To me, it becomes irrelevant because you have focused the point of analysis too narrowly to be meaningful. We have a very large number of Republicans, most frequently, but not exclusively, taken from the Religious Right clamoring for Clinton’s head over sexual issues for five or more years. From among that group, we have a smaller group that funds a spurious lawsuit based on sexual activities. We have a prosecutor who comes up empty while investigating any number of financial dealings, who just happens to wander over to the people managing the private lawsuit to see whether they can exchange some useful information, and who then refocuses his attention on whether Clinton lied on depositions to that lawsuit. He is aided in his examinations by a woman, originally hired by Republicans, who has a personal grudge against the Clinton administration. By the time it comes to Congress, there has been so much background activity led and financed by either Republican factions or Republican allies that the actual members of Congress don’t really have to say or do anything specifically hypocritical.
I suspect that when most people argue that “the Republicans” were being hypocritical, they are noting that the people who funded the Jones case made no similar attempts to rectify the family situations disrupted by Gingerich, Hyde, Burton, and Livingston (among others).
It may very well be true that specific Republican Congressmen avoided hypocritical claims, but I doubt that those are the charges of hypocrisy that are being leveled by the people you have been observing.
Sure. And thank you for doing so. I apologize for not being clear, but I was addressing the proposition that people were out to specifically get Clinton, and that the adultery was the excuse, and that the for most, the perjury was not the main issue.
I would disagree. I think it was the lying after the fact, the perjury and the coverup that was the biggest issue, as it was with Nixon.
The coverup was worse than the crime, and more offensive as we can see from other adulterers who seem not to have too much difficulty when they admit what they’ve done, and move on.
Well if you are trying to paint the entire Republican Party I would want to know just how large and how prominent in the Party these people are. As an example, of the three you listed earlier, I never even heard of two of them. If can bring me a bunch of leading Republican politicians, I’m with you.
I suspect the brush is being used far more broadly than you say. But I can’t prove it offhand. So let’s just agree that people who would paint Republicans as a group as hypocrites for going after Clinton while ignoring Hyde et al are wrong. And that people who would use the hypocracy issue as an excuse to bring up the marital situation of Norman Coleman, for example, are also wrong on this score.
Not many people are trying to use a broad brush claiming that the GOP in general is hypocritical - just the bulk of its leaders and a large fraction of its followers, that’s all. (insert smiley to your taste)
Surely we can agree that hypocrisy can be found not only among those who condemn the motes in others’ eyes while denying the logs in their own, but among those third parties who can see both of them and yet condemn only the one with the mote. For someone to condemn Clinton’s moral failings while overlooking Gingrich’s, or to vilify Clinton as an enemy of “family values” while worshipping Reagan as a hero of them, is in fact hypocritical - and no less hypocritical for being common, either. The motivations for doing so, whether lying in unadmitted partisanship or something else, don’t really matter - it’s still hypocrisy.
Clinton had sex with an intern. No big deal. Pols do it all the time. Clinton got sued by a woman claiming Clinton sexually abused-harrased her. Well, it is a he said-she said situation. There is no way to make a rational judgement. Then Clinton BS’ed in front of a court about his sex life to kill a lawsuit. That is a big deal.
If Clinton said, ‘I made a mistake, I am sorry’ most of this mess would have gone away. Instead he lied to the public. What really chaffs my ass is tht he lied to me. He said on TV that he “Never had sexual relations with that woman”. Well, he lied. Not only that he called the woman who sucked his cock ‘that woman’ as though she was some slut that he never met.
Getting head is a good thing for most guys. At the same time most women would rage at being called ‘that woman’ unless they sucked the cock of a Democratic President.
He said that he didn’t have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. Since the legal definition of “sexual relations” was ambigous, and since this was a highly personal matter, I don’t see anything wrong either morally or legally with his not being entirely forthcoming about the relationship.
Uh no. He BS’s in a deposition about an irrelevant issue. Although he had no standing to judge relevance, the Judge in that case did rule discussions of his consensual sex life to be non material.
He didn’t do it to kill a lawsuit, because it had no bearing to the lawsuit in the first place.
I suspect he did it because he believed if he didn’t Starr would immediately leak the contents of the deposition to the press. (The pattern of slander ‘leaked’ from the Starr commission was well established by this point). What Clinton didn’t know is that the question was a perjury trap, and he walked right into it.
Like you, I’m angry that he lied to the American people about the affair. But context matters. Lies about person stuff is damaging to trust. But lies about policy is damaging to more than just trust.
If perjury is the issue rather than sex, then the Republicans are still hypocritical because they don’t condemn Reagan for Iran/Contra lies.
Hell, Poindexter who has multiple documented lies under oath to congress is now the head of Bush’s goverment information office!
Ted Olson, now Bush Administration’s Solicitor General. Lied under oath in his confirmation hearings.
Ashcroft also lied under oath in his confirmation hearings.
I guess you missed my point. Clinton LIED to the public in a case that was personal for Clinton. You bring up the Iran-Contra issue. First, there was no evidence that Reagan knew about that issue. Second, even if Reagan knew about the issue it can be argued that Reagan was trying to protect the US.
You may disagree. But Clinton lied to protect himself. Clinton and Nixon are in the same boat.
IR:I don’t know if Chenoweth criticized Clinton - she was famous for having run a family values campaign against her congressional opponent.
And her ads in that “family values campaign” specifically targeted Clinton in an effort to associate her Democratic opponent with him. As she said in the ads: “Bill Clinton’s behavior has severely rocked this nation and damaged the office of the president. I believe that personal conduct and integrity does matter.”
Of course, she was a hypocrite. But a minor one - I’ve never heard of her other than for this [hypocrisy], and doubt if too many others have either.
I suppose what you call “major” or “minor” is a matter of opinion. I tend to think that an elected U.S. Congresswoman counts as a fairly “major” representative of her party. For what it’s worth, I had certainly heard of Chenoweth outside the Clinton-scandal context, particularly for her extremely poor ratings from environmental groups.
I was not aware of this. But I don’t see what you mean with it. It is unclear from the language whether she meant his sex or lying - both are matters of “personal conduct”. Her spokesman claims she meant the lying. Not sure where you see otherwise. OTOH, the language of her statement about “this sordid spectacle” suggests a sex issue. So you may be right.
There are hundreds of people in Congress, and hundreds out of it that have a similar amount of power or influence. You cannot select one or a few of these people and categorize the entire party’s position or principles by theirs, on this or any other issue.
IzzyR:You cannot select one or a few of these people and categorize the entire party’s position or principles by theirs, on this or any other issue.
I’m not. What you asked for was evidence that “major Republican figures” had been hypocritical in their Clinton-bashing to an extent that would support accusations of “Republican hypocrisy”. I’m just chipping in with a piece of the requested evidence.
If you have specific quantitative criteria about how many such Republican figures have to be identified—and how “major” they have to be—in order for you to consider those accusations adequately supported, then by all means, please state them.
You know, I missed Clinton being convicted for any of these three “crimes”. Nor even indicted in a criminal Court. If his “serious crimes” are so very obvious that you can make these bald statements without adding “IMHO” or some other such “weasel wording”, I do agree that we like to see a cite- or a retraction. I think we all agreed that he lied- and under oath, even. But it seems clear that the lies did NOT rise to the level of "crimes’ as no criminal indictments were brought- let alone an actual conviction (and note, we use “innocent until proven Guilty” here in the old USofA). So- dude- if you can show us some link to Clinton being convicted of any of these three crimes, I’ll say you’re right. Otherwise…well, simply- Clinton is INNOCENT of any such “crimes”. (Not innocent of much else, IMHO, )
Thank you all for the rehash of picayune events that have been done to death a long, long time ago. I particularly liked the refresher course on the lame justifications employed on both sides during this whole stupidity. I think ignorance has been well and truly fought here. :rolleyes:
But the winner of the most asinine statement of this “debate” is –
To a politician, “political reasons” is not a negative. Of course Republicans were going after Clinton for political reasons. And of course Democrats were fighting for Clinton for political reasons.
Do you think that the Republicans thought Clinton’s lying about a blowjob caused more damage to the Republic than the spectacle of the impeachment?
Of course not. The only thing that justified the whole deal was “political reasons.” GOPers think that their ideas are better for the country, and the impeachment looked like it would weaken those opposed to their ideas, so it was a good thing.
)