Most despised US politician [current] ?

[Jorge]

As MPSIMS seems to allow odd lists, I'm curious about politicians (other than the obvious) who may be deemed truly dethpicable.

My vote: Helen Chenoweth (R-Idaho)

------------------
"Proverbs for Paranoids, 1: You may never get to touch the Master, but you can tickle his creatures."
- T.Pynchon, Gravity's Rainbow.

[According to Pliny]

Mayor McCheese. What kind of pompous, self-important bastard wears a monocle and top hat?

[dougie_monty]

Jesse Helms (outside the South, particularly North Carolina). And it's no laughing matter.

[Fretful Porpentine]

Whaddya mean, OUTSIDE the south? A good many of us North Carolinians hate him too!

[funneefarmer]

Al D'amato. I'm a republican and yet... he just seems soo... he's such a ... politician.

[dougie_monty]

Hey, thanks!! I'm glad to see Helms isn't universally revered as a god by his own constituents! Although he may never take the hint...

[Byzantine]

PapaBear you crack me up! My vote (now there's a pun!) is for Orrin Hatch. Why? I write letters about issues and he sends back a letter thanking me for supporting his view when I WASN'T! Obviously he doesn't read his mail!

Newt Gingrich and Al D'amato are both hypocritical scum, but fortunately for the republic (and the Republicans) neither is a current politician. So Helms, for this one time only, gets my vote also.

[Drain Bead]

I agree on Orrin Hatch and Jesse Helms. Add to the list Pat Buchanan (if he counts) and Strom Thurmond, although he'll be dead soon.

[Jorge]

Thanks, good start. I had been wondering, well, I know the "dark side" of any given politician in my district, and some real obvious national characters (Helms, D'Amato), but little about all those "nameless" congresspersons with votes on important committees. I don't know them other than as an occasional name in the paper, and wondered which were, uh, dethpicable.

No one told me about Al & Jesse et al. twenty years ago, but I imagine someone musta recognized their potential.

Chenoweth came to mind as the darling of the Idaho panhandle and the fear-of-black-helicopter crowd there. Got re-elected, too.

[Gr8Kat]

Pat Buchanan. If that racist, sexist, Holocaust-denying fruitcake gets elected President, I'm moving to Canada.

------------------
"I hope life isn't a big joke, because I don't get it," Jack Handy

[Omniscient]

Hands down, Jesse Jackson. Hes a disingenuous, mugging for the camera, hypocritical bastard.

[cmkeller]

I agree with those of you who said Newt Gingrich, but I definitely think Hillary Clinton, now that she can genuinely be considered a politician in her own right, is riding up quickly to the top of that list. She is such a blatant phony.

------------------
Chaim Mattis Keller
ckeller@schicktech.com

"Sherlock Holmes once said that once you have eliminated the
impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be
the answer. I, however, do not like to eliminate the impossible.
The impossible often has a kind of integrity to it that the merely improbable lacks."
-- Douglas Adams's Dirk Gently, Holistic Detective

[dougie_monty]

Although Dan Quayle seems not to have a chance this time, I'd include him here. I too am from Indianapolis, and according to some of my relatives there, Quayle used the news media, in central Indiana, owned by his grandfather's family, to defeat the popular senator Birch Bayh in the 1980 U. S. Senatorial election in Indiana. I don't fret much about him being in the National Guard--anyone old enough to remember the late 60s knows the Guard wasn't sitting on their hands then. (there were riots in many U. S. cities in the late 60s, motivated by reactions to racism, by Vietnam, or any number of other things; there were widespread riots after the assassination of Martin Luther Kintg in 1968.) So unless Quayle got a "desk job" in the Guard, I'd guess he kept busy.
His use of the mews media his relatives owned to win an election, however, is inexcusable.

[gene]

My vote is for Bill Clinton-hands down!
People tolerate him now , because the economy is good, but just wait til the downturn....then every sordid detail of his rotten life will come out.
I also understand he has a ton of lawsuits against him waiting for when he becomes a private citizen...keep those contributions (to his legal defense fund) coming!

[cmkeller]

pluto, I assumed the question was who is the most despised in the eyes of the American public at large. For the record, I think Bill Clinton is a horrible person, a genuine felon, and undeserving of his current office.

Chaim Mattis Keller

[UncleBeer]

I have a local politician I would like to nominate for most despicable. The Mayor of Toledo, Ohio, Carty Finkbeiner.

We were planning an airport expansion here and Toledoans were concerned about the increased noise. This jackass actually said we ought to move deaf people near the airport. They wouldn't be affected nearly as much. I believe this statement also made the national news at one time.

But wait, the story gets better. For this faux pas, he was included in a book about the 100 dumbest ideas floated by politicians. It was reported in The Toledo Blade and the writer asked him how he felt about inclusion in the book. Carty replied, (and this is a direct quote from the newspaper) "I don't have time for that foolishness." The article went on to say that Carty declined to answer any other questions as he was on his way to an awards dinner for, get this, "The Distinguished Clown Association."

Fortunately, we have a mayoral term limit here in Toledo. This guy's out in 2000.

------------------
Abstainer: a weak person who yields to the temptation of denying himself a pleasure.
- Ambrose Bierce

[pluto]

I'd say the list of nominees here says a lot about the political affiliations of the average poster.

I can't believe that no one has nominated our current Adulterer-in-Chief -- if not for his "private" behavior then for his willingness to sacrifice his family, friends, enemies, associates, the general public, Sudanese aspirin factories and the nation of Yugoslavia to try to maintain his popularity.

Having exposed my political affiliations I would like to balance things a little by also offering George Nethercutt (R-Washington) as a contender. He defeated then Speaker of the House Tom Foley by supporting term limits, but now that his limit has arrived he's saying exactly the same things Foley did about experience counting and I can serve you better now, etc.


------------------
"non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatem"

[Jahender]

Al Gore, he cries in front of millions saying that his sister got cancer from cigs, but fails to mention the the Gore family money originally came from tobacco farming. He is, as Imus puts it, a war criminal.

------------------
The power of accurate observation is frequently called cynicism by those who don't have it.
George Bernard Shaw

[dougie_monty]

Can Democrats match the record of these Republican presidents?
Warren G. Harding--Nan Britton; Teapot Dome; Harry Daugherty
Calvin Coolidge--"The business of America is business." He stood by, allowed a laissez-fair attitude toward the private sector; what with stock manipulation and margin buying, for example, the U. S. economy went straight down the toilet.
Dwight D. Eisenhower--"proved we don't need a president," said Mort Sahl.
Richard M. Nixon--"Well, I am not a crook!"
Gerald Ford--"I beg your pardon." "There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe..."(DUHH!!)
Ronald Reagan--Racism, cutbacks, Ollie North; "the bombing begins in five minutes." After the SLA kidnapped Patty Hearst and demanded as ransom free food for the needy, Ronnie said we should "have an epidemic of botulism."
George Bush--"Read my lips--no new taxes!" (Har-dee-har-har!!)

Doug, I hate to divest you of your illusions, but my understanding of what J. Danforth was doing as his part of the National Guard effort was primarily running a Ditto machine for a public relations unit; when he wasn't doing that, he was swaggering around the local bars in his uniform letting everyone know how rich he was.

Interesting to also note that The Shrub also spent his 'Vietnam' years flying around for the National Guard (obviously, only a coincidence that his father was a Congressman at the time).

Al Gore, meanwhile, was right in the thick of it.

[dougie_monty]

Thanks just the same, DIF. I had been willing to give Quayle his due but now I see there's no due to give him.
Incidentally, the bit from a Straight Dope book about Quayle thinking Latin Americans spoke Latin ("It was a Jay Leno joke!" said one reader) goes back at least to the Christmas season of 1983. I know. I made an audio recording off Bob Hope's Christmas special that year; he attributed the goof to Ronald Reagan. I still have the recording.

[Big Iron]

[[My vote is for Bill Clinton-hands down! Gene


Even though he enjoys remarkable approval and was elected twice .. whaddaya know?


[[People tolerate him now , because the economy is good, but just wait til the downturn]]


How long you gonna wait? His term expires in less than 17 months.

[[....then every sordid detail of his rotten life will come out.]]

Yeah, there hasn't been any investigation of his private life so far.


[[I also understand he has a ton of lawsuits against him waiting for when he becomes a private citizen]]


You "understand" that, huh? Even though the Supreme Court ruled that being President did not affect his ability tobe sued? And that thus makes it likely that the statute of limitations on these (surely imagined) malfeasances has been running for a long time? Right ...


[[For the record, I think Bill Clinton is a horrible person, a genuine felon, and undeserving of his current office.]] cmkeller


What genuine felonies do you suggest there is evidence he committed? Weaseling in front of a grand jury set up to try to get him to lie? Anything else?

[cmkeller]

Big Iron:

What genuine felonies do you suggest there is evidence he committed? Weaseling in front of a grand jury set up to try to get him to lie? Anything else?

Sorry, he'll get no "entrapment" sympathy from me; the grand jury was not set up to get him to lie, it was set up to get him to tell the truth. If that happened to reveal a previous lie; well, no one asked him to lie in the first place. If he really didn't sexually harass Paula Jones (and quite frankly, I was pretty skeptical that her case could hold water as a sexual harassment case to begin with, but then again, I'm no lawyer), then a jury would have rules that way based on proper information. He had no "right" to give that jury false information.

Chaim Mattis Keller

[Big Iron]

{{[[What genuine felonies do you suggest there is evidence he committed? Weaseling in front of a grand jury set up to try to get him to lie? Anything else?]]


Sorry, he'll get no "entrapment" sympathy from me; the grand jury was not set up to get him to lie, it was set up to get him to tell the truth. }} cmkeller


No -- it was set up to try to catch him in a lie, and for no other purpose. To the extent that he lied before the Grand Jury, that may (or may not) have been perjury, although I would contend that it does not remotely approach the level of an impeachable offense.

Got anything else for which you would characterize him as a genuine felon?


[[ If that happened to reveal a previous lie; well, no one asked him to lie in the first place. ]]

True -- however, it is about as clear as can be that his fib in the Jones deposition did not constitute perjury, since the question he weaseled on was not material to the case.


[[ He had no "right" to give that jury false information.]]

You're quite correct, although he should never have had to answer such questions anyway.

[1420Vel.GN]

Bill is a liar!!! He is more concerned with his *legacy* than doing the right thing for the Country. If Joe Citizen (or any boss, manager, officer in the military) had done what he did, there would have been major trouble for them. I did not follow the blowjob flap closely - but I remember something about him saying under oath that he was never alone with Monica. Anybody that has ever "played" like that damn well knows if they were alone or not.

Since the original post said other than obvious, I'll include:
ALL the bleeding heart paternalist legislators need to be killed - or something.
But don't you try it, only B. Clinton can get away with that kind of behavior.

[dougie_monty]

Do you consider Clinton the lesser of two evils (or the least of three: Clinton-Bush-Perot or Clinton-Dole-Perot)?

[Big Iron]

[[Bill is a liar!!! ]]


Well that certainly sets him apart from the former and would-be Presidents of the Nation.

[[He is more concerned with his *legacy* than doing the right thing for the Country.]]


Uh huh -- even though that legacy largely involves how well he did by the country.

[[ If Joe Citizen (or any boss, manager, officer in the military) had done what he did, there would have been major trouble for them. ]]

In fact, that is highly unlikely, putting aside the fact that he did have a lot of trouble as a result.


[[I did not follow the blowjob flap closely]]


Ahh ... even though that was the only thing on which Starr could find anything for which to attempt to prosecute him.


[[ - but I remember something about him saying under oath that he was never alone with Monica. Anybody that has ever "played" like that damn well knows if they were alone or not.]]


There's a difference between being a weasel and a felon -- Clinton (like George Dubya and many others) is the former.

[1420Vel.GN]

BigIron, Yes It does set him apart from the rest. There is a huge difference between Clinton's LIES, and what was said by some of the past admin's people. For example when Bush said "read my lips..." he did add, I think the luxury tax (imagine that, a R taxing ONLY the rich), BUT he did what he thought was correct for the Country even though he knew it would be unpopular. Iran/Contra stuff, as the Bush example, was this for personal gain? I believe Clinton would lead the Country down any street that he thought was popular before a street he knew was correct.
"How well he did by the Country?" I don't understand. The performance of the Markets is due to the performance of the managers of the Corp's that drive the market, Clinton gets no credit here. The economy that the govt controls is not at the direction of the Pres, the R Congress made the plans that have made the difference.
I agree that he had a lot of trouble, but he still has not been punished like a millitary officer or even a drug store manager would have been punished for the same acts. And considering the position, the Pres should not even give the appearance of impropriety! lol on that one
"The only thing Starr could find to prosecute" Think about this: It took the IRS to jail some of the most notorious gangsters. Other criminal prosecution attempts were foiled due to lack of evidence. There is only two cases that I know of where over 100 people have evoked their 5th Amendment rights or fled the Country to avoid testifing. Lets not forget all those that killed themselves including a dozen body guards. Those two cases were for the gangsters and for Bill.
Now how many of you out there would say, man, that's cool!!! My friend is the Pres of the US, it will be excellent to go to the White House and hang out. Seems like Clinton's friends do themselves in????
Also, thanks for not picking on me for those obvious "Pitt" like comments that don't need to be replied to.

[Pickman's Model]

Returning somewhat to the original question, for me, Jesse Helms ("If Ah heah that y'all been sellin' likker to them colluds...."); Phil Gramm, who strikes me as the absolute worst kind of ignorant, backwoods redneck (I know it's an act, but his role as the blue-collar Texan waxes very tiresome); John Kasich and Trent Lott, both because they look like snotty, smug, capitalist bastard businessmen; and Jack Kemp, if for no other reason than what with his white hair and high-pitched voice, he reminds me of Newt Gingrich, whom I despise as I do snake poison. (What with Newtie's latest escapades----not even the guts to tell his wife face to face he wants a divorce---I wonder what the Reps think of their "Family Values" poster boy now? Gawd, what a nasty, slimy, disgusting little piece of shit he is!) And of course, Slick Willie. He's about on the same par as Newt. Hillary is tiresome, too. And lest anybody think I hate Reps worse than Dems, I hasten to say that I dislike and distrust ALL politicians, regardless of race, party, platform, State of residence, or national origin. I think they are all equally crooked, equally liars, equally parasitic, and equally worthless.
Two words: Term Limitations.

[pldennison]

That's absolutely not true. Not only is immateriality irrelevant to a perjury issue, his testimony (or any part of it) was never declared to be immaterial.

Sorry, but the first part, at least, is completely wrong. Materiality, in fact, almost defines perjury.

Or because you think a person's history of sex with employees is irrelevant in a workplace sexual harassment lawsuit?

Exactly what does mutually consensual sex between adults have to do with sexual harrassment?

[dougie_monty]

To Pickman's Model: In case you overlooked it, the 22nd Amendment to the U. S. Constitution limited the President to two elected terms. This came about because of F. D. Roosevelt being elected to four terms; a sixth-grade classmate told me, in 1960, that the Republicans (who controlled Congress at the time) "were sick of being slaughtered." When Pete Wilson was in the U. S. Senate, he tried to push through a repeal of that amendment so Reagan could run a third time. So much for high principles. (When Reagan ran for Governor of California in 1966 one of his campaing slogans was "No Man Is Good Three Times"--a direct reference to Edmund "Pat" Brown, who was in 1966 running for a third term. Brown shot back with, "Better a third termer than a third rater." I wish Brown had won that election.

[cmkeller]

pldennison:

Sorry, but the first part, at least, is completely wrong. Materiality, in fact, almost defines perjury.

Gee, I thought "lying under oath in a court of law" defined perjury. However, and I'm not saying this to be sarcastic, if you've got more extensive knowledge of the details of perjury law than I do (and that's entirely possible), I'll defer to your knowledge. However, I am pretty sure that materiality has a very specific legal meaning, and that, while certain statements had been made as to whether or not Bill Clinton's testimony was essential to the case against him, it was never ruled immaterial.

Exactly what does mutually consensual sex between adults have to do with sexual harrassment?

Two things:

1) Sexual propositioning in the workplace (and yes, I know Monica had come on to him; I'm merely talking about from the Jones lawyers perspective) could be creating a hostile environment, and proving that the boss routinely had sex with employees could give greater credibility to the claims of one who said she'd been propositioned.

2) Giving preferred treatment to employees who submitted to his sexual demands (even consensually) over those who didn't, if this can be proven, is definitely sexual harassment.

Chaim Mattis Keller

[cmkeller]

BigIron:

No -- it was set up to try to catch him in a lie, and for no other purpose.

It was set up to determine if he had lied under oath previously. It was not set up to get him to lie to it itself. And, no one asked him to lie that first time either. Yes, if he wanted to get away with whatever he did to Paula Jones, he had to lie about it. That's true of anyone on the wrong end of a court case. Courts were not set up to get someone to lie, though.

To the extent that he lied before the Grand Jury, that may (or may not) have been perjury, although I would contend that it does not remotely approach the level of an impeachable offense.

And obviously, a lot of spineless, poll-watching, duty-avoiding senators agree with you.

True -- however, it is about as clear as can be that his fib in the Jones deposition did not constitute perjury, since the question he weaseled on was not material to the case.

That's absolutely not true. Not only is immateriality irrelevant to a perjury issue, his testimony (or any part of it) was never declared to be immaterial.

You're quite correct, although he should never have had to answer such questions anyway.

Oh? Is this because you think Paula Jones didn't have a right to bring her case? Or because you think a person's history of sex with employees is irrelevant in a workplace sexual harassment lawsuit?

Chaim Mattis Keller

[Big Iron]

[[BigIron, Yes It does set him apart from the rest. There is a huge difference between Clinton's LIES, and what was said by some of the past admin's people.]] 1420Vel.GN


True -- Clinton's lies were petty and had no bearing whatsoever on the governance of the Nation or public policy in general -- as opposed to, say, giving arms to terrorists as ransom for American hostages, or running a covert terror war in Central America.

[[ For example when Bush said "read my lips..." he did add, I think the luxury tax (imagine that, a R taxing ONLY the rich), BUT he did what he thought was correct for the Country even though he knew it would be unpopular. ]]


What can you possibly be babbling about?


[[Iran/Contra stuff, as the Bush example, was this for personal gain? ]]


Every bit as much as Clinton's denial of getting blown by Monica was, sure.

[[ I believe Clinton would lead the Country down any street that he thought was popular before a street he knew was correct.]]


I believe you have no idea what you're talking about.

[["How well he did by the Country?" I don't understand. ]]


Talk about things that go without saying ...


[[The performance of the Markets is due to the performance of the managers of the Corp's that drive the market, Clinton gets no credit here. ]]

See above ...

First of all, he deserves as much credit for the robust economy (not just the markets) as any other President ever merited (some, not tons), since he has been a staunch free trader and has (contrary to his lip-service opponents and predecessors) actually made serious progress toward balancing the US budget.

Second of all, that's not what you were talking about regarding what Clinton will be doing to burnish his "legacy."


[[ The economy that the govt controls is not at the direction of the Pres, the R Congress made the plans that have made the difference.]]


Thank you for confirming your idiocy.


[[I agree that he had a lot of trouble, but he still has not been punished like a millitary officer or even a drug store manager would have been punished for the same acts.]]


Drug store manager, no -- basic corporate CEO? He's been hassled far more than they would have been in most cases.

[[ And considering the position, the Pres should not even give the appearance of impropriety! lol on that one ]]


I love that line -- I can't find much that's really improper, but I still think there is an "appearance of impropriety." Right ...

Here at the Straight Dope, of course, we believe in bringing perceptions in line with reality.


[["The only thing Starr could find to prosecute" Think about this: It took the IRS to jail some of the most notorious gangsters. Other criminal prosecution attempts were foiled due to lack of evidence. ]]

Well, yeah, why should you need evidence to prosecute somebody, huh? What a zany idea!

[[There is only two cases that I know of where over 100 people have evoked their 5th Amendment rights or fled the Country to avoid testifing. Lets not forget all those that killed themselves including a dozen body guards. Those two cases were for the gangsters and for Bill. ]]


Does your doctor know you have access to a computer in your ward?

[Big Iron]

[[Yes, if he wanted to get away with whatever he did to Paula Jones, he had to lie about it.]] cmkeller


Of course, it is a complete lie to suggest Clinton needed to lie to help him win the Jones case. Whether he fooled around with Monica was not material to the case, which was dismissed anyway.

[[ That's true of anyone on the wrong end of a court case. ]]


Of course, according to the judge he wasn't on "the wrong end" of it.


[["To the extent that he lied before the Grand Jury, that may (or may not) have been perjury, although I would contend that it does not remotely approach the level of an impeachable offense."

And obviously, a lot of spineless, poll-watching, duty-avoiding senators agree with you.]]


Right, it's mere spinelessness to maintain that a President ought to be charged with serious wrongdoing to justify impeachment. Thanks for the laugh.

[["True -- however, it is about as clear as can be that his fib in the Jones deposition did not constitute perjury, since the question he weaseled on was not material to the case."


That's absolutely not true. Not only is immateriality irrelevant to a perjury issue, his testimony (or any part of it) was never declared to be immaterial.]]


I'm always fascinated by the legal ruminations of non-lawyers. Materiality, to my recollection, is an element of perjury, and the judge in that case ruled (after the deposition, alas) that the answers regarding Lewinski would not be admissable at trial (because, of course, they were not material).

But do tell why you imagine the contrary is true.


[["You're quite correct, although he should never have had to answer such questions anyway."


Oh? Is this because you think Paula Jones didn't have a right to bring her case?]]

No, Einstein, it's because the qurestions were not material to the case (and were, of course, asked for the purpose of political harassment and possibly extortion).


[[ Or because you think a person's history of sex with employees is irrelevant in a workplace sexual harassment lawsuit?]]


There you go! Hey, you can learn something after all -- in many cases (like this one) that's absolutely correct. Have a Chaimy Snack!

[Big Iron]

[["Sorry, but the first part, at least, is completely wrong. Materiality, in fact, almost defines perjury." PLD


Gee, I thought "lying under oath in a court of law" defined perjury. However, and I'm not saying this to be sarcastic, if you've got more extensive knowledge of the details of perjury law than I do (and that's entirely possible), I'll defer to your knowledge. ]]cmkeller


If you didn't haver any idea what the law of perjury entailed, why were you foolish enough to declare that what I said was "absolutely not true," affirmatively declaring that materiality is irrelevant to perjury?

[1420Vel.GN]

Big Iron, You call me an idiot, fuck you! You are the one who is clueless. I was speaking FACT. One would think that an lawyer would know how the govt works. Meet me in the Pitt if you wish to continue your ranting.
AND since you don't seem to have the intellectual capacity to understand what I was "babbling" about I'll go through the record - I hate this why can't the dumbass follow it without assistance?
You said, in reference to my comment about Clinton being a lier, that it really sets him apart from the others. I said that Bush's popular comment "read my lips, no new taxes" was followed by a luxury tax - he lied about new taxes. NOW pay attention this is where it takes the intellect to resolve an ethical dilemma. Bush, did add a new tax even though he knew it might be a political disaster, because he thought it was the correct thing to do for the Country. The weapons for hostages was a bargin, I know we are not susposed "deal" with terroists, but that was a million dollar deal for a dollar. So what, we gave some junk that is relatively impotent for human life. Point is that those Republicans risked their political future for the benefit of the American People. Clinton lied just to cover his own ass. Kind of like the difference between telling a young child that there IS a Santa Claus or that the dress looks good. Clinton used the power of his office for personal gain and to subvert the legal process - to hide the real maggot he is.
Also, this is not a court of law, the specific rules of evidence may have created a situation where the court did not see the evidence, but we all know what happened. You say that you "can't find much that's really improper." Well in the few posts of yours that I have read, I have determined that your sense of observation is not to be relied on. I don't have a problem with the way our system works with regard to a criminal getting off because of rules that only allow certain types of evidence. It is a price we pay to maintain the freedoms we have - but don't tell *me* Bill is not guilty. There is still the truth!
If it were as simple as electing a Republican President the Country's budget problems would have been solved with the past administrations. But the last time the budget was in check, was the last time we had a Republican Congress. The Pres is not the owner of a company that orders all the going-ons in the business. Congress controlls the spending, has the appropriations committees...

[cmkeller]

Big Iron:

First of all, please do us all a favor and drink a nice, cool glass of ice water before you post.

Now, to address your points:

If you didn't haver any idea what the law of perjury entailed, why were you foolish enough to declare that what I said was "absolutely not true," affirmatively declaring that materiality is irrelevant to perjury?

I didn't quite have no idea, however, I'll admit that my understanding of it was not as deep as a certified lawyer. My use of "absolutely," which I'll admit was incorrect, and for it I apoligize, was meant to apply to the idea that Clinton didn't perjure himself for lack of materiality, not specifically the assertion that materiality is irrelevant to perjury.

Of course, it is a complete lie to suggest Clinton needed to lie to help him win the Jones case. Whether he fooled around with Monica was not material to the case, which was dismissed anyway.

My, how quick you are to remember that it was dismissed...and how easily you forget that it was re-opened after Clinton admitted to the lie before Starr's grand jury.

Of course, according to the judge he wasn't on "the wrong end" of it.

Based on his false testimony. As I pointed out, it was re-opened when he admitted that his testimony had been false.

Right, it's mere spinelessness to maintain that a President ought to be charged with serious wrongdoing to justify impeachment. Thanks for the laugh.

First of all, it's hardly laughable to suggest that a felony is "serious wrongdoing." Secondly, it's spineless to (two examples here) A) talk tough about the president's lies, like so many Senators...even Democrats (Joe Lieberman of Connecticut comes to mind here)...did until they were actually in a position to do something about it, B) to actually say that perjury is an impeachable offense, and that one believes the president to have been guilty of perjury, but to not vote against him (Robert Byrd of West Virginia did just this).

(because, of course, they were not material).

Was that actually stated, or is that your assumption as to why the testimony was ruled inadmissable? I'll try to look this up. After all, this should be a matter of fact, not of legal understanding (an arena in which, I'll admit, you know more than I).

There you go! Hey, you can learn something after all -- in many cases (like this one) that's absolutely correct. Have a Chaimy Snack!

Right now, I'm chewing on your condescension, and not finding it very palatable. This isn't the BBQ pit; let's try to debate like friend, or at least polite acquaintances, not put people down. I don't recall insulting you just because I thought (and in some matters, still think) you're wrong.

And, why is this a case in which the defendant's history of employee sex is irrelevant? It seems to me that Paula Jones was charging that Bill Clinton traded employment favors for sex. Whether or not you believe she was correct, doesn't the allegation make such a history a relevant factor?

Chaim Mattis Keller

[pldennison]

Chaim, Monica Lewinsky was not an employee of the President by any stretch of the imagination. She was part of an intern program that picks up, what, a couple dozen young adults every year? He wasn't any a position to grant anything.

[dougie_monty]

Have the Teeming Millions heard the latest about Newt Gingrich?? Man, does he now come off as a hypocrite!! Especially so after how he whined against Clinton!

[cmkeller]

pldennison:

Chaim, Monica Lewinsky was not an employee of the President by any stretch of the imagination. She was part of an intern program that picks up, what, a couple dozen young adults every year? He wasn't any a position to grant anything.

I'll grant you that usually the interns have nothing to do with the president directly.

But are you seriously suggesting that if the president is of mind to advance the career of one, that he'd be unable to do so?

Even if we're not talking about positions within the executive branch, but about the president calling in powerful friends to pull strings for her...isn't that exactly what he was accused of (and I'm not saying guilty of) doing, re: Vernon Jordan? Are you suggesting that he couldn't?

dougie_monty:

Yeah, I practically retched when I heard about that. I used to think he wasn't such a bad person, but now, I thank G-d he decided to quit politics. (Hmmm...I wonder if he quit because he was afraid his affair would come to light if he stayed?)

Chaim Mattis Keller

[dougie_monty]

By the way, Chaim: I suppose you also knew Gingrich has a lesbian sister. i know that wouldn't sit well with the Republicans' official position about "family values."

[cmkeller]

dougie_monty:

By the way, Chaim: I suppose you also knew Gingrich has a lesbian sister. i know that wouldn't sit well with the Republicans' official position about "family values."

Is he his sister's keeper?

Chaim Mattis Keller

[dougie_monty]

Only if she were 'bi,' Chaim.

[Big Iron]

[[Big Iron, You call me an idiot, fuck you! You are the one who is clueless. I was speaking FACT.]] 1420Vel


Uh huh, right ... call me when you find out what a "fact" is.


[[ One would think that an lawyer would know how the govt works. Meet me in the Pitt if you wish to continue your ranting.]]


I do indeed, tough guy -- I know (unlike you) that the President plays an important role in the budget process, and that Clinton (unlike, say, Reagan) actually submitted proposed budgets that were roughly in balance.

[[AND since you don't seem to have the intellectual capacity to understand what I was "babbling" about I'll go through the record - I hate this why can't the dumbass follow it without assistance?]]


Sorry, what you posted was incoherent.


[[You said, in reference to my comment about Clinton being a lier, that it really sets him apart from the others. I said that Bush's popular comment "read my lips, no new taxes" was followed by a luxury tax - he lied about new taxes. ]]


Well, the "lie" (and it wasn't even really a lie, it was reneging on his stupid pledge) was mainly in the subsequent income tax hike. That's what he got crucified for.

[[NOW pay attention this is where it takes the intellect to resolve an ethical dilemma.]]


Yers, you're clearly in a position to give lessons.


[[ Bush, did add a new tax even though he knew it might be a political disaster, because he thought it was the correct thing to do for the Country.]]

I agree -- he was unfairly pilloried for that act of modest fiscal responsibility.

[[ The weapons for hostages was a bargin, I know we are not susposed "deal" with terroists, but that was a million dollar deal for a dollar. ]]


So that makes it OK to lie about it?


[[So what, we gave some junk that is relatively impotent for human life. Point is that those Republicans risked their political future for the benefit of the American People.]]


They lied about those things, of course, to protect their butts, just like Wild Bill -- sorry.



[[Kind of like the difference between telling a young child that there IS a Santa Claus or that the dress looks good. Clinton used the power of his office for personal gain and to subvert the legal process - to hide the real maggot he is.]]


What "personal gain" can you possibly be yammering about?


[[Also, this is not a court of law, the specific rules of evidence may have created a situation where the court did not see the evidence, but we all know what happened.]]


Right, who cares about evidence, you know he's guilty -- very convincing.

[[ You say that you "can't find much that's really improper." Well in the few posts of yours that I have read, I have determined that your sense of observation is not to be relied on.]]

Well, I'm still waiting for those things -- oh, right, that would require some credible evidence, which is sadly inconvenient for your assertions.

[[ I don't have a problem with the way our system works with regard to a criminal getting off because of rules that only allow certain types of evidence. It is a price we pay to maintain the freedoms we have - but don't tell *me* Bill is not guilty.]]


Guilty of what, again?



[[If it were as simple as electing a Republican President the Country's budget problems would have been solved with the past administrations.]]


Obviously it wasn't that simple -- Reagan never even tried to balance the budget, despite having run on that plank.

[Big Iron]

[["If you didn't haver any idea what the law of perjury entailed, why were you foolish enough to declare that what I said was "absolutely not true," affirmatively declaring that materiality is irrelevant to perjury?


I didn't quite have no idea, however, I'll admit that my understanding of it was not as deep as a certified lawyer. My use of "absolutely," which I'll admit was incorrect, and for it I apoligize, was meant to apply to the idea that Clinton didn't perjure himself for lack of materiality, not specifically the assertion that materiality is irrelevant to perjury.]] cmkeller


Well, I believe you are still wrong about that, too.


[["Of course, it is a complete lie to suggest Clinton needed to lie to help him win the Jones case. Whether he fooled around with Monica was not material to the case, which was dismissed anyway."


My, how quick you are to remember that it was dismissed...and how easily you forget that it was re-opened after Clinton admitted to the lie before Starr's grand jury.]]

In what way was it "re-opened"? It certainly was not "re-opened" as a result of the revelation that he got a few BJs from Monica.


[["Of course, according to the judge he wasn't on 'the wrong end' of it.


Based on his false testimony. As I pointed out, it was re-opened when he admitted that his testimony had been false.]]


Sorry, Chaim, you are simply fact-challenged on this one. The testimony of Clinton was not relied upon in any way in the judge's decision -- a decision I read, and which I seriously doubt you read.


[["Right, it's mere spinelessness to maintain that a President ought to be charged with serious wrongdoing to justify impeachment. Thanks for the laugh.


First of all, it's hardly laughable to suggest that a felony is "serious wrongdoing." Secondly, it's spineless to (two examples here) A) talk tough about the president's lies, like so many Senators...even Democrats (Joe Lieberman of Connecticut comes to mind here)...did until they were actually in a position to do something about it, B) to actually say that perjury is an impeachable offense, and that one believes the president to have been guilty of perjury, but to not vote against him (Robert Byrd of West Virginia did just this).]]


Sorry, I'm sticking with my original position -- fibbing on a non-material issue in a deposition in a civil case unrelated to the guy's duties in office (and, perhaps, fibbing about the fibbing) was wrong, but it was not remotely impeachable.


[["(because, of course, they were not material)."


Was that actually stated, or is that your assumption as to why the testimony was ruled inadmissable?]]


I can't imagine any other reason why is was ruled inadmissable, and my recollection is that this was in fact the stated reason.




[["There you go! Hey, you can learn something after all -- in many cases (like this one) that's absolutely correct. Have a Chaimy Snack!"


Right now, I'm chewing on your condescension, and not finding it very palatable.]]


Tell you what -- I won't tell you how to interpret the Torah, and you don't tell me how to interpret the law of labor and employment.


[[And, why is this a case in which the defendant's history of employee sex is irrelevant?]]


Because the fact that he engaged in consensual sex with a direct subordinate does not tend to make it more likely that he would engage in non-consensual conduct with someone who is, at best, a distant subordinate.

[[ It seems to me that Paula Jones was charging that Bill Clinton traded employment favors for sex. Whether or not you believe she was correct, doesn't the allegation make such a history a relevant factor?]]


That's not my recollection of her allegation -- she claimed he retaliated for her refusal, despite any evidence that any retaliatory acts occurred.

[pldennison]

I would remind everybody that not only was the arms-for-hostages situation covered by lies to the American people, it violated a specific law that was enacted exactly to prevent situations like what occurred. Also, I'm not sure what stands to be lost by telling the American people that the government is about to get their citizens released.

Anyone who really thinks Bill Clinton getting his dick sucked is worse than that really needs to have their head examined.

[1420Vel.GN]

I'll bet the hostages don't think so! And it's not just about the bj, it is about his abuse of woman and then attacking people who tried to get to the truth or accused him of behavior that was not proper.
Those poor guys had been held way to long, Clinton would not have cared, but a few people risked their political careers to help others in a bad situation - they could have just let the hostages sit.

[1420Vel.GN]

BigIron, if you are so smart then tell me how the Pres makes such a difference, so quickly, in the Country's fiscal issues. We are just now realizing the policies of Regan/Bush.

BTW, according to a group of the brightest economists, (the DOJ only hires the best Phd's from the best schools) it is Regan's policies that have put the Nation in its prosperous position.

The first four years of the Clinton admn nothing was in balance. It was not untill the R majority took hold of Congress and the Contract with America, that the budget turned around.

The Pres should be a leader of the people, somebody we can look-up to, one who infulences policy; the Congress actively manages and makes policy for the Country.

"Still waiting" My God man! Haven't you been paying attention? Again, I hate having to explain things Like I'm writing a scholarly paper, I am assuming that the audiance has some background - BI you seem to so why...
Clinton Lied and blamed everybody else about the "vast right-wing conspiracy," he used the power of his office to evade and subvert the judicial process.
Why? Personal gain? If you can't figure it out, why a politician desires to hide criminal behavior then you must be detached. If he did nothing wrong why did he pay Jones $800,000? Why did a judge recently fine him $100,000? If he is so innocent why hasn't he offered any evidence to show that all or some of the claims are false.

And yes it is OK to not be truthful (read my post again) and try not to take me out of context! With Clinton it was all about him, and hiding what he did for himself. The lie about hostages was a mater of National Security.
later