Including those mindless drones at the General Accounting Office.
He would also manage to use White House memos documenting his wife’s role in the Travelgate scandal.
And of course, his private investigators would be on the public record.
The worst thing, of course, is that our theorectical duck would collect an army of ideological whores who would continue to support his lies, even after they have been documented.
Lord love a duck.
Regards,
Shodan
Two characters
Yes, I was referring to the “if it looks like a duck” method of accessment.
Believe me, I won’t do that again! 
Shodan, of the examples you have given, which do you feel were evidence of intellectual ineptitude? Which were emotionally unintelligent? Which were criminally corrupt? (I was hoping to keep this hypothetical, but “Travelgate” is specific. But by the time I read your response, I was so grateful for a serious thought that won’t quibble!)
What if a President used civil servants on taxpayers’ time to investigate – rather than private investigators? Would that be worse?
I agree with you. But what happens if an Administration defies the press and resorts to secrecy? Is it still possible to get past that barrier?
[quotexenophon41: How difficult would it actually be to recognize such a duck?[/quote]
I used to think that it would be obvious. It took a long time with Nixon and even then he had his defenders.
After Clinton’s personal indiscretions and public lies about those indiscretions, it became obvious (to me, anyway) that he was lacking in emotional intelligence. I think that he may well have been corrupt in his decisions regarding pardons. Despite that, he seemed to be reasonably good at running the country.
(Shodan, I honestly don’t remember much about Travelgate; I’m not trying to “duck” the issue. I was not well during that period.)
Do any of you feel that the Constitution was threatened during the administrations of other Presidents during your lifetime?
Was Harding about as bad as it gets?
And if this thread is beyond salvation, you are all invited to Nashville for the First Annual Duck Fest. Duckhead overalls and blacktie, please. All the cold roast duck sammiches you can eat.
Can we please cut the political crap and get back to the giant mutant ducks? We have tons of political crap threads, but only a precious few giant mutant duck threads.
“Flaming necklace?” Is that like the homosexual version of a dirty Sanchez?
:d&r:
Zoe, if I may speak for Shodan, you should know Travelgate was a scandal that shook the very foundations of our democracy. The traitor Hillary Clinton falsely accused White House Travel Office staffers of hiding Weapons Of Mass Transportation in the Oval Office. Despite pleas from her allies in the travel industry, she choose to act unilateraly, with a strategy called “preemptive cronyism.” Hundreds of White House interns perished in the (ultimately fruitless) struggle to accumulate frequent flyer miles while avoiding Economy Class.
Some of us have struggled to forget the “troubles,” and have begun to pick up the pieces of our lives. Please don’t allow heartless types like Shodan to drag us through the mud again.
Is it just possible that the huge divide that we are experiencing serves the maniacs running this country rather well? Not in a conspiracy (in the deliberate sense) way, but just in that it is highly functional and keeps us distracted.
I mean, every time that a sound and reasonable criticism of our current administration is raise, the loyal opposition feels the need to point out Clinton’s misdeeds (as if that somehow makes what Bush is up to not so bad). On the other side of this, people criticizing Bush feel some perverse need to defend Clinton, as if by admitting to any faults that he might have had will somehow weaken their overall stance.*
People, I really don’t know how much longer we can afford this partisan blindness.
*Note: I know that there have not been egregious examples of this in this particular thread, but it kind of got me thinking anyway. Also, gobear…“and what do we do with a witch?”
[hijack]
And what about the Giant Invisible Rats? Will no one think of the Giant Invisible Toilet Sharks?
[/hijack]
So a mutant duck and a giant invisible rat are running for president. Who wins?
In a stunning upset, it’s the Giant Invisible Toilet Shark Nader!
Batman, if he’s prepared. And willing to make a run to the right around mid-August.
And the Giant Dogs That Shoot Bees From Their Mouths.
Well, whatever the outcome, you won’t be abble to blame me.
I’m voting for Kodos.
The fuck?
I dunno, he might lose on that whole “Hanging out with underage boys” thing. Whereas the duck has a nice nest, a lovely mallard, and 3 little ducklings. Who can resist cute little fuzzy ducklings?
And so GMRyujin continues dragging the thread into silliness. Huzzah!
I’m gonna run a brief hijack away from the crucial topic of mutant rodents and giant invisible predators to respond to some of the political commentary that keeps appearing so incongruously throughout this thread.
I think Ace_Face gave a more considered response to Shodan’s “thoughts” on Clintonian perfidy than they actually merit, but considering Binarydrone’s comment that:
I must point out that some deconstruction of the egregious falsehoods rightwingers tell (and the less mentally ept apparently believe) about the Clintons is unavoidable in any discussion of modern American ideological warfare. Yes, Bill was a liar and a cheat, morally vacuuous in terms of personal sexual responsibility, and a populist whore willing to subrogate principle for political expediency. But at least he was responsibly conservative in his budgetary policies and had an accountable and pragmatic approach to policy making. And frankly, anyone who still believes the “trashed the White House” story, or that Travelgate was a genuine “scandal” is too much of a partisan idiot to bother with.
<End Hijack>
two characters’re the minimum treat needed to bribe the hamsters
Ah.
Hi, Zoe.
First off, I haven’t given much thought to the nature of the corruption during the Clinton administration - whether intellectual or emotional. Most of it fell into that semi-gray area of “pretty sleazy, but Webb Hubble/Craig Livingstone/Vern Jordan/whoever can be trusted to keep his mouth shut” where the cover-ups worked well enough to preserve plausible deniability. Where they weren’t, the Clintons relied on repeated lies and the gullibility of their supporters to bring it off (“I have no idea how those subpoenaed documents got onto my library table with my fingerprints all over them.” “I had no idea of the political positions of my life-long friends, who I recommended for judgeships.” “The Secret Service is lying when they say that my chief of staff removed documents from Vince Foster’s office the night he killed himself.” “Ah did not have sex with that woman.” Etc.)
A good deal of the corruption was due to the Clintons’ belief that the rules of morality didn’t count in their case, or to their assumption that Washington DC was going to be like Arkansas, and look the other way when it came to the kind of petty or not-so-petty corruption that the Clintons took for granted as a perk of office. Witness Hilary’s remarkable record as a commodities trader, or her off-hand dismissal of objections to her health-care scheme and its potential to ruin many small businesses:
(That’s from memory - I can probably dig up the direct quote if you like.)
Her attitude seemed to be that she was engaged in Something Important, and the considerations of lesser mortals were as nothing in comparison to that. Thus the laws on open meetings didn’t apply to her - her business was too important to allow the hoi polloi to interfere with the deliberations of their betters.
Travelgate was a somewhat different scandal.
IIRC, Linda Bloodsworth-Thomason (the producer of the TV series Designing Women) and her husband were long-time cronies and political allies of the Clintons. One of the businesses owned by Bloodsworth-Thomason was a travel agency, and they wanted the business of arranging trips for the White House, which was worth some money.
The White House Travel Office had been run for years by the same people. The Clintons then directed that it be audited with an eye to finding something or other that would justify firing everyone and handing the business off to their political allies.
They did manage to find something - I believe there was one instance of money being deposited into the wrong bank account instead of being kept separate. Nothing ever was found that involved any actual corruption or mismanagement of accounts, but enough instances of every T not being crossed or I dotted to use as an excuse. So they fired the director of the office, and, in order to save face for themselves, had him indicted on criminal charges. The jury acquitted him almost without leaving the box, but the legal fees involved ruined him.
As usual, the crime was not the problem, it was the cover-up. The Clintons hotly denied that this was anything untoward, or that they were actually trying to engineer the firings as part of any scheme to enrich their political allies. They claimed it was all routine, and that they were not at all involved in it. Then some memos from the White House surfaced that indicated that this was all done because “HRC wants this”. HRC = Hilary Rodham Clinton.
Again, pretty sleazy to destroy a man in order to enrich your cronies, but there was not enough evidence to make a conviction of a sitting President easy, so the Clintons more or less got away with it.
During my lifetime? Harding was a little before my time. I’m old, but I’m not that old.
I don’t think any President has made serious threats to the Constitution in my lifetime. Lots of examples of personal corruption (LBJ, Nixon, Clinton) and Presidents who were simply in over their heads (Carter), but no serious threat to the Constitution. Presidents don’t have that kind of power, thank God.
Regards,
Shodan
Shodan, thanks for the explanations. I don’t think that I ever fully understood Travelgate to begin with. I don’t like lies or a lack of compassion no matter who the source is.
I am familiar with the Bloodworths. Linda used to write for MAS*H and that is how I first became familiar with her.
How would you compare Travelgate with the awarding of contracts to Halliburton?
Did any of the lies that the Clintons told or that Nixon told compare in scope of importance to the misinformation (whether intentional or unintentional) of the current Administration?
As for the Constitution, some considered the night of October 20, 1973 (when Nixon seemed fired the special prosecutor, among others) to have bordered on a Constitutional crisis. There was some fear that he might declare martial law. When I look back now, I’m not even sure why we were frightened.
But under the current Administration, some Constitutional rights are already suspended. How strong is the Constitution if we allow exceptions? With the future looking as if we may have to learn to live with the threat of terrorism, will we have to learn to live with these exceptions? Do you think the Patriot Act will be extended?
Your honest input is appreciated.