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.
You can if they’re the party’s elected leaders, amigo.
"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. "
Ah, so lying to protect the US is permitted.
Fair enough.
http://usconservatives.about.com/blc0509legallow.htm
He was held in contempt for lying under oath by Judge Wright. This was a civil charge, but it was enough to lead to his disbarment proceedings, which, as Minty has not taken objection to my earlier characterization, it is fair to say that he was about to be disbarred, and surrended his license to avoid the ignominy of it.
I don’t have the actual citation available to me online.
Kimstu
Hard to say exactly - what I can say is that Chenoweth doesn’t cut it. 
I would consider “major” Republicans members of the congressional leadership, prominent governors, or those in crucial positions in terms of driving the actual impeachment. Hard to put a number on how many you’d need however. But so far I haven’t seen any. Maybe one.
Sua Sponte
I posted this thread because I think the hypocrisy charge in particular continues to resonate. But if you’re tired of the issue, you should have skipped it - frankly I don’t think your post here added anything at all.
Being the nice guy that I am, I shall explain to you where you went wrong. It is true that politicians regard political considerations as being valid ones. In fact I myself - no politician - also regard political considerations as being valid ones, and I follow political issues with interest for this reason. I actually suspect that you do too, though you seem to be adopting an attitude of disdain here.
But here’s the crucial point. Most Republicans, even if they truly believe that Republican ideals are better than Democratic ideals in every which way, do not agree in principle that impeaching presidents for no valid basis other than being a Democrat is proper. Similarly, most Democrats, much as they detest Republican ideals, do not hold in principle that protecting a president who deserves to be impeached simply because he will promote Democratic ideals is proper. For this reason, all the partisans I encountered spent a lot of energy arguing over the issues involved, instead of just ignoring the issues and arguing the outcome. Nonetheless, it is true, as I noted in my post, that there was clearly a bias which affected the positions. But your suggestion that the Republicans knew their charges were baseless and consciously went after Clinton for political reasons is absurd, of course. (As would be a similar charge about Democrats).
Really a simple matter, but as you seemed to be having difficulty with it I thought I’d explain. No - don’t thank me - it was nothing…
Elvis, I don’t know what you mean. Chenoweth was not elected to any leadership positions in the Republican party that I know of.
It is unclear whether Arkansas would have forcefully disbarred Clinton. As part of the settlement with the OIC, he voluntarily relinquished his license for a period of five years. That seems to have ended any Arkansas proceedings. As is standard when a person admitted to practice before the Supreme Court is suspended from practice in their originating jurisdiction, the Court ordered Clinton to show cause why he should not be permanently disbarred from practicing before the Supreme Court. He responded by again relinquishing his admission to the bar of the Supreme Court. This seems to have satisfied the Court, because they withdrew the earlier order to show cause. There is nothing to prevent Clinton from applying for readmission later, presumably when he is again a member in good standing of the state bar in another three years. That readmission undoubtedly would be granted, as such applications are little more than a formality that results in a pretty little certificate you can hang on your office wall to impress clients and junior associates.
Dammit, I want one too. 
I thought you were a lawyer?
Rep. Helen Chenoweth was hardly an obscure Congressperson during the 1990s. She was one of the most vocal pro-gun spokespersons in the Congress during that time.
For a lot of reasons, some legal and others simply having to do with the way people form opinions about others, one can get into a lot more trouble over a coverup than over the original offense.
But I reject the notion that a coverup can be morally much worse than the original crime. In the case of Nixon, his henchmen performed at least two burglaries that we know of (DNC HQ at the Watergate, and Ellsberg’s shrink’s office), among other dirty tricks. That’s real crimes to begin with.
In How the Good Guys Finally Won, Breslin describes how a number of Cabinet departments were turned into a shakedown mechanism to force George Steinbrenner to contribute $100K to Democrats for Nixon in early 1972. I recommend it.
I might add that Nixon used government agencies as part of the coverup, too, as the June 23, 1972 “smoking gun” tape shows. Use of government resources for personal purposes can get you in trouble even if those personal purposes are perfectly legal. Needless to say, using governmental resources to cover up criminal activity is far more serious.
IAAL, but I have not (yet) had the opportunity to apply for admission to practice before the Supreme Court. Hence, no pretty SCOTUS admission certificate.
—But your suggestion that the Republicans knew their charges were baseless and consciously went after Clinton for political reasons is absurd, of course. (As would be a similar charge about Democrats).—
I don’t agree. I think both parties would be eager for an opportunity to impeach regardless of how substantive it actually was: but they understand that doing so bears a very high political cost unless the president in question has been condemned by the public. I really believe that Clinton was saved by the public’s failure to condemn him as harshly for his lying about his affair as people expected. If it were discovered that Bush had lied under oath (provided that anyone had hounded him into even taking an oath), would Republicans apply the same standards? Or would they make excuses for it, like the Democrats did? I don’t really know, but I do expect the split would be just as partisan as the Clinton mess was.
Sure- and I don’t need it. And this supports my position- Clinton lied his ass off- but this did not rise to the level of an actual CRIME. Thus- was Bill a “big fat immoral liar”? Sure. Did he commit “contempt of Court”? Looks like it. But he wasn’t a “criminal” or “felon”.
Go ahead and call him a “big fat immoral liar who commited ethical & contempt of court violations… that almost- but not quite- rose to the level of actual criminal acts”. BUT- until he is at the very least indited- (and i really want to see a conviction)- Clinton- is not & was not- a “criminal”. I apply the same rule to anyone. I am not a defender of Bill (but I have to admit I wouldn’t be able to resist a BJ, either 
), but let’s not throw around accusations and terms that are clearly wrong.
Was it “political”? Of course. Was Clinton’s conduct wrong anyway? Yep. Are there plenty of GOP dudes that live in that same glass house?- righto.
I wasn’t referring necessarily to Chenoweth, although she does make a good example of who the GOP in her district chose as an elected leader. Gingrich and Hyde are enough to make the case by themselves.
You still haven’t replied to the suggestion that it isn’t necessary to be an actual participant to be a hypocrite. Simply applying different standards to people you like than to people you don’t when passing judgment upon them is hypocrisy, and that is where the commonly-laid charge mainly falls. Those who denounced Clinton’s sexual conduct but not Gingrich’s are hypocrites. It does seem as though you’re trying to define the terms narrowly enough to reach a particular conclusion re the GOP vs. Clinton, but the definition you want to use is not the general one, unfortunately.
More basis there for the impression that the person you’re most trying to convince is yourself. One would almost have to have been comatose in 1992-1998 not to get the impression that the view you’re calling “absurd” had, at least, some basis.
Oh, you weren’t? Well in that case, let me suggest that you pay more attention when commenting on other people’s words. Kimstu said something about Chenoweth. I responded with a counterpoint about Chenoweth. You quoted my words and responded, so I naturally assumed it was about Chenoweth.
But she does not reflect on the national party, nor does her stance about impeachment characterize the party’s.
IF they went after Clinton over sex. Gingrich, maybe. Hyde, no (AFAIK).
Don’t recall anyone suggesting it. Don’t disagree with it.
Possibly, if they denounced infidelity (some disliked the rape charges or the “position of power” thing). But that has little to do with this thread. I’ll try one more time, just for you.
Any individual person who attacked Clinton for his sexual escapades is open to charges of hypocrisy if he commits similar actions himself (or even tolerates them in others, as you say). However, if he did NOT go after Clinton over sex, but instead attacked him for lying or the like, he is NOT a hypocrite if he commits similar sexual transgressions himself (or tolerates them in others).
Now the crux of the issue is this: did the entire impeachment process represent going after Clinton for sex or not? Clearly this process was driven by Republicans, so if you can show that the Republican Party as a group - as represented by its leaders who drove the process forward - viewed the impeachment issue as being about sex, then you could make the case that “the Republicans” as a group supported persecuting Clinton over sex, and are hypocritical if they do not do this in other cases (or in their own). But if you cannot make this case other than in your own self-serving declaration that “of course it was all about sex” then the charge does not stand.
That does not mean that the charge does not stand against individual people, e.g. Chenoweth, or possibly - as tomndebb suggests - those who funded one of the lawsuits. But the world is full of hypocrites of all political persuasions - that is not interesting. I am interested in the Party as a whole.
Not adding anything. I think it is absurd, and hence your post is absurd as well. YMMV.
No It represented Going after Clinton for anything they thought they could make stick. For some of the people, the sex was key, for some, it was the lying. The public seemed to buy the lying as being more serious, so that’s what the leadership claimed was the issue.
For any given feature of this scandal, sex, lying to the public, lying under oath, etc. You can find a Republican leader would was guilty of the same but getting a pass by the Republicans in general. That is the measure of their hypocracy. That they were willing to impeach a President for doing things that they wouldn’t even censure their own for doing.
Assuming that they agreed with you, yes. The point of the sex issue is that everyone agrees that many of these affairs happened. The fact that you personally believe that so-and-so Republican lied under oath does not make a hypocrite of someone who disagrees with you.
Further, as mentioned, many Democrats bought into the notion that a person’s sexual misdeeds are no one’s business, at a time when this served their purposes. This principle can be quite a nuicance if you’ve just discovered that some political opponent of yours has some dirty laundry in this area. One way to jettison it is to claim that you’re not really going after sex - you’re exposing hypocracy. As such, the sex angle matters more.
Hypocrisy is not a crime. Personally I am in favor of allowing Republicans to be hypocrits. It puts a little steam in my stride.
About the Republican leadership’s motivations for impeachment, Tom DeLay’s speech last April is enlightening:
Draw your own conclusions as to the “absurdity” of the contention that it was pursued in disregard of the facts of the case.
Oh, and Izzy, if you’re having trouble yourself defining what cutoff point to use for “leadership”, you’re not on solid ground in criticizing others’ choices there, m’kay?
Please show where I even said that it was “all about sex”, as you stated, while calling it “self-serving” as well. It wasn’t, I have never thought so, and, if you’ll check back on Page 1, I stated that it was about vengeance and spite, not lying or sex. Thanks in advance for your “clarification” of that remark.
Now, for this:
Got even one good recent example where the Democrats started it? Even Larry Flynt didn’t offer to expose anyone who hadn’t already tried to use the tactic first.
Now, one more time, do you or do you not agree that it is hypocritical to hold people you don’t like to different moral standards than people you do like?
BTW, everyone, it’s not spelled “hypocracy” - if that were a word, it would mean “government by the lowest”. That does have rhetorical possibilities, but it still isn’t the topic here.
My conclusions are that, at the most, he was more motivated to pursue legitimate grounds for impeachment despite some personal cost because of the “wrong worldview” issue. (“I was totally consumed with holding this man accountable…”) At the least, he may have felt that Clinton’s worldview was reflected in his impeachable actions. In any event, it is a far cry from saying that he acknowledged that there were not legitimate grounds for impeachment but that it was justified because of Clinton’s wrong worldview.
I once saw a line from Charles Fort, the well known crack scientist. He observed that scientists are unsure how to classify certain microscopic life forms - if as plants or animals. “But anyone who can’t tell a rose from a hippopotamus has no excuse”.
Glad to help. From the paragraph beginning “Any individual person…” and forward, I was restating the OP (in light of your apparent missing the point). The statement about “if you…” was not a reference to anything that you, Elvis, said, but a general assertion of what a person might or might not say.
Actually, what got me to thinking about it recently was Garrison Keillor casting innuendo about the personal life of Norm Coleman. This was also taken up by at least one liberal on the SDMB. I don’t know what the position of either of these was with regards to Clinton, and I don’t wish to debate this particular case. But as I recall it, this type of thing has been frequent.
Yes.
Got me there. Every time I type my response directly on the board - and thus have no spell-check - I find myself staring at the word trying to see which version looks more familiar. Some sort of mental block. Sorry.
But the purported facts of the “case” were about perjury, not “wrong worldview”. You denied to the point of calling it absurd that the impeachment was pursued for political reasons. The statements of the primary proponent of it, the functioning leader of the Republican Party at the time after Gingrich’s abdication, reveal otherwise. You were wrong. OK?
[quopte]The statement about “if you…” was not a reference to anything that you, Elvis, said, but a general assertion of what a person might or might not say.
[/quote]
You don’t admit being wrong very well, do you?