Tea Party/ GOP-

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Right now, the House and Senate are a pathetic political analogy of the Red Sox and Yankees.

Good analogy of the mess.

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Bayh is leaving because he is a moderate in a disgustingly polar Congress. If he tries to reach across the aisle, he had to deal with the fallout from the more senior, and more liberal, Democrats. If I remember correctly, Bayh has the most votes against Obama of all Dems.

More importantly he could win his next election easily.

What should be troubling for the DNC is that he announced his plans without informing them first. He wanted out...

-spence

[buckman]

I thought Obama was going to bring great unity?

[The Dad Fisherman]

[Joe]

From what I've read, the Clinton Impeachment is what ratcheted up the level of polarization to what it is now.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by Joe

From what I've read, the Clinton Impeachment is what ratcheted up the level of polarization to what it is now.

I think you could be right Joe but if I recall the Dems effed over GB1 pretty good too.
Remember the good old days, when a lie "no new taxes" could bring down a President.

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

I think you could be right Joe but if I recall the Dems effed over GB1 pretty good too.
Remember the good old days, when a lie "no new taxes" could bring down a President.

Bush 41 made a massive flip flop and couldn't spin it as he had no charisma...you can't say the Dem's were out of line here, the issue was with the voters.

From what I've read the difference in tone started in the House under Clinton. Certainly there has always been intense partisanship, but pre-Clinton Republicans and Democrats were often friends and would go have a drink after a good fight on the floor.

Today, your party leadership will chastise you for fraternizing with the enemy.

I blame Tom Delay and Newt Gingrich.

-spence

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

Bush 41 made a massive flip flop and couldn't spin it as he had no charisma...you can't say the Dem's were out of line here, the issue was with the voters.

From what I've read the difference in tone started in the House under Clinton. Certainly there has always been intense partisanship, but pre-Clinton Republicans and Democrats were often friends and would go have a drink after a good fight on the floor.

Today, your party leadership will chastise you for fraternizing with the enemy.

I blame Tom Delay and Newt Gingrich.

-spence

Bush 41 got screwed over by the Dems. Bush 42 worked with the both sides on many issues.
I'm shocked that you don't find the Dems at fault at all..
The arrogance of that has occured since last Jan. has stunned the nation. To you it's no big deal.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Joe

From what I've read, the Clinton Impeachment is what ratcheted up the level of polarization to what it is now.

There was a previous impeachment attempt that had direct bearing on the "polarization." During the inquiry into the impeachment of Richard Nixon, a young lawyer named Hillary Rodham was appointed to the staff of Jerome Zeifman, the House Judiciary Committee Chief Counsel for the proceedings. She was recommended by Ted Kennedy. She played a significant, albeit nasty role, in the inquiry. She, along with others, tried to create a scheme to deny Nixon the right to counsel during the investigation. She endeavored to write a legal brief arguing there is no right to representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding. Zeifman told her that she was wrong, that there was precedent for such counsel in the impeachment attempt of S.C. Justice William O. Douglas. And he told her that all documents establishing this fact were in the Judiciary committee's public file. So, she then removed those files to her offices which were secured and inaccesible to the public. Then she wrote a legal brief arguing that THERE WAS NO PRECEDENT FOR RIGHT TO COUNSEL DURING AN IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING! The brief, of course, was fraudulent and ridiculous, and Zeifman believes she would have been disbarred if it had been submitted to a judge. He believes the attempt to deny Nixon counsel was to block any attempt to cross-examine Howard Hunt (the Watergate break-in mastermind), who had the goods on nefarious activities of the Kennedy administration that would have made Watergate look "like a day at the beach." There were a couple of other illegal or dirty actions by Rodham during the proceedings. As a result, Zeifman, a life-long Democrat, refused to give her a letter of recommendation "Because she was a liar. She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the constitution, the rules of the house, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality."

Much of the "polarization" that may have surfaced during Clinton's impeachment, certainly was inspired by the actions, not only of the hounding of Nixon for what was no worse than what had gone on in previous administrations (perhaps, less worse--covering up someone else's petty crime in comparison to Clinton covering up his own,) but the fact that Clinton was married to the woman who was instrumental in bringing Nixon down. And she was now "standing by her man" who was, essentialy, guilty of what she had opposed. A lot of payback, political and personal, was involved in the "polarization."

She certainly showed, later on, that same propensity to cover things up and move documents after that early foray into politics and the law. Rather than learning to be better, she learned how to do it better.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

There was a previous impeachment attempt that had direct bearing on the "polarization." During the inquiry into the impeachment of Richard Nixon, a young lawyer named Hillary Rodham was appointed to the staff of Jerome Zeifman, the House Judiciary Committee Chief Counsel for the proceedings. She was recommended by Ted Kennedy. She played a significant, albeit nasty role, in the inquiry. She, along with others, tried to create a scheme to deny Nixon the right to counsel during the investigation. She endeavored to write a legal brief arguing there is no right to representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding. Zeifman told her that whe was wrong, that there was precedent for such counsel in the impeachment attempt of S.C. Justice William O. Douglas. And he told her that all documents establishing this fact were in the Judiciary committee's public file. So, she then removed those files to her offices which were secured and inaccesible to the public. Then she wrote a legal brief arguing that THERE WAS NO PRECEDENT FOR RIGHT TO COUNSEL DURING AN IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING! The brief, of course, was fraudulent and ridiculous, and Zeifman believes she would have been disbarred if it had been submitted to a judge. He believes the attempt to deny Nixon counsel was to block any attempt to cross-examine Howard Hunt (the Watergate break-in mastermind), who had the goods on nefarious activities of the Kennedy administration that would have made Watergate look "like a day at the beach." There were a couple of other illegal or dirty actions by Rodham during the proceedings. As a result, Zeifman, a life-long Democrat, refused to give her a letter of recommendation "Because she was a liar. She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the constitution, the rules of the house, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality."

Much of the "polarization" that may have surfaced during Clinton's impeachment, certainly was inspired by the actions, not only of the hounding of Nixon for what was no worse than what had gone on in previous administrations (perhaps, less worse than covering up someone else's petty crime in comparison to Clinton covering up his own,) but the fact that Clinton was married to the woman who was instrumental in bringing Nixon down. And she was now "standing by her man" who was, essentialy, guilty of what she had opposed. A lot of payback, political and personal, was involved in the "polarization."

She certainly showed that propensity to cover things up and move documents after that early foray into politics and the law. Rather than learning to be better, she learned how to do it better.

You forgot the part about Hillary pulling the trigger on Vince Foster.

-spence

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

You forgot the part about Hillary pulling the trigger on Vince Foster.

-spence

There sure were alot of dead people around those two...tragic

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

You forgot the part about Hillary pulling the trigger on Vince Foster.

-spence

Ah . . . good point. But that would not have contributed to the "polarization."

Anyway, Zeifman didn't speak about that.

Is your non sequitur supposed to discredit what he says? He was there. You were not. He was the House Judiciary Committee Chief Counsel. He was her boss, and was speaking of first, hands on, experience. Are you accusing him of, as JohnnyD would say, fabrication?

[Joe]

Don't be too concerned, there was an article yesterday on the front page of the Tea Party website which alluded to the goal of impeachment.

[PaulS]

Who was the repub. famous for his dirty tactics who ended up dying of brain cancer about 7 years ago???

I just shook my head when one of the complaints/examples of hypocrisy voiced by Bayh was of the 7 repubs. who co-sponsored the recent deficit reduction bill and then actually voted against it.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Who was the repub. famous for his dirty tactics who ended up dying of brain cancer about 7 years ago???

I just shook my head when one of the complaints/examples of hypocrisy voiced by Bayh was of the 7 repubs. who co-sponsored the recent deficit reduction bill and then actually voted against it.

Reminds me of Obama voting for Bush's budgets and then saying he inherited Bush's deficit. Especially when the Dems controlled things during those years.

[RIJIMMY]

I started a long defense of my posts but however logical it appears to me, I figured its wasted effort.
I know Fishbones follows it and it has nothing to do with politics, you just pick and choose points out of context to formulate some half witted argument.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

I started a long defense of my posts but however logical it appears to me, I figured its wasted effort.
I know Fishbones follows it and it has nothing to do with politics, you just pick and choose points out of context to formulate some half witted argument.

Good Call.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Good Call.

I think Jimmy called you a half wit...

[fishbones]

Can someone tell me what perpicacity means? My bachelors is from a state school and they didn't have the funding to teach us words like that.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by fishbones

Can someone tell me what perpicacity means? My bachelors is from a state school and they didn't have the funding to teach us words like that.

JD's looking it up right now

[buckman]

I just looked it up. Obama voters didn't have it

[Joe]

So, if we were looking at a pie chart of why Clinton was impeached, how big would the "payback for Nixon" slice be?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Joe

So, if we were looking at a pie chart of why Clinton was impeached, how big would the "payback for Nixon" slice be?

I would guess, for some of the older hands on the Republican side, it might be a big slice. But, I would guess that for most Republicans, it was pretty much the same political motivation that drove the attempt to impeach Nixon--to win the next election. Politics is a dirty business. It always has been. I pointed out the Nixon thing in response to your suggestion that the Clinton impeachment started the current "polarization." Whatever you read that suggested that to you, may have left out earlier precedents, such as the Nixon thing (which really compares closely to the Clinton impeachment) that contributed to our "polarization." Actually, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, we've always been so. I think it can be traced back to the federalist/anti-federalist debates. There seems always to be a bone of contention in our politcs between a pull toward a strong central government versus more emphasis on local rule. Even now, when both parties have evolved more strongly in the federalist direction, they are ideologically split between those who want the federal government to be more involved in what used to be matters of state, local, and even individual responsibility, and those who, at least pretend to, oppose that intrusion. And the ideological divide is diametric.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I would guess, for some of the older hands on the Republican side, it might be a big slice. But, I would guess that for most Republicans, it was pretty much the same political motivation that drove the attempt to impeach Nixon--to win the next election. Politics is a dirty business. It always has been.

How about the motivation to impeach Nixon because he and his Administration broke the law on multiple occations simply as a matter of doing business?

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

How about the motivation to impeach Nixon because he and his Administration broke the law on multiple occations simply as a matter of doing business?

-spence

As did the Kennedy Administration and just about every administration before that. Nixon was not impeached for that common "matter of doing business." The point is that he was impeached for the same type of thing as Clinton, a cover-up--a "minor" difference being that Nixon was covering up someone else's malfeasance, Cllinton was covering up his own. and lying under oath. And that "polarization" didn't start with the Clinton impeachment, but was certainly evident before that, throughout our history, and the Nixon impeachment process certainly contributed.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

As did the Kennedy Administration and just about every administration before that.

As I said to my mom when I was 15, but everybody does it.

Nixon was not impeached for that common "matter of doing business." The point is that he was impeached for the same type of thing as Clinton, a cover-up--a "minor" difference being that Nixon was covering up someone else's malfeasance, Cllinton was covering up his own. and lying under oath.

Never mind that Clinton was trying to cover up a BJ, while Nixon was trying to cover up his staff and associates involved in burglary, theft and misuse of the FBI.

It must have been simple politics that brought Nixon down, because you know, everybody does it.

-spence

[PaulS]

The real dirty politics started with Lee Atwater who spawned Karl Rove.

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by PaulS

The real dirty politics started with Lee Atwater who spawned Karl Rove.

Nah, the real dirty politics (at least in the US) started in the 1800's with the bagmen in Indiana buying votes.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

The real dirty politics started with Lee Atwater who spawned Karl Rove.

Good to know. Thanks for the information.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Good to know. Thanks for the information.

anytime