Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
1) Yes Clinton was impeached but he should have also been convicted and removed from office. I think you have to have a zero tolerance policy for Perjury and Witness tampering. His removal from office would have gone a long way in reinforcing the foundation of our legal system. The Republicans in congress knew that the impeachment wasn't popular because of the Clinton spin machine. As Goebbles said - if you repeat a lie enough it becomes truth - that is what the White House Spin Machine did and it was an act of political brilliance - too bad it had such a negative effect on the country. "He just lied about sex - the Republicans only care about this because they are prudes and it is about sex " the success of their propaganda spin machine, and getting everyone to speak this political double speak, was so thorough that even well educated lawyers on this board continue to repeat this mindless programed mantra. You never hear them say "lie under oath". You only hear "lied about sex". Even George Orwell would be impressed. . I was very proud of my party for pushing though with the impeachment even though it was totally unpopular.
.
|
I agree with all of that, except I am not absolutely convinced about the conviction part, but maybe if the Senate had held real hearings, as they were Constitutionally charged to do, I would have come to a different result. Either way the rest of your characterizations are correct and it vexes me to this day why otherwise intelligent, albeit philosophically naive, liberals can't see the distinctions you point out.
Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
2) GHWB broke a campaign promise. Big deal. Reagan raised taxes. As you said, a vote for Ross Perot was a vote for Clinton, so if you have problems with Hillarys rise to power, and you are looking for someone to blame, look in the mirror. .
|
I didn't like GHWB from the start, i.e. during the whole of the Reagan president. I was convinced he would blow Reagan's legacy. I worked for Dole from his explatory committee started in 87 through his drop in late spring 88. I thought and still think today that he would have been a good president for the time. GHWB turned bad polling numbers in the NH primary in the week before the vote with the tax pledge when on stage at a debate he stuck a No New Taxes pledge in front of Dole to sign. Great theater. And it worked. I held that against him when he subsequently lied as I knew he was lying in feb 88. I did think it was possible electorally that Perot could throw the election into the House, so it was not a straight proxy for Clinton, but so be it. Bush I sucked and further, Bush I sucked worse in his term than Clinton did in his first 4 years, and in fact without Clinton in 92-94 we may not have gotten the house. 96-2000 is a different story.
Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
3) I don't understand this blithe dismissal of Kerry. As far as I am concerned he is the worst Senator in Washington. In my opinion his hunger for power easily eclipses Clinton.
|
I am not sure what this means, but I am solidly anti-Kerry, why dissin' my anti-Kerry cred?
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Spanky
As Goebbles said - if you repeat a lie enough it becomes truth - that is what the Clintons' White House Spin n/QUOTE]
Yes, and they were great learners:
