OT - Bush Commutes Libby's Sentence [Archive] - Front Office Football Central

NoMyths

07-02-2007, 05:10 PM

*shakes head*

Link: Bush commutes sentence for Libby (http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usbush0703,0,3656692,print.story?coll=ny-top-headlines)

Full Text:
Bush commutes sentence for Libby
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
July 2, 2007, 5:52 PM EDT

President Bush commuted the sentence of former aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby Monday, sparing him from a 2 1/2-year prison term in the CIA leak case.

Bush left intact a $250,000 fine and two years probation for Libby, according to a senior White House official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the decision had not been announced.

Bush's move came hours after a federal appeals panel ruled Libby could not delay his prison term in the CIA leak case. That decision put the pressure on the president, who had been sidestepping calls by Libby's allies to pardon the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney.

Libby was convicted in March of lying to authorities and obstructing the investigation into the 2003 leak of CIA operative's identity. He was the highest-ranking White House official ordered to prison since the Iran-Contra affair.

JonInMiddleGA

07-02-2007, 05:18 PM

Amazing.

First thing Bush has gotten right weeks.

Vinatieri for Prez

07-02-2007, 05:20 PM

Total crock.

NoMyths

07-02-2007, 05:28 PM

Amazing.

First thing Bush has gotten right weeks.

Jon, I have to hear your explanation for this comment. Because it seems to undermine everything you claim to stand for from a legal standpoint (even if reinforcing your philosophical position).

JPhillips

07-02-2007, 05:34 PM

Dear Bill Clinton,

About that perjury stuff, we really didn't mean any of it.

Signed,

Republicans

DaddyTorgo

07-02-2007, 05:36 PM

that's frigging ridiculous.

and yes, it was ridiculous when clinton pardoned his rich buddies too.

IMO presidential pardons are an absurd relic and need to go. across the board.

Bearcat729

07-02-2007, 05:50 PM

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y284/PCM72/puppiescard.jpg

larrymcg421

07-02-2007, 05:56 PM

Bush is obviously continuing his quest to restore honor and integrity to the oval office. When they play old clips of him saying that, they should accompany it with a laugh track.

Esquared1

07-02-2007, 05:56 PM

molson

07-02-2007, 06:00 PM

that's frigging ridiculous.

and yes, it was ridiculous when clinton pardoned his rich buddies too.

IMO presidential pardons are an absurd relic and need to go. across the board.

Agreed, but both sides look retarded when they complain about the specific presidents involved every time there's a change in the office.

DaddyTorgo

07-02-2007, 06:02 PM

Agreed, but both sides look retarded when they complain about the specific presidents involved every time there's a change in the office.

oh I complained about clinton and his fat-cat criminal campaign donor. And i'll complain about bush and his criminal crony.

MrBug708

07-02-2007, 06:05 PM

At least it helps prision overpopulation

KWhit

07-02-2007, 06:11 PM

Welcome to Hollywood!

Uh.. I mean, Washington!

Senator

07-02-2007, 06:16 PM

Godspeed, felons.

clintl

07-02-2007, 06:19 PM

IMO presidential pardons are an absurd relic and need to go. across the board.

I wouldn't go that far. But I would be in favor of a constitutional amendment taking away the right of presidents to pardon someone for crimes committed by someone working in their administration.

cougarfreak

07-02-2007, 06:41 PM

Nothing like giving away a CIA agent, who protects our national security, that Bush supposedly holds so dear, then getting a pardon.

clintl

07-02-2007, 06:42 PM

I think this is pretty damn funny, considering the comparisons between the pardon of Mark Rich and the commutation of Libby's sentence.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/03/02/clinton.library/

Libby was Mark Rich's lawyer!

Neon_Chaos

07-02-2007, 06:45 PM

Got to love America.

SirFozzie

07-02-2007, 06:48 PM

Hell.. it wasn't like Bush was going to get anything done with his last 18 months in office anyway.. at least by doing it now, hopefully for republicans the furor has died down by then

Swaggs

07-02-2007, 06:49 PM

Not a surprise, but a little sooner than expected.

Cute puppies, though.

ISiddiqui

07-02-2007, 06:53 PM

Yeah, not a surprise. This administration is so corrupt, I would have been shocked if Bush let Libby spend a day in jail.

Neon_Chaos

07-02-2007, 07:29 PM

Fox News is funny. I don't know why, but apparently, this is on par with the above news report, and is also plastered on the website's main page in big bold letter.:

hxxp://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,287784,00.html

JonInMiddleGA

07-02-2007, 08:02 PM

Jon, I have to hear your explanation for this comment. Because it seems to undermine everything you claim to stand for from a legal standpoint (even if reinforcing your philosophical position).

Not too incongruous really, as long as you allow for the application of unusual circumstances to provide an unusual exception.

Seriously NM, I really do see where you're coming from & I do see where it could appear contradictory, but hopefully you'll understand that I don't believe an occasional exception under extraordinary conditions is occasionally called for. This seems like a good time for one of those to apply.

AFAIC, the biggest mistake made was if anyone "outted" her (quotations since she wasn't particularly secret to begin with). If they wanted to send a message to her/those around her, it should have been done with more traditional methods within that community. Considering the other possibilities - such as, just hypothetically of course, brake failure as an example - for anyone to have stood trial for anything remotely connected to this case as it actually played out strikes me as near the height of absurdity. It's within the authority of the President to act in this case, and I'm thankful that he did so in order to avoid such a ridiculous situation.

Buccaneer

07-02-2007, 08:08 PM

...and they knew that Libby was just the fall guy.

clintl

07-02-2007, 08:09 PM

He wasn't on trial for outting her. He was on trial for lying to the Grand Jury about what he knew. And he was unequivocally guilty of that.

MrBigglesworth

07-02-2007, 09:21 PM

AFAIC, the biggest mistake made was if anyone "outted" her (quotations since she wasn't particularly secret to begin with). If they wanted to send a message to her/those around her, it should have been done with more traditional methods within that community. Considering the other possibilities - such as, just hypothetically of course, brake failure as an example - for anyone to have stood trial for anything remotely connected to this case as it actually played out strikes me as near the height of absurdity. It's within the authority of the President to act in this case, and I'm thankful that he did so in order to avoid such a ridiculous situation.
You support the death penalty for people that download music, and this guy is a convicted felon! I find it hard to believe that there is any philosophy behind it beyond a love for authoritarianism.

EDIT: Authoritarianism is a valid philosophy, but don't try and sugarcoat it as some kind of rule of law philosophy..

Groundhog

07-02-2007, 09:29 PM

Standards + Standards

07-02-2007, 09:38 PM

John Galt

07-02-2007, 09:57 PM

EDIT: Authoritarianism is a valid philosophy,

No it's not. It really isn't. :cool:

JPhillips

07-02-2007, 10:06 PM

Much ado about nothing. Politics as usual. Same old same old. Nothing has changed in DC.

No underlying crime ever proven, and the original leaker, Armitage, never prosecuted, though Fitzgerald knew who he was from the beginning.

Perjury is a crime. A serious crime. What this shows is that the President is willing to protect members of his administration from the full consequences of the law. This is an administration that has contempt for the rule of law.

From the Fitzgerald statement:

We comment only on the statement in which the President termed the sentence imposed by the judge as “excessive.” The sentence in this case was imposed pursuant to the laws governing sentencings which occur every day throughout this country. In this case, an experienced federal judge considered extensive argument from the parties and then imposed a sentence consistent with the applicable laws. It is fundamental to the rule of law that all citizens stand before the bar of justice as equals. That principle guided the judge during both the trial and the sentencing.

MrBigglesworth

07-02-2007, 10:13 PM

Much ado about nothing. Politics as usual. Same old same old. Nothing has changed in DC.
When was the last time a president in the middle of his term pardoned someone just convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice stemming from a criminal investigation into his own administration?

No underlying crime ever proven...
Perhaps partly because people were perjuring themselves and obstructing justice? Although I will concede that with Cheney's need for secrecy, Libby may just have perjured himself in order to hide Dick's favorite color.

Vinatieri for Prez

07-02-2007, 10:16 PM

-Mojo Jojo-

07-02-2007, 10:21 PM

Much ado about nothing. Politics as usual. Same old same old. Nothing has changed in DC.

No underlying crime ever proven, and the original leaker, Armitage, never prosecuted, though Fitzgerald knew who he was from the beginning.

I fascinated by the idea that Patrick Fitzgerald is some kind of liberal partisan hack. Can someone please explain this to me?

sterlingice

07-02-2007, 10:53 PM

sterlingice

07-02-2007, 10:54 PM

No it's not. It really isn't. :cool:

Yeah it is. I love a benevolent monarchy. It's the most efficient form of government out there. So long as I get to be the monarch ;)

SI

LloydLungs

07-02-2007, 10:56 PM

I've been silent too long on this matter. Here's. . what . . I .. . think. . .wait, those are some damn cute puppies! Hey little guy, how you doing? Aren't you just the cutest? Yes you are. Yes you are. YES YOU ARE!

I love this post. I just thought it should be acknowledged. Continue on...

EDIT: Ah, turns out it just was. Maybe the puppies can take this thread over.

JonInMiddleGA

07-02-2007, 11:01 PM

He wasn't on trial for outting her. He was on trial for lying to the Grand Jury about what he knew.

Fair point. I was using sloppy shorthand, just figured it was the quickest description available & that most anybody in the conversation knew the various details.

TroyF

07-02-2007, 11:04 PM

Wish he hadn't done it.Those who were consistent in wishing Clinton get the book thrown at him and that Libby get the same treatment for lying to a grand jury can stand over here in the "you aren't a flaming hypocrite line" Those who chose one or the other, please, go away. Just go away.

Lying to a grand jury should put you in prison. And you shouldn't be allowed to stay president. Clinton went through unscathed and Libby is going to do so as well. Both because apologists found ways to justify how it's ok to lie to a grand jury and that it's not that big of a deal because of special circumstances that negate how horrible the lying is.

Sickening, but not surprising.

Fonzie

07-02-2007, 11:10 PM

King of New York

07-02-2007, 11:19 PM

When I rise to become Benevolent Dictator Of the United States Of Fonzie this kind of thing will never happen. Primarily because I'll do away with the courts.

By the way, I'll be looking for good people to run my cabinet. Any takers?

I would like to be Secretary of Agriculture so that I can clean up the so-called "Amusement Park" industry and the merchants of death who operate it.

Fonzie

07-02-2007, 11:21 PM

I would like to be Secretary of Agriculture so that I can clean up the so-called "Amusement Park" industry and the merchants of death who operate it.

Done. Serve me with loyalty and you will be richly rewarded.

Anybody else?

Young Drachma

07-03-2007, 12:44 AM

Originally Posted by George W. Bush
Well Done, Thou Good and Faithful Servant.

Is anyone surprised?

Groundhog

07-03-2007, 12:49 AM

Done. Serve me with loyalty and you will be richly rewarded.

Anybody else?

Put me down as Secretary of Gettin Down and Dirty Wit Da Ladies.

MrBigglesworth

07-03-2007, 01:04 AM

I've been silent too long on this matter. Here's. . what . . I .. . think. . .wait, those are some damn cute puppies! Hey little guy, how you doing? Aren't you just the cutest? Yes you are. Yes you are. YES YOU ARE!
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/cat_proximity.png
xkcd.com

MrBigglesworth

07-03-2007, 01:56 AM

Sgran

07-03-2007, 02:16 AM

At least we got Paris Hilton.

st.cronin

07-03-2007, 02:25 AM

Nothing like giving away a CIA agent, who protects our national security, that Bush supposedly holds so dear, then getting a pardon.

Libby has not been pardoned.

Vinatieri for Prez

07-03-2007, 03:30 AM

Clinton was acquitted by the Senate and was never convicted of anything

Let alone lying to a grand jury. He lied in a deposition about sex in a civil lawsuit, not a national security matter involving the criminal investigation of the potential outing of a CIA agent, involving multiple lies and attempts to obstruct justice.

Vinatieri for Prez

07-03-2007, 03:32 AM

Libby has not been pardoned.

This is true. And important. I still don't like it though, nor the 100 or so pardons Clinton (and the presidents before him) handed out at the end of his term.

st.cronin

07-03-2007, 03:41 AM

This is true. And important. I still don't like it though, nor the 100 or so pardons Clinton (and the presidents before him) handed out at the end of his term.

I don't like it either, but consider that it was pretty much assumed by everybody that he would, in fact, be pardoned. I know that at least once on this forum I predicted that Libby wouldn't be pardoned.

Ksyrup

07-03-2007, 06:38 AM

Wish he hadn't done it.Those who were consistent in wishing Clinton get the book thrown at him and that Libby get the same treatment for lying to a grand jury can stand over here in the "you aren't a flaming hypocrite line" Those who chose one or the other, please, go away. Just go away.

Agreed. I don't care if you cheated on your wife or outed a CIA operative, lying under oath is a crime. Now, it would be interesting to see whether Clinton would have done any time - I seriously doubt it, I think the Republicans just wanted him out of office - but that's got nothing to do with this case, since a jail sentence was imposed.

Just ridiculous.

Ksyrup

07-03-2007, 06:41 AM

Let alone lying to a grand jury. He lied in a deposition about sex in a civil lawsuit, not a national security matter involving the criminal investigation of the potential outing of a CIA agent, involving multiple lies and attempts to obstruct justice.

*shakes head*

Ther are/were both attorneys who lied under oath. It doesn't matter what they lied about. Period.

larrymcg421

07-03-2007, 06:48 AM

That's a bit silly I think. They certainly both deserve to get punished (and did), but you really don't think it matters if someone lies on the oath about a traffic stop or if they lie on oath to help a murderer go free?

Ksyrup

07-03-2007, 06:57 AM

Not in terms of the crime that's been committed. I think it is irrelevant. One may matter more outside of the legal process, but a lie under oath is a lie under oath. Period.

JPhillips

07-03-2007, 07:36 AM

Who said this?

"[W]e must always maintain the highest ethical standards. We must always ask ourselves not only what is legal, but what is right. There is no goal of government worth accomplishing if it cannot be accomplished with integrity."

-Mojo Jojo-

07-03-2007, 07:37 AM

I don't like it either, but consider that it was pretty much assumed by everybody that he would, in fact, be pardoned. I know that at least once on this forum I predicted that Libby wouldn't be pardoned.

Pardons aren't usually issued until the appeals process has been exhausted. Bush only commuted now because the judge said Libby would have to go to jail while his appeal was pending. There's plenty of time for a pardon if the appeal fails...

Ksyrup

07-03-2007, 07:39 AM

Who said this?

I'll go with Boss Tweed. :D

cartman

07-03-2007, 08:14 AM

I wonder if Bush is also going to commute the sentence of my former boss, who pled guilty to obstruction of justice for making false statements to a grand jury during his time at CA. If Libby's 30 months and $250,000 was excessive, then surely his 7 years and $30 million is off the charts. Not to mention his boss who got 14 years and a $800 million fine.

Toddzilla

07-03-2007, 09:32 AM

I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors.
If there’s a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is . . . If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of.
Yep, He sure took care of his friend, didn't he?

clintl

07-03-2007, 09:54 AM

Not in terms of the crime that's been committed. I think it is irrelevant. One may matter more outside of the legal process, but a lie under oath is a lie under oath. Period.

Things are not that black and white. Motivation and circumstances have to be a consideration when deciding on a just punishment. I don't think the lie Clinton told would have merited the same sentence as the lie Libby told.

FWIW, I think if you're going to lay the the blame for Clinton getting off pretty much unscathed, it should be laid at Kenneth Starr's feet. He's the one who made the decision to make a deal rather than prosecute. Not Clinton's allies. And he probably made the deal because he didn't think he could get a conviction. He spent enough time investigating Clinton for every little thing that he possibly could investigate.

John Galt

07-03-2007, 10:04 AM

Not in terms of the crime that's been committed. I think it is irrelevant. One may matter more outside of the legal process, but a lie under oath is a lie under oath. Period.

Do you really think that in terms of sentencing (not actual guilt)? If so, I think you are in disagreement with every sentencing guideline, state or federal, in the United States.

As for me, I thought Clinton was guilty of perjury and should have received a minor sentence (almost certainly no jail time). I don't think I have ever been involved in a case where at least one person being deposed didn't lie. But the only times I have encountered subsequent criminal sanctions is when the lying was related to a criminal prosecution. So, I can't see Clinton paying more than a fine if he were to be treated similarly.

Whatever the case, I don't see any contradiction in thinking Clinton's actions were not "high crimes and misdemeanors" to justify impeachment and thinking that Bush shouldn't undo a properly applied sentence under guidelines his administration supports because the convict is a political ally.

NoMyths

07-03-2007, 10:13 AM

Not too incongruous really, as long as you allow for the application of unusual circumstances to provide an unusual exception.

Seriously NM, I really do see where you're coming from & I do see where it could appear contradictory, but hopefully you'll understand that I don't believe an occasional exception under extraordinary conditions is occasionally called for. This seems like a good time for one of those to apply.

AFAIC, the biggest mistake made was if anyone "outted" her (quotations since she wasn't particularly secret to begin with). If they wanted to send a message to her/those around her, it should have been done with more traditional methods within that community. Considering the other possibilities - such as, just hypothetically of course, brake failure as an example - for anyone to have stood trial for anything remotely connected to this case as it actually played out strikes me as near the height of absurdity. It's within the authority of the President to act in this case, and I'm thankful that he did so in order to avoid such a ridiculous situation.

I see where you're coming from (and appreciate the thoughtful response). However, as the situation involves convictions for perjury and obstruction of justice, it has little to do with punishing him for "outing" a CIA agent and more to do with him choosing to circumvent other laws. It makes sense to me that you would believe it ridiculous for Libby to be punished for an action you don't feel was as severe as it was portrayed (the outing of Plame), but it doesn't make sense to me that you wouldn't likewise support penalties for the crimes he was convicted of that weren't related to the earlier incident. It seems to me that you are picking and choosing when to apply the rule of law is it fits into your philosophy, and I'd argue that such a distinction undermines the foundation of your argument towards an authoritarian political system. Which is how most people settle internal arguments with themselves, I suppose, but I wonder if it means that you've determined never to reevaluate your political philosophy despite striking evidence that there are problems making the pieces fit together. We've got enough dumb people in the world who aren't capable of such dynamic thought -- it makes me despair a bit when a bright guy like yourself seems to willfully choose the illogical path, and one that doesn't get America any closer to being the country it portrays itself to be.

Ksyrup

07-03-2007, 10:14 AM

Do you really think that in terms of sentencing (not actual guilt)? If so, I think you are in disagreement with every sentencing guideline, state or federal, in the United States.

No, I think I said in terms of the crime being committed. I didn't say anything about the punishment. If you go back to the comment I was responding to, it was an argument that lying about sex in a deposition isn't as important a crime as lying about the CIA leak. And in terms of the underlying crime, they are equal, IMO. It's lying under oath. For purposes of a conviction, the underlying facts really don't matter.

As far as the sentence is concerned, if Clinton had been convicted, I certainly see a difference in the crimes and how they should be punished. And I suspect Clinton would have been pardoned, anyway.

Ksyrup

07-03-2007, 10:20 AM

BTW, my comments really have very little to do with the outcome of this case, and more to do with people trying to make distinctions between shades of lies in terms of guilt.

John Galt

07-03-2007, 10:27 AM

No, I think I said in terms of the crime being committed. I didn't say anything about the punishment. If you go back to the comment I was responding to, it was an argument that lying about sex in a deposition isn't as important a crime as lying about the CIA leak.

That's why I asked (instead of presuming). ;)

I agree there is no important difference between the two cases in terms of guilt. Even if the investigation of Clinton had gone far afield and was therefore improper (his relations with Lewinsky certainly had nothing to do with Paula Jones or Whitewater and were not "illegal"), but an improper investigation does not give Clinton the right to lie under oath.

I wonder what sentence Libby would have received if he had pled guilty. My guess is that he would have received no prison time (or 6 months in the worst case scenario). But maybe he always knew he wouldn't actually serve time so he didn't need to cooperate and plead guilty.

Flasch186

07-03-2007, 10:43 AM

Originally Posted by George W. Bush
If there’s a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is . . . If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of.

In all honesty he told us he would take care of the person, I guess I just didnt interpret it's meaning in the same way W. meant it.

miami_fan

07-03-2007, 11:07 AM

On a related note, Barry Bonds and his legal staff is taking a looooong look at this.

Ksyrup

07-03-2007, 11:45 AM

miked

07-03-2007, 11:48 AM

The way people are reacting to this is silly. When will people understand that this administration really doesn't care what people think or what the "real world" rules are like. They make their own rules, do what they want, and no matter how much opinoin polls fall or ratings drop, it stays the same. The second he was convicted, you knew he would be pardoned (he still may be anyway).

TroyF

07-03-2007, 12:58 PM

No, I think I said in terms of the crime being committed. I didn't say anything about the punishment. If you go back to the comment I was responding to, it was an argument that lying about sex in a deposition isn't as important a crime as lying about the CIA leak. And in terms of the underlying crime, they are equal, IMO. It's lying under oath. For purposes of a conviction, the underlying facts really don't matter.

As far as the sentence is concerned, if Clinton had been convicted, I certainly see a difference in the crimes and how they should be punished. And I suspect Clinton would have been pardoned, anyway.

Thanks K. You made the points I was trying to make and some people took the wrong way. The crime of "outing a CIA operative" is different than the "lying under oath" part.

Lying under oath should carry the same consequence no matter what you are lying about. There should be just as much anger raised for someone lying about a parking ticket as a murder. Doesn't mean the punishments have to be the same (though I'd be for mandatory jail time for ANYONE who lies under oath, even if it's only 30 days)

MrBigglesworth

07-03-2007, 01:44 PM

Lying under oath should carry the same consequence no matter what you are lying about...Doesn't mean the punishments have to be the same...
That seems contradictory to me. What consequences should be the same if punishments don't have to be equal?

Ksyrup

07-03-2007, 02:42 PM

A conviction?

larrymcg421

07-03-2007, 02:57 PM

There should be just as much anger raised for someone lying about a parking ticket as a murder.

This is the most fascinating statement made in this thread. I can tell you I'd be much more angry at say OJ Simpson than some random idiot who lied to get out of a parking ticket.

Glengoyne

07-03-2007, 02:57 PM

Nothing like giving away a CIA agent, ... then getting a pardon.

By gosh, that's horrible. Now if only someone, anyone, would have been convicted or even charged with that crime.

Glengoyne

07-03-2007, 03:03 PM

Oh and to speak to the topic at hand.

This one is a bit hard to swallow.

No question about guilt or innocence on this one. He did it, he should pay the penalty.

As for the sentence. Was it too strict? I have no idea. Honestly, I have no idea.

That is the argument isn't it? Bush is saying that the punishment was too severe. I think the administration should present a better case, if that is their position. They really do seem to have learned nothing.

TroyF

07-03-2007, 03:07 PM

This is the most fascinating statement made in this thread. I can tell you I'd be much more angry at say OJ Simpson than some random idiot who lied to get out of a parking ticket.

The act is the same larry. Should we have a seperate law that says "you can't tell a lie under oath unless it's a minor offense that a majority of the population thinks is inconsequential?"

The act of lying under oath is the same no matter what the hell you are lying about. After the conviction, the judge can take into account the other factors. (OK, it's a parking ticket you lied about, 15 days, it's a murder investigation 5 years, whatever. . . )

I don't think anyone who lies under oath deserves a pass. I think it's an incredibly serious offense and should be treated as such. (thus me wanting jail time for anyone convicted of lying under oath)

As I said above, at sentencing we can figure out who gets what punishment levied against them. But there are no free passes and there shouldn't be people saying "ahhh, hell, it's not that big of a deal, he lied about a real estate transaction, it didn't hurt anyone"

YMMV

Glengoyne

07-03-2007, 03:08 PM

Not too incongruous really, as long as you allow for the application of unusual circumstances to provide an unusual exception.
... for anyone to have stood trial for anything remotely connected to this case as it actually played out strikes me as near the height of absurdity. It's within the authority of the President to act in this case, and I'm thankful that he did so in order to avoid such a ridiculous situation.

Pardon the editing (I just deleted), but I'm not sure how this can be the case, unless you were bagging on those who impeached Clinton for perjury and obstruction of justice stemming from the completely bogus and equally, at least, irrelevant investigation into the Paula Jones "case".

John Galt

07-03-2007, 03:09 PM

As for the sentence. Was it too strict? I have no idea. Honestly, I have no idea.

That is the argument isn't it? Bush is saying that the punishment was too severe. I think the administration should present a better case, if that is their position. They really do seem to have learned nothing.

They really can't argue that it was too harsh. The sentence was well within the Sentencing Guidelines which this administration has repeatedly defended as presumptively reasonable. The recent Rita case which went to the Supreme Court provides a particularly hard comparison for this administration. Rita was guilty of the same crimes as Scooter, received a comparable sentence, had all sorts of positives in his life history (war veteran, etc.), and the administration won the argument that Rita's sentence was "reasonable." Arguing that Scooter's sentence was "unreasonable," but Rita's was "reasonable," is impossible without making bizarre mental gymnastic manuevers.

Even if, for the sake of argument, the administration could argue that Scooter's sentence was too harsh (which Bush attempted to do by citing the probation officer's recommendation), such an argument would support commuting Libby's sentence to a lesser jail term (the probation officer suggested 2 years, I believe) rather than eliminating the prison sentence all together.

Ksyrup

07-03-2007, 03:20 PM

Even if, for the sake of argument, the administration could argue that Scooter's sentence was too harsh (which Bush attempted to do by citing the probation officer's recommendation), such an argument would support commuting Libby's sentence to a lesser jail term (the probation officer suggested 2 years, I believe) rather than eliminating the prison sentence all together.

Exactly. "Too harsh" means you support lessening it, or had he served some time, just giving him time served. Commuting it altogether essentially leaves him with just probation and a record...both of which will likely go away in a matter of months.

Anyone know what his home state is? I wonder whether the state Bar will go after his license based on the conviction. Clinton's law license was suspended for 5 years, but that didn't involve a conviction.

larrymcg421

07-03-2007, 03:30 PM

The act is the same larry. Should we have a seperate law that says "you can't tell a lie under oath unless it's a minor offense that a majority of the population thinks is inconsequential?"

The act of lying under oath is the same no matter what the hell you are lying about. After the conviction, the judge can take into account the other factors. (OK, it's a parking ticket you lied about, 15 days, it's a murder investigation 5 years, whatever. . . )

I don't think anyone who lies under oath deserves a pass. I think it's an incredibly serious offense and should be treated as such. (thus me wanting jail time for anyone convicted of lying under oath)

As I said above, at sentencing we can figure out who gets what punishment levied against them. But there are no free passes and there shouldn't be people saying "ahhh, hell, it's not that big of a deal, he lied about a real estate transaction, it didn't hurt anyone"

YMMV

I never said any of that. Please reread the portion of your post that I quoted. I never said that the guy lying about his parking ticket shouldn't also get convicted. What I'm talking about is I'm not going to be as mad at him as I'd be at OJ Simpson.

John Galt

07-03-2007, 03:32 PM

Anyone know what his home state is? I wonder whether the state Bar will go after his license based on the conviction. Clinton's law license was suspended for 5 years, but that didn't involve a conviction.

Based upon what I've read, I think he is admitted to the DC and PA bars (although I think the PA bar might be inactive). I don't think it will matter much - he will lose his license, but I think he will make plenty of money doing non-legal work.

SackAttack

07-03-2007, 03:35 PM

Exactly. "Too harsh" means you support lessening it, or had he served some time, just giving him time served. Commuting it altogether essentially leaves him with just probation and a record...both of which will likely go away in a matter of months.

Anyone know what his home state is? I wonder whether the state Bar will go after his license based on the conviction. Clinton's law license was suspended for 5 years, but that didn't involve a conviction.

And a quarter million dollars in fines.

sabotai

07-03-2007, 03:39 PM

Based upon what I've read, I think he is admitted to the DC and PA bars (although I think the PA bar might be inactive). I don't think it will matter much - he will lose his license, but I think he will make plenty of money doing non-legal work.

Of course he will. I wonder how long we have to wait until we get to read his "tell nothing" book on all of this.

John Galt

07-03-2007, 03:40 PM

And a quarter million dollars in fines.

The fines are kind of a fictional punishment, though. Libby's defense fund raised several million dollars. He will be able to use it to pay the fine in its entirety. From what I understand the fund is use-it-or-lose-it, so it isn't like he could pocket the remainder if he doesn't pay the fine out of the fund.

There is also the possibility that Bush may issue a full pardon at a later date and if the appeals are still going on, Libby would never have to pay the fine even from his fund.

SackAttack

07-03-2007, 03:42 PM

The fines are kind of a fictional punishment, though. Libby's defense fund raised several million dollars. He will be able to use it to pay the fine in its entirety. From what I understand the fund is use-it-or-lose-it, so it isn't like he could pocket the remainder if he doesn't pay the fine out of the fund.

There is also the possibility that Bush may issue a full pardon at a later date and if the appeals are still going on, Libby would never have to pay the fine even from his fund.

How much of that fund is going to exist after his defense team submits their billable hours claim, though?

TroyF

07-03-2007, 03:48 PM

I never said any of that. Please reread the portion of your post that I quoted. I never said that the guy lying about his parking ticket shouldn't also get convicted. What I'm talking about is I'm not going to be as mad at him as I'd be at OJ Simpson.

And I would be. A lie under oath is a lie under oath.

My anger at OJ or any other murderer is 100% seperate from the fact some guy lies under oath. The anger is much more severe and I'd hope that's obvious. On most of the things dealing with murder, the lie is going to get you far more than a perjury charge.

The actual lie under oath is disgusting in itself. I don't need to know WHY the lie was made or WHAT it was about.

John Galt

07-03-2007, 03:50 PM

How much of that fund is going to exist after his defense team submits their billable hours claim, though?

Although I'm sure the bills will be high, it is pretty hard to deplete a $4 million plus budget. I've worked on matters with bills that high, but those are extremely document intensive (tens of millions of documents) with tons of international travel and dozens of lawyers working on the case. For a matter of this size, $4 million is hard to spend. If he somehow did, I'm sure they would do another round of fundraising to cover the difference. For someone with Scooter's connections, I can't imagine he will pay a dime.

edit: And I imagine he is being billed on a monthly basis, so I would expect they would be well aware of the costs as the process goes along.

edit again: I take back what I said. If he went full bore in trial prep, hired high-paid jury consultants, ran several mock trials, and overstaffed everything, he might have depleted the fund. But if he did so and couldn't cover his fine, that his partly his own fault. And I still think he will fundraise again if he needs the cash (which I don't think he has had to do yet).

larrymcg421

07-03-2007, 03:51 PM

And I would be. A lie under oath is a lie under oath.

My anger at OJ or any other murderer is 100% seperate from the fact some guy lies under oath. The anger is much more severe and I'd hope that's obvious. On most of the things dealing with murder, the lie is going to get you far more than a perjury charge.

The actual lie under oath is disgusting in itself. I don't need to know WHY the lie was made or WHAT it was about.

Except one lie puts a family through a tremendous amount of extra trauma (having to go through a circus of a trial, etc.) that is separate from the trauma they've already experienced with the loss of a loved one. The lie causes extra damage on top of what has already been done with the murder. It's much much worse than the guy lying about a traffic ticket.

MrBigglesworth

07-03-2007, 04:33 PM

And I would be. A lie under oath is a lie under oath.

My anger at OJ or any other murderer is 100% seperate from the fact some guy lies under oath. The anger is much more severe and I'd hope that's obvious. On most of the things dealing with murder, the lie is going to get you far more than a perjury charge.

The actual lie under oath is disgusting in itself. I don't need to know WHY the lie was made or WHAT it was about.
You seem to believe in one of Kohlberg's lower moral stages of reasoning. Is a man that steals bread so his family doesn't starve to death as disgusting as a man that steals bread so that other families are forced to buy his bread at higher prices? To you it would be the same disgusting crime, but I think circumstances have an effect on the severity of a crime.

Flasch186

07-03-2007, 04:39 PM

at least Glen was able to pull back the blinds.

Grammaticus

07-03-2007, 06:32 PM

TBH, I was somewhat afraid of this possibility - communte the sentence now to spare him jail time, pardon him in 18 months.

"WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush (http://www.breitbart.com/detail.php?searchText=) on Tuesday refused to rule out an eventual pardon for former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

"As to the future, I rule nothing in and nothing out," the president said a day after commuting Libby's 2 1/2-year prison term in the CIA leak case."

I don't think it matters what happens on appeal. By commuting the sentence, it is the worst that can be served, right? If he wins on appeal, he is off the hook. If he loses, the sentence is still commuted.

The way people are reacting to this is silly. When will people understand that this administration really doesn't care what people think or what the "real world" rules are like. They make their own rules, do what they want, and no matter how much opinoin polls fall or ratings drop, it stays the same. The second he was convicted, you knew he would be pardoned (he still may be anyway).

Actually, they are playing by the rules. The executive branch has the authority to grant pardons and commute sentences. We have the right to vote them and their party out of office if we don't like what they do.

In my opinion the real "not playing by the rules" is the Judicial branch. The checks and balances on that branch is weak. They can legislate from the bench, but it takes a lot to remove a bad judge. Basically it does not happen.

MrBigglesworth

07-03-2007, 07:40 PM

I don't think it matters what happens on appeal. By commuting the sentence, it is the worst that can be served, right? If he wins on appeal, he is off the hook. If he loses, the sentence is still commuted.
There were three parts of the sentencing, I think: 30 months in jail, two years probation, and $250k. Bush took away the jail time. So he can still win some cash and not have to be on probation if he wins his appeal. Plus, it allows Bush to keep giving the 'we can't comment on an ongoing investigation' bullshit excuse, and keeps it so that Libby can invoke the fifth if he appears before Congress.

Grammaticus

07-03-2007, 08:45 PM

There were three parts of the sentencing, I think: 30 months in jail, two years probation, and $250k. Bush took away the jail time. So he can still win some cash and not have to be on probation if he wins his appeal. Plus, it allows Bush to keep giving the 'we can't comment on an ongoing investigation' bullshit excuse, and keeps it so that Libby can invoke the fifth if he appears before Congress.

And he can say that he did not pardon him. Actually not a bad approach to take in the world of politics. Depending upon your goal.

Why didn't Clinton just do that with Marc Rich? It sure would have looked a lot better.

MrBigglesworth

07-03-2007, 11:27 PM

The Plame investigation was urged by the Bush CIA and commenced by the Bush DOJ, Libby's conviction pursued by a Bush-appointed federal prosecutor, his jail sentence imposed by a Bush-appointed "tough-on-crime" federal judge, all pursuant to harsh and merciless criminal laws urged on by the "tough-on-crime/no-mercy" GOP. Lewis Libby was sent to prison by the system constructed and desired by the very Republican movement protesting his plight.
What gets me the most is that Bush had a rep in Texas for hardly ever granting or even seriously considering clemency for death row inmates. It's not even that I am surprised it happened, it's so disgusting and yet I knew it would happen.

watravaler

07-04-2007, 12:13 AM

Take care of your friends, and they will take care of you.

TroyF

07-04-2007, 09:08 AM

You seem to believe in one of Kohlberg's lower moral stages of reasoning. Is a man that steals bread so his family doesn't starve to death as disgusting as a man that steals bread so that other families are forced to buy his bread at higher prices? To you it would be the same disgusting crime, but I think circumstances have an effect on the severity of a crime.

Does the guy who stole the bread get a free pass in your book? Is he simply free to go?

People use all sorts of reasoning when they commit a crime. The LAW was broken. There is time in sentencing for compassion or hatred over the act. Yes, the guy who stole the bread should get a lighter sentence than the guy who swiped a pack of cigs. The man who shoplifts a $200 dress for his wife should get a tougher sentence than a 12 year old kid stealing a candy bar.

None of the rationalization matters at the time of the crime. Either the law was broken or it wasn't broken. And if you did break the law, you should suffer some form of punishment for that.

I think Clinton's punishment should have been MUCH more severe than it was. That's taking the circumstances into account. He was a sitting president and lied under oath. It's sickening to me.

In the case of Libby, they did dole out the punishment and that scumbag Bush let him off the hook. Reading all of what happened, I'm not convinced Libby really deserved 2 years, but he damned well deserved jail time and there is no way in hell he deserved a pardon. I don't think Bush is the evil dictator a lot of people make him out to be, but this is just pathetic and sickening to me.

You guys are trying to pigeonhole me into something I'm not. I UNDERSTAND there are circumstances that need to be looked at in a criminal act. I UNDERSTAND that what OJ did is worse than what Clinton did. But I also UNDERSTAND where the time for compassion and understading are.

Do I take a harder line than most in the disgust I have for people who break the law? Yeah, I do. I do bigtime. While OJ put more people in pain, I don't think there was a lot of difference in the reason him and Clinton acted the way they did. Neither did it because they were stealing bread for their poor families. They did it out of selfishness. (FWIW, I'm not sure if OJ ever lied under oath. I know he never testified and I believe the only time he spoke to police was at the beginning, with no under oath statement given. He could have been charged with lying to the police, but they'd have had to have gotten a conviction for that, and if they'd gotten a conviction they wouldn't have needed to bother with the lying charge. OK, I'm just rambling now)

clintl

07-04-2007, 10:22 AM

With respect to OJ, you're forgetting the civil trial. He did testify under oath then.

Back to a point John Galt made, though:

I don't think I have ever been involved in a case where at least one person being deposed didn't lie. But the only times I have encountered subsequent criminal sanctions is when the lying was related to a criminal prosecution.

I've been a juror three times in civil cases, and I'm pretty sure someone lied on the stand in every one of them. And the question becomes one of practicality - does it really serve the purposes of justice to tie up prosecutors' time with pursuing perjury cases related to civil trials? Because if they pursued them, they wouldn't have time to do anything else.

That's the difference between the Libby and Clinton cases. The Clinton case involved lying in a deposition related to a civil case, and considering that he had his law license suspended over it, actually paid a heavier price than most would have in his circumstances. Most people who do exactly the same thing don't have a special prosecutor devoting 100% of his time to investigating every little thing they've done.

Now, from what I've been reading, the sentence Libby got was right in line with what anyone else would have received for perjury and obstruction of justice during a criminal investigation.

I'm not saying that this excuses what Clinton did in any way. However, to suggest that Clinton got off easy compared what a normal person would have faced is just as ridiculous as saying Paris Hilton got off easy when the LA sheriff let her out early, when in fact, most people who did exactly what Paris Hilton did would not have received a jail sentence at all.

Grammaticus

07-04-2007, 11:11 AM

I think you all have Clinton's role swapped in this debate. Your comparing Clinton's lies to Libby's. Try comparing Clinton's pardons to Bush's.

Clinton pardoned 16 FALN terrorist in 1999. These guys were real scumbags that set off over 120 bombs in the US. The FALN terrorists are responsible for 6 deaths and the permanent maiming of dozens of others, including law enforcement officials.

Bush did not even pardon Libby. If he eventually does, it will still never equal the FALN pardons.

Edit - I'm not sure if Clinton pardoned or commuted the FALN sentences, so someone who knows more about that may know for sure. Either way, it is probably one of the most controversial uses of that particular executive power.

larrymcg421

07-04-2007, 11:30 AM

I don't have anything swapped. I've said before and will say again, I would be totally happy if both Bush and Clinton spent the rest of their lives in the nastiest prison on the planet.

I only took exception to Troy's statement that we should be just as angry at the guy lying about a traffic ticket as we should about OJ (or any other murderer or rapist or pedophile, etc.) lying about what they did. Yes, both should receive punishment, but it seems excessively silly to argue that we should not be more angry at the latter.

JPhillips

07-04-2007, 01:12 PM

Who fucking cares who Clinton pardoned? Is the new standard of right and wrong a comparison against Clinton?

MrBigglesworth

07-04-2007, 01:31 PM

Edit - I'm not sure if Clinton pardoned or commuted the FALN sentences, so someone who knows more about that may know for sure. Either way, it is probably one of the most controversial uses of that particular executive power.
Clemency after they served about 20 years of their sentence, and after Clinton was lobbied by Jimmy Carter, South African Bishop Desmond Tutu, Coretta Scott King, and New York Archbishop John Cardinal O'Conner, among others, to release them.

Surtt

07-04-2007, 01:34 PM

I agree there is no important difference between the two cases in terms of guilt. Even if the investigation of Clinton had gone far afield and was therefore improper (his relations with Lewinsky certainly had nothing to do with Paula Jones or Whitewater and were not "illegal"), but an improper investigation does not give Clinton the right to lie under oath.

As I recall, the deposition was the result of Paula Jones sexual harassment law suit.
Jones was trying to establish a history of Clinton making advances toward his subordinates, thus strengthening her case against him.
How was this improper?

07-04-2007, 01:51 PM

My local daily paper, a Gannett paper with a liberal mangement (I have known the lady in charge of the content for a long time.) never ran a story about the commutation. Not the first word. I think this is a much bigger deal inside the beltway and among political activists of both sides than among the voters in general. I think it is much ado about nothing and is a much less important story than many other things going on in the country and the world.

And I'm not defending what Bush did. Despite the fact that Fitzgerald continued the investigation long after he had found the original leaker and had determined not to charge him with a crime, Libby lied under oath and deserves some punishment. Prison? I don't know. Did Clinton deserve to go to prison?

But if Bush and Libby were Democrats, Democrats calling for Bush's head would be defending his actions and Republicans defending his actions would be calling for his head. It would be interesting to research the comments about this made by some of the loudest critics and supporters regarding Clinton's pardons. This is just politics as usual. A plague on both their houses.

Grammaticus

07-04-2007, 01:53 PM

Not really, but most people remember Clinton and his actions better than most other presidents. Then in 2 years people may be comparing Clinton's decisions to Bush.

John Galt

07-04-2007, 01:54 PM

As I recall, the deposition was the result of Paula Jones sexual harassment law suit.
Jones was trying to establish a history of Clinton making advances toward his subordinates, thus strengthening her case against him.
How was this improper?

It isn't "improper" in that depositions usually allow a lot. However, evidence of past sexual harassment of Lewinsky would NEVER have been admissible in a civil trial with Jones as the plaintiff. Beyond that, there was no sexual harassment by Clinton toward Lewinsky (consensual sex isn't harassment without quid pro quo threats) under anyone's view of what happened. It is the sort of question that might get asked at a deposition, but it really has no relevance to the future trial. And it is the sort of question that can often cause the lawyer defending the deposition to throw a stink, end the deposition, and submit the issue to a judge.

Surtt

07-04-2007, 02:13 PM

It isn't "improper" in that depositions usually allow a lot. However, evidence of past sexual harassment of Lewinsky would NEVER have been admissible in a civil trial with Jones as the plaintiff. Beyond that, there was no sexual harassment by Clinton toward Lewinsky (consensual sex isn't harassment without quid pro quo threats) under anyone's view of what happened. It is the sort of question that might get asked at a deposition, but it really has no relevance to the future trial. And it is the sort of question that can often cause the lawyer defending the deposition to throw a stink, end the deposition, and submit the issue to a judge.

I will have to think about that.
I assumed a relationship with Lewinsky would be relevant.

MrBigglesworth

07-04-2007, 02:21 PM

-Mojo Jojo-

07-04-2007, 02:50 PM

But if Bush and Libby were Democrats, Democrats calling for Bush's head would be defending his actions and Republicans defending his actions would be calling for his head. It would be interesting to research the comments about this made by some of the loudest critics and supporters regarding Clinton's pardons. This is just politics as usual. A plague on both their houses.

There's that phrase you are using again. And again I ask, when was the last time this happened? When has a President pardoned a member of his administration of his obstruction of justice felony stemming from an investigation into his administration? Clinton pardoned someone that didn't pay his taxes. Bush pardoned someone in order to obstruct a criminal investigation into his office. Both were lame, but they're not on the same level.

The larger question is why someone with such a nihilistic view of the political process would bother to follow the issue or waste his time posting about it here...

Challenging people for taking hypocritical positions based on partisan considerations is fair game (indeed, it's important for people to attack that), but to assert that because there are hypocritical people out there neither side can validly criticize the other is absurd. Some things actually are wrong, and, all partisanship aside, deserve criticism. A plague on both their houses is a cop-out and an invitation to dirty, corrupt government.

07-04-2007, 02:50 PM

Mr. B, Bush didn't pardon Libby. But he has the absolute power to commute and to pardon if he chooses to.

I refuse to fall in to the childish "What Bush did is worse. No it isn't. Yes it is. No it isn't." argument. A plague on both their parties, to paraphrase Mercutio.

MrBigglesworth

07-04-2007, 03:38 PM

This is just politics as usual. A plague on both their houses.
Sentencing experts said Bush's action appeared to be without recent precedent. They could not recall another case in which someone sentenced to prison had received a presidential commutation without having served any part of that sentence. Presidents have customarily commuted sentences only when someone has served substantial time.

"We can't find any cases, certainly in the last half century, where the president commuted a sentence before it had even started to be served," said Margaret Colgate Love, a former pardon attorney at the Justice Department. "This is really, really unusual."
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-libby4jul04,0,6295306,full.story?coll=la-home-nation

07-04-2007, 03:51 PM

The larger question is why someone with such a nihilistic view of the political process would bother to follow the issue or waste his time posting about it here...

Challenging people for taking hypocritical positions based on partisan considerations is fair game (indeed, it's important for people to attack that), but to assert that because there are hypocritical people out there neither side can validly criticize the other is absurd. Some things actually are wrong, and, all partisanship aside, deserve criticism. A plague on both their houses is a cop-out and an invitation to dirty, corrupt government.

Good points, but I think it is valid to point out in this thread my view that perhaps the commutation of Libby's sentence is not as important as some seem to think it is in the bigger scheme of things. I think that is a valid opinion.

I think at this point many politicians in both parties have decided that partisanship is more important than the country, and power for the sake of power is more important than power for the sake of doing something positive for the country. I think we see that from many members of both parties. And I think this issue is a prime example.

Just as many Republicans were blinded by their hatred of Clinton, I think many Democrats are now blinded by their hatred of Bush. So I'm not jaded on the political process in general as much as I am on the political process right now and for the last few years.

I think it is a good thing to express displeasure with the actions of both political parties, in the hope that perhaps at least one people will actually listen to the American people. That view seems to be the view of the overwhelming majority of people in this country right now based on polls regarding the popularity of Bush and Congress.

JPhillips

07-04-2007, 04:15 PM

At the risk of sounding like Buc, I'd suggest you look at 19th century politics. Things today are surprisingly civil in comparison.

st.cronin

07-04-2007, 04:29 PM

Just as many Republicans were blinded by their hatred of Clinton, I think many Democrats are now blinded by their hatred of Bush.

+1

Incidentally, through a friend I've recently been offered a job interview with Joe Wilson. He's living in Santa Fe (apparently not with his wife), setting up some sort of consulting business.

Buccaneer

07-04-2007, 04:31 PM

At the risk of sounding like Buc, I'd suggest you look at 19th century politics. Things today are surprisingly civil in comparison.

LOL. It's true though. The amount of violence, rancor, vitrol and overt illegalism back them make today's way of politics to be, not only civil, but amazingly bi-partisan in comparison. I love it when people say stuff like "worse ever" or "has it ever been done" when they can only think as far back as 1980. But as Squiddy would say, it probably is comparing apples to oranges.

JW is very correct. To one that has increasingly running further away from the red and blue spectrum, all of this and all what has happened before and all of what will happen looks identical to me. They know that too, it's just the game that has to be played. It cannot and should not be justifiable but you have to consider the times and the context, esp. with the 24-hour media and internet. Unfortunately it will only intensify because we demand information for the sake of filling an immediate void at all times. We cannot stop to think about the context or perspective because the urgency of the immediate forbids that.

clintl

07-04-2007, 05:04 PM

Buccaneer

07-04-2007, 05:21 PM

The alternate perspective is that just because partisanship and dirty politics aren't worse than they were in 1880 doesn't mean that we shouldn't be dissatisfied because they are worse than they were in 1980.

Shouldn't be dissatisfied? Of course not. But the point of bringing up historical perspective is that despite how bad politics used to be, we, as a nation, survived.

However, I fully believe that much of the 'agenda' behind today's (and the 1990's) anger was solely to get the opposition party back in power. History (including recent) shows that this will not change. World events, whether being reactive or proactive, does much to affect things in the short term but in the long term, not so much. All one has to do is to look back on the 1970s and think back how much different today is compared to where we should have been.

JPhillips

07-04-2007, 06:47 PM

Buccaneer

07-04-2007, 07:36 PM

Where I differ from Buc is in my concern over the expansion of executive authority. I really do think this admin has expanded the power of the executive in ways that are unprecedented, from signing statements to the de facto suspension of habeas corpus to the claims of a fourth branch of government.

I believe that history has shown us that expansions of governmental power are extremely difficult to roll back so I want to do something now wile the opportunity still exists. I have no doubt that the next admin whether D or R will largely keep in place the expansions of the executive.

It's not about whether we'll survive, but whether we'll enjoy the same freedoms tomorrow.

And that's where we differ - the acts of the current Administration are clearly not "unprecedented". The only thing that has changed is that we are on a global scale (as oppose to national or regional) with every single action being quickly reported and scrutinized to the nth degree.

Throughout our history, the pendelum has swung back and forth from the Executive having all the power to the Legislature having all of the power to where neither had much of any power. Nothing ever remained static and with so much complexity as a diverse nation under multitudes of laws, here is very little that can truly make a difference.

Way back, a single executive order could and did cause very noticeable effects on the citizens (like dissolving the national bank and triggering a widespread economic panic). One could also look at the executive under FDR during the 1930s. Not to mention the power executive (or more pointly, one department within executive) could have in time of war.

I would ask if there is anything (there could be, I'm just asking) that the executive (or legislative) has done that directly affected your life? If you look at such monumental events like 9/11 and the Iraq War, I would say that those did not adversely affect most of us at all. Even the much talked about Patriot Act caused no change in our daily lives. What has changed is the perception that something has drastically changed because we are told that it has but we can't really say exactly what besides war of words and ideas. Clinton was brought up earlier and look at all of the attention his pardons got - as if they really meant anything to any of us.

To me, it's all part of the cycle. Folks like to talk about the extreme nature of something just because they are in the opposition. That truly is the American political system at work for that has not changed since 1800.

Subby

07-04-2007, 08:52 PM

i was Totaally on BUSH BANDWAGON UNTIL THIS ROYAL FUCKUP!

MOTHERHUMPSHITSTORMER :[

PSUColonel

07-04-2007, 09:02 PM

Some of Bill Clinton's greatest hits:

http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/clintonpardon_grants.htm

Buccaneer

07-04-2007, 09:07 PM

Some of Bill Clinton's greatest hits:

http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/clintonpardon_grants.htm

And some a-hole will be making a similar list a year and a half from now. Will that make you feel special?

PSUColonel

07-04-2007, 09:12 PM

no, just pointing out that all President's do this kind of thing. (although Clinton's list is unusually long, and many of the crimes very very serious) This is one instance where the punishment truly didn't fit the crime, and so in this particular case I agree with the President's decision to commute the sentence.

SFL Cat

07-04-2007, 09:16 PM

I guess Libby will be Bush's Susan McDougal.

larrymcg421

07-04-2007, 09:17 PM

I wonder if there will ever be a thread criticizing Bush where his defenders don't point to Clinton. I mean really, if that's the best you've got then that doesn't say very much for Dubya.

SFL Cat

07-04-2007, 09:20 PM

^^^Oh puh-leez. It's the American way...pointing fingers at the opposing party. There is enough hypocrisy and corruption in both parties for everyone to play the blame game.

PSUColonel

07-04-2007, 09:29 PM

^^^Oh puh-leez. It's the American way...pointing fingers at the opposing party. There is enough hypocrisy and corruption in both parties for everyone to play the blame game.

more than enough actually ;) but seriously, I was just attempting to illustrate a point. It's not just Clinton or Bush....but I am saying Clinton made an art form of it.

JPhillips

07-04-2007, 09:39 PM

Buc: We'll just have to disagree. This admin has executed a well coordinated power grab that in many ways is unprecedented. The extensive use of signing statements, the new fourth branch argument, the politicization of the DOJ, the de facto suspension of habeas corpus, the assertion that during a time of undeclared war that the executive can't be restrained by either the legislature or courts, etc. are, when taken as a whole, an extreme view of executive authority.

As to whether my life has been affected, that's the wrong question. I shouldn't have to wait until I'm burned to tell others there's a fire.

PSU: I'll ask you, is right now defined as "better than Bill Clinton?"

PSUColonel

07-04-2007, 09:52 PM

"better than"? not sure what you're getting at.

JPhillips

07-04-2007, 09:53 PM

You seem to be making the argument that what Bush did wasn't wrong because it was better than what Clinton did.

PSUColonel

07-04-2007, 10:00 PM

JPhillips

07-04-2007, 10:07 PM

This kind of thing has never been done. Find me a case where an admin official has his sentence commuted before he serves a day.

And you're the one who keeps bringing up Clinton. I'm just wondering why.

PSUColonel

07-04-2007, 10:11 PM

pardons?

Buccaneer

07-04-2007, 11:00 PM

JPhillips, we'll agree to disagree simply because you/we are much closer to going-ons of this admin vs those in our history that no one seems to remember nor care.

MrBigglesworth

07-05-2007, 12:22 AM

but seriously, I was just attempting to illustrate a point. It's not just Clinton or Bush....but I am saying Clinton made an art form of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_pardoned_by_George_W._Bush
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_pardoned_by_George_H._W._Bush

Your argument is a red herring. Bush had pardoned 76 people before Libby, and nobody had complained. This situation is different because he is pardoning (technically a commutation, but in effect a pardon) someone in order to obstruct a criminal investigation into his own office, maybe even to cover up a felony he himself committed. That is the difference between this and Mark Rich.

This is one instance where the punishment truly didn't fit the crime, and so in this particular case I agree with the President's decision to commute the sentence.
How did the punishment not fit the crime? Is zero days in jail really what you think is fitting for lying to the FBI and a grand jury in a criminal felony investigation, not to mention obstruction of justice?

MrBigglesworth

07-05-2007, 12:36 AM

I would ask if there is anything (there could be, I'm just asking) that the executive (or legislative) has done that directly affected your life? If you look at such monumental events like 9/11 and the Iraq War, I would say that those did not adversely affect most of us at all.
This is the most ironic thing I think I have ever heard said by a self-proclaimed libertarian.

I knew people that died in both the 9/11 attacks and the Iraq War. If there is something more adverse than that, I don't know what it is. They also take and spend a third of my money.

Even the much talked about Patriot Act caused no change in our daily lives. What has changed is the perception that something has drastically changed because we are told that it has but we can't really say exactly what besides war of words and ideas. Clinton was brought up earlier and look at all of the attention his pardons got - as if they really meant anything to any of us.
This is an argument for authoritarianism. Why protest the Patriot Act even though it probably won't effect my life? Because if you don't stand up for what you want the country to be even if it doesn't effect your personally, then who will stand up with you when they finally come after you?

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

Bush obviously isn't a Nazi, but you speak out for the ideals you believe in because if nobody did, any country would become a totalitarian dictatorship.

PSUColonel

07-05-2007, 04:48 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_pardoned_by_George_W._Bush
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_pardoned_by_George_H._W._Bush

Your argument is a red herring. Bush had pardoned 76 people before Libby, and nobody had complained. This situation is different because he is pardoning (technically a commutation, but in effect a pardon) someone in order to obstruct a criminal investigation into his own office, maybe even to cover up a felony he himself committed. That is the difference between this and Mark Rich.

How did the punishment not fit the crime? Is zero days in jail really what you think is fitting for lying to the FBI and a grand jury in a criminal felony investigation, not to mention obstruction of justice?

You could make that arument for more than a few Presidential padons throughout history....and what about Clinton himself, wasn't he himself found to have lied to federal investigators?

PSUColonel

07-05-2007, 05:09 AM

Here is another example of where a Pardon would be most prudent:

Forget Libby, Pardon Border Patrol Agents, GOP Congressman Says
By Melanie Hunter
CNSNews.com Senior Editor
July 03, 2007

(CNSNews.com) - With the commutation of former vice presidential aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's sentence, a Republican congressman is again calling on President Bush to pardon two border patrol agents convicted of shooting a Mexican drug smuggler.

Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.) said in a letter to the president Tuesday that he is "deeply disappointed that U.S. Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean remain unjustly incarcerated for wounding a Mexican drug smuggler who brought 743 pounds of marijuana across our border."

Libby was sentenced to 30 months for obstruction and lying to investigators looking into who leaked the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame to the media. Bush has said he will not rule out eventually pardoning Libby, who must still undergo two years' probation and pay $250,000 in fines.

"While you have spared Mr. Libby from serving even one day of his 'excessive' 30-month prison term, agents Ramos and Compean have already served 167 days of their 11 and 12-year prison sentences," Jones wrote.

"By attempting to apprehend an illegal alien drug smuggler, these agents were enforcing our laws, not breaking them," said Jones, who called on Bush to "listen to the American people and members of Congress who have called upon you to pardon these agents."

"By granting immunity and free health care to an illegal alien drug trafficker and allowing our law enforcement officers to languish in prison -- our government has told its citizens, and the world, that it does not care about protecting our borders or enforcing our laws," he added.

"I urge you to correct a true injustice by immediately pardoning these two law enforcement officers," Jones concluded.

Buccaneer

07-05-2007, 08:54 AM

Fighter of Foo

07-05-2007, 09:31 AM

"If it's a choice between the rule of law and one of their best buddies actually going to jail, you know they're going to throw the rule of law out of the window. Remember that these are the same people who wanted to remove Clinton from office because of perjury in a civil suit. But Clinton wasn't one of them, was he?"

Read the quotes in this link (http://acephalous.typepad.com/acephalous/2007/07/perjury-circa-1.html) and then explain how they don't apply to Libby.

Here's a quote (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDA3ODFkNTA4NDM3YWYzMzc0NWQ1NjY4ZjhkZjkwNDI=) from Republican Presidential candidate Fred Thompson

"Our nation is based upon the proposition that our statutes, common law and the Constitution will not only be applied fairly between litigants, but will also be observed by the government. People will be able to rely upon the rules, usually long established, and their consistent application. This engenders respect for the law. It is a sad irony that a nation that is so dedicated to the rule of law is doing so much to undermine the respect for it."

Flasch186

07-05-2007, 09:46 AM

Fighter of Foo

07-05-2007, 10:03 AM

not at all...just stating that this type of thing has always been done, and that this is by far not one of the worst I've seen, in fact in this particular case, a commuted sentence may have even been prudent.

"I don't believe my role is to replace the verdict of a jury with my own," - George W. Bush on why he signed death warrants for 152 inmates as governor of Texas.

PSUColonel

07-05-2007, 11:04 AM

PSUColonel

07-05-2007, 11:06 AM

"I don't believe my role is to replace the verdict of a jury with my own," - George W. Bush on why he signed death warrants for 152 inmates as governor of Texas.

why is this case somehow so different than what most all other Presidents have done over the course of history?

PSUColonel

07-05-2007, 11:19 AM

I found it funny when PSU said "so in this particular case I agree with the President's decision" because Im not sure, in my quick glance in my mental history, I'd be able to find a time when PSU didn't agree with the president or his decision X. Isn't it ironic. Doncha think. It's like Rain.

There is actually quite a lengthy list of things:

1. Illegal immigration policy
2. Fiscal management...Back in 2003, Bush pushed through the largest single increase to the federal entitlement program in decades, with the medicaid prescription drug bill.
3. lack of good planning in Iraq War aftermath
4. terrible protocol for soldiers fighting in aftermath..I.E. "hearts and minds"
5. Allowed the destruction of conservatism...and esentially has now left the GOP in ruins

cartman

07-05-2007, 11:21 AM

why is this case somehow so different than what most all other Presidents have done over the course of history?

There are a couple of reasons that this case is different. One is that a sentence has not been commuted before the defendant has served any jail time, much less before any appeals have been heard. The second reason is that he was a member of the administration, which the jury decided he misled the grand jury as to the activites of the administration regarding Valerie Plame.

MrBigglesworth

07-05-2007, 02:07 PM

You could make that arument for more than a few Presidential padons throughout history
Which ones? At first your argument was that Presidents made dozens of these.

....and what about Clinton himself, wasn't he himself found to have lied to federal investigators?
No, he wasn't. He was acquitted by the Senate and never faced trial. What Clinton did was use legal slippery language, not outright lie to investigators, at least, it has never been proven he outright lied.

Let me ask you again, you said before that the punishment did not fit the crime. Do you think that zero days in jail is an appropriate punishment for two felony convictions of lying to a grand jury and obstruction of justice?

MrBigglesworth

07-05-2007, 02:15 PM

Biggle, once again you cannot see beyond your own nose and misses the point. I am not arguing for any position but simply providing a case for historical perspective and how history goes in cycles.

Your idea of standing up is to wish that this admin would instantly be replaced by Dem on Monday morning. I would still argue that not much would change and we would be left with a group of people wondering why. In time it would but not by any actions from the federal govt.
You don't believe in political apathy, you were just suggesting that you do in this case? If you are giving the historical perspective of political apathy, wouldn't it then be prudent to show where that has gone awry?

You don't believe that the legislature and executive has absolutely no effect on your life, but you said it anyway for historical perspective? Can you indicate somehow for me when you believe what you say and when you don't believe it but are just saying it for some other reason or something?

There is a lot different from when the Dems were in power to now, and stuff that effects me, from taxes to friends being off at war to future taxes to pay off the deficit, to waiting twice as long in line at the airport, etc. But I will agree with you in that since Bush has been in office, there have been few domestic legislative accomplishments beyond homeland security. There isn't much of a reason, historically speaking, to think that with Dems in power there would have been more domestic change.

John Galt

07-05-2007, 02:40 PM

I just read that Libby paid his $250,000 fine and word is he paid it out of his personal funds. That doesn't mean someone won't pay him that money under the table, but, if it is true, then it means I was wrong that he would just use his legal fund to pay the fine.

WVUFAN

07-05-2007, 02:54 PM

Who fucking cares who Clinton pardoned? Is the new standard of right and wrong a comparison against Clinton?

Holy hell, I'm agreeing with JPhillips.

This isn't about what Clinton did. Believe me, I'm not a fan of Clinton or his pardons but it doesn't excuse what Bush did. It's a abuse of that power.

It's a cliche, but it's correct in this situation: two wrongs do not make a right.

07-05-2007, 03:03 PM

No, he wasn't. He was acquitted by the Senate and never faced trial. What Clinton did was use legal slippery language, not outright lie to investigators, at least, it has never been proven he outright lied.

That depends of the definition of "lied" of course. Clinton himself said, in accepting the agreement that ended the possibility of prosecution after he left office,

"I tried to walk a fine line between acting lawfully and testifying falsely, but I now recognize that I did not fully accomplish that goal and that certain of my responses to questions about Ms. Lewinsky were false."

Of course in Clintonland, a false statement is probably not a lie.

Here is some good light reading on Clinton and perjury. The Washington Post story, which gives the principal allegations against Clinton and his defense, is a really good read. Remember the "oral sex isn't really sex" defense?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/gperjury092498.htm

http://media.www.iowastatedaily.com/media/storage/paper818/news/2001/01/22/News/Experts.Say.Clinton.Got.A.Good.Deal-1062308.shtml

BTW, I think the Republicans, much like the Democrats today, were so obsessed by their hatred that it blinded them. The impeachment was idiotic. We've seen nearly 16 years of the politics of hate from both parties now. It does the country no good. The Democrats should have a higher goal than getting Bush, just as the Republicans should have had a higher goal than getting Clinton.

BrianD

07-05-2007, 04:03 PM

The Democrats should have a higher goal than getting Bush, just as the Republicans should have had a higher goal than getting Clinton.

Amen. The arguments of "who is the worst ever", or "is this worse than the past" may make for an interesting intellectual exercise, but it doesn't really help in the grand scheme. Things can be right or wrong on their own without a comparison to the other party or to history.

NoMyths

07-05-2007, 04:28 PM

This is interesting: last year, the Bush Administration filed a motion to uphold the 33-month sentence against Victor Rita, who was convicted of the very same crimes as Libby (perjury and obstruction of justice). I'm unfamiliar with the Rita case, but it does make for an interesting counterpoint to his professed beliefs on excessive sentencing.

Link: Bush Filed a Motion Last Year to Uphold the 33-Month Sentence of Victor Rita, a 24-Year Marine Corps Vet Convicted on Same Crimes as Libby (http://www.pensitoreview.com/2007/07/04/bush-filed-to-uphold-victor-rita-sentence/)

Full Text:
Bush Filed a Motion Last Year to Uphold the 33-Month Sentence of Victor Rita, a 24-Year Marine Corps Vet Convicted on Same Crimes as Libby

Posted by Jon Ponder | Jul. 4, 2007, 4:41 pm
Last month, the Supreme Court agreed with the Bush Justice Dept., ruling against Rita’s appeal for a reduced sentence based his exemplary military service.

Sen. Joe Biden: "Tony Snow said that President Bush decided to commute Scooter Libby’s two and a half year-prison sentence for perjury and obstruction of justice, because it was “excessive.”

"Yet last year the Bush Administration filed a “friend-of-the-court brief” with the Supreme Court, in an attempt to uphold a lower court’s ruling that a 33-month prison sentence for Victor Rita, who was convicted of the same exact charges, perjury and obstruction of justice, was “reasonable.”"

Pres. Bush cited Libby’s “years of exceptional public service” in commuting his prison sentence. But Libby is the classic Bushie chickenhawk — a neocon bureaucrat with no service record whose fingerprints are all over the worst military planning in American history.

Conversely, Victor Rita is the real deal:

Victor Rita is a very sympathetic defendant: he served 24 years in the Marine Corps, had tours of duty in Vietnam and the first Gulf war, and has received over 35 military metals and awards. Also, he is an elderly gentleman who suffers serious health problems.

The Supreme Court ruled on the case last month:

The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that criminal sentences within guidelines set by a federal commission are generally entitled to be upheld on appeal, a decision that limits legal options for defendants who feel that they have been punished too harshly.

By a vote of 8 to 1, the court held that, even though it recently ruled that the sentencing ranges set by the U.S. Sentencing Commission are no longer mandatory, judges who follow them may be presumed to have acted reasonably…

The case that the court decided yesterday, Rita v. United States, No. 06-5754, was meant to help define “advisory.”

Victor Rita, convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice, asked for a lighter sentence based in part on his past military service. But the judge gave him 33 months, as suggested by the guidelines. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, based in Richmond, upheld the sentence, saying that penalties within the guidelines are “presumptively reasonable.”

It is customary in the pardoning process for the president to contact the Justice Dept. for input. But the White House is adamant that Bush did not speak to anyone at Justice about the Libby pardon. If he had run it past them, it’s possible he could have avoided what appears to be a spectacular blunder.

dawgfan

07-05-2007, 04:44 PM

I can't wait for the administration apologists to spin this one...

John Galt

07-05-2007, 04:59 PM

Flasch186

07-05-2007, 05:00 PM

PSU, whatcha think about that?

oh, AND it just came out that the judge doesnt think that probation is applicable since Scooter served no time...so there goes the other defense Bush espoused.

John Galt

07-05-2007, 05:04 PM

PSU, whatcha think about that?

See, now that's just silly. Are you really expecting a serious answer?

Flasch186

07-05-2007, 05:05 PM

See, now that's just silly. Are you really expecting a serious answer?

no. I asked it with sarcasm.

Grammaticus

07-05-2007, 05:32 PM

Holy hell, I'm agreeing with JPhillips.

This isn't about what Clinton did. Believe me, I'm not a fan of Clinton or his pardons but it doesn't excuse what Bush did. It's a abuse of that power.

I don't think it is a case of excusing one by pointing at the other. It is just the majority of the people who are seething over the Bush decision will vigorously defend the Clinton decisions which are at least equally bad. So, it is really good fun watching the hypocrisy abound.

Honestly, in any of the cases where a pardon is used, it is not an abuse of power. The executive branch has that ability. They are not skewing it or using it in a way that bends the interpretation of the constitution, etc. it is perfectly legal and within the executive branch's legitimate use of power.

Clinton can pardon convicted FALN terrorists that killed US citizens, doners Marc Rich who brokered kick back transactions in the Iraqi-Oil-For-Food scam, the Gregory's who paid 107K to Clinton's brother in law to broker the pardon, people who refused to testify against Clinton in the whitewater scam, Rostenkowski who was a Congressman convicted in the congressional post office scam, Clinton's own brother for drug charges, Melvin Reynolds (dem. congressman) for bank fraud and solicitation of child pornography, etc.

Don't you see how hypocritical it is to get your panties in a bunch over Bush saying he might pardon Libby, then supporting all those pardons that Clinton made. Either be against it all or chalk it up to the president's right and vote for who you think will exercise the power of the president appropriately.

Than no matter how the person you voted for makes decisions, be prepared to not like all of the decisions.

Toddzilla

07-05-2007, 05:34 PM

Here is another example of where a Pardon would be most prudent:LOL at "another"

MrBigglesworth

07-05-2007, 05:40 PM

NoMyths

07-05-2007, 05:41 PM

I feel like I have heard of this Rita case somewhere before. Maybe even in this thread. ;)

Clearly it bore repeating. ;)

MrBigglesworth

07-05-2007, 05:54 PM

Remember the "oral sex isn't really sex" defense?
Because oral sex isn't sex, neither colloquially (if I told my friends I had sex with a girl and it turned it out was just a bj, I would be laughed out of the room) or by the legal definition agreed to in the trial.

The Democrats should have a higher goal than getting Bush, just as the Republicans should have had a higher goal than getting Clinton.
This is utter psuedo-centrist crap. The Dems aren't even seriously contemplating impeachment, so how can their top goal be getting Bush? The Democrats hate Bush, because EVERYONE hates Bush. Bush has a 28% approval rating, compared to Clinton who left office with about a 60% approval rating. He has a bad approval rating because things suck right now compared to when Clinton was in office. If you approve of what Bush is doing, fine, then just say so. But don't act like Bush is gloriously leading us and having a 90% approval rating is the Democrats being mean.

dawgfan

07-05-2007, 05:55 PM

Don't you see how hypocritical it is to get your panties in a bunch over Bush saying he might pardon Libby, then supporting all those pardons that Clinton made. Either be against it all or chalk it up to the president's right and vote for who you think will exercise the power of the president appropriately.

Than no matter how the person you voted for makes decisions, be prepared to not like all of the decisions.
The right to grant pardons is my least favorite part of the Constitution. Even at it's most noble base - the ability for the President to show compassion or correct a since-discovered legal/judicial mistake, it still feels like a throwback to the powers of a King, and is obviously ripe for abuse.

And I still haven't seen a defense from the administration apologists for the inconsistency between the Rita case and the Libby case. Perhaps because there isn't a logical consistency, and the difference is simply pardoning Libby covers the ass of Bush and his cronies, whereas the Rita case has no direct affect on them?

BrianD

07-05-2007, 06:02 PM

Because oral sex isn't sex

This is true...in much the same way that potato chips aren't chips and sugar cookies aren't cookies.

JPhillips

07-05-2007, 06:05 PM

Joshua Marshall says it pretty clearly:

Setting aside whether Scooter Libby should spend 0 days in jail for what most people spend from 1 to 3 years in jail, the key here is that it's inappropriate for the president to pardon or commute a sentence in a case in which he (i.e., the president) is a party to the same underlying crime. Because it amounts to obstruction of justice.

WVUFAN

07-05-2007, 06:09 PM

I don't think it is a case of excusing one by pointing at the other. It is just the majority of the people who are seething over the Bush decision will vigorously defend the Clinton decisions which are at least equally bad. So, it is really good fun watching the hypocrisy abound.

Surprisingly, I haven't see that in this discussion all that much.

But my point is that the two things, regardless of any defense of Clinton's pardons, have nothing at all to do with one another. This isn't a case of "well, if Clinton did it, and he was wrong (and we complained about him being wrong back then), then we should have the right to do something just as wrong." It shouldn't work that way.

Honestly, in any of the cases where a pardon is used, it is not an abuse of power. The executive branch has that ability. They are not skewing it or using it in a way that bends the interpretation of the constitution, etc. it is perfectly legal and within the executive branch's legitimate use of power.

He has the power, but he is abusing it on behalf of a friend of his. Using it for personal gain is not the intent of that section. The Presidency should be above this.

Clinton can pardon convicted FALN terrorists that killed US citizens, doners Marc Rich who brokered kick back transactions in the Iraqi-Oil-For-Food scam, the Gregory's who paid 107K to Clinton's brother in law to broker the pardon, people who refused to testify against Clinton in the whitewater scam, Rostenkowski who was a Congressman convicted in the congressional post office scam, Clinton's own brother for drug charges, Melvin Reynolds (dem. congressman) for bank fraud and solicitation of child pornography, etc.

None of which has anything at all to do with Scooter Libby.

Don't you see how hypocritical it is to get your panties in a bunch over Bush saying he might pardon Libby, then supporting all those pardons that Clinton made. Either be against it all or chalk it up to the president's right and vote for who you think will exercise the power of the president appropriately.

It's just as hypocritical to defend Bush and criticise Clinton, which is what we (ie Republicans) are doing. To me, it makes absolutely no difference what any other President has done with this particular Constitutional power. What Bush has done is wrong.

MrBigglesworth

07-05-2007, 06:17 PM

This is true...in much the same way that potato chips aren't chips and sugar cookies aren't cookies.
Did you no longer consider yourself a virgin after your first incident of oral sex?

BrianD

07-05-2007, 06:26 PM

Did you no longer consider yourself a virgin after your first incident of oral sex?

I honestly never cared enough about my virginal status to identify the exact moment it was lost.

cartman

07-05-2007, 06:29 PM

If this was simply a case of the Democrats out to get Bush for commuting the sentence, that means that about 80% of the population consider themselves Democrats, because just about every poll out there is running about 20% in favor of the president's decision.

http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2007/07/03/overnight-poll-only-21-percent-agree-with-bush-in-commuting-libbys-sentence/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.surveyusa.com%2Fclient%2FPollReportEmail.aspx%3Fg%3D4b5255b9-3878-4082-b7d0-160d8ddcd52e&frame=true

Buccaneer

07-05-2007, 06:37 PM

You don't believe in political apathy, you were just suggesting that you do in this case? If you are giving the historical perspective of political apathy, wouldn't it then be prudent to show where that has gone awry?

You don't believe that the legislature and executive has absolutely no effect on your life, but you said it anyway for historical perspective? Can you indicate somehow for me when you believe what you say and when you don't believe it but are just saying it for some other reason or something?

There is a lot different from when the Dems were in power to now, and stuff that effects me, from taxes to friends being off at war to future taxes to pay off the deficit, to waiting twice as long in line at the airport, etc. But I will agree with you in that since Bush has been in office, there have been few domestic legislative accomplishments beyond homeland security. There isn't much of a reason, historically speaking, to think that with Dems in power there would have been more domestic change.

But I personally advocate a very different form of government, or at least a very different mindset. One that the current admin doesn't come close to achieving, and one that the Dems will not attempt to achieve. I have made my voice heard by not support Bush in 2004 and voting straight libertarian for Congress, as well as trying to get people here off of the red/blue spectrum. I, unlike you and other such as PSUColonel and WVU, don't see how playing the opposition game will make much difference and I react against that. The reason for the historical perspective is to show that things will change, for better and for worse depending what your interests are but in most things, people will go on living their lives. A libertarian viewpoint involves radical changes to most people's lifestyles but most are too busy playing the opposition politics game and being politically apathetic for many good and bad reasons. You may strongly desire for a regime change because of your deep opposition and hatred but from where I sit, it won't make much difference. So the alternative is do the things that you can directly make a difference in people's live and believe that spouting off opposition politics isn't one of them that's going to make a difference.

MrBigglesworth

07-05-2007, 06:38 PM

I honestly never cared enough about my virginal status to identify the exact moment it was lost.
Sorry, didn't mean to offend, one's sexual activity or choosing to be abstinent is one's on choice and I respect whatever it is one chooses to do. As for the legal definition, here is what was agreed upon:

For the purposes of this deposition, a person engages in sexual relations when the person knowingly engages in or causes:

1. Contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person;
Mouth isn't on the list, so legally he did not have sexual relations with her, though by that definition she had it with him. Like I said, he was slippery.

dawgfan

07-05-2007, 06:44 PM

Joshua Marshall says it pretty clearly:
But, but, but Clinton pardoned a bunch of shady people too! Misdirect, misdirect!

Buccaneer

07-05-2007, 06:45 PM

Maybe next time I'll check to see if there's a next page before I post anymore string of thoughts. Yikes.

larrymcg421

07-05-2007, 06:46 PM

I wonder if there will ever be a thread criticizing Bush where his defenders don't point to Clinton. I mean really, if that's the best you've got then that doesn't say very much for Dubya.

I think this bears repeating.

MrBigglesworth

07-05-2007, 06:47 PM

A libertarian viewpoint involves radical changes to most people's lifestyles but most are too busy playing the opposition politics game and being politically apathetic for many good and bad reasons. You may strongly desire for a regime change because of your deep opposition and hatred but from where I sit, it won't make much difference. So the alternative is do the things that you can directly make a difference in people's live and believe that spouting off opposition politics isn't one of them that's going to make a difference.
I believe that libertarianism isn't being enacted not because 'people are busy with opposition politics', but because libertarianism isn't very popular to begin with, neither here nor in anywhere else in the world that I am aware of. From my perspective, because it is a system doomed to failure for various tragedy of the commons type reasons. I think social libertarianism (which I consider myself to be somewhat) has the best chance to catch on, but not on the fiscal end. I've given a lot of though to libertarianism, but the reason I choose not to push for it isn't because I am stuck in a red/blue spectrum, it's because it's bad policy.

Buccaneer

07-05-2007, 06:48 PM

I think this bears repeating.

for it will always continue, just with different names.

dawgfan

07-05-2007, 06:49 PM

But I personally advocate a very different form of government, or at least a very different mindset.
I appreciate that position Bucc, and I have a deep distaste for "politics as usual". The problem I have with Libertarianism is that I simply don't agree with many of the positions that this philosophy takes - I agree much more frequently with positions that Democratic candidates take, and certain positions some Republicans take.

WVUFAN

07-05-2007, 06:52 PM

I, unlike you and other such as PSUColonel and WVU, don't see how playing the opposition game will make much difference and I react against that.

You are right -- I do play the opposition game too much. I'm reevaluating that. It's ingrained in me, the idea of Republican=good and Democrat=bad, but it's increasingly apparent to me that the two party system is very, very broken.

So, in other words, you're right. I'm guilty of that.

BrianD

07-05-2007, 06:53 PM

Sorry, didn't mean to offend, one's sexual activity or choosing to be abstinent is one's on choice and I respect whatever it is one chooses to do.

I think you missed that completely. I never cared about the label of 'virgin' or felt the need to know exactly what I needed to do to have the label not apply. I guess I cared more about living my life than labeling it.

Buccaneer

07-05-2007, 07:01 PM

There is a difference between Libertarian and libertarianism. I have not and will not join a political party, not even the Libertarian party, for I do not believe in them. Part of it is that I believe it goes against the wishes of the founders of this country and the ideals they have set up, as well as followed what partisan politics have done in 1800 and beyond.

Actually, Biggle hit on a partial truth in that there are distinctions in libertarianism, from social to fiscal to whatever. Most of my focus, as I have been writing about for the past few years, have been on doing things more personally and locally as oppose to worry about what goes on in DC, which we seem to not affect much. However, I cannot fathom how anyone can tolerate the trillions of dollars of our money they have wasted over the years, from ill-defined departments to extortionist legislation (against the states and locals) to needless military and nation-buildng expenditures, all for keeping people busy doing nothing and to think of ways to make things more complicated? Too much power we have granted the federal govt, regardless if you think executive or legislature has too much. It's time to start electing those that will slow down their power grabs, not just shift it.

Flasch186

07-05-2007, 08:24 PM

Surprisingly, I haven't see that in this discussion all that much.

But my point is that the two things, regardless of any defense of Clinton's pardons, have nothing at all to do with one another. This isn't a case of "well, if Clinton did it, and he was wrong (and we complained about him being wrong back then), then we should have the right to do something just as wrong." It shouldn't work that way.

He has the power, but he is abusing it on behalf of a friend of his. Using it for personal gain is not the intent of that section. The Presidency should be above this.

None of which has anything at all to do with Scooter Libby.

It's just as hypocritical to defend Bush and criticise Clinton, which is what we (ie Republicans) are doing. To me, it makes absolutely no difference what any other President has done with this particular Constitutional power. What Bush has done is wrong.

I agree with you so Im sure the temperature just dropped in hell. :)

NoMyths

07-05-2007, 08:28 PM

You are right -- I do play the opposition game too much. I'm reevaluating that. It's ingrained in me, the idea of Republican=good and Democrat=bad, but it's increasingly apparent to me that the two party system is very, very broken.

So, in other words, you're right. I'm guilty of that.

This is a remarkably mature post, and is a mark in your favor.

07-05-2007, 08:59 PM

Because oral sex isn't sex, neither colloquially (if I told my friends I had sex with a girl and it turned it out was just a bj, I would be laughed out of the room) or by the legal definition agreed to in the trial..

Thank you for taking that position. Remember that Clinton himself admitted later that he lied, ahem, made false responses to questions. I assume false responses are to lies as bjs are to sex.

This is utter psuedo-centrist crap. The Dems aren't even seriously contemplating impeachment, so how can their top goal be getting Bush? The Democrats hate Bush, because EVERYONE hates Bush. Bush has a 28% approval rating, compared to Clinton who left office with about a 60% approval rating. He has a bad approval rating because things suck right now compared to when Clinton was in office. If you approve of what Bush is doing, fine, then just say so. But don't act like Bush is gloriously leading us and having a 90% approval rating is the Democrats being mean.

Actually some liberal talking heads have suggested impeachment and some Congressional Democrats have pondered the possibility.

Now, who said I approve of what Bush is doing? There you go again, Mr. Big, assuming incorrectly that just because I don't see things the same way you see them that I must see them the opposite way. But there is always a rational third way of looking at things, and often more than three ways of viewing something. In this case the third way is that both Dems and Reps are largely full of crap right now and that both parties are more interested in temporary political advantage than the good of the country. I refuse to be pigeonholed by you into a Republican slot. I have nothing but distaste for the Republican Party and always have.

But I know my biggest sin in your eyes is that I just don't hate Bush enough. However, let me make you feel better by saying that the Bush presidency has been a disaster. And let me further assuage you by saying that Clinton was not a disaster, though he made a lot of mistakes. I voted for him. Twice. See, you really don't have a clue.

And I stand by my utter pseudo-centrist crap. We've been ruled by the politics of hate for the last 16 years. Don't try to sell me on the crap, to use your term, that many Democrats in Congress and many liberals across the country are not motivated by hatred of Bush, a hatred that had its birth in the mythical stolen election.

You are fascinating to read. You always give the purest of motives to the left and most evil of motives to the right. You should try objectivity sometimes. You might find it refreshing.

Oh, I almost forgot. That impeachment thing. I guess that depends on the definition of "serious." Here is the wikipedia entry on the movement to impeach Bush. Interesting stuff. I had forgotten some of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement_to_impeach_George_W._Bush

The Republicans were idiots to impeach Clinton. The Democrats would be idiots to try the same. Though I actually think they prefer a wounded Bush because it probably helps their very good chances in 08.

SFL Cat

07-05-2007, 09:17 PM

BTW, I think the Republicans, much like the Democrats today, were so obsessed by their hatred that it blinded them. The impeachment was idiotic. We've seen nearly 16 years of the politics of hate from both parties now. It does the country no good. The Democrats should have a higher goal than getting Bush, just as the Republicans should have had a higher goal than getting Clinton.

Actually I think a lot of what Clinton got was Republican payback for what the Dems did to Reagan/Bush I...so its more like 26 years of the politics of hate from both parties. Of course, I've always been just fine with gridlock. The less Congress legislates, the less chance they have of screwing things up.

Buccaneer

07-05-2007, 09:23 PM

26 years is correct.

After seeing what JW wrote, it looks like Biggle is back to spewing his hated crap and is aghast at why not everyone feels the same way he does and I get slammed for calling him an extremist. But he had admitted a while back that he likes to argue for the sake of argument, which most of us are guilty of, though.

JPhillips

07-05-2007, 09:45 PM

Hell, a lot of it goes back to Nixon at least. Look at how many admin officials and congressmen were around during the impeachment hearings.

WVUFAN

07-05-2007, 09:51 PM

I agree with you so Im sure the temperature just dropped in hell. :)

Heh. :-)

Buccaneer

07-05-2007, 10:21 PM

Hell, a lot of it goes back to Nixon at least. Look at how many admin officials and congressmen were around during the impeachment hearings.

I thought about that for Nixon inspired quite a bit of hate but during my HS years (1974-1978) and up until 1981, there seems to have been a void. Ford was the transition to Carter which didn't seem put much emphasis on the Nixon/Ford years. I recall the 1976 election was relatively civil. The Congressional battles, on the other hand, were vicious because you had that huge, entrenched Democratic machine.

But back to your point. I believe Watergate got Nixon off the hook because he definitely paid for his sins and the opposition got their justice and revenge. Reagan not only trounced two Dems but came out a hero to many despite the opposition insistent attacks.

Grammaticus

07-05-2007, 10:24 PM

Straw man. Point to one person here who has argued in favor of Clinton's pardons, or even said anything about the 76 pardons that Bush has given so far. The hypocrisy you speak of does not exist. I think certain pardons that each gave were just and some were outrageous. The Libby commutation is just extra immoral because it obstructs a criminal investigation into the executive branch. It basically sets the standard that people in the executive branch are above the law.

Same as the McDougal pardon. There are also many other examples of Clinton exercising executive branch power to protect his administration. It's expected. All of the actions in each administration are not always apples to apples, but it is all fruit to fruit.

clintl

07-05-2007, 11:22 PM

Actually I think a lot of what Clinton got was Republican payback for what the Dems did to Reagan/Bush I...so its more like 26 years of the politics of hate from both parties. Of course, I've always been just fine with gridlock. The less Congress legislates, the less chance they have of screwing things up.

Uh, what was so bad about what they did to Reagan/Bush I? They made a deal with Republicans not to go after anyone higher than Poindexter on Iran/Contra. They pretty much let Reagan's economic policies pass. They worked together with the Republicans on Gramm/Rudman/Hollings. Bush I was criticized, but he was never demonized. They criticized Bush I for policies, but it wasn't personal. Other than blocking a couple of the Supreme Court nominees, I just don't see where the Democrats treated Reagan and Bush I in a way that was substantially different from the way opposition parties treated previous presidents.

WVUFAN

07-05-2007, 11:42 PM

Same as the McDougal pardon. There are also many other examples of Clinton exercising executive branch power to protect his administration. It's expected. All of the actions in each administration are not always apples to apples, but it is all fruit to fruit.

Bolded the important thing there.

While you may be right that it's expected of adminstrations of both parties to do that, the fact that it is expected turns my stomach. Something about the fact that base abuse of power is expected out of an adminstration is messed up.

MrBigglesworth

07-06-2007, 01:08 AM

However, let me make you feel better by saying that the Bush presidency has been a disaster.
This is why what you say is total psuedo-centrist crap. You think Bush has been a disaster, but believe that the left is only motivated by Bush-hatred. You think maybe that the Democrats and most independents realize what a terrible job Bush has done, as you have realized, and therefore want him and the people that have cheered on his decisions for years to be out of power? You think maybe that, since Bush has been a disaster, you could say that Dem Bush-hatred doesn't just come from the 'stolen election', but rather his failed policy? Perhaps you could say that the GOP attacking and impeaching Clinton for periphery issues when he was at 60% approval is different than the Democrats attacking the policy decisions of Bush at 28% approval? But no, you must attack both sides in order to maintain your centrist image (either to others or to yourself). You can see Bush for the failure that he has been, but others can only cheer on their tribe.

ISiddiqui

07-06-2007, 01:17 AM

This is why what you say is total psuedo-centrist crap. You think Bush has been a disaster, but believe that the left is only motivated by Bush-hatred.

Biggie has quite a good point here. It's hard to claim that Bush has been a disaster and then assert that the left is motivated by Bush-hatred. His disasterous policies probably have a LOT to do with the left's disgust of him.

Vinatieri for Prez

07-06-2007, 03:19 AM

Biggie has quite a good point here. It's hard to claim that Bush has been a disaster and then assert that the left is motivated by Bush-hatred. His disasterous policies probably have a LOT to do with the left's disgust of him.

Isn't that pretty much the only reason there can be? You certainly wouldn't hate him because you liked his policies. I mean that is what I don't understand about the defense of saying "well, you're just a Bush-hater." Uh, yeah, because he's a complete disaster as president. I'll admit I don't like the guy. But it's not because of the color of his hair or his flatulence. It's because his policies stink.

BigDawg

07-06-2007, 05:42 AM

Its time, Bush needs to resign !!!!!!

When the government fears the people there is liberty; when the people fear the government there is tyranny. --Thomas Jefferson.

Buccaneer

07-06-2007, 08:54 AM

Be careful what you wish for. Bush is the figurehead for Cheney. Would you rather have Cheney as President??

Biggle et al: Don't be so noble in thinking it's the policies you hate. It started in the 2000 campaign and the election aftermath, before the policies were even in place. There had been so much vitrol from both side built up under Clinton that it had to find an outlet when he left.

st.cronin

07-06-2007, 09:15 AM

I'm not sure I see where Bush's policies are substantially different from Clinton's, anyway.

nole4sho

07-06-2007, 12:08 PM

Not at all shocked. This man is a terrible president...

-Mojo Jojo-

07-06-2007, 01:15 PM

Biggle et al: Don't be so noble in thinking it's the policies you hate. It started in the 2000 campaign and the election aftermath, before the policies were even in place. There had been so much vitrol from both side built up under Clinton that it had to find an outlet when he left.

If people on the left really disliked Bush that much in 2000, I don't think Ralph Nader would have gotten 3 million votes. Bush would never have become president if not for the general ambivalence about him at the time. Many Nader voters only recanted some time later, after it became apparent just how bad Bush was. Bush got a fair shake. He just blew it.

07-06-2007, 01:21 PM

This is why what you say is total psuedo-centrist crap. You think Bush has been a disaster, but believe that the left is only motivated by Bush-hatred. You think maybe that the Democrats and most independents realize what a terrible job Bush has done, as you have realized, and therefore want him and the people that have cheered on his decisions for years to be out of power? You think maybe that, since Bush has been a disaster, you could say that Dem Bush-hatred doesn't just come from the 'stolen election', but rather his failed policy? Perhaps you could say that the GOP attacking and impeaching Clinton for periphery issues when he was at 60% approval is different than the Democrats attacking the policy decisions of Bush at 28% approval? But no, you must attack both sides in order to maintain your centrist image (either to others or to yourself). You can see Bush for the failure that he has been, but others can only cheer on their tribe.

Nope, I was quite clear in what I said. I said many on the left are motivated by hatred of Bush and that the hatred had its genesis in the 2000 election. I think a look at moveon.org and other leftwing sites would quickly show that there is a lot of hate and that it has been there from the very beginning of his first term. I don't think many reasonable people question that.

And I think that hatred influences the debate regarding the Libby commutation and that the politics of hate has damaged the American political process and the nation over the last 16 years.

I don't see that as being a "crap" position.

A couple of addenda:

I just did a quick google search of "Bush hate," lol, and found this interesting flashback to 2004, before the election. An analysis of why Bush is hated.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+Bush+hate+game:+TIE+asked+a+top+Democratic+analyst+why+the...-a0113564059

And I have to ask the reciprocal question. Did (and do) many on the right hate Clinton's policies or Clinton the man?

Ksyrup

07-06-2007, 01:38 PM

There are far too many microphones in this country, and not enough people with brains enough to deserve to sit in front of them. Sadly, this guy is yet another stunning example of conservative idiocy on the radio waves. Not that there's any shortage of the same on the other side....

BOORTZ: But in the case of Scooter Libby, Scooter Libby and Bill Clinton got sentenced and convicted for exactly the same crime. Can you -- now tell me, why is there so much outrage on the left that Scooter Libby isn't going to have to serve a 30-month jail term, and not a bit of outrage on the left that Bill Clinton didn't even get a 30-month jail term.

CALLER: I don't remember Bill Clinton actually being convicted for perjury.

BOORTZ: I'm sorry, he was.

CALLER: He was exonerated by a Republican Senate if I remember correctly.

BOORTZ: No sir, that's an impeachment. We're talking about a criminal trial, sir. The verdict was guilty. He was disbarred as a result of that verdict. He had his privileges to practice law before the Supreme Court of the United States revoked because of that verdict.

http://mediamatters.org/static/audio/boortz-20070705-clinton.mp3

dawgfan

07-06-2007, 03:18 PM

Who needs facts when you can be a demagogue and have your mind made up to fit whatever you want to believe?

larrymcg421

07-06-2007, 03:24 PM

That's awesome. Does Boortz really think a trial happened or is he just making things up? I mean, I think a criminal trial involving a former President would be a pretty big deal. So big that he might have wanted to cover that himself. I'm sure all the cable television channels would love all that ad revenue they would have gotten from what would certainly have been a circus of a trial. Saying Clinton had a trial is as stupid as saying OJ didn't have one.

Ksyrup

07-06-2007, 03:30 PM

Apparently he "corrected" himself today by saying he "misspoke" and that Clinton pleaded to the same crime, but wasn't convicted. But I don't think that's accurate, either. I don't think Clinton was even indicted/charged, much less convicted, but the one item he agreed to settle on was falsification. He didn't agree to anything on an obstruction allegation. And it stands to reason that if you go to trial and lose, versus agree to an outcome prior to ever being charged, the resulting punishments are going to differ greatly.

Believe me, I'm no Clinton supporter, so it pains me to make that point. The fact remains that this guy is an idiot.

EDIT: I guess the "indictment" would be the impeachment, but what he settled on with Ray was the falsification relating to the deposition testimony. I can't recall procedurally how this all played out, but I think this is mixing cases. He was indicted but not convicted in the Congressional matter, but settled on the Whitewater investigation based on a lie in the Paula Jones case (I think).

What a clusterfuck...!

clintl

07-06-2007, 03:42 PM

Nope, I was quite clear in what I said. I said many on the left are motivated by hatred of Bush and that the hatred had its genesis in the 2000 election. I think a look at moveon.org and other leftwing sites would quickly show that there is a lot of hate and that it has been there from the very beginning of his first term. I don't think many reasonable people question that.

I can't speak for others on the left, but I will freely admit to hating Bush (both the man and his policies), and that hatred stems from the dishonest way he initiated and has conducted the Iraq War. And for putting some truly evil people (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz) in positions of power and influence, and listening to them instead of the ethical people in his administration, like Colin Powell. Initially, when he first announced himself as a presidential candidate, I actually thought he was among the more preferable of the Republican candidates. I soured on him fairly quickly because I thought he didn't have the skills to be a successful president once I got to know him better, but I still thought maybe he would just end up being the Republican Jimmy Carter - not particularly competent, but mostly harmless.

What we got instead was a combination of the worst traits of Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon, and without any of the compensating positive accomplishments.

And I have to ask the reciprocal question. Did (and do) many on the right hate Clinton's policies or Clinton the man?

I can't answer for the right, obviously, but I find it hard to believe that they could say they hate his policies with a straight face, considering he adopted so many of theirs as his own (or at the very least, worked with them on compromises that accomplished much of what they wanted) after the Republicans took control of Congress.

Buccaneer

07-06-2007, 06:22 PM

And for putting some truly evil people (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz) in positions of power and influence

QFT.

MrBigglesworth

07-08-2007, 01:32 PM

Nope, I was quite clear in what I said. I said many on the left are motivated by hatred of Bush and that the hatred had its genesis in the 2000 election. I think a look at moveon.org and other leftwing sites would quickly show that there is a lot of hate and that it has been there from the very beginning of his first term. I don't think many reasonable people question that.

According to polls, right now more people support impeaching Bush than supported impeaching Clinton as he was being impeached. And yet there has hardly been any talk of impeachment. And yes, lots of people hated him since his first term. I didn't hate him at first, I just knew when he was elected that he was an empty suit and would be a bad President. But he had a 90+% approval rating after 9/11. He squandered that himself, not from Democratic hatred.

Let's go back to what you said before:
BTW, I think the Republicans, much like the Democrats today, were so obsessed by their hatred that it blinded them. The impeachment was idiotic. We've seen nearly 16 years of the politics of hate from both parties now. It does the country no good. The Democrats should have a higher goal than getting Bush, just as the Republicans should have had a higher goal than getting Clinton.

Are you now moving the goalposts from 'Democrats are so obsessed to their hatred that it is blinding them' to 'many liberals are motivated by hate'? Because I would agree with the latter (after all, 'many liberals are billionaires' is a factually correct statement). But I see no evidence of the former. How is it blinding them? You think Bush is a disaster, they think Bush is a disaster. What is it blinding them into doing?

Buccaneer

07-08-2007, 01:50 PM

How is it blinding them? You think Bush is a disaster, they think Bush is a disaster. What is it blinding them into doing?

The strong desire for more socialism and liberal progressivism.

07-08-2007, 02:32 PM

According to polls, right now more people support impeaching Bush than supported impeaching Clinton as he was being impeached. And yet there has hardly been any talk of impeachment. And yes, lots of people hated him since his first term. I didn't hate him at first, I just knew when he was elected that he was an empty suit and would be a bad President. But he had a 90+% approval rating after 9/11. He squandered that himself, not from Democratic hatred.

Let's go back to what you said before:

Are you now moving the goalposts from 'Democrats are so obsessed to their hatred that it is blinding them' to 'many liberals are motivated by hate'? Because I would agree with the latter (after all, 'many liberals are billionaires' is a factually correct statement). But I see no evidence of the former. How is it blinding them? You think Bush is a disaster, they think Bush is a disaster. What is it blinding them into doing?

Hardly any talk of impeachment. Okay.

Now, stop spluttering about moving the goalposts. Democrat and liberal are roughly equivalent, as are Republican and conservative. Not precisely, but roughly. After all, I'm a Democrat, a John Breaux/Blue Dog/centrist type, certainly not a liberal. But in general terms the words are interchangeable in today's politics, especially at the national level.

I remain convinced that hate motivates many on the left and right, or Democrat and Republican, if you prefer, and that it does blind some to the greater good. The degree, the percentages, the motivation of individuals, who knows, but the bitterness of the dialogue from some Democratic politicians (and Republicans) is one clue.

Let's see now, to sort through your other splutterings. I never said Bush's poor performance was a result of hatred.

As for Bush being an empty suit, very true, which is why I voted for neither empty suit in 2000 or 2004.

As to how it blinds the haters, that goes back to the politics of hate in general. Both parties are guilty of it, and politicians on both sides are often more concerned with short-term political game and the 'gotcha' game than the good of the country, imo. It is a phenomenon of both parties. Rove is a master of it, and should be frogwalked to prison, though not for the Valerie Plame outing non-crime.

As to what it keeps them from doing? Working positively for the greater good than negatively for division and for the 2008 election. Instead of 300 plus investigations, many of which are redundant, spend the energy on a positive agenda that the country can support. A higher minimum wage is not an agenda. Instead of calling Bush names (I think "Bush is an idiot" is just the latest from a Democratic Party leader.) in regard to some issue, propose a solution to the issue and move that solution into law. Let's take Iraq. If Iraq is a disaster, then move vigorously to defund the war and bring the troops home. Or shut up about it.

MrBigglesworth

07-08-2007, 04:40 PM

Now, stop spluttering about moving the goalposts. Democrat and liberal are roughly equivalent, as are Republican and conservative. Not precisely, but roughly. After all, I'm a Democrat, a John Breaux/Blue Dog/centrist type, certainly not a liberal. But in general terms the words are interchangeable in today's politics, especially at the national level.
I think in your haste to respond you failed to take note of the bigger area of difference between 'Democrats are so obsessed to their hatred that it is blinding them' to 'many liberals are motivated by hate'. The latter part is completely different. So are you saying you are mistaken when you first said the original, that their obsession was blinding to them? If not, what do you think they are being blinded from? If you believe Bush has been a disaster, then how can you say that liberals are blinded when they say Bush has been a disaster? Or what is it making them do that they wouldn't otherwise be doing if they weren't blinded? On one side, you had a popular president in a popular time get impeached when most of the voters didn't want to see it, and who was eventually acquitted by the Senate. On the other, you have an unpopular President in a less popular time (most people say the country is headed in the wrong direction) admitting to committing several felonies (FISA) and he is nowhere close to being impeached. What should the Dems be doing? And they can't be doing this:

Working positively for the greater good than negatively for division and for the 2008 election. Instead of 300 plus investigations, many of which are redundant, spend the energy on a positive agenda that the country can support. A higher minimum wage is not an agenda. Instead of calling Bush names (I think "Bush is an idiot" is just the latest from a Democratic Party leader.) in regard to some issue, propose a solution to the issue and move that solution into law. Let's take Iraq. If Iraq is a disaster, then move vigorously to defund the war and bring the troops home. Or shut up about it.
...because that paragraph is psuedo-centrist crap. The House has passed dozens of items that can't get past the Senate because of filibusters, and even if they could get through the Senate neither chamber has enough votes to overcome a Presidential veto. Take immigration for example. The Democrats worked with the White House (who they are blinded with hatred towards!!!1!!) to come up with a compromise bill, and the Senate Republicans killed it.

The Democrats have narrow majorities in congress and do not have the Presidency, so they are not going to get much done other than investigations. The best they can realistically do is bring public pressure to bear on the GOP in the Senate to break with the White House. If Bush wants less investigations, maybe they should do less illegal shit and stop claiming things like the Vice President isn't part of the government.

Flasch186

07-08-2007, 05:06 PM

we screamed to keep filibusters in place when the Republicans were in power and threatened to change the rules so whats good for the goose is good for the gander and filibusters should remain as they always have.

07-08-2007, 09:49 PM

I think in your haste to respond you failed to take note of the bigger area of difference between 'Democrats are so obsessed to their hatred that it is blinding them' to 'many liberals are motivated by hate'. The latter part is completely different. So are you saying you are mistaken when you first said the original, that their obsession was blinding to them? If not, what do you think they are being blinded from? If you believe Bush has been a disaster, then how can you say that liberals are blinded when they say Bush has been a disaster? Or what is it making them do that they wouldn't otherwise be doing if they weren't blinded? On one side, you had a popular president in a popular time get impeached when most of the voters didn't want to see it, and who was eventually acquitted by the Senate. On the other, you have an unpopular President in a less popular time (most people say the country is headed in the wrong direction) admitting to committing several felonies (FISA) and he is nowhere close to being impeached. What should the Dems be doing? And they can't be doing this:

...because that paragraph is psuedo-centrist crap. The House has passed dozens of items that can't get past the Senate because of filibusters, and even if they could get through the Senate neither chamber has enough votes to overcome a Presidential veto. Take immigration for example. The Democrats worked with the White House (who they are blinded with hatred towards!!!1!!) to come up with a compromise bill, and the Senate Republicans killed it.

The Democrats have narrow majorities in congress and do not have the Presidency, so they are not going to get much done other than investigations. The best they can realistically do is bring public pressure to bear on the GOP in the Senate to break with the White House. If Bush wants less investigations, maybe they should do less illegal shit and stop claiming things like the Vice President isn't part of the government.

I'm starting to like the ring of "pseudo-centrist crap." I think I will make it the title of my personal political philosophy. Maybe I'll start a new political party, the Pseudo-Centrist Party. Thank you for the endorsement.

And I sincerely apologize, but I continue to believe that in the supercharged political atmosphere of the present that many on both left and right are driven by what many pundits call the politics of hate. I know those aren't precisely the same words I used in my last post, and I apologize for any confusion that might cause you.

As to the supposed difference you note between my two earlier phrases, again, I apologize for the confusion. I guess I am just not that interested in trying to understand your attempt at deconstructing my statements. Since the distinction is important to you, and since you often make claims of knowing what I'm thinking, you can explain it for me.

But I will point out one thing. I just read a story about the politics of hate and personal attack. It was written in 1994 -- 1994 -- about the Clinton presidency and personal attacks on the Clintons, well before the Clintons had established anything of a presidential record. (I say "the Clintons" because of the health care plan and because we now have the other Clinton seeking the presidency.) The same occurred regarding Bush. The 2000 election created a seething anger directed toward Bush among many on the left that manifested itself even before he took office. Just read moveon.org. Thus when you try to say that there can be no personal hatred directed at Bush since his presidency has been a disaster, I reply that the hatred was present from the start.

Thus I see little difference between the politics of hate directed at the Clintons and that directed at Bush. Certainly you have to admit that a lot of people hate Hillary Clinton and that it has little to do with her policies. But such personally directed hate is bad for the country. It would be better to direct emotion -- and reason -- at the issues. A US Senator calling the President names, for example, does no one any good.

And do tell me about Bush admitting to committing several felonies. Maybe I just missed that while trying to maintain the balance of my pseudo-centrist crap.

MrBigglesworth

07-09-2007, 12:05 AM

And I sincerely apologize, but I continue to believe that in the supercharged political atmosphere of the present that many on both left and right are driven by what many pundits call the politics of hate. I know those aren't precisely the same words I used in my last post, and I apologize for any confusion that might cause you.

As to the supposed difference you note between my two earlier phrases, again, I apologize for the confusion. I guess I am just not that interested in trying to understand your attempt at deconstructing my statements. Since the distinction is important to you, and since you often make claims of knowing what I'm thinking, you can explain it for me.

But I will point out one thing. I just read a story about the politics of hate and personal attack. It was written in 1994 -- 1994 -- about the Clinton presidency and personal attacks on the Clintons, well before the Clintons had established anything of a presidential record. (I say "the Clintons" because of the health care plan and because we now have the other Clinton seeking the presidency.) The same occurred regarding Bush. The 2000 election created a seething anger directed toward Bush among many on the left that manifested itself even before he took office. Just read moveon.org. Thus when you try to say that there can be no personal hatred directed at Bush since his presidency has been a disaster, I reply that the hatred was present from the start.

Thus I see little difference between the politics of hate directed at the Clintons and that directed at Bush. Certainly you have to admit that a lot of people hate Hillary Clinton and that it has little to do with her policies. But such personally directed hate is bad for the country. It would be better to direct emotion -- and reason -- at the issues. A US Senator calling the President names, for example, does no one any good.
You were doing so well, trying to pull back from 'Democrats are so hate obsessed that it is blinding them' to 'some people on the far left hate Bush', a much more rational statement, all while not admitting that you had misspoken, but then you mentioned this 'Senator calling the President an idiot' thing again. You'll have to be more specific, because "Your search - bush idiot source:cnn - did not match any documents" so I don't know what you are talking about. Anyway, why this politics of hate thing is psuedo-centrist crap is because people on the right such as Ann 'Edwards is a faggot' Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, etc are celebrated and honored by the party. An entire wing of the Republican Party is based off of racism, sexism, and anti-homosexuality, and the leaders of these groups (Jerry 'civil libertarians, feminists, homosexuals, and abortion rights supporters are to blame for 9/11' Falwell, etc) are embraced by the Republican leadership. People like O'Reilly, Hannity, and Glenn 'Mr. Muslim US congressman, convince me you don't want to kill me ' Beck can be seen in almost a solid block any night of the week.

On the other hand you have some people on the left that like to call the President bad names. It isn't even close. It's this constant struggle for equivalence that doesn't exist which makes some of what you say psuedo-centrist crap. If you want to decry the 'politics of hate', fine, but then first look to blame the group that celebrates it, institutionalizes it, and feeds off of it to get votes. It's like someone in the global warming debate going, "well, on the one hand we have a vast majority of the world's climatologists and all of the climate boards of every industrialized nation. But the CEO of Exxon-Mobil makes some pretty good points. They should stop this arguing and meet in the middle."

And do tell me about Bush admitting to committing several felonies. Maybe I just missed that while trying to maintain the balance of my pseudo-centrist crap.
He's admitted to unwarranted eavesdropping on American citizens, which is in violation of FISA, which is a felony offense for each instance. It was on the news.

st.cronin

07-09-2007, 12:10 AM

He's admitted to unwarranted eavesdropping on American citizens, which is in violation of FISA, which is a felony offense for each instance. It was on the news.

This pretty much sums up Mr. B's entire approach to discourse.

MrBigglesworth

07-09-2007, 12:25 AM

This pretty much sums up Mr. B's entire approach to discourse.
How so?

07-09-2007, 12:23 PM

You were doing so well, trying to pull back from 'Democrats are so hate obsessed that it is blinding them' to 'some people on the far left hate Bush', a much more rational statement, all while not admitting that you had misspoken, but then you mentioned this 'Senator calling the President an idiot' thing again. You'll have to be more specific, because "Your search - bush idiot source:cnn - did not match any documents" so I don't know what you are talking about. Anyway, why this politics of hate thing is psuedo-centrist crap is because people on the right such as Ann 'Edwards is a faggot' Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, etc are celebrated and honored by the party. An entire wing of the Republican Party is based off of racism, sexism, and anti-homosexuality, and the leaders of these groups (Jerry 'civil libertarians, feminists, homosexuals, and abortion rights supporters are to blame for 9/11' Falwell, etc) are embraced by the Republican leadership. People like O'Reilly, Hannity, and Glenn 'Mr. Muslim US congressman, convince me you don't want to kill me ' Beck can be seen in almost a solid block any night of the week.

On the other hand you have some people on the left that like to call the President bad names. It isn't even close. It's this constant struggle for equivalence that doesn't exist which makes some of what you say psuedo-centrist crap. If you want to decry the 'politics of hate', fine, but then first look to blame the group that celebrates it, institutionalizes it, and feeds off of it to get votes. It's like someone in the global warming debate going, "well, on the one hand we have a vast majority of the world's climatologists and all of the climate boards of every industrialized nation. But the CEO of Exxon-Mobil makes some pretty good points. They should stop this arguing and meet in the middle."

He's admitted to unwarranted eavesdropping on American citizens, which is in violation of FISA, which is a felony offense for each instance. It was on the news.

Maybe in your haste to respond you failed to understand that I am not trying to explain the difference in my phrasing to you because, unlike you, I fail to see a significant difference, though I am enjoying your tortured explanations.. If you want to pounce on the fact that I did not precisely repeat myself each time and use it in an attempt to show how brilliant you are, please, go ahead. But it is so convoluted, or so brilliant, that it is just damned hard to follow and not worth the effort.

However, I did understand that what it comes down to for you is that there is a lot of hate out there, just like I said, and that Republican hate is bad but Democratic hate is good. You could have said that a lot more concisely than you did.

But my real reason for replying, besides not letting you get the last word, is to inform you that I have decided not be a pseudo-centrist. I have decided that I now belong to the radical middle. Link:

http://www.radicalmiddle.com/x_conservatives.htm

No, I haven't read much of what is on the site. I just like the term. So please refer to my political philosophy as radical middle crap from now on, if you are gentleman.

And I can see that what you meant in your last comment is that Bush did not really admit to a felony.

PSUColonel

07-09-2007, 01:19 PM

KWhit

07-09-2007, 01:22 PM

what an ass.

You should have called him a butthole. That would have really put him in his place.

Or maybe fartbag.

flere-imsaho

07-09-2007, 01:53 PM

I can't speak for others on the left, but I will freely admit to hating Bush (both the man and his policies), and that hatred stems from the dishonest way he initiated and has conducted the Iraq War. And for putting some truly evil people (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz) in positions of power and influence, and listening to them instead of the ethical people in his administration, like Colin Powell. Initially, when he first announced himself as a presidential candidate, I actually thought he was among the more preferable of the Republican candidates. I soured on him fairly quickly because I thought he didn't have the skills to be a successful president once I got to know him better, but I still thought maybe he would just end up being the Republican Jimmy Carter - not particularly competent, but mostly harmless.

What we got instead was a combination of the worst traits of Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon, and without any of the compensating positive accomplishments.

You can speak for me - this is pretty much exactly how I've felt.

what an ass.

Just an FYI - you won't be able to delete this thread.

Flasch186

07-09-2007, 01:56 PM

what an ass.

you still have not retracted or apologize for your lie in this thread. What about that?

MrBigglesworth

07-09-2007, 02:54 PM

Maybe in your haste to respond you failed to understand that I am not trying to explain the difference in my phrasing to you because, unlike you, I fail to see a significant difference, though I am enjoying your tortured explanations.. If you want to pounce on the fact that I did not precisely repeat myself each time and use it in an attempt to show how brilliant you are, please, go ahead. But it is so convoluted, or so brilliant, that it is just damned hard to follow and not worth the effort.

However, I did understand that what it comes down to for you is that there is a lot of hate out there, just like I said, and that Republican hate is bad but Democratic hate is good. You could have said that a lot more concisely than you did.

But my real reason for replying, besides not letting you get the last word, is to inform you that I have decided not be a pseudo-centrist. I have decided that I now belong to the radical middle. Link:

http://www.radicalmiddle.com/x_conservatives.htm

No, I haven't read much of what is on the site. I just like the term. So please refer to my political philosophy as radical middle crap from now on, if you are gentleman.

And I can see that what you meant in your last comment is that Bush did not really admit to a felony.
What you are isn't radical and it isn't in the middle. You try to be centrist by coming up with a rationale to attack everyone. You can't criticize one without criticizing the other, and often must rely on ridiculous talking points to do it (such as the 'Plame is not covert fiasco'). That's psuedo-centrism. A centrist way to attack the Dems would be for saying that their policies are too liberal for you, not by saying that they employ the same politics of hate as the GOP.

And I can see that what you meant in your last comment is that Bush did not really admit to a felony.
Which part do you object to, that Bush said he approved it and supports it (I can provide you with the transcript), that the wireless program is illegal (I can provide you with a federal court decision), or that breaking FISA is a felony (I can provide you with the law's rundown)? This reminds me Plame undercover 'debate'. That Bush and co. would out a CIA officer for political gain was too radical an idea for you, so you refused to believe it no matter what the evidence.

Unanswered questions:

- What are the Dems not doing that they would be doing if Bush hatred hasn't been blinding them into doing things like working with Bush on immigration policy? What could they get through with filibuster and veto proof majorities that their Bush hatred is keeping them from doing?
- What US Senator recently called Bush an idiot?

07-09-2007, 03:55 PM

What you are isn't radical and it isn't in the middle. You try to be centrist by coming up with a rationale to attack everyone. You can't criticize one without criticizing the other, and often must rely on ridiculous talking points to do it (such as the 'Plame is not covert fiasco'). That's psuedo-centrism. A centrist way to attack the Dems would be for saying that their policies are too liberal for you, not by saying that they employ the same politics of hate as the GOP.

Gee, B, are you so wrapped up in this that you can't see that I was joking with all the radical centrist stuff? You are one tightly wound guy. It is so easy to yank your chain.

Now, I'm not trying to come up with a rationale for attacking anyone. I simply believe that the politics of hate practiced by many on the left and right harms the country. You can choose not to believe that. (I apologize again for not wording that sentence in precisely the same manner as I worded it the other times, thus possibly confusing you and launching you off on yet another deconstructive essay.)

And you are apparently so focused on me that you can't see that I am not attacking the Democrats here. I am attacking the politics of hate, and, before you hijacked the thread to play games with me, I was commenting on my belief that we have much more important things to worry about than the commutation of Libby's sentence. If I really hated the Democrats as much as you want me to, I wouldn't be one.

You know, I think it is foolish of you to attempt to characterize my political beliefs on a couple of off-the-wall issues I've discussed on this forum that represent maybe 1% of what I believe. You're trying to draw a rather large conclusion from one or two things, and engaging in name-calling, though I do find the name-calling rather funny, since you try to do it an an intellectually superior and condescending way.

Which part do you object to, that Bush said he approved it and supports it (I can provide you with the transcript), that the wireless program is illegal (I can provide you with a federal court decision), or that breaking FISA is a felony (I can provide you with the law's rundown)?

Show me where Bush admitted to committing a felony. You're running circles. I still don't see it. To use your reasoning, you said Bush admitted to a felony. Show me where he said it. I'll leave Secret Agent Valerie Plame out of it until someone is actually charged with outing her.

The Bush comment. I just went back and cannot find where I said a US Senator called Bush an idiot, hence this edit. For a moment I actually made the mistake of assuming one of your claims was accurate. How stupid of me. What I actually wrote above was I think "Bush is an idiot" is just the latest from a Democratic Party leader.) I saw the on Drudge, now that I've thought about it, and it was Biden saying Bush is "brain dead." So my memory wasn't exactly accurate, but then I qualified what I wrote. So if it will make you happy, it wasn't "idiot." It was "brain dead." Now you can have fun writing an essay about how I was wrong and you were right and how "idiot" and "brain dead" are two completely different things.

Now to my political philosophy of the day: Progressive conservative. Have fun with that one.

MrBigglesworth

07-09-2007, 04:10 PM

PSUColonel

07-09-2007, 04:16 PM

st.cronin

07-09-2007, 04:20 PM

What name calling?

Again:

- What are the Dems not doing that they would be doing if Bush hatred hasn't been blinding them

Finding candidates that have a chance of appealling to voters?

clintl

07-09-2007, 04:22 PM

Finding candidates that have a chance of appealling to voters?

If the polls and campaign donations so far are any indication, they're doing a lot better job of that than the Republicans are.

st.cronin

07-09-2007, 04:26 PM

If the polls and campaign donations so far are any indication, they're doing a lot better job of that than the Republicans are.

Well, yeah, but I'm talking about 2004 and 2006. Both years they underperformed considering the level of discontent. Who knows what will happen in 2008.

clintl

07-09-2007, 04:32 PM

I don't think they underperformed in 2006. The gains they made were pretty much in line with what could be expected given the opportunities.

Now 2004 - absolutely, they screwed that election up.

Flasch186

07-09-2007, 04:35 PM

I even admit this is just rediculous. Boortz needs to take a refresher course in history I think.

so Boortz lied and retracted.

you havnt.....where is your credibility sir? The minute you admit to, apologize for, or retract the lie we can move on but it is difficult to do so (at least for anyone who hangs their hat on honesty) when you throw out a statement that is untrue and then simply "hope it goes away." I know other people who do that but at least theyre getting paid.

larrymcg421

07-09-2007, 04:50 PM

The Democrats could have made somewhat bigger gains in 2006, but Howard Dean's idea was to focus more on setting up a long term majority than maximizing every single seat for one election.

07-09-2007, 05:20 PM

What name calling?

Again:

- What are the Dems not doing that they would be doing if Bush hatred hasn't been blinding them into doing things like working with Bush on immigration policy? What could they get through with filibuster and veto proof majorities that their Bush hatred is keeping them from doing?

By your repeated refusal to explain that comment and instead going off on rambling tangents, I'm going to assume that it was just a talking point that you heard some GOP operative spout once and that you decided to repeat in your search for the elusive center.

Again:

-- Show me where Bush admitted to a felony.

And you actually need to follow along. I'm not saying all Democrats are always motivated by hate, nor am I saying all Republicans are always motivated by hate. But I am saying it is a factor in today's politics and has been for some time. You can keep yapping about that all you want. I'm not going to change my mind.

Name calling -- pseudo-centrist crap. Though it was funny. Of course you will respond that you weren't calling me a name, just my political beliefs. It is the same thing as far as I'm concerned.

And, no, I didn't get the politics of hate idea from some GOP operative. You need to go back to the first Clinton administration and read about the politics of hate and the politics of personal destruction. Those terms were used back then to describe attacks from the right on the Clintons. So get with the program here. This isn't anything new.

What could the Democrats be doing? Like I said before, stop at least some of the 300 often overlapping investigations (I'm using the 300 figure without citation; I heard it on tv -- and I channel surf between CNN and MSNBC and Fox -- so it could be wrong. I don't remember where I heard it.), go to the American people, propose some solid programs, and then get up or down votes on them or allow the Republicans to filibuster them. An up or down vote on ending the war is one thing. You tell me what the Pelosi-Reid platform is. Isn't it about ending the war? Isn't it about ending the war? And bringing honesty and integrity back to Washington? Like our own representative caught with the cold cash in the freezer.

Immigration. A very interesting deal there. I found the immigration bill to be quite interesting. What I really wanted to know was what certainty we had that the border control measures would actually be put in place. My distrust level for both parties in Congress and the White House is very high right now. And it wasn't the Republicans who killed it. It was the American people. They don't trust Congress either. They trust Congress less than they trust Bush.

st.cronin

07-09-2007, 05:25 PM

The Democrats could have made somewhat bigger gains in 2006, but Howard Dean's idea was to focus more on setting up a long term majority than maximizing every single seat for one election.

You should've seen their congressional nominee in Albuquerque, she was hilarious - her platform was basically "impeach bush". In this state, if they had nominated my cat, Luther, he probably would've won.

07-09-2007, 05:31 PM

You should've seen their congressional nominee in Albuquerque, she was hilarious - her platform was basically "impeach bush". In this state, if they had nominated my cat, Luther, he probably would've won.

But B says the impeach Bush talk is not serious.

MrBigglesworth

07-09-2007, 05:54 PM

Again:

-- Show me where Bush admitted to a felony.
I'm not sure how I could be clearer than I have been about that without being even more condescending than you have tried to be. Are you telling me that if someone admits to a crime, but doesn't necessarily use the word 'felony', that it is unfair to say he admitted to a felony? If someone said, "I murdered someone", that it would be incorrect to say that he said he committed a felony? If that's what it is, then we will have to agree to disagree.

Name calling -- pseudo-centrist crap. Though it was funny. Of course you will respond that you weren't calling me a name, just my political beliefs. It is the same thing as far as I'm concerned.
This discussion isn't about political beliefs, its about the framing of issues. You keep going on about how you're not the conservative I say you are, when I have never said you were conservative. I am saying that you are reaching to frame things in a way that is disconnected from reality in order to try and give a centrist statement. For example:

What could the Democrats be doing? Like I said before, stop at least some of the 300 often overlapping investigations (I'm using the 300 figure without citation; I heard it on tv -- and I channel surf between CNN and MSNBC and Fox -- so it could be wrong. I don't remember where I heard it.), go to the American people, propose some solid programs, and then get up or down votes on them or allow the Republicans to filibuster them. An up or down vote on ending the war is one thing. You tell me what the Pelosi-Reid platform is. Isn't it about ending the war? Isn't it about ending the war?
...this is what the Democrats are doing. The Dems in the house have held up or down votes on dozens of items that have been filibustered in the Senate, immigration being the one with the highest profile. But also tax increases for oil companies (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-06-21-gopblocksoil_N.htm) and the Employee Free Choice Act (http://www.workdayminnesota.org/index.php?news_6_3149), and also bills on raising the minimum wage, a date to remove troops from Iraq, and fulfilling the 9/11 commission's recommendations on homeland security, all bills that enjoy majority support but can't get 60 votes in the Senate. You are blaming Dems for an obvious failure of Republicans. And again, the easiest way for the investigations to stop would be for the administration to stop doing illegal shit and making BS legal arguments trying to stonewall. All of the investigations now are about things that have happened just since the Dems took power, they haven't even been able to get to things like the selling of the Iraq war.

Immigration...And it wasn't the Republicans who killed it. It was the American people.
That speaks volumes. The Democrats are to blame for the investigations and the American people are the ones that killed the immigration bill, even though the American people are all for investigations and all for immigration reform.

MrBigglesworth

07-09-2007, 05:59 PM

But B says the impeach Bush talk is not serious.
Are you living in an alternate universe where a crackpot failed House candidate is the national voice of a party? Do you believe that 'the Republicans are seriously considering forcing all Muslims to convert to Christianity' is a true statement because Ann Coulter said it once? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

cartman

07-09-2007, 06:28 PM

Biggles, there is a huge difference between 'making a point' and 'making a point and not stopping making it until everyone submits and acknowledges the sheer brilliance that you have bestowed on the point'. It's really off putting and doesn't help your position much at all. Both in this thread and the Sicko thread.

07-09-2007, 07:24 PM

I'm not sure how I could be clearer than I have been about that without being even more condescending than you have tried to be. Are you telling me that if someone admits to a crime, but doesn't necessarily use the word 'felony', that it is unfair to say he admitted to a felony? If someone said, "I murdered someone", that it would be incorrect to say that he said he committed a felony? If that's what it is, then we will have to agree to disagree.

This discussion isn't about political beliefs, its about the framing of issues. You keep going on about how you're not the conservative I say you are, when I have never said you were conservative. I am saying that you are reaching to frame things in a way that is disconnected from reality in order to try and give a centrist statement. For example:

...this is what the Democrats are doing. The Dems in the house have held up or down votes on dozens of items that have been filibustered in the Senate, immigration being the one with the highest profile. But also tax increases for oil companies (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-06-21-gopblocksoil_N.htm) and the Employee Free Choice Act (http://www.workdayminnesota.org/index.php?news_6_3149), and also bills on raising the minimum wage, a date to remove troops from Iraq, and fulfilling the 9/11 commission's recommendations on homeland security, all bills that enjoy majority support but can't get 60 votes in the Senate. You are blaming Dems for an obvious failure of Republicans. And again, the easiest way for the investigations to stop would be for the administration to stop doing illegal shit and making BS legal arguments trying to stonewall. All of the investigations now are about things that have happened just since the Dems took power, they haven't even been able to get to things like the selling of the Iraq war.

That speaks volumes. The Democrats are to blame for the investigations and the American people are the ones that killed the immigration bill, even though the American people are all for investigations and all for immigration reform.

Show me where he admitted to a crime. Show me his words.

What have I said that is disconnected from reality. There has been plenty of discussion by serious people about what is called the politics of hate and politics of personal destruction (to add the Clintons' phrasing) for a long time. If I am wrong about the extent of its influence, then I'm wrong. But I think I am correct in saying that it has influenced and continues to influence of many politicians and pundits of the left and the right. Two names: Ann Coulter and Al Franken. I would propose that you agree that the politics of hate has some influence in our political discourse, and we can disagree on the extent. Then we can stop this silly argument.

On the investigations, I think if we took a look at the investigations, we would find many are redundant and some are unnecessary. Are you saying every investigation is completely justifiable and important?

The American people are "all" for investigations and immigration reform? I don't know about them "all" being for investigations. I agree that most are for immigration reform. Polling data shows that. But that doesn't mean they were for this particular immigration bill. In fact, polling data I saw (And I know there are lots of polls out there.) showed that people had significant problems with specific parts of the bill. Nevertheless, I do think that if we could make a serious effort at securing the border that the American people would come around to liberal and compassionate treatment of the illegals in the country, some kind of amnesty by another name.

As for the Democrats -- and the Republicans would be no different -- there is, as always, a mixture of concerns and agendas. There is an underlying political agenda to elect a Democrat president in 08, something very attainable as long as the Dems don't do something really stupid like actually impeach Bush or try to bail out of Iraq too fast, thus shifting part of the blame for the mess from Bush to the Democrats. There is an anti-Bush motivation, with a seething hatred of Bush on the part of some politicians. And there is a legitimate concern for the country. But I don't believe anyone in Washington has pure motives.

In fact, it might be worthwhile for the Democrats to propose certain items that they know they can't pass. That gains political points with their base even though the politicians know nothing is actually going to happen. Both parties have used that tactic in the past, too.

And I'm not being condescending. But I just don't take this discussion as seriously as you do. I think it has reached the point of absurdity, but I'm just not going to leave the field to you. I'm stubborn like that.

Flasch186

07-09-2007, 09:23 PM

PSU's silence speaks volumes to me. what a joke. tells a lie and keeps on trucking but its not very fast. Tough to go fast with your head planted firmly in the sand.

Vinatieri for Prez

07-09-2007, 09:57 PM

PSU's silence speaks volumes to me. what a joke. tells a lie and keeps on trucking but its not very fast. Tough to go fast with your head planted firmly in the sand.

I thought you would have learned long ago that PSU never acknowledges legitimate points of the "other side" or respond to valid criticism. It's a waste of time to try. However, it's good you point it out. It's why I stay out of the threads he starts for the most part because it's a complete waste of time. It's like trying to win an argument with sound logic when your wife/girlfriend is at that time of the month - impossible.

Flasch186

07-09-2007, 10:14 PM

youre right, i know but it is one of the few things that truly gets my blood boiling.

BrianD

07-09-2007, 11:03 PM

PSU's silence speaks volumes to me. what a joke. tells a lie and keeps on trucking but its not very fast. Tough to go fast with your head planted firmly in the sand.

At what point does it stop being fun poking someone who doesn't acknowledge the poking?

Flasch186

07-09-2007, 11:17 PM

now

PSUColonel

07-10-2007, 01:11 AM

st.cronin

07-10-2007, 01:13 AM

It's like trying to win an argument with sound logic when your wife/girlfriend is at that time of the month - impossible.

"Impossible" is a piece of cake compared to that.

Flasch186

07-10-2007, 06:34 AM

I'll say this much...I wish that the many of you who constantly come down upon me personally had the chance to actually meet me in person. I think you would be surprised, and would have a much different view of how you see me compared to how you view my online persona. It's a shame on many levels. The truth is I'm not much of a "internet debator", and am in some ways lazy, and as a result don't always express the full scope of my ideas because I must type rather than speak.

For me, it's as simple as just being able to admit when you make a mistake. If that would be the case, even on here I would have a lot more respect for you on here. Like WVUfan, JIMGA, and Glen, in some cases they end up on your political side of the spectrum BUT at least they have the chutzpah to write, "Yup, I was wrong. Thanks." THAT would go a long way in helping you get the points across that you truly are "right" about. And I hope, at least here, your internet "persona" is the same as your "real life" persona.

flere-imsaho

07-10-2007, 09:15 AM

PSU's silence speaks volumes to me. what a joke. tells a lie and keeps on trucking but its not very fast. Tough to go fast with your head planted firmly in the sand.

For a while I used to respond to PSU in threads by keeping a list of the questions he failed to answer in quotes for him each time I posted. But that's a waste of time. Much like the talk radio jocks he listens to, he's clearly only interested in throwing out half-baked ideas and then ignoring the reponses he doesn't want to hear. To whit:

I'll say this much...I wish that the many of you who constantly come down upon me personally had the chance to actually meet me in person. I think you would be surprised, and would have a much different view of how you see me compared to how you view my online persona. It's a shame on many levels. The truth is I'm not much of a "internet debator", and am in some ways lazy, and as a result don't always express the full scope of my ideas because I must type rather than speak.

To be honest, I doubt I'd find you any different from how I picture you, because I've met many copies of you in real life. You're clearly uninterested in thinking past the superficial and the narrow scope of your experience is clearly illustrated by what you write.

If you truly and honestly think it's a shame that people view you a particular way online, then my advice to you would be to cut down on the one-off trolling (seriously, just look at the threads you've started only in the past week) and reply with a bit more substance. If you can't be bothered then, well, I won't be bothered to change my mind about you and I suspect others will continue to mock you.

No one's expecting you to make long-winded, multiple-citation posts like MrB, or craft well-thought posts like NoMyths, or muse clearly like QS, or even clearly and consistently hammer home points like Bucc or JiMGA. But as long as your posting style consists of "Har har, those stupid liberals, look at this stuff I just read off of this right-wing website" you will continue to not be taken seriously.

"Impossible" is a piece of cake compared to that.

This could be a good Addidas commercial, actually.

Vinatieri for Prez

07-10-2007, 11:54 AM

"You are what you write." And claiming you are something different if people really knew you doesn't make it so, PSU. And it is especially unbelievable in light of what you do write. I won't summarize what I think you "write." I will let your writing speak for itself.

Not to mention, even after coming back on, you still wouldn't respond to Flasch's point, even though you claimed you are not really like that in real life. If I met you in real life, I doubt you would respond any differently than when I am talking to you, meaning I wouldn't be the least bit interested in talking to you in real life. Sorry.

Buccaneer

07-10-2007, 06:34 PM

Woo-hoo! I got a citation!!

-Mojo Jojo-

07-10-2007, 10:35 PM

The truth is I'm not much of a "internet debator", and am in some ways lazy, and as a result don't always express the full scope of my ideas because I must type rather than speak.

I don't mean to be flippant, but why not give it a rest with the political discussions on this board then? If you're not willing to engage in the discussion on the same level as other participants, maybe this just isn't the thing for you. You may not intend to be a troll, but making repeated inflammatory remarks without following up with substantive discussion works out to be about the same thing. I'm not saying you need to respond word-for-word with someone as prolific as Mr.B., but you should be willing to at least make a good faith effort at engaging critical arguments and backing up your statements with evidence. Otherwise, why bother just stirring the pot then bailing?

Contrary to the opinions of many, I believe the discussions here can be informative and interesting. And even if not many people have a eureka moment where they radically change their position, I think people do take on more informed, nuanced positions, and, over time, can shift their thinking, both in response to what others say to them and as a result of clarifying their own thoughts in order to respond to criticism. But none of that happens if people aren't putting in a sincere effort and keeping at least somewhat of an open mind.

BrianD

07-10-2007, 10:42 PM

Contrary to the opinions of many, I believe the discussions here can be informative and interesting. And even if not many people have a eureka moment where they radically change their position, I think people do take on more informed, nuanced positions, and, over time, can shift their thinking, both in response to what others say to them and as a result of clarifying their own thoughts in order to respond to criticism. But none of that happens if people aren't putting in a sincere effort and keeping at least somewhat of an open mind.

I wanted to agree with you and point out that some of the less vocal people on the board (with regards to these issues) may just be sitting back and soaking up the points from both sides. I don't participate often in these discussions since I don't believe I am well enough informed to have a proper debate, but I read every one of the threads. I also believe this is one of the better places to get information on some pretty serious topics since we seem to get the talking points from both sides and then some in-depth criticism of the talking points.