Bear_Nenno asks if he released a cop killer, Pink says he’s released “a bunch of bad guys,” and my dad swears that Clinton has revoked an affidivat that not he, nor anyone from his term, will participate in politics for one term, or something like that.
Why doesn’t the press cover this stuff? If any of it’s true, it shows alot of hypocrisy.
–Tim
If it’s not true, however, the answer is obvious. In the case of pardoning a cop-killer, Bear_Nenno’s thread seems to clear him.
Well, you may not agree, but here’s the reasoning on this one. The original goal of this ethics pledge was to prevent employees who left the White House, like George Stephenapoulos, from becoming involved in lobbying, because it was felt they would have undue influence with their former co-workers. Now that their former co-workers won’t be in a position of power, and those who do will spit upon Democratic lobbyists, there is no point to preventing this situation, so the ethics pledge was cancelled. Supposedly it would have been left in place if Gore had won.
To address the OP, the short answer is, “Because he’s history, babe.” Literally. He’s outta here. His clock’s run out. Time for the book deal, the lecture tour, the Elder Statesman bit.
In the case of the cop killer, Clinton reviewed the case ('cause his heart bleeds for the poor Native American guy) but he decided not to pardon him. He did pardon a bunch of guys who had been convicted of financial shenanigans. These people were, not surprisingly, mostly party-line Democrats like Dan Rostonkowski. Another thing he’s done is use executive order to declare millions of acres of land off-limits to any kind of development. This was a pretty obvious snipe at the Republicans, and Dubya will almost certainly use his executive orders to reverse most or all of these latest land grabs.
I’m a little confused about your dad’s claim. An affidavit that he won’t participate in politics for one term? Does that mean that he signed a document saying he wouldn’t be president from Jan/97 - Jan/01, or is this supposed to apply to the 2001-2005 period? If the latter, then pardoning people now wouldn’t go against his promise (he still has a few more weeks in his term y’know).
As for the “anyone from his term” part, I don’t understand that claim enough to even begin to comment on it. Suffice to say that if your dad means that nobody who worked with Clinton will enter politics for 4 years, well… what other people choose to do with their careers is not something Bill can promise, even if he is the President.
Tim, I wish to cast no aspersions on you or your fine family when I say this, but I think either you or your dad is mis-remembering something you half-heard from someone who may not have been completely impartial in matters pertaining to politics.
–sublight.
…and now, my children, you begin to understand why grownups refer to the interval between the November election and the January inauguration as a “lame duck” presidency. 
sublight
The nature of the Clinton order was already explained by smackfu. You might reread the previous posts, instead of just going on about the OP’s family.
The logic of the Clinton order is indeed as described by smackfu. But it’s not so simple as that. If indeed these lobbyists will have so little access, then why bother lifting the ban altogether - who is he helping? OTOH, it may be that there is more to lobbying than just access, and the Clinton people will be able to use their expertise for lobbying purposes. But the bottom line is that an order like this looks alot better at the beginning of a president’s term then it does at the end.
Perhaps the press is laying off Clinton because the Bush appointments are a lot more topical and just as full of hypocracy. Hopefully the press doesn’t care which hypocrite it focuses it’s lens on these days. I’d hate to think it’s as blatantly right leaning as it seemed to be during the election.
Needs2know
I think you must have been seeing a different media than I was…
And I’ve gotta ask once again: What hypocracy? Bush said he was conservative, he’s appointing some conservatives along with the moderates. So where’s the hypocracy?
Re: The OP. It’s traditional for presidents to issue pardons in their last months. Remember Bush and Caspar Weinberger? The Rostenkowski pardon isn’t nearly as self-serving as Bush’s Weinberger pardon.
And why they changed the date of innauguration from March to January several decades ago. Imagine 2 extra months of crippled-fowl-dom.
“I’m a uniter, not a divider – and my Attorney General is someone who’s going to ignore the civil rights laws and abortion rights laws because he doesn’t agree with them. Oh, and my Labor Secretary is dead-against affirmative action, so I can piss off all those African Americans who didn’t vote for me.”
But then, this isn’t entirely surprising – Mister “Uniter” turned down Gore’s request for a meeting to turn down the rhetoric and come to an agreement on recounts during the Florida hijack, remember? I guess Dubya figures since he’s already a fraud, he might as well go the whole nine yards…
What, is Great Debates full? Not accepting posts? Or are there no topics about the new president there?
[slight hijack]
Hypocracy – a society ruled by syringes :eek:
[/slight hijack]
We now return you to your regularly-scheduled discussion of hypocrisy.
Don’t forget the drug dealer:
(from Rolling Stone, 10/06/94; Eric Nadler)
My point here is that you can pick apart last minute actions by any administration to justify your prejudices.
I’m sure we could get together a rousing debate on the details of the Peltier case… but it’s pointless 'cuz Clinton didn’t pardon him – I hasten to note that this doesn’t stop folks from claiming that he’s a bad guy because newspapers wrote articles claiming he was considering it.
Wouldn’t “hypocracy”, if it were a word, mean “government by the low” ? Hmm, not that far off, really.
But better than “hippocracy” - “government by large animals that spray urine and feces by twirling their tails like propellers as they walk by”. Hmm, THAT’s not entirely off either. Maybe I’d better stop now.
**
How about just hipocracy… The Rule of Cool. The Fast show’s Jazzman would be our King, but everyone would be too laid back to pay him any attention.
Not the best way to make my SDMB (not counting a test post)but everyone has to start somewhere.
Well, Clinton just decided to protect a zillion more acres of land. It’s more obvious mischief that Dubya will doubtlessly undo as soon as he enters office. Here’s a question: can Bush issue a ‘blanket order’ that nullifies every executive order Clinton issued in his last month in office? It would be figgin hilarious if Bush issues an order that reads, “Each and every executive order issued between December 1, 2000 and Jan 15, 2001 (or whatever Clinton’s last day is) is hereby repealed.”
No, in general, and it’s not going to be easy even in this particular case. From http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20395-2001Jan4.html: