# The White House must really be worried **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 27, 2006, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-white-house-must-really-be-worried/346279 "2006-02-27T05:36:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2006, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-white-house-must-really-be-worried/346279/42 "2006-02-28T04:04:04Z")
… (Waves little Gore in '08 sign) I’m sorry, but the man has really impressed me with his policy actions in reforming government while he was in office, his technological vision before entering it, and his wildman speeches after leaving. He may be the only man who can strangle the government back down to the size it needs to be. Smaller. Much. Effing. Smaller. ---
**Author:** ![Syntropy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Syntropy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Syntropy)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2006, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-white-house-must-really-be-worried/346279/43 "2006-02-28T04:05:56Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Well, I kind of worded that wrong, didn’t I? 🙂 > > Try this: there were many Dems who voted against it. [Cite.](http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237) > > You’re thinking of the Patriot Act. About half the Senate Dems voted against the AUMF in Iraq. Ah, thank you. In that case, I stand corrected. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2006, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-white-house-must-really-be-worried/346279/44 "2006-02-28T04:33:55Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > I call bullshit. A lot of the conservative politicians currently running things were crooks and liars when they went into office. It didn’t take a period of one-party rule to turn them into crooks and liars. Yes, there certainly are crooks and liars among Democrats too, and always have been. But at present, conservatives seem to have picked a disproportionately incompetent and unsavory bunch to lead them, and they’re trying to wriggle out of the responsibility for that by blaming it on the intrinsic nature of politics. > > Stop complaining that the Democrats aren’t solving your crooks-and-liars problem for you. If you conservatives really think that your current Republican one-party rule is “abysmal”, get out there and start campaigning for some Democratic candidates, or at least for some Republican ones who are honest and competent. An excellent point. It is illuminating, at least to me, to recall who the “Gang of Seven” were who are, or were credited by some as leading the Republican Revolution against the corruption in government (this pulled from [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_of_Seven), but you could find lots of sources, I’m sure: > [@](#): > > John Boehner(OH-08, current House Majority Leader) > John Doolittle (CA-04) > Scott Klug(WI-08, left congress in 1999) > Jim Nussle (IA-01, currently Chair of the House Budget Committee and candidate for Governor of Iowa) > Frank Riggs(CA-01, left congress for an unsuccessful US Senate race in 1998) > Charles H. Taylor (NC-11) > Rick Santorum (PA-18, currently a member of the US Senate) > > As of February 2006, Santorum, Doolittle, and Boehner are under scrutiny for their ties to Jack Abramoff, the disgraced former lobbyist who pled guilty to criminal charges of influence peddling. You’ve probably heard enough about P. Rick Santorum’s ethics recently. Here’s more on Boehner: > [@](#): > > Boehner is widely credited with championing the Contract With America […] In 1995, Boehner provoked contentions of unethical conduct when he **distributed money from tobacco industry lobbyists on the House floor to members who had voted in favor of tobacco interests**. He later led the effort to change House rules and prohibit such practices from occurring. […] On February 8, 2006, it was learned that Boehner’s Capitol Hill apartment is rented at market rates from a Washington lobbyist [3]. Boehner has made no secret of his close ties to “K Street” lobbyists and claims that his relationships are ethical. > > Boehner is currently involved in a lawsuit, first filed in 1998, against fellow Congressman Jim McDermott — the first such case ever between two sitting Congressmen. Boehner v. McDermott centers around the release by McDermott to the media of an illegally taped conference call between Boehner, Newt Gingrich, and other Republican Congressional leaders. The call was a discussion of strategy over an investigation of Gingrich by the House Ethics Committee. There’s not much point in pretending that the Republican Revolution was at any time some idealistic pursuit of integrity that ran afoul of the corrupting influence of government. These folks were dirty from the get-go. The Republicans have made the House Post Office scandal and the nights in the Lincoln bedroom seem about as corrupt as bobby-soxers necking in the Bel Air. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2006, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-white-house-must-really-be-worried/346279/45 "2006-02-28T04:36:10Z")
I forgot to add the obvious irony that the Republicans recently elected Boehner the House Majority Leader in an effort to cover up the stink of DeLay’s corruption. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2006, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-white-house-must-really-be-worried/346279/46 "2006-02-28T04:51:13Z")
> [@Maureen](#): > > Ah, thank you. In that case, I stand corrected. But more importantly, I think the charge of “hawking around” is a reasonable one to make. Not from a Republican, of course, but from someone like Feingold whom she might have to run against in a Dem prez primary. If I were him, I’d certainly use excerpts from her [Senate floor speech](http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html) to rally the Democratic base against her-- you’d almost think it was Bush speaking. > [@](#): > > In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. > > It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security. Like I said, a Republican could hardly use this against her, but someone like Feingold can easily say: _I saw through the disinformation campaign that Bush spread about Iraq. Hillary didn’t. You choose who you want to lead the Democrats to vicotry in November!_ ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2006, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-white-house-must-really-be-worried/346279/47 "2006-02-28T04:52:26Z")
I honestly think this has nothing to do with whether Hillary will or won’t run in 2008. The midterm elections are right around the corner, and scaring up the base is what I think the goal is here. It’s probably difficult to pass amendments that simply reaffirm the previous amendments banning same sex marriage, so the “evil gays” don’t make a very good reason to get to the polls. Scaring people into thinking that Hillary will be president AND that there is a possibility that both houses might be democratically controlled is what I see as the goal. ---
**Author:** ![Syntropy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Syntropy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Syntropy)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2006, 5:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-white-house-must-really-be-worried/346279/48 "2006-02-28T05:04:00Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Like I said, a Republican could hardly use this against her, but someone like Feingold can easily say: _I saw through the disinformation campaign that Bush spread about Iraq. Hillary didn’t. You choose who you want to lead the Democrats to vicotry in November!_ Absolutely. As I said, I don’t think Hillary really stands a chance of ever being elected, but I do agree with her on several issues. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2006, 6:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-white-house-must-really-be-worried/346279/49 "2006-02-28T06:10:01Z")
> [@Hentor the Barbarian](#): > > There’s not much point in pretending that the Republican Revolution was at any time some idealistic pursuit of integrity that ran afoul of the corrupting influence of government. Well, if you can find someone trying to make that point, then maybe you can start a debate with him. ---
**Author:** ![Dubious\_Weasle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b782af/32.png) [@Dubious\_Weasle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dubious_Weasle)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2006, 8:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-white-house-must-really-be-worried/346279/50 "2006-02-28T08:38:32Z")
> [@DMC](#): > > I honestly think this has nothing to do with whether Hillary will or won’t run in 2008. The midterm elections are right around the corner, and scaring up the base is what I think the goal is here. It’s probably difficult to pass amendments that simply reaffirm the previous amendments banning same sex marriage, so the “evil gays” don’t make a very good reason to get to the polls. Scaring people into thinking that Hillary will be president AND that there is a possibility that both houses might be democratically controlled is what I see as the goal. Bingo. It’s just political good sense. She’s a conventient target and she’s been shown in the past to be very effective in stiring up the base. So why would they invest great amounts of time and money to develop a new threat/issue when this one is already ready made. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2006, 12:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-white-house-must-really-be-worried/346279/51 "2006-02-28T12:24:03Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > I’m not a conservative, and I don’t “campaign” for any candidates. Okay, sorry if I was too quick to snap at you. But my point stands with regard to many conservatives who are now complaining about the corrupting influence of one-party rule and extolling the virtues of party balance and governmental gridlock. I think the most of 'em are hypocrites. I didn’t see any conservatives or Republicans back in 2000 saying “One-party rule is a bad thing; keep Congress Republican but vote for Gore!” And I didn’t see any of them in 2002 saying “One-party rule is a bad thing; put a Democratic majority in Congress!” Nope, they took all the wins they could get, and laughed at the Democrats for losing. But now that so many of their victorious candidates are screwing so many things up so badly with their crazy criminal cronyism, suddenly they rediscover that one-party rule has a bad influence. Hence the pious hopes that the Democrats will provide a little balance before Republicans lose their credibility completely. I guess we’ll find out this fall whether any of them really mean it. Snark snark snark, snarl snarl snarl. Sorry to be grumpy, but cut away about 25% of that for rhetorical exaggeration and I still really mean the rest of it. > [@John Mace](#): > > And, frankly, if I hear one more OP about how the mean old Republicans are playing dirty politics, I think I’ll puke. If you can’t stand the heat, baby, get out of the kitchen. Politics isn’t for boyscouts (or girlscouts, in this case). It never was, it isn’t now, and it never will be. If you’ve got substantive charges of illegal activity, let’s hear about it. Otherwise, quite yer bitchin’. That, my boy, is going to come back to haunt you. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Syntropy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Syntropy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Syntropy)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2006, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-white-house-must-really-be-worried/346279/52 "2006-02-28T16:58:47Z")
> [@Dubious Weasle](#): > > Bingo. It’s just political good sense. She’s a conventient target and she’s been shown in the past to be very effective in stiring up the base. So why would they invest great amounts of time and money to develop a new threat/issue when this one is already ready made. Just a WAG, but it seems to me that it’s easier to band people together when there’s an easily identifiable enemy. The Republicans are in the middle of having to justify an increasingly unpopular war in the middle east, and plans to expand that war into Iran look imminent. Either they find someone for everyone to hate and vote against, or they’re going to have a hard sell with their candidate come the general election. I don’t care what **John Mace** says, Republicans may like to point to Condi Rice to show how diverse they’ve become, but the strong Southern Christian/racist/sexist base isn’t going to vote for her. Even as VP. Hillary kills two birds with one stone. No matter who the Dem front runner is, for the next two years Pubs can point to her and say “better get on board with us, you know you don’t want HER in office,” and has the additional bonus of dangling something shiny in front of people’s faces to get their minds off the Middle Eastern quagmire. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2006, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-white-house-must-really-be-worried/346279/53 "2006-02-28T17:03:16Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Okay, sorry if I was too quick to snap at you. OK. BTW, I’ve been a long time advocate of mixed party rule IRL and on this board. This isn’t something I stumbled onto because of Bush. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2006, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-white-house-must-really-be-worried/346279/54 "2006-02-28T17:33:58Z")
I guess my question would be…WHY exactly would the current White House be worried? Why would Bush care if Hillary runs or doesn’t run? Unless the OP is postulating that Bush will somehow be able to run for a third term (we’ll leave off the fact that at this point ANYONE…even Gore…could beat him 😛 ), why exactly would Bush care? As for Rove…is Rove going to be working with the new candidate? Is this a certainty? Is it a possibility? Is he angling for a new job? -XT ---
**Author:** ![Merijeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f05b48/32.png) [@Merijeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merijeek)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2006, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-white-house-must-really-be-worried/346279/55 "2006-02-28T17:44:22Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > I guess my question would be…WHY exactly would the current White House be worried? Why would Bush care if Hillary runs or doesn’t run? Unless the OP is postulating that Bush will somehow be able to run for a third term (we’ll leave off the fact that at this point ANYONE…even Gore…could beat him 😛 ), why exactly would Bush care? As for Rove…is Rove going to be working with the new candidate? Is this a certainty? Is it a possibility? Is he angling for a new job? > > -XT Because everyone in the White House **except** Bush is up for a third term (or in some cases, fourth, fifh, seventh, or whatever number they’re up to since the days of Nixon). And right now they’re looking to make sure their opposition is as demonized as possible. I’m betting Hillary will be outed as a lesbian before the end of 2007. -Joe ---
**Author:** ![Syntropy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Syntropy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Syntropy)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2006, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-white-house-must-really-be-worried/346279/56 "2006-02-28T18:21:48Z")
[Dude.](http://lesbianstudies.com/oldsite/hillary.htm)[Already](http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/otherfamouslesbians/a/HillaryClinton.htm) [tried](http://www.insidepolitics.org/heard/heard062205.html) [& convicted](http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1539282,00.html) [in the court](http://www.trosch.org/wom/hillary.html) [of public opinion.](http://www.christianmusictv.com/hillary_clinton_.htm) ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2006, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-white-house-must-really-be-worried/346279/57 "2006-02-28T19:12:38Z")
> [@suezeekay](#): > > They are even making comments about her “health problems” now. Health problems? 😕 ---
**Author:** ![Merijeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f05b48/32.png) [@Merijeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merijeek)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2006, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-white-house-must-really-be-worried/346279/58 "2006-02-28T19:16:00Z")
> [@Steve MB](#): > > Health problems? 😕 Soon to be quoted by a Usual Suspect as an unimpeachable source. And I’m assuming the Health Problems would be of the monthly variety. Can’t trust them wimmin! -Joe, myn ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2006, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-white-house-must-really-be-worried/346279/59 "2006-02-28T19:17:03Z")
Are there any minds left to change against her by this point? Or did it get to that a decade ago? Has it not yet occurred to this gang that their efforts just might be counterproductive with their general credibility already destroyed by so many other matters? Doesn’t matter, though. The more the RW hate media focuses on her, the less time they’ll be able to spend on the real Dem candidate in '08. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2006, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-white-house-must-really-be-worried/346279/60 "2006-02-28T21:43:38Z")
I don’t know what’s scarier for the Republicans - contemplating the inevitability of Hillary’s nomination in '08, or facing the reality that the only candidate they’ll be able to field with a good chance of beating her is John McCain. 😃 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-white-house-must-really-be-worried/346279.md?page=2)