8.28.2006

What the "looney left " did...


So I've had three different posts written and linked up every which way from Sunday, but didn't post them. Instead, I offer you, "What the "looney left" did."

It all comes from the idea that protesting at the legionnaire's conference is not the responsible thing to do. Mayor Rocky has organized a little rally/protest again, "Rocky II", and there are those who think it's unpatriotic. While I think the Office of the Mayor shouldn't be involved in this (and I know, before you all send me your hate mail, he hasn't used his office time, or office email, etc... ), I think a protest is in order, but I agree with you that Rocky shouldn't be the one doing it...

Anyway...

Some say that, regardless (or "irregardless" for you Utah County folks) of who is doing it, a protest shouldn't be part of the convention/Presidential visit this week. I disagree. In fact, I disagree so strongly, that I will go so far as to say that not only should there be a protest, there should be impeachment hearings scheduled. There are those who say that we shouldn't be wasting our time on impeachment, there are those who say we should simply let the electoral process take its course. Horse-apples, I say! What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Near the end of 2005, Democratic members of the judiciary committee called for a select committee to investigate "those offenses which appear to rise to the level of impeachment." By March 06, 26 house members had joined that cause. There are also at least two books published on the subject - one called "Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush", and the other called, "The Case for Impeachment".

Why all the furor? It's simple - with revelations of Bush's domestic spying program -- and the president's unrepentant insistence on continuing it -- former Nixon White House counsel John Dean called Bush "the first president to admit to an impeachable offense."

Why would we NOT want to impeach a president for breaking the law, committing crimes, lying, and insisting that his unlawful actions will continue?

Why would we not want to do this when we were so gung-ho to impeach a president for a simple, harmless sexual indiscretion less than a decade ago? (and by harmless, I mean "from a national leadership" perspective. Whatever you think, morally, there weren't any state secrets divulged or national security breached.)

Again, the answer is easy. The Republican government was elected on moral grounds, by morals-based voters. By doing so, they have essentially agreed to flush away any fiscal/legal responsibility in favor of having what was termed as a "moral man" in office.

You get what you pay for, I guess. Because while we have a "moral man" in office, he's shown a base dereliction of his duties in almost every other area, and some might argue that dereliction extends to moral issues as well. But he's kept his pants on - and that's GREAT. Those who WOULDN'T argue that way are the "ultra-right" uber-conservatives who were responsible for his election, and are now calling the note due.

At the end of the day, the history books will be/already are written thusly, taken from the official www.whitehouse.gov web site:

Regarding President Clinton:
"During the administration of William Jefferson Clinton, the U.S. enjoyed more peace and economic well being than at any time in its history. He was the first Democratic president since Franklin D. Roosevelt to win a second term. He could point to the lowest unemployment rate in modern times, the lowest inflation in 30 years, the highest home ownership in the country's history, dropping crime rates in many places, and reduced welfare rolls. He proposed the first balanced budget in decades and achieved a budget surplus. As part of a plan to celebrate the millennium in 2000, Clinton called for a great national initiative to end racial discrimination."


Regarding President Bush (II):
"Since becoming President of the United States in 2001, President Bush has worked with the Congress to create an ownership society and build a future of security, prosperity, and opportunity for all Americans. He signed into law tax relief that helps workers keep more of their hard-earned money, as well as the most comprehensive education reforms in a generation, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. This legislation is ushering in a new era of accountability, flexibility, local control, and more choices for parents, affirming our Nation’s fundamental belief in the promise of every child. President Bush has also worked to improve healthcare and modernize Medicare, providing the first-ever prescription drug benefit for seniors; increase homeownership, especially among minorities; conserve our environment; and increase military strength, pay, and benefits. Because President Bush believes the strength of America lies in the hearts and souls of our citizens, he has supported programs that encourage individuals to help their neighbors in need."


Up until very recently no republicans have voiced the idea that maybe impeachment is warranted. Some who don't go that far still decline the offer for the president to come and stump for them in their state in an election year. It would seem that toeing the party line has become less and less atattractive and more and more costly to the mainstream Republicans, and they realize that the party has been hijacked by these ultra-morality factions within the party. There's MUCH to read out there on this concept.

This isn't your father's republican party. Not by a long shot. Many of you just don't realize it yet, because you're scared to look too hard, it might force you to act in a way to which you aren't accustomed.

The time is now for republicans to drop their loyalty to the party in favor of their duty to the constitution. That was the argument during the Clinton impeachment hearings - duty to the constitution.

Republicans, where is that duty now? You've succeeded in flushing the good name of our country, nation, government, and ultimately, our personal/national reputation down the world toilet.

But he kept his pants on.

So yeah, the looney left is trotting out the vitriol, the idea that there are protests to be held, impeachments to be had - what's good for the goose.....

Let the hate mail begin - you know you wanna...

7 comments:

Cameron said...

It's certainly not unpatriotic to protest a sitting president. Or an ex-president for that matter. Since much of the ire directed at President Bush comes from the protestors' view that he lied to get us to agree to go to war, I can understand using the American Legion convention as a platform for the protest as well. That is their right and privilege.

As for the assertion that "Bush Lied!", that's a whole 'nother post. The War on Terror and the war in Iraq and Afghanistan is as interesting as it is controversial. It's a great study on the media and human nature. It really has polarized the country. I think it's more than just "crazy republican religionists" vs "crazy liberal Bush-haters".

Orson Scott Card wrote an interesting piece over at ornery.org that I think applies.

Now on to President Clinton. You characterize his impeachment as being over "a simple, harmless sexual indiscretion". I know you are expecting moral indignation here, as reflected by your rationalizing in the following sentence, "and by harmless, I mean "from a national leadership" perspective. Whatever you think, morally, there weren't any state secrets divulged or national security breached" Is that the criteria then for impeachment? Only if state secrets are divulged?

President Clinton did not just have one "innocent" affair. To characterize him this way is dishonest. His is a long history of abuse of power to acheive his conquests. He has been accused of rape. He has been accused of unwanted groping. He has been accused of sexual harrasment. It is a pattern of behavior stretching over at least 2 decades in public office. If you or I behaved this way in the workplace we would have been fired long ago and may have been put in prison. Using your power as a supervisor to have sex with co-workers is not only morally wrong, it's illegal. To do so in the oval office is reprehensible. Yet many folks really really want to forget all that. How come?

That One Guy said...

Magic: What you say about Clinton is right - and don't get me wrong - what he did was wrong, and I'm not condoning the idea that sexual abuse is okay. On the other hand, I don't think you can say that Monica was an innocent bystander... whatever... perhaps I over-generalized to make a point, but all I was saying was that IF we were so happy to go for the impeachment of THAT president, why are we NOT doing so with this one??

Also, whether a president SHOULD be impeached is much different than whether or not he COULD be impeached.

Either way, it's a tragedy when it even approaches the possibility.

Heck, Clinton has even been accused of murder through mob relationships, etc. What can you say - I'm not saying that he was a saint. But I am saying that he didn't sell the COUNTRY down the road through his presidency.

You have to agree that the crimes with which Bush could be charged rise to a much higher level in terms of national interest than what Clinton was accused of.

I just think it's odd that there seems to be a double standard here, that's all.

And by the way, Magic, thanks for reading.... really.

Jeremy said...

Bush is a terrible president but I think the idea that he needs to be impeached is a little looney.

He definitely deserves to face a congress run by the Democrats in November.

I can't get past the idea that it would be really stupid for Democrats to waste their chance at making positive policy changes both foreign and domestic by spending all of their time and voter good will trying to impeach or punish President Bush.

----end hate mail----

You have a great blog. You do a good job mixing fun posts with political screed. I liked the Brady Bunch house blueprint.

That One Guy said...

Thanks Jeremy, and, strategically speaking, you are probably right about whether an impeachment should be sought. And for that reason alone, it will likely not come about... after all, one has to get elected next time around in order to keep collecting the paychecks, doesn't one?

But morally, ethically, in a black and white world - if it was good enough for the gander....

well, you know.

I think that is symtomatic of what is wrong with our entire electoral process here... the above-all mantra is "What should I do in order to get elected next time around..?" as opposed to what SHOULD be done in this instance... we all know that voters have an INCREDIBLY short memory.

:)

Thanks again.

Cameron said...

TOG: I enjoy reading your stuff because I mostly don't agree with you. If I did, I probably wouldn't read it. :)

I get your overall "good for the gander" point regarding impeaching Presidents Clinton and Bush. But I still think you are downplaying President Clinton's transgressions. He didn't just have sex with Monica Lewinski. He had sex with lots of women. He may have raped women. He groped them. He harrassed them. He abused his position and abused the women around him.

To say that Mr. Clinton's only crime was having an affair is misrepresenting the situation. If he weren't "Bill Clinton" and were just your neighbor, you would despise him. You would keep your daughters away from him. I'm quite disappointed that he seems to get a free pass for that part of his legacy.

A lot has been written about his mistakes and scandals outside of the bedroom as well. So his faults as a president are not limited to sexual predation.

Anyway, the idea of impeaching President Bush has certainly crossed the minds of congressional Democrats. But there may be a reason it hasn't been overtly discussed. slate.com wrote about it a while back. Rep. Pelosi has mentioned impeachment as a possibility to the Washington Post as well as to Meet the Press, but many shy away from it presumably because Democrats have painted Republicans as "dividers" and so now can't go dividing themselves with these impeachment hearings. It'll be interesting to see what happens if the Dems take control of Congress this fall. If anything does happen, it certainly won't be because of any politician taking a moral stand.

As for President Bush, I'm torn. Most people seem to hate him. I don't feel like I've done my due diligence on him yet to form an opinion. There are those that would argue that he hasn't done anything more than what other war-era presidents have done. This War on Terror has certainly muddied the waters.

That One Guy said...

Cameron - your thoughts are right on - I wouldn't want Clinton (either of them) living in my neighborhood... and if either of us had behaved the way he did, you're right, we'd be looking for new employment.

But here's the thing - I don't dispute his dispicable-ness... not at all... but it is educational to look at the actual articles of impeachment that were filed against him. Now I'm certainly no political scholar - not by ANY means... but you would think that if his opposition was really trying to affect a successful impeachment, they would go with both barrels, with everything they could possibly find... but they didn't.

There were four actual Articles of Impeachment, and three revolved around Monica Lewinsky, one around the Jones lawsuit.

Synopsis:
Article One: This article accuses President Clinton of providing "perjurious, false and misleading testimony" when he appeared Aug. 17 before the grand jury investigating his relationship with Monica S. Lewinsky.

Article Two: The second article accuses Clinton of multiple lies in responding to lawyers representing Paula Jones in her sexual harassment lawsuit. Lies about sexual relations. The alleged perjury began when Clinton answered written interrogatories in which he was asked the names of any government employees with whom he had "sexual relations" while president and answered "none."

Article Three: Obstruction of Justice - Encouraging Lewinsky to file a false affidavit

Article Four: This article is based on the argument that 10 of Clinton's answers to the 81 questions sent by the House Judiciary Committee were "perjurious, false and misleading." The answers -- which essentially restated Clinton's grand jury testimony -- include his statements that he did not discuss Lewinsky's gifts with Currie or instruct her to retrieve them; that he believed Lewinsky's affidavit denying a sexual relationship was accurate; that he did not recall more than a gift or two from Lewinsky when questioned at the Jones deposition; and that he did not try to coach Currie's testimony.

So, while he's no saint by even the wildest stretch of the most vivid imagination, he was only impeached on this narrow stuff, though serious it may be.

As previously stated, he balanced the budget, secured a budget SURPLUS, among other things, and although I think he's generally a liar, he at lest held the course for the national best interest, most of the time.

You'll argue that he wasn't a "war-time" president. And I'll agree... hard to say how the two would shake out under similar circumstances... makes one go, "hmmmmm."

However, I think Bush is EVERY BIT the liar that Clinton ever thought about being. Any president who perjures himself while seated deserves the harshest criticism, goose OR gander.

Just my $0.02.

Again, thanks for listening.

:)

Cameron said...

Just thought of another reason I like reading your stuff. You're hard to pin down. Not the same old party line junk. Makes it much more fun.

So we agree that President Clinton was a bad person. Or that he acted badly, at least.

But I think we differ on his overall effectiveness as a president. This probably isn't where you meant to go here, so I apologize. But you goaded me into it when you wrote,

"As previously stated, he balanced the budget, secured a budget SURPLUS, among other things, and although I think he's generally a liar, he at lest held the course for the national best interest, most of the time."

Mr. Clinton gets a ton of credit for the economy. I think that credit is misplaced. The economy started humming because of the internet. An entire industry basically materialized where there was nothing previously and people went crazy. Average American started spending. Stock Market folks bought like crazy. Accountants lied like crazy. Balancing the budget during this time was admirable, but relatively easy. And it had to come from a Republican congress. So everyone gets a little credit I suppose. I just don't think the politicians had a whole lot to do with it.

As for the "war-time" president comparison. I've been thinking about that ever since I wrote it. I don't think the war with terror started in 2001. It had been raging for some time previous to that, we just didn't pay much attention. Now, I'm not going to blame President Clinton for Sep 11. I don't think anyone could have been "prepared" for that because not one person in the country really truly believed an attack of that nature and magnitude could actually happen. But you said it would be interesting to see how the two (Clinton and Bush) would react under the same circumstances. I think maybe the circumstances were actually quite similar. Terrorists had been attacking the US throughout the 90s. Pres. Clinton's response was to fire missles at suspected bases. He talked a good game. He threatened Iraq and sent missles there too. He said he knew that Iraq had WMDs and was willing to use them and that Hussein must be stopped. But mostly they were empty threats. When crises did occur in places like Somalia and Rwanda, President Clinton did little to nothing. The intelligence community was in a very poor state when Sep 11 happened. Their ineptitude contributed to the attack's success. President Clinton has to take at least some of the blame for the state of the CIA, doesn't he?

Now, as far as President Bush's "lies" go, it seems to me that all of that stems from the war in Iraq. That's where I have turned my blogging thoughts to lately. How come he's a lier for believing the same thing that the two previous presidents believed, not to mention vice presidents and congressmen? Everyone knew Hussein was nuts and would use weapons on anyone he happened not to like. Not to mention the fact that he committed genocide to a huge extent in his country. The UN knew Hussein had WMDs, it was documented. What they didn't know was what happened to them. We still don't know what happened to them. The only thing that has changed is that he's in jail now.

I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm really not. :) Just thinking outloud...