Clinton...what's your beef?

Great Debates
101

His argument is more of (2) than (1). He’s basically saying that the president’s job is so important that he shouldn’t have to worry about suits while in office. I don’t think he’s saying (and I’m going off a recollection of what I saw him saying at the time of the Jones suit) that any greater burden is required to file suit. Since, under his plan, the president wouldn’t have to face suit at all while in office there would be no point in making somebody prove the case is any stronger than a normal case.

He didn’t argue the case should be dismissed, just stayed.

There is a little subjectivity, but less than you might think. A judge won’t dismiss a case on a motion to dismiss unless the case is pretty clearly meritless. These decisions can be appealed, too, and district court judges don’t want to look too stupid.

I certainly never intended to be disingenuous. I never brought up the Rules because she never made an argument that required discussing it until her post immediately proceeding my reply. Stoid had been saying that she felt a lawsuit would distract the president. These arguments don’t relate to the Rules. It wasn’t until later that she mentioned the possibility of suits being filed merely to harrass. That’s where the Rules come in.

102

Make that preceding please.

103

Stoid: I most certainly wasn’t talking about you. I was, in fact, engaging in a sweeping generalization. (-:

And sure, these arguments were coming from all sides. But I expect that nonsense from the rednecks, and I can even somewhat expect it from those on the right who have never been big champions of women’s rights in the first place.

But to have people like Maxine Waters and Gloria Steinem spout this crap was pure, unadulterated hypocrisy.

In case you haven’t noticed yet, hypocrisy is my ‘hot button’. I have all kinds of respect for principled people on both sides of the political fence. Robert Reich, for example, was just about as far left a person as you could find in the Clinton administration, but I have plenty of respect for him even though I disagree with just about everything he says.

But I have no use for Bill and Hillary, who talked liberal compassion while clawing their way over everyone they could to get to the top.

They talked about the ‘greed of the 1980’s’, and how unfair it was that the rich got all kinds of tax deductions the poor didn’t get, while engaging in highly suspect stock deals, possible S&L fraud, and taking every deduction they could find, up to and including ‘donating’ their old underwear and deducting it rather than throwing it out like most people do. And I have heard zero evidence that they ever gave a nickel of their own money to charity, or volunteered for any charitable causes. (I could be wrong about that, but I did look at one time and couldn’t find anything).

I have no use for Bill Clinton, who apparently saw nothing wrong with increasing the war on drugs while shrugging off his own drug use (I have the same problem with Dubya, BTW).

But the most startling hypocrisy of all is the way that Bill Clinton treats women, while at the same time claiming to be a strong proponent of women’s rights. And how Hillary stood right beside him and backed up everything he had to say, including making the ridiculous claim that Bill was completely innocent and was being attacked by a ‘right-wing conspiracy’. Even more startling is how his approval rating among women never wavered right up until the day he left office.

I have no use for a man who takes an oath to defend the constitution of the United States, then perjures himself in court. Also, note that he started off by calling Monica a liar in public. She should have sued his ass for slander.

A person of character wouldn’t have gotten a hummer in the White House in the first place, but at least if caught at it a person of character would have 'fessed up and limited the collateral damage to his supporters, Ms. Lewinsky, his daughter and wife, etc. Instead, he tried to save his miserable hide at the expense of everyone close to him, as well as the American people.

And BTW, I’m SICK of this stupid argument that “Powerful men have powerful sex drives”. That is a tremendous insult to all those powerful people who spent their lives trying to do right for their families and country. Jimmy Carter, for example.

For that matter, it’s an insult to all the millions of men out there who go to work every day, pay their taxes, and come home to be good fathers and husbands. But the left couldn’t admit that Clinton was a rotten scoundrel, so the other alternative is to bring the rest of us down to his level. If ALL of us would cheat on our wives the minute we attain power and status, then ole’ Bill can’t be all that bad, right? Wrong.

104

Cool. Generalize freely!

Well, now, interestingly, I do not consider private behavior between one man and one woman to be a matter of anyone’s rights, until abuse, threats or violence enter the picture. The rights of American women as a group have nothing to do with the American women in Bill’s bedroom, or hotel room, or whatever room. Same goes for everybody. I don’t hold with making personal relations between the sexes political. (Except as noted.)

Well, I don’t agree about persons of character and where they get their hummers. I have always felt that for pretty much everybody, who we are as sexual beings and who we are in every other respect are separate. I have simply known too many people whose sexuality was completely incompatible with every thing else about them (to an outside observer. Worked fine for them, of course.) Sex is a special category of human behavior. Which is not to say that behaving badly is a good thing, only that it does not, to my eyes, define a person’s “character” if they do sexual things that are outside “acceptable” practice.

Not to mention the fact that men of less than stellar character can make great and effective leaders. It depends on how their lack of character manifests. Many would say Kennedy was a slimeball. But he is considered among the better presidents of this century by many. Roosevelt is certainly much beloved, and he kept a mistress. So, no, I don’t invest a lot of importance in presidential sex lives as a measure of who they are in the role they have been elected to.

Now, I tend to agree with you about the way Bill made Monica look so bad., THAT sucked. But I also understand it. Bad, bad call on his part, but…again, I object to his ever having been put in that position.

It’s only insulting if you think it is supposed to mean that all powerful men are philanderers. And it isn’t. Neither you or I have a clue about Jimmy’s sex drive, maybe Rosalynn gets it every night. But he was and is a deeply good, principled, moral man. I dig Jimmy. And he unfortunately sucked as a president. I’d rather have an effective philanderer, thanks. (I don’t blame Carter for a lot of what went wrong in his administration, but that is a different argument.)

So, what it comes down to is what a whole lot of us have said all along: sex. Which is, if that is in fact your position, fine. Go ahead and defend it. The only thing I really dislike is when folks for whom it really was about sex deny that fact. not sayin’ you did, just hopin you don’t.

stoid

105

But what about the argument that men in power shouldn’t use their position to talk subordinates into having sex with them? That was the argument feminists always used when it came to workplace harassment. Along with power comes responsibility. Sure, the boss just asked the secretary to have a little tryst. No, he didn’t force her, or threaten her. But there is an imbalance of power between the two which could cause the woman to make a decision she’d never make if the two were completely equal. For instance, she might believe that saying no will result in damage to her career, even though the boss didn’t say so.

This has been the feminist argument for years. But when Bill Clinton, the most powerful man in the world, put the moves on a young intern on his staff, everything said it was just about sex and she was an adult and it was no one’s business.

So, which is it? Do you buy into the first argument at all? Did you buy into it before Clinton entered the White House?

Then there’s another issue - BAD JUDGEMENT. If Clinton really cares about all those things he says he does, than it made his actions even more despicable. Because the stakes for himself, his family, the Democratic party, and Liberal causes in general were exceedingly high, but he chose to risk it all to get laid. What does that say about his character, his intelligence, and his common sense?

There’s another aspect as well - he risked the country, by opening himself up to blackmail and manipulation. If Clinton were applying for a job that required a security clearance, he’d be denied if the investigation for his clearance uncovered marital infidelity, because it makes the person a risk for manipulation.

What if Monica had been a loon or a mercenary, and tape recorded their session and then threatened to take it to the Enquirer unless he passed some legislation to favor some special interest that was paying her? Such things happen in places of power, which is why we expect the people in such positions to have character, and why character is and should be an issue when evaluating a president.

106

You’ll have to define that more specifically for me to respond to it. I know lots of people who ended up having affairs and even marrying people they worked for or who worked for them. People find love at work. I’m not going to call it all harassment. If a man says to a woman: “If you want to keep your job, you’ll give me a blowjob” or “I’d be more inclined to recommend you for promotion if you show me your titties”, then that’s sexual harassment. The mere fact of one human being being in a higher position in a company than another human being, or even being their direct supervisor, does not mean that any and all forms of possible sexual or personal connection are sexual harassment. I don’t buy it, and I never have.

If that was an accurate representation of what happened, but it’s not. Monica told us what happened, she made the first move, quite boldly, showing him her underwear. She was an adult, and it was no one’s business. (except Hillary’s, but THAT is definitely not our business.)

I’m gonna say this one more time, and I ask that you accept what I am telling you, since you have no evidence of any kind to the contrary: my positions vis a vis sexual harassment, assault and rape are now and have always been completely independent of both political dogma and my personal goals for government. (See my Clarence Thomas remarks). Whatever anyone may think of my politics, I don’t think I’ve demonstrated any internal inconsistency in my own positions, nor is it really fair to assume that I am a by-the-book hard left liberal in every respect, predictable on every position, especially since the perception of my politics around here is based on very little information, mostly the fact that I despise Bush. So trust me on this: I’m a serious feminist, and I think the extreme end of the feminist movement is full of shit. We should do a thread….(After all, Sam, don’t forget: I’m a professional pornographer…hardly something that would endear me to the Andrea Dworkin faction.)

Character I’ve covered. Intelligence? It says absolutely nothing. Idiots can be faithful, or at least discreet. And he is an extremely intelligent man. Common sense? Again, nothing. Judgment? Bad, bad, bad. The man was weak and foolish. Like a lot of men, he let his dick do the thinking. It’s not uncommon, and I don’t defend it. But once again…we shouldn’t even be talking about it, because I don’t think such things should ever have been brought to light. It’s not our business. I’m certain other presidents have done much, much worse, and I * don’t care *. Where he blew it was in thinking he could get away with it in the climate he was living in.

I’m sorry, I don’t buy this. I just don’t think it’s a worthwhile concern. Neither one of us can ever know either way, but that’s my feeling about it.

107

RickJay, UncleBeer, and anyone else who wants to weigh in:

Yes, granted, the President is still an ordinary citizen and shouldn’t have more rights than the rest of us. But answer this: Should he have less rights? Should he be moresubject to the attentions of the legal system, either by prosecutors with an unlimited warrant to look for something or by political opponents who know how to file suits? If you’d insist on protection against those things for yourself, how can you allow them against someone else?

Does the Constitutional guarantee of “equal protection under the law” mean what it says for everyone, or only for people we like? Why did the Founding Fathers feel the need to put that concept in there at all, do you think?
To a separate point about the loud insistence from the anti-Clinton side about how “character matters”: Yes, it certainly does matter . Hypocrisy, sanctimoniousness, and vindictiveness are all horrible character traits, wouldn’t you say? Surely most people would, and do, agree. Do you think that helps explain how the anti-Clinton crusaders came off as being worse than Clinton himself?

108

Elvis… may I kiss you? I prmoise not to make it sloppy.

stoid

109

NOT sloppy? Well, thanks anyway, but … :slight_smile:

110

Oh, is THAT how it is? <Stoid grabs Elvis, yanks him to her bosom, grabs his hair and lays a big, fat, yummy one right on his lips. Then pushes him back, leaving him dazed and confused.>

Take that, my liberal friend!

<dabs at lips, hands on hips, saunters off>

111

There are a couple of different issues in your comments that are actually quite distinct. First, allowing a private citizen to file suit against the president does not give the president less rights. You can argue that it will be used by political opponents, but that doesn’t mean the president has less rights under the law. If a president commits a tort against somebody, that victim has a right to sue. If one of the deciding factors for the victim is the fact that the president is from another party that might make the victim a jerk but it doesn’t mean the president has less rights under the law than anybody else.

The second issue relates to the independent counsel statute. I have long felt the statute is unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court disagrees. Not much I can do. But the statute has nothing to do with a person’s private right of action against another person, even if that person is the president. You can disagree with the independent counsel statue, as I do, but it doesn’t mean a thing when dealing with the issue of a sitting president facing a lawsuit.

There are legitimate policy arguments about whether to exempt a sitting president from suit. Obviously, I don’t think a president should be afforded that protection. But the fundamental issue is whether the Supreme Court should write legislation. They should not. That power is given to Congress. I still haven’t seen this issue addressed.

112

Zoff, I don’t disagree with what you’ve said, but I think you’re looking at the issues too narrowly. The legal system is only a part of a system of justice (OK, call it fairness), and part of that system of justice is the decision to invoke the legal system, and how, and to what extent. That brings in the concept of “equal protection” before any piece of paper gets filed.

I admit to being torn over the issue of allowing suits against a sitting President. Larry Klayman has shown us the ability of that tactic to drag any President down, and I do think it’s in the best interests of the country to keep such frivolous partisan suits (including Jones, I might add) from being filed while they can do harm to the rest of us - but if they were delayed, their purpose would disappear, too. “Real” suits I have no problem with, but how do you tell the difference? The interests of We the People have to come first.

113

Stoid, I’m going to be having dreams about that last post of yours. :slight_smile:

For the record, I consider myself a moderate, not a liberal, but the definitions of those terms do have regional variations. YMMV. Whatever.

There’s nobody I always agree with on everything, even myself.

114

I would say that what made me the angriest about the whole thing was the ACTIONS of Ken Starr himself-grilling Lewinsky WITHOUT her lawyer being present-trying to supeona her lawyer, which would go against attourney-client priviledge, grilling the girl’s mother, releasing evidence, etc etc.

What they got, was that Clinton had a little fling with an intern who persued him. Yeah, the guy’s a sleaze. As far as Paula Jones, I trust her about as far as I can throw her. The woman seemed to be looking for money and publicity. I believe Wiley’s story was thuroughly discredited.

Although, Stoid, you were wrong in one instance: it is considered, though not officially, that for a higher up to solicit an underling for a relationship is a no no. It’s considered unethical, unprofessional and not a very safe idea-too much abuse is possible. For a boss to request a blowjob IS sexual harassment. Whether Clinton did this or not, we’ll never know. Although, I for one, don’t even want to THINK of Clinton with his pants down…ugh!

The whole thing became a witch hunt, and downright ridiculous. It was the way they went about it that disgusted me. I always felt so sorry for poor Chelsea.

Basically, what Clinton did with Lewinsky was unprofessional, but it was consentual. I agree I’m not too fond of Bill and Hillary as people, but what can you do? He didn’t do a totally fucked up job-he didn’t royally screw us with debts and wars and damage.

Basically, the right answer is somewhere in the center, not to the extreme right or left of the argument. But isn’t life usually that way?

115

You’re right. My focus is very narrow. There was a claim that the Supreme Court decision was “bogus” and I wanted to make the (very important, in my opinion) point that just because you or I or Stoid might want a certain policy, there are important distinctions concerning who may make those policies. It simply isn’t the Supreme Court’s job. You want a statute, talk to Congress.

The policy arguments about giving the president special protection are beside the point (though I have addressed them, too). The plain fact is that separation of powers dictates that Congress make the call on whether to afford special protection to the president. The Supreme Court was spot on.

But the president is getting equal protection. He will be treated like anybody else. That’s legal equal protection. I think what you’re saying, and correct me if I’m wrong, is that though the president might get legal equal protection he won’t get a sort of philosophical equal protection (what you called “fairness”) since the power to sue can be used to attack him in a manner it wouldn’t be used against other citizens. I think that remains to be seen. This power has been around since the birth of the Republic, but hasn’t been abused. You point to the Jones suit, but I think that case shows the societal pressures against suing. Jones hardly ended up being the darling of the people. And the fact that a person with a legally cognizable claim also hates the defendant, shouldn’t bar them from suing. For instance, if Jones filed a frivolous suit, it should be dismissed. But if Clinton actually did what she claimed, the suit shouldn’t be delayed simply because (a) she hates him, or (b) she is underwritten by conservatives.

We already have mechanisms to weed out legally frivolous suits. It isn’t perfect, but nothing is. I think I read you saying (and again correct me if I’m wrong) that drawing the line on legally insufficient suits isn’t enough – politically motivated suits should be delayed, too. But I have some practical problems with this, even assuming the Jones suit was politically motivated.

You can deal with suits against the president in three ways: (1) make them no different from any other suit; (2) delay all of them until he leaves office; or (3) delay those that are politically motivated. The problems, as I see them, with (2) have been argued above. That leaves (1) or (3). If you don’t want (1) then, I think, you’ve opened up a real Pandora’s box. You will inject an incredible amount of partisan politics into the process. First of all, judges shouldn’t make the decision since it would call their credibility into question. Even if a judge was conscientious in his or her decision (which the overwhelming majority would be) everybody would speculate about whether they were swayed by party politics. If you leave judges out it would probably have to go to Congress. This would give rise to another separation of powers problem. Congress can lay down standards for suits, but they can’t judge individual cases on the merits.

There isn’t a utopian solution to the problem. But, despite claims of how bad things could be, we haven’t really seen those scenarios play out.

116

Who says I would? Clinton should be allowed exactly the same protection under the law as anyone else. No more, no less. What’s your point? And what does this have to do with Paula Jones?

The special prosecutor’s powers were enshrined in law and in theory could have been turned against almost anyone. The fact that the special prosecutor chose to go after Bill Clinton doesn’t mean he’s treated different under the law, it just means the prosecutor’s after him. DA’s go after people all the time, but they haven’t indicted you yet (I hope.) That doesn’t mean your rights are different, does it?

117

Good or bad? Wait…don’t answer that. Just remember…we’ll always have Paris.
stoid

(Pay no attention whatsoever to me. I’m feeling a bit giddy today. Light and lively. Wacky and wonderful. Just silly and cool. So anything I say…well, it could be pretty radical and i don’t think I should be held responsible. Thank you for your attention to this matter. WHEEEEEEEEEEeeeeeeeee[sub]EEEEEEEeeeeeee[/sub])

Oh, regarding your politics, I relate. My father the libertarian thinks I’m a pinko and my mother the bleeding heart liberal thinks I’m a fascist. The truth, of course, is somewhere in the middle.

118

Stoid, I’m going back a bit here, but you said this about the presidency:

Where’s the list of privileges, Stoid? You are still dodging. I don’t give a damn what you think they should be; we’re always gonna disagrees on that. You have, however, made a statement of fact, been called to substantiate it, and are still refusing. If this ain’t a dodge, I don’t know what is. C’mon, cough up that list, or retract your statement.

119

I would like to point out, however, that personal character does not a great leader make, and vice versa. Look at history-Peter the Great. The GREAT. He was ruthless, cruel, immoral, promiscuious, etc etc. But he’s Peter the Great. Nicholas II was a very ethical, moral, good person, and a terrible ruler. Go figure.

Same with Jimmy Carter. Lots of people may not have been saints, but they ended up being good leaders. Not that that SHOULD excuse anyone from being an ass, just that all the talk about character doesn’t always mean that character is all it takes. Or that lack of character can be a disaster.

120

Good point, Guin.

unclebeer: i did concede that specific point (without really knowing one way or another. I accept what you say on it’s face) . I didn’t make a production out of it, but I did concede. no special rights and privileges, check.

That was not really my point. My point was simply that he (or she, someday!) should be afforded the same protections as the military, for the very same reasons.

And as long as we’re talking unaddressed issues, apart from saying it’s not the law right now…no one has given any reason that it should not be. Why shoudl General Butthead be protected from lawsuits that distract from his duty to his country, but not Cammander In Chief?

Again, I’m not pulling this out from between my toes. Far more learned people than myself feel the same.

stoid