Most despised US politician [current] ?

Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share
21

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.

22

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.

23

[[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?

24

Big Iron:

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

25

{{[[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.

26

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.

27

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

28

[[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.

29

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.

30

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.

31

BigIron:

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.

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

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.

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

32

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

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

33

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.

34

pldennison:

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.

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

35

[[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?

36

[[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!

37

[[“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?

38

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…

39

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:

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.

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.

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

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).

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).

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

40

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.