"I'm with EW on "the bad' starting possibly earlier than Bush v Gore. I'd say "the bad" definitely started earlier, but I'm soooo much older than everyone here, I'm having trouble deciding on that starting point. Every time I think I've got it, I remember a preceding gross injustice.anyone wanna argue?
Bill Clinton's impeachment was a gross abuse of the Constitution for partisan purposes, at taxpayers' expense. It began the day Newt the Brewt set his sights on being Speaker of the House and 3rd in line to the Presidency, the perch from which he could impeach the President and the Veep. They tried to get something on Gore, but nothing stuck.
It was a grand scheme which Newt nearly pulled off. To get there, he had to eliminate former Speakers Jim Wright and Tom Foley and he used taxpayers money to accomplish it.
Newt curried favor with his Congressional collegues in both houses by introducing legislation giving Congress a 50% pay raise, with an automatic annual 10% cost of living increase.
Now that's "transactional". Everybody wanted it, but they just didn't want to have to go on record, yay or nay. Reagan had said he would sign it, when it reached his desk, the Senate said they would pass it, so it fell to Jim Wright, who knew the people were furious about the pay raise and the "passed by unanimous consent" bit, to do the right thing and he called for a vote. That was the end of the bill and the end of Jim Wright.
Newt drove the ship to investigate Jim Wright for accepting $7,000 in book royalites, which were "exempt". The headlines all read 69 charges, but if you read the committee report you see in the fine print that most charges were dropped. Newt went on to accept a $1 million dollar advance on his book, though. Tom Foley had to promise a 35% pay raise to get the job and then GOPAC went to Foley's home district and defeated him there.
A similar thing happened to Senator Alan Cranston. Of the Keating 5, Cranston was the only one who did not accept a campaign contribution from Keating, but he was the only one disciplined. Cranston had formed a non-profit for voter registration and Keating contributed. Cranston called the Federal Agency investigating Keating and asked them to do a speedy hearing. Everyone is entitled to a speedy disposition of an investigation, but this was construed to be improper.
What Cranston and Wright had in common was their very outspoken criticism of Reagan/Bush and Iran-Contra. They were exhilerating in their stands, getting the Boland ammendment adopted, to stop the sale of arms to Nicaragua. Even so, Reagan hosted breakfast with the Gipper for private donors who paid for arms for Nicaragua in violation of the Boland ammendment. Seperate foreign polcies, and shoadow gov'ts, anyone? Dems had the majority in both houses, so some intra-party rivalries came into play here too.
Iran-Contra makes Watergate seem like a pre school sand box fight.
Then there's the whole Vietnam horror. This is when I became "engaged" as opposed to simply voting.
If I had to find a common thread throughout these serial wars and disregard for laws, I'd say that under Republicans, a "Me first", winning at all costs, by any means, competitiveness and unseemly greed, hypocricy, and prevarication, prevails.
For the Democrats' part, they've pulled too many punches. Out of fear of being called "partisan", shrill, if you will, they too often let transgressions slide.
Clinton, for example, barely mentioned Iran-Contra and all the Presidential Pardons during the 1992 campaign. It was all swept under the rug and he paid the price. So did we.
Gore erred in not calling for an entire state recount, which was the only appeal proof position. Then as Rimone says, in taking the high road. Dems were sorely remiss in the failure of even one Senator signing the Congressional Black Caucus objections to the certification of the Presidential electors from Florida. I'm not over that yet.
Then there was Kerry's conceding, etc. I'm not suggesting that Democrats should emulate the worst conduct of the NeoCons, because I don't think it benefits anyone to lower one's standards, but I am asking Democrats to stop pulling their punches and to sock it the hell to em with the hard core truth.
9/11 might have meant that everyone joined together as fellow victims, but it sure as hell didn't make Dopey and Darth infallible, so stop with the obeisance, already.
I don't accept the term "shrill". I've been on the planet long enough to have noticed that whenever someone doesn't want to hear what you have to say, they accuse you of shouting. They cover their ears, squint their eyes shut and make a face and say "Stop shouting", even though you are speaking in a normal voice. They just don't want to hear it.
That I disagree with the "flat-earthers", and defend my belief that the earth is round, does not make me shrill."
Saturday, August 19, 2006
Iran-Contra makes Watergate seem like a pre school sand box fight
speaking of shrill, here's kathleen:
Posted by lukery at 8/19/2006 07:31:00 PM