. No one believed that Bill Clinton was fooling around until the semen from Monica's dress was DNA tested.

When Hillary's lesbian lovers actually come out and speak to the public, that could torpedo her chances of winning the general election. The public isn't ready for a lesbian President.

(2) Atheism. Hillary is supposedly a "devout Methodist," but I don't buy it. Maybe Hillary made some atheist statments back when she was in college, and witnesses will suddenly appear to testify to Hillary's atheism. The public, unfortunately, isn't ready for an atheist president, although I personally think it's a plus factor.

(3) Abortion. There is also a rumor that Hillary had an abortion. If Hillary got pregnant and didn't want a baby, she would have had an abortion, so this is certainly a possibility. Despite the fact that many voters are "pro-choice," I don't think the public is ready to elect a woman who has had an abortion.

The lesbian story is a near certainty, the other two are just guesses on my part. Why hasn't this come out in the open yet? Because attacking Hillary when she was just the wife of the person running for office would have been a scummy thing to do and would have backfired. And during Clinton's Senatorial campaigns, maybe the people in possession of the dirt figured it was better to save it in case she might be nominated for President. Furthermore, lesbian lovers probably wouldn't have mattered because the people of liberal New York would accept a lesbian Senator. But will the people of the United States accept a lesbian President? I think not.

by **kimbatiste** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 14:35:51

phdave wrote:
uncle milt wrote:
The Red Tornado wrote:Not to perpetuate stereotypes, but why are republican's idea of a joke completely unfunny?

to give them credit, the creation museum is an effing riot.

the link that TP posted is also very funny

I predict that the reason a Republican will be the next president is because the Democrats will nominate Hillary Clinton. Being the divisive figure that she is, she will surely turn out the vote for the opposition better than anyone else.

I also suspect that Hillary has some skeletons in her closet that key Republican operatives are saving for late in the election. What might these skeletons be?

(1) Lesbian lovers. There are so many rumors of Hillary's lesbianism that there has to be some truth in there. Yet the funny thing about these kinds of rumors is how good people are at ignoring them until the ugly truth is really shoved in their face. No one believed that Bill Clinton was fooling around until the semen from Monica's dress was DNA tested.

When Hillary's lesbian lovers actually come out and speak to the public, that could torpedo her chances of winning the general election. The public isn't ready for a lesbian President.

(2) Atheism. Hillary is supposedly a "devout Methodist," but I don't buy it. Maybe Hillary made some atheist statments back when she was in college, and witnesses will suddenly appear to testify to Hillary's atheism. The public, unfortunately, isn't ready for an atheist president, although I personally think it's a plus factor.

(3) Abortion. There is also a rumor that Hillary had an abortion. If Hillary got pregnant and didn't want a baby, she would have had an abortion, so this is certainly a possibility. Despite the fact that many voters are "pro-choice," I don't think the public is ready to elect a woman who has had an abortion.

The lesbian story is a near certainty, the other two are just guesses on my part. Why hasn't this come out in the open yet? Because attacking Hillary when she was just the wife of the person running for office would have been a scummy thing to do and would have backfired. And during Clinton's Senatorial campaigns, maybe the people in possession of the dirt figured it was better to save it in case she might be nominated for President. Furthermore, lesbian lovers probably wouldn't have mattered because the people of liberal New York would accept a lesbian Senator. But will the people of the United States accept a lesbian President? I think not.

Many hilarious things there. My favorite being that no one believed that Bill Clinton was fooling around until Lewinsky. Seriously? It was pretty common knowledge by the first primary. I also love how even though he is nearly certain that she is a lesbian, that she might have gotten pregnant and had an abortion is a real possibility.

by **phdave** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 14:39:50

Phan In Phlorida wrote:
phdave wrote:
Woody wrote:boobies

Speaking of...

Senator's Number on Escort Service List

Sen. David Vitter, R-Louisiana, apologized Monday night for "a very serious sin in my past" after his telephone number appeared among those associated with an escort service operated by the so-called "D.C. Madam."

OUCH!

Asked by an interviewer in 2000 whether she could forgive her husband if she learned he'd had an extramarital affair, as Hillary Clinton and Bob Livingston's wife had done, Wendy Vitter told the Times-Picayune: "I'm a lot more like Lorena Bobbitt than Hillary. If he does something like that, I'm walking away with one thing, and it's not alimony, trust me."

EDIT:

"This was a very serious sin in my past for which I am, of course, completely responsible," Vitter said in the statement. "Several years ago, I asked for and received forgiveness from God and my wife in confession and marriage counseling. Out of respect for my family, I will keep my discussion of the matter there -- with God and them. But I certainly offer my deep and sincere apologies to all I have disappointed and let down in any way."

I wonder if he asked for his penis back.

by **drsmooth** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 15:19:55

phdave wrote:
Asked by an interviewer in 2000 whether she could forgive her husband if she learned he'd had an extramarital affair, as Hillary Clinton and Bob Livingston's wife had done, Wendy Vitter told the Times-Picayune: "I'm a lot more like Lorena Bobbitt than Hillary. If he does something like that, I'm walking away with one thing, and it's not alimony, trust me."

candy is dandy but mrs. vitter is bitter

Archived

Rolling politics thread...