Well then, would you be liking fries with that retraction I owe you?
Though on second thought, your post was highly ambiguous. How about I just give you a coupon for a free cup of coffe on your next visit?
In regards to your point I’m not sure what Clinton would have to gain should the process continue. As a risk vs. return proposition, wanting to put himself back on the firingline seems like a boneheaded manuever.
Well, we can quibble with words here. I do know for a fact that the Republicans won because they got the counting stopped. That is fact. Now, it may turn out that they would have won in the end even if a complete and accurate count was allowed to occur, but that ain’t what happened. (And, their absolutist position on the counts tends to suggest that they were far from confident, to put it mildly, that this would be the case.) As for whether or not it was stupid for Clinton to say this, see next point.
Don’t tempt me! You know it doesn’t take much to get me started at on topic! 
Seriously though, I think my point is this: You argue that Clinton’s statement is “unnecessarily divisive” and I guess what I am trying to say is that there are worse things than being divisive. You seem to like Democrats when they are willing to roll over and play dead like Gore is doing for the sake of his future political aspirations. But, to some of us, that is not exactly the height of virtue. Bush has clearly signaled with some of his appointments (Ashcroft, Norton, Abraham) that, despite his narrow (negative?) margin of victory, he is likely to impose some rather extremist policies on us. In that sort of climate, I don’t want the Democrats to be freakin’ doormats! Fuck the honeymoon…I want this marriage annulled!
I’ll let you borrow it for a while if you promise to give it back. But, I don’t think it takes a genius to recognize the writing on the wall when it comes to appointments like Abraham and Norton. Now, I will back off a little on my prognostications … After all, the Whitman appointment is not so bad. But, I guess what I will say is that the only way this Administration is likely not to be a disaster from an environmental standpoint is if the Democrats don’t just roll over and play dead, but instead try to force Bush to govern from the middle rather than from the Cato Institute.
The graveyards are full of guys who underestimated Slick Willy’s political skills.
Bill is still a partisan guy, wants to be a player for his party, which has more than adequate reason to be cross with him. If “Landslide” George gets to pardon him, he cops the moral high ground and drapes himself in bi-partisan goo without sacrificing anything except a case the public doesn’t want to hear about and a case that his partisans probably cannot win.
So mini-Starr (still cant remember his name) makes some more threatening noises, rustles his papers, and tries to look dangerous. George pops up with his speech (“bind wounds” “heal divisions” “pi-bartisanship”) and extends the Balm of Republican Forgiveness. The nation’s heart sheerly melts with the warm drama of it all, George is seen as a deep, compassionate statesman, not at all like those other guys. Slick Willy would rather nail his pecker to a tree than give GeorgeCo that much political capital.
Now if things between George and Slick are all cordial and warm, Slick is in a poor position to complain that he wants his day in court, he looks ungrateful. However, in a more hostile context, it is more likely that the public will percieve the pardon for what it is, a cynical political manuever.
It has not escaped my attention that both partipants are lying through their teeth. Except for the part where Bill talks about the conduct of the election.
What ya’ll got there, Cousin Scylla, is a whole passel of the plain ol’ unvarnished truth, by crawdaddy pie. Now why don’t ya’ll come on out on the porch and play the banjo for us? Bring the jug.
jshore:
No, that is not a fact. That is an opinion. Facts are easy to discern in the physical sciences and mathematics. Less so elsewhere.
The other side of your statement is that the democrats lost because they were unsuccessful in manipulating the vote to suit their needs. Is that fact?
No, it’s a bullshit partisan statement. Just like your fact. There’s an old political insult that goes “He beleives his own press releases.”
Your insistence on partisan fact either suggests the stature of a political drone, or seeks to insult my intelligence that I’d by into such overt manipulation.
For purposes of the OP I DON’T GIVE A RAT’S ASS ABOUT WHO WOULDA WON IF… It’s a moot argument, because it didn’t happen that way.
Which again also has nothing to do with the topic at hand as the Great Satan, George W. Bush is not who we are talking about here.
We are not even talking specifically about Bill Clinton. We are talking about the wisdom of his comment in the context of a potential pardon, in the context of Presidential comportment as the leader of an entire country and not just the portion of it that shares certain beliefs, and in the context of his legacy.
Actually I thought it showed real class, and an Al Gore I had never seen before, one that I liked and respected.
Dude, if this what you wanna talk about, go start a thread.
But, seeing as your opinions are already set I don’t see how you will find anything but evidence to fulfill them.
elucidator:
That’s a downright mean, cynical, and Machiavellian interpretation of events you’re proposing there.
It’s kind of turning me on.
Can you squeel like a piggy for me?
Well, again, I admit this is a bit of quibbling over words. But, I still say it is fact that the Republicans won the election by getting the [hand] counting stopped. (I added that word “hand” for clarification.) Now, you may argue that the hand counting was stopped for good reason…that the counting process was hopelessly flawed, etc. Fine. But it doesn’t take away from the claim that the way they won was by having that process stopped. And, as I noted, they may or may not have won if they had not succeeded in stopping that process. These are, IMHO, facts.
Well, excuse me for not addressing exactly what you wanted me to address. You threw out lots of ideas in your original post and I responded to them point-by-point. You talked about Clinton’s being divisive in this remark…so I questioned whether this was a bad thing. You clearly think it is; I think there are arguments to be made that it might not be. All because I don’t buy your assumption that this divisive is bad does not mean I’m not addressing your points. And, as for the potential pardon issue, I commented on that too. Sorry if the lens through which I view Clinton’s comments is not the same as the one through which you view it.
Well, actually, I guess I will back off from trashing Gore too much on this. One can make a case for him to have backed out in this way for more reasons than just the good of his future career. However, that does not mean that every other Democrat should necessarily parrot what he does. Different people play different roles. That Gore had to play the role of the the gracious loser does not mean that noone is allowed to mention the fact that this current Presidency is based on something way less than a clear mandate.
Well shit, if we’re talking about opinions, let me give you mine. I don’t think those are facts. These are, IMHO, Gummi-bears.
Your opinion on this moot point is about as valuable as my gummi-bears. Actually, I take that back, as my gummi-bears do not reveal a commitment to parroting political rhetoric as fact. At least I have independant thought going into my gummis.
Unfortunately my Op is not a discussion of gummi-bears as facts. Nor is it a question of who won the election, or the replay of a bunch of what-if scenarios.
Scylla, I give up!!! What point are you are actually disputing here in my purported facts? I mean which of the words do you actually disagree with? I’ve tried to explain them as clearly as I could and you come back talking about gummi-bears, which I am actually all in favor of (if I was Pres, the gummi-bear producers are one corporate interest I would be very nice to!) but is sort of besides the point.
And, the next time, if you want to start a discussion on a very specific topic (whatever that topic is since I sure I hell can’t figure it out), then I suggest that you actually don’t start a thread by throwing out 3 pretty open-ended comments. If you throw out 3 open-ended comments, I am going to come back with 3 open-ended responses to those comments.
I didn’t lash out at the people who made comments I found sort of weird in the thread I started on Bush & corporate interests a few days ago (which was actually the first thread I’ve ever started). I think you are a bit sensitive here!!!
Scylla, jshorehas repeatedly responded to your complaints courteously, giving you much more benefit of the doubt than you, IMO, deserve. Your repetition of the charge that her arguments are tangential when you are yourself prolonging the tangent by attacking her is–to put it mildly–not too bright.
Obviously, you have had your fill of the argument that the Supreme Court handed Bush the election by stopping the hand-counts etc., etc. May I suggest that if you really don’t want to hear the arguments recur, you refrain from either starting or posting political threads of this nature.
Here, for your review, is an excerpt from your own OP
“I though Bill Clinton’s comment that “The Republicans one because they got the counting stopped,” was unnecessarily divisive and stupid on a number of levels.”
If you think that other people can weigh on this question without discussing the rightness or wrongness of stopping the count, you are either very disingenuous or a dim bulb indeed.
Thanks for the defense, Mandelstam. It is good to get a voice of support. It is nice to hear someone else say that I wasn’t too out-to-lunch here. I mean, I know I went on a bit of a tangent, but geez, what exactly were we supposed to do with those three statements provided to us by the OP? You want a specific answer…Ask a specific question!
Just, one clarification though…it’s “he” not “she”. [Haven’t gone through with that sex-change operation yet. ;)]
**
While we’re rolling out facts, that “counting” was partisan, illegal and unconstitutional.
You forgot to mention that. Wonder why?
by Scylla:
Yeah, but don’t you think it would be big of Bush/make him look good if he went ahead and showed that “Compassionate Conservative” side and did it anyway?
Scylla, you keep skirting the obvious with the members responding to your OP. No pardon for Clinton, let’s get to the bottom of this issue. Let’s show America the entire script, start to finish, for all the players involved, it is time for the citizens to know what their politicians are doing. If Clinton gets the shaft then that is what he gets, if the motivators behind the scenes get the shaft then that is what they get. If both of the sides get the shaft then so what?
A super size order of McDonalds fries please and a Vente Starbucks Mocha.
Well, as I said, Milo:
Of course, I may disagree with you, and in fact, I believe that there are only 3 members of the Supreme Court who said it was inherently illegal (admittedly 7 thought there were some Constitutional problems with the way it was carried out and 5 thought that there was no time to solve these problems once the legal wrangling got to them).
But, we apparently digress from what the OP wishes us to discuss.
Perhaps because that’s not what the Supreme Court ruled. Here is an analysis of the Supreme Court decision written by a lawyer. While you’ll probably find it “partisan,” you will be able to glean the basic structure of the majority’s decision.
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=10254
Here are some relevant excerpts. It’s written the form of a dialogue between an average citizen and a lawyer, btw, but I’ll just excerpt from the lawyer’s part.
“Six of the justices (two-thirds majority) believed the hand-counts were legal and should be done.”
“…The five conservative justices clearly held (and all nine justices agreed) ‘that punch card balloting machines can produce an unfortunate number of ballots which are not punched in a clean, complete way by the voter.’ So there are legal votes that should be counted but can’t be.”
It goes on to explain that the hand-counts became moot simply b/c there was no time to do them.
As to the matter of the ruling on the unconstitutionality of Florida’s laws allowing votes to be cast or counted differently (not a ruling on the hand-count itself, mind you):
(Here the dialogue will help.)
“Q: Tell me this: Florida’s laws are unconstitutional, right?
A: Yes
Q: And the laws of 50 states that allow votes to be cast or counted differently are unconstitutional?
A: Yes. And 33 of those states have the “clear intent of the voter” standard that the US Supreme Court found was illegal in Florida.
Q: Then why aren’t the results of 33 states thrown out?
A: Um. Because…um…the Supreme Court doesn’t say…”
jshore, Sorry for jumping the gun on the sex change. One likes to do one’s best for the progressive’s answer to Oliver Reed ;).
I remember hearing some conservative pundit (I forget who) predicting the Clinton would do something like this. I heard this prediction made before the election took place. It is my understanding that it is a custom among outgoing presidents to take care to make little comment about their successor’s job, his term, just about anything. From what I understand, most (or all) presidents have honored this tradition. Geo. Bush Sr. honored this (as far as I know) all during Clinton’s rocky presidency.
But the predition was made (I stress, before the election took place) that Clinton would break this tradition. That he would just have to be heard, just have to comment on the goings-on of his successor.
And sure enough, this prediction was correct. I think Clinton’s comment showed no class. It doesn’t matter if the comment was “true” or not. I am sure Geo. Sr. had MANY thoughts he would have liked to have shared with the media about Clinton’s terms in office. But he kept his pie-hole shut. I guess we should not be shocked that Clinton couldn’t restrain himself, couldn’t show enough class to do the same.
You mean unlike how Geo. Bush Sr. threatened to say how he felt about Clinton “as a person and a human being”, during the election a few months back.
What exactly did Bush Sr. say? Did he actually say something, or just “threaten” to say something? I have been led to believe that he honored the presidential “tradition” of not commenting on their successors.
Oh, man. I love that phrase!
I have a question for all the constitutional pundits.
I have heard that Clinton is not interested in, and does not want a pardon. (cannot confirm this) Can the President pardon a man who does not want a pardon for whatever reason? Could the man still insist on his day in court?
yb,I don’t think you recognize the gravity and unprecedentedness of the situation we are now in. This is in the first time in US history that a candidate who won the popular vote (Gore), lost the electoral college over a contested vote count with the US Supreme Court stepping in and ruling in a way that is directly counter to their own hardbitten ideology (state’s rights) just to decide the issue on partisan lines. At the same time you have the contested state’s votes in the hands of one candidate’s brother, with people like Katherine Harris using their power in a manifestly partisan fashion, and with Florida taxpayer money spent to employ lawyers to help her. When you add that to the election having been called for Bush by a journalist who is his cousin; when you add that military ballots which could have been excluded on technical grounds were not excluded while comparable Gore votes were (such as “overvotes” that were punched for Gore and included Gore’s name as a write in)were excluded; when you add that Florida’s variable voting methods disproprortionately exclude the votes of African Americans and poor people; when you add the (still pending and yet to be fully evaluated) charges of irregularities in heavily black counties; when you add that computers were supplied by the state to ease registration checking in Republican counties but not in Democratic ones (resulting in voters being sent away from the polls b/c their status couldn’t be checked in time); when you add that after all of this Bush “won” Florida by a measly 537 votes… Well, perhaps you see what I mean.
Then, as though that weren’t enough, you’ve got Bush diverging from the center (where he ran his campaign) to make extremely controversial conservative cabinet appointments like Ashcroft and Norton.
Inevitably you end up with a very large number of people feeling that they (and not only Gore) got the shaft.
So I think there’s a lot more at stake here than whether or not Clinton’s move was a classy one. It was certainly a savvy one from the Democrats’ point of view, and–speaking purely personally–it was one of the best things I’ve heard him say. On this matter, if not on many others (for I am no Clinton fan), I say, Right on Bill. And, I will add, I don’t give a rat’s ass what some conservative pundit has to say (on this or any other political matter), as I could have predicted that the day I was born.