Republicans huddle for a new excuse to blame the tanking economy on Bill Clinton.
Now, Bill Clinton is hardly a saint, but if a political party is going to push itself as the standards-bearer of decency and truth, then the least I ask for is that they shouldn’t take an unannounced hiatus once one of their own candidates gets into office…
Sua, there’s a big difference between accusing Starr of doing something that deserves imprisonment vs. accusing him of coming close to an ethical violation. BTW isn’t there some mechanism by which the Bar Association reviews ethics violations? Didn’t Starr’s enemies get him charged with several violations and wasn’t he cleared in all cases? I would imagine that if he really had committed an ethical violation, charges would have been filed and he would have been sanctioned for it by the Bar Association.
wring, you have nicely framed the issue. Perhaps, just by coincidence, each and every person who helped expose Democratic corruption was reprehensible for entirely separate reasons. OTOH maybe attacks were launched against all these people, and we were thereby led to believe that these people were reprehensible. To me, the unity of opinion is evidence of my POV. It would seem that based on the law of averages, some of those who helped expose Democratic corruption ought to have been nice.
Certainly Kenneth Starr was previously considered “nice” – a person of competence and integrity – before he got into the Clinton thing. He was then accused of all sorts of wrong-doing. None of these accusations panned out; not a single one. Nevertheless, his reputation is now in tatters. Even someone as smart and knowledgable as Sua passed on an exaggerated or inaccurate version of one of these accusations.
I’ve offered evidence to back up my POV. You may not agree with my evidence, but I will ask for an apology for that “trolling” insult.
IIRC the judge’s ruling was that this was irrelevant. However, once the perjury was exposed, the judge planned to re-visit that ruling. It was assumed that she would then find the testimony relevent. That’s one reason why Clinton settled the Jones suit, rather than fight it.
My evidence is not 100%, I grant you. Still, as I mentioned in another post, it’s like someone who disrespects each person he knows of some particular minority. Maybe, by coincidence, the members of this minority that he knows all happen to be truly reprehensible. However, there’s at least a likelihood that prejudice has played a role.
Speaking actuarially, the more of these people who are alleged to be reprehensible, the more likely it is that we’re reacting to a campaign of demonization.
As someone who agrees more with Republican policies than Democrat, I find the Republican Party a bit too High-and-Mighty for my taste. I never like arguements based on superior morality. (Morality is subjective). But since we all agree to live under a set of laws, that should be the basis for investigations - were laws broken?
I think the nature of politics invites corruption, and no political party can claim the high ground. As IzzyR said, each incident should be looked at seperately, sweeping generalizations are always a bad idea (he,he).
We heard a lot of crap about Clinton, and I never liked him personally. But I just don’t see any more demonization of the investigators/witnesses/etc. in that case than those in other cases - politicians will do their best to paint their opponents in a bad light, every time. What are we bickering about here? That Democracts would try to demonize those who help the Republican cause? Republicans would do no less. And you are what, surprised?
Very nice try, Izzy, and I mean that. But I don’t buy it for ten seconds, mostly cuz it makes no sense.
He didn’t hesitate to trot out * people * as examples of Anti-Democratic Corruption Crusaders. But he couldn’t speak to* what corruption they had exposed *? He wants to pin medals on “heros” without identifying the heroic act. Sorry, doesn’t fly.
Did you see the post leading to that one? I carefully and clearly stated that I was leveling a charge of lying which I would withdraw if he provided cites to go with the names he was using as examples. His response was to weasel again. I have seen december do this before. (by the way, it was others who said I was misunderstood. And I believe the word was modified by “deliberately”.) Which leaves me to believe he was comfortable with the charge.
It was uncomfortable for me to call him a liar. But “liar” ** is ** “one who lies”. I was able to do so for two reasons: one, he had failed to prove he was not, or even try, but much more importantly (since I have not called others out on their lying) : I have always made an exception for trolls (although even then not a large one. My exceptions do not extend to opening up [or joining, as the case may be] Pit threads to shred someone). And I believe december to be trolling with this thread (and I have seen him troll before). If he weren’t, he would have answers. Or he’d try to have answers. Instead, he just wiggles around. (And I do not whip this outta my pocket as a last minute defense - I established at the very beginning of the thread that I thought december was trolling. I think that might have been the first time I’ve ever even accused someone of that)
December may or may not be a respectable person, I have no way of knowing. I will assume he is. I do not respect the way he posts.
However…in the end, you are right. Even with trolls I just don’t feel right making direct accusations of a personal nature in that way. I gave in to a moment of frustration and I am chagrined. ** . So, december, I apologize for calling you a liar, ** which is to paste you with a label as a person because of your behavior in this one thread. My apology is sincere, it was bad behavior on my part and I shouldn’t have said it that way. It was just wrong of me, I was weak.
Having said that, Stoid’s List [sup]TM[/sup] isn’t only made up of people who have been rude and insulting to me, it also includes people who have demonstrated that they are unwilling to “fight fair”, so to speak. So if you continue to operate in this fashion, you can cross me off your list of opponents, because I will not engage you.
And ** Izzy, ** thank you for making me live up to my own principles. I figured someone was gonna bust me on that. You did so fairly painlessly.
Yes, we all know you took issue with something Gadarene said, and we also all know that you are carrying spillover bile from other threads, namely on baseball and also on media bias.**
[/quote]
I care deeply about reforming media bias, even if causes I support lose out as a consequence. I believe in professionality in reporting, in maintaining public confidence in journalism and limiting spread of biased, unreliable right-wing alternative news sources that thrive on the climate of suspicion surrounding the major media. Call that “bile” if you choose. And you’re free to overlook clear cut evidence that apologists on the left cite “corporate media bias” as a equilibrating factor when compared to “social issue bias”. There’s plenty of it right here in this thread. But like the Wizard said, ignore that man behind the curtain.
I have no idea why you are still so het up about Barry Bonds.**
I have not quoted so-called left-wing apologists who argue that the media is balanced by right wing corporate reporting. I am drawing my own conclusion based upon observable evidence that I shall do my best to compile and relate in an organized, persuasive fashion.
And I don’t give a damn about Barry Bonds. I noticed that you seem to have a hate-on for Gadarene. This is rather inappropriate under any circumstances. To the extent that you still have not gracefully backed down and admitted that you were arguing against no one in your above posts about “counterbalance.”
Methinks I am not the only one who “posted merely to attack.”
Starr claims Judge Johnson ruled in his favor. “The ruling has not been made public.”
As for the rest, you still have your huge problem with proof. What we have here is the following (again, assuming the purported demonization has occurred):
general population: “The people on december’s list acted, at best, poorly. We don’t like them.” december: “You are demonizing them!!” general population: “No, we are judging them. There is a difference.” december: “You have been led astray by a demonization campaign!” general population: “No, we weren’t. We read the facts, and have reached our own conclusions.” december: “Well, your conclusions were wrong!! These people are good!! Good, I tell you!” general population: “Hey, man, you’re hyperventilating. Here, breathe into this paper bag.”
Any way you spin it, december, your conclusion is based on the premise that you know more than the general population. You weren’t fooled by the demonizing conspiracy; you culled the truth out of the slanted reports of the Left-Wing Media.
The arrogance of that position is obvious. The error of that position, I submit, is obvious as well.
I don’t understand this at all. You seem to be assuming that “the general population” has reached the same conclusion as you. I don’t think that is at all obvious - or true, for that matter. What is true is that the general population of Democrats shares that opinion. Which is the exact point of the OP.
Stoid, I continue to believe that my point (re the OP) stand, but you disagree, and we can leave our posts to speak for us. But I must commend you for your apology - principled and classy!
Sua, you don’t actually disbelieve Starr, do you? If Starr had told such a blatant lie, wouldn’t you think that he’d have been exposed by now? And, Starr isn’t a liar. AFAIK he hasn’t been shown to have lied (despite unproved and refuted allegations to the contrary.)
Perhaps my case isn’t totally watertight for a court of law. Still, I can point to a big difference between the treatment of Republicans and Democrats. E.g., Barney Skolnik, Richard Ben Veniste, Sam Ervin, Archibald Cox, and the Washington Post all helped get the goods on Nixon and Agnew. They were not demonized. Their opposite numbers were demonized – i.e., those who helped to uncover the Clinton perjury scandal and Dan Rostenkowski and the House Post Office scandal.
No, IzzyR. december has assumed that the general population has reached the same conclusion as me.
Read his response to my first post in this thread - I pointed out that Clintonistas wouldn’t like these guys anyway, with or without Zippergate, and december stated that the demonization of these people was occurring in the “general population.” (I’ve already pointed out that he has no evidence that the general population has demonized these people, but am assuming for purposes of this debate that they are.)
I’m only responding to the points made by the OPer. If they make no sense (;)), talk to him, not me.
appologize for being one of several to describe your OP as “trolling”? you as much admitted same on the first page. I pointed out (as did many others) that your OP was highly subjective and offensive to those who considered themselves liberal, and you even added to it, claiming that liberals have their heart in the right place but don’t have an accurate world view. You’ve not backed off from that at all, nor have you offered any evidence to that (that liberals lack an accurate world view - unless of course ‘accurate world view’ is specifically and only defined as 'that which agrees with decembers - doubt that M/W or any other dictionary has that as an alternate definition). I see no reason to change my opinion that your OP was a deliberate negative attack, designed to provoke responses. IOW trolling.
As for your evidence, I’ve not seen any except your list. You’ve failed to demonstrate that: 1. they were popular (definition?) before they discovered Democratic corruption,
2. that they rooted out corruption (debatable in nearly every case) 3. that subsequent to #2, they experienced a measurable decline in popularity 4. that persons of the Democrat party caused said downward spiral in popularity.
Many of those you listed were virtually unknown in the public eye prior to their involvement in whatever scandal. and, of course, as has been noted, much of what they currently get negative publicity for, frankly deserves it (ie Tripp).
I figure that I will be accused of dead horse flogging yet again, but I just have to make a few points.
Re: Clinton’s Jones depo- the dictionary definition of sex doesn’t matter, nor does my definition, nor does yours- for the purposes of the depo, the definition of sex was spelled out and limited. It was essentially: If Clinton touched ML’s genitals or other erogenous parts, it was sex. It said nothing about her touching his naughty bits. Further, there had been a second paragragh discussing the use of “objects” for stimulation, but that paragraph was struck. Thus the question is not “is a blowjob sex,” but rather “did Clinton do anyting that the paragraph defining sex in this deposition mentions?” Absent proof that he did do one of the things in the the clause, it’s difficult (at least for us strict constructionists)to say he lied under oath.
Materiality. Plaintiff was trying to show that Clinton’s alleged action in the complaint would not have been out of character for him by showing a “pattern of behavior.” When the Judge threw the case out, however, her decision was based on the fact that the only damage that Paula Jones could show was that she did not get flowers one secretary’s day. All of her allegations of missed promotions and raises, etc., that she had sworn to, and which were therefore obviously very material to the case, were shown to be lies. The Judge did not question whether Clinton had made the alleged demand in the alleged fashion, but threw the case out because with no damage stemming from Jones’ alleged refusal, the demand was only “boorishness” and not harrassment. If the only relevance that testimony about ML had went to whether Clinton might have done the foul deed that Jones alleged, and the Judge said that whether Clinton did it was irrelevant to the case, then the testimony should not have been allowed in the first place, and certainly is immaterial.
The Grand Jury Testimony, which can be found here: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/transcr.htm. Remember, the House voted to impeach Clinton on this, and not the Jones deposition. The Starr report called this perjury. In this testimony, Clinton said this: “When I was alone with Ma. Lewinsky on certain occasions in early 1996 and once in early 1997, I engaged in conduct that was wrong. These encounters did not consist of sexual intercourse. They did not constitute sexual relations as I understood that term to be defined at my January 17th, 1998 deposition. But they did involve inappropriate intimate contact.” Later in the testimony he discusses why he believes that oral sex performed on him by Monica is not included in the definition of sexual relations from the Jones definition. He also discusses why his use of “objects” on Monica is not covered, since the paragraph that mentioned them was struck. Anyone reading the Grand Jury Testimony will get a complete picture of what Clinton and Lewinsky did. I do not see how this could be called perjury, unless it is claimed that they did things beyond this (fucked, for instance), and to my knowledge the Starr report does not claim that. Where’s the perjury?
Read the transcripts, ignore the sound bites, and a very different picture emerges. JDM
