Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Hoist!]

Howie, looking at NY state as the big electoral college package that it is how is he still regarded in NYC?  Is the near hero worship that was part of the post 9/11 landscape still close to as palpable.  Obviously in a normal race with a "normal" candidate he'd expect to do better upstate and get his ass kicked in the City. 

Is the post 9/11 favor still strong enough that local sentiment suggests he'd be in an even fight with Senator Clinton for the state in the national election?  I've seen numbers so divergent that I don't trust any of them.  If a Republican can actually take New York, however, that's huge and completely alters the standard electoral arithmetic.

For a Republican to take NY they must take NYC. Gulliani is far more popular than Hillary, even in the city. Even today. People here would love to see him go all the way. Don't forget, on one of the elections, he ran on the Republican and Liberal Parties both. The peolpe of NYC will never forget what he did here. Hoist!

[PHAZE]

Clinton may or may not be judged by historians as our President of the lowest moral character, but you have to admit that his actions demonstrated low moral character and character is a significant factor in anyone that truly intends to lead this country.  If there was more character in the individuals leading this country, we'd have statesmen rather than politicians.

Considering Clinton's actions while in the White House (and Oval Office) the media was easy on him.  Any Republican caught in the same actions would have been absolutely crucifed in the media and probably would have been run out of office.

[MJZ]

I stand corrected on the definition of impeachment, but not on the ultimate conclusion:

President Bill Clinton was acquitted by the Senate on February 12, 1999 of the December 19, 1998, impeachment charge by the House of Representatives. The charges were perjury and obstruction of justice, arising from the Lewinsky scandal. After a 21-day trial, the Senate vote fell short of the two-thirds majority required for conviction and removal from office under the Constitution. The impeachment proceedings were largely party-line, with no Democratic Senators voting for conviction and only three Democratic Representatives voting for impeachment. In all, 55 senators voted "not guilty," and 45 voted "guilty" on the charge of perjury. The Senate also acquitted on the obstruction charge with 50 votes cast each way.

While the impeachment process dominated American politics for the better part of the year and took up much of the energy of the Clinton administration as it ran its course, it also failed to win the president's opponents much of the political advantage that they sought. Shortly before the 1998 midterm elections, Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, R-Georgia, predicted a 32-seat gain in the House for Republicans and according to CNN.com archives from November 1998, Gingrich made far-reaching efforts to link Democratic congressional candidates to President Clinton.[citation needed] This plan actually backfired in favor of the Democrats. Opinion polls throughout the trial illustrated that the public opposed impeaching the president by margins of 65–70% [1] and the President's public job-approval ratings remained extremely high throughout the entire year, even more popular than he had been prior to the scandal.[2] In fact, shortly after his December 1998 impeachment his popularity attained its highest level ever with a 73 percent approval rating, and public perceptions of the Republican majority in Congress diminished.[3] Such may have contributed to the surprise subsequent loss of five seats suffered by the Republican party in the United States House of Representatives in that year's congressional election.[4] The election was largely seen as public vindication for President Clinton and then-Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-South Dakota, proclaimed that the Democrats had achieved prominent victories in the elections.

However, I do not stand corrected on the "witch hunt" statement, supported by the statistics above.  Total waste of time and taxpayers money which could have been better spent on matters of more importance than whether a man lied about getting a blow job in the oval office.  As evidenced above, who gave a chit other than the Republicans?  It clearly backfired on them, and we got a winner of a President as a result...or was he truely the winner?

History will support the fact of who was better for the country during each of the two terms in the Presidency.

This has gotten way off topic, which was originally about whether you discount a preponderance of evidence, proven by a vast majority of the worlds top scientist, sociologists, and enviornmental chemists, because a certain individual presented the information, who, in this case, is generally looked upon with at least some pre-judice by certain people.  I do not shoot the messenger because he tells me something I don't want to hear.

Wrong again! I posted the thread and the topic was clearly what a hypocrite Al Gore is and the completely liberal press failing to report anything contrary or slant all news toward their liberal agenda. Like it or not, it happened, Bill Clinton was impeached for lying under oath.
Bill Clinton's legacy is and should be written on his memorial "gotta get me sum" or "oral ain't sex". Yep, he was one fine example of the ultimate polititian and/or scumbag.

[Twolanerider]

Clinton may or may not be judged by historians as our President of the lowest moral character, but you have to admit that his actions demonstrated low moral character and character is a significant factor in anyone that truly intends to lead this country.  If there was more character in the individuals leading this country, we'd have statesmen rather than politicians.

Considering Clinton's actions while in the White House (and Oval Office) the media was easy on him.  Any Republican caught in the same actions would have been absolutely crucifed in the media and probably would have been run out of office.

Whether you like Clinton or not there are a few things that have to universally admitted about him.  He's probably the best campaigner any of us have ever seen on the national level.  The guy was just an animal there and loved every minute of it.  One of the few that liked running for the job more than doing it actually.  He's also very very bright.  That intellect and personality kept him out of troubles that might have escalated even worse than they did. 

The kink to the man's personality, however, is that he's a classic narcissist.  A bit less so the arrogance and hubris that typifies his wife's personality (though at the level of office seeker they've all got some of that going on) his personal pecadillos are of the "all about me" variety.

That narcissism and personal arrogance showed in the types of trouble the administration got in to.  The entire Lewinsky mess, the tap dancing he thought was so cute before a Federal judge, File-gate and others.  All were matters of personal pride and behaviors that exhibited attitudes of superiority over others and disdain for anyone else.  Personal disdain.  All varieties of selfishness and conceit.

I don't say this to diminish his impact on the office.  The man got elected twice.  There were things in his administration that were done well.  Others I strongly disagreed with.  But all their "problems" were of this variety.  All matters of personal conceit and narcissism.  When they put their asses on the line it was for personal gain, personal revenge, personal control or personal protection. 

Look at the problem of the prior (collective 12 year) administration for comparison.  When Reagan's administration got in trouble and put their collective asses on the line it was (primarily) the things surrounding Iran-Contra.  It was, in other words, in support of policy rather than personal gain.

Personally, if I had to watch a Presidency feel so strongly about something that it felt that rules had to be bent or things untoward had to be done; knowing that careers would be lost and lives potentially ruined, I'm more sanguine with a personality type that lays themselves out there for matters of policy and state than for matters of personal hubris and protection. 

Ideally an administration works within the confines of the law and never has to stretch, bend or break things to accomplish things deemed important.  But, whether you agree with the policy agenda they're prosecuting or not, I personally am more comfortable with those who lay lives and careers on the line and find themselves later parsing language to support agendas of flag and country than those whose parsing is to avoid discussing dalliances with near children and how many files of those you don't like you were sneaked from the FBI.

[MJZ]

WOW Don, very well said. I consider myself well educated and somewhat intelligent, until I read one of your "makes ya think" post.
These amaze me, I think I will defer to your answers in the future before I begin to type.
Thanks for the post.

[SPIDERMAN]

Ummm...yes he was.

Sorry Dude,
                    It takes both houses of Congress to impeach a President. The Senate DID NOT vote to impeach. Had he actually been impeached as you seem to believe, his Presidency would have ended at that point. You may recall he served out his 2nd full term and was in the Whitehouse until the morning of the current President's Inaguaration.

         Clinton was given a censure in which he had to stand before the members and have the censure and the charges behind it read into the congressional record.

  With all due respect, if you want to debate politics please be accurate in the statements you make. I'll respect your position whether I agree or not so long as you do that

B B

[Twolanerider]

Sorry Dude,
                    It takes both houses of Congress to impeach a President. The Senate DID NOT vote to impeach. Had he actually been impeached as you seem to believe, his Presidency would have ended at that point. You may recall he served out his 2nd full term and was in the Whitehouse until the morning of the current President's Inaguaration.

         Clinton was given a censure in which he had to stand before the members and have the censure and the charges behind it read into the congressional record.

  With all due respect, if you want to debate politics please be accurate in the statements you make. I'll respect your position whether I agree or not so long as you do that

B B

No Brian, that's mistaken.  Impeachment (the first stage in the two stage process of impeachment and conviction) is only the legal statement of charges.  Clinton was impeached.  He was impeached on two of four counts on 19 December 1998.  It wasn't a party line vote either.  There were Republicans who voted against each of the articles and Democrats who voted for some.

[Twolanerider]

Not that this really makes any difference to anything.  But if one wants to get perhaps too technical about these things President Clinton was also the only elected President ever to be impeached.

It's true, the Senate has held two impeachment trials in its history.  But President Johnson was elected as Vice President and had of course ascended to the higher office upon President Lincoln's assassination.  So in much the same vein that President Ford was the only "unelected" President of the United States President Clinton was the only elected President ever to be impeached. 

Certainly sound and fury meaning nothing.  More of a trivial pursuits kind of detail probably.  But someone somewhere has probably built a PhD dissertation around it  .

[SPIDERMAN]

I stand corrected and apologize for my arogance 

B B

[MJZ]

But someone somewhere has probably built a PhD dissertation around it.
Maybe Chelsea Clinton might grab that one for her dissertation.
OK, I'll stop. 

[UltraPolecat]

I stand corrected and apologize for my arogance 

B B

No Apology necessary. WE LOVED IT!

[Midnight Rider]

Here is a table produced by the Pew Charitable Trusts for Excellence in Journalism.  In case you don't know, the Pew Charitable Trusts are among the largest, most prestigious foundations in America.  Totally mainstream.  Their Project for Excellence in Journalism comes out of the top rated Columbia School of Journalism and is one of the few media research organizations without a political axe to grind.  The numbers are derived from a comprehensive study examining 1,149 stories from 17 leading news sources DURING THE 2000 PRESIDENTIAL RACE BETWEEN AL GORE AND GEORGE W BUSH.




   Gore   Bush
Positive   13%   24%
Neutral   31%   27%
Negative   56%   49%
Total   100%   100%



Now, if one assumes that the press is "liberal", it stands to reason that Democratic political candidates would tend to have more positive, and less negative stories written about them than would Republican candidates, right?  So how did this happen?  The truth is that the press got caught up in the LIES that were told about Al Gore, The Exaggerator.  For example, the statement that Al Gore "created" the Internet, which first appeared in a Republican Party press release and would be repeated by the "liberal' press thousands of times during the campaign. 

Here's what really happened: In the 1980's, Gore was one of the handful of leaders who foresaw the tremendous potential of Arpanet, an emergency military computer network.  As both congressman and Senator, Gore fought tirelessly for the funding that would turn Arpanet into what is now the Internet.  With this is mind, Gore told Wolf Blitzer in a '99 interview "During my service in the US Congress, i took the initiative in creating the Internet".  What do you suppose he meant?  That he stayed up late nights in his office writing the PASCAL code which allowed packet switching?  No.  What he seemed to be doing was taking credit for a program he championed and funded.  In this particular case, one that revolutionized the information infrastructure of the entire world.

What an asshole...

So, in this particular case, the "liberal" press actually helped get a conservative candidate elected, it seems to me.

[MJZ]

Well said. Informative, well presented and accurate.

[Twolanerider]

Although I completely agree with your assessment of Rudy, if Fred Thompson throws his hat into the ring (which I think he will) I will have a tough decision. Having worked for Fred and I am proud to say I really know him, you would have to look long and hard to find a finer human being. You will not find a smarter or more honest man around, (as honest as possible in a political venue). As he has been elected to every office he has run for and all by a landslide, garnering virtually 70% of the voting registered democrats, I feel he is flatout electable. A Rudy / Fred ticket would be my dream team.

Heluva cut in pay.

[Twolanerider]

Good grief, everyone and their media biases.  What a crock.  There is a bias.  Their isn't a bias.  IT DOESN'T MATTER.

It doesn't matter because no matter how biased one way or the other they might be day to day when a story hits they all smell blood.  The closer that story is to power the more on point they get.  Some more than others.  But enough to get the job done.

In this representative democracy that's all that matters.  I don't care if the reporter is the spawn of Ollie North and Anne Coulter or Dan Rather's cloned twin brother.  As long as they're left alone to be whatever they choose to be.  I can pick and choose.  But I'll know that if someone out there really screws up enough of them will be up his or her ass that the story will get out.

I may have to do some homework on my own to sort out the facts from the reporting.  To find the reality from the spin.  But that's my job in the equation.  And that's fair.  If I'm not doing my part of the legwork I don't deserve to be able to bitch about them anyway.

Now, if you want to see where the bias in US journalism really is it is (not necessarily in terms of error or slant but certainly in terms of types of coverage) American.  That's right.  Compare any recognized generally well regarded American news outlet.  No matter how "liberal" leaning it might be perceived here.  Then watch and read international press regularly.  That feared "liberal" bias pales in comparison when we see how we report on ourselves compared against how the rest of the world commonly reports on us.

So, bias schmias.  Getting a good handle on the news is my responsibility anyway.  At least if I really care to be informed.  Some small degree of bias only means I have to see more sources.  And I should be doing that anyway.  A little independent confirmation is good for the soul and for the truth.