General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIn the event he is impeached, will Senate Democrats even have Obama's back?
They seem so keen on throwing him under the bus over the last few years that who the fuck knows if they'll even have his back if he was impeached by the House. I don't doubt they'll come up short of the vote to convict (67 votes), but would the party show a united front similar to what it did with Clinton in 1999? No Democrats voted guilty on Clinton's two charges back then. I'm not so sure that would happen today if it was Obama who faced the frivolous charges.
Maybe I'm wrong. But I could see a few Democrats, namely that prick from West Virginia, siding with the Republicans on this one. :/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)doesn't matter what they think or do...I am pretty sure it WILL happen. They are desperate to put an asterisk by the Black guy's name.
MiniMe
(21,883 posts)So yes, the dems need to have his back.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)IdiocracyTheNewNorm
(97 posts)on anything.
MiniMe
(21,883 posts)
Spazito
(55,435 posts)it won't happen. Beginning January 3, 2015 there will be 55 repub Senators and 45 Democratic Senators.
avebury
(11,196 posts)Democratic Party.
Wella
(1,827 posts)The GOP has NOTHING to gain by impeachment. Turtle Man and the rest know that impeachment is a waste of time and will backfire on the 2016 election. Their own supporters will find impeachment to be a waste of time.
The strategy for the GOP will be to pass crazy right wing legislation and then wait for the Obama veto. They then can take these continuous vetos to their RW supporters and say, "You need to put a Republican president in office so we can get these laws passed." If they play their cards right, 2016 can be all about blaming Obama--still.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)He's only vetoed 2 bills in the last 6 years-- fewer than just about anyone else who has served that long.
Wella
(1,827 posts)That's over, and the vetos will have to happen if the Democrats are to have any credibility in 2016.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)However, I'm not so sure that even if he vetoes the most egregious bill imaginable that it will give Democrats credibility for 2016. The right-wing spin machine has this way of convincing people that a shit sandwich is a gourmet treat.
Wella
(1,827 posts)stacking SCOTUS. Obama vetos will underscore the importance of having a Democrat in the presidency. The Dems have to message this right. One of my fears is not about the right but about Democratic advisors and strategists dropping the ball. Their ads for Heathcare.gov have been ludicrous. "Pajama Boy" became a national joke. And whoever advised the recent candidates was clearly dead wrong.
This is an easy message for the Dems if it's handled right: Put a Dem--any Dem--in office or get destructive legislation and a hostile SCOTUS.
world wide wally
(21,836 posts)Wella
(1,827 posts)Sadly.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Nothing TO veto.
Cha
(318,850 posts)Wella
(1,827 posts)Reid isn't there to stop them. There will be more vetos. The GOP will run on those vetos, as will the Dems. The GOP will say "See, we need a Republican in the presidency to get our agenda through," and the Dems will say " You need a Dem in the presidency to prevent the lunacy of the right." Vetos work for everyone. Impeachment, not so much.
They will put forth reasonable-sounding bills -- "The Feed The Babies Act" or "Free Kittens For Everyone Act." But Paragraph VII, Section C will contain a provision saying "No taxes for any Republican, and repeal Obamacare." He won't be able to sign the bills and the "liberal" media will paint him to be an obstructionist. You can count on it.
LiberalFighter
(53,544 posts)That eradicates all the Republicans.
Glad someone gets it.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Wella
(1,827 posts)They know it. They will have much better optics if send looney bills to Obama and he vetoes them. Then they can make Obama the "President of NO".
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)their constituents like them!
Wella
(1,827 posts)And Karl Rove (remember him?) did his best to tank the wacko Tea Nuts in the primaries this year. The mainstream GOP (right-leaning as it is) does not want the nut jobs running things. Karl Rove and the GOP leadership want to win elections, and they can't if radical nut jobs get their way. They will not impeach, no matter what Ted Cruz has to say.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)say hello to Ted Cruz....you think he is less powerful after that last election do you?
Wella
(1,827 posts)Let's sit back, watch and wait. You'll soon see there will be no impeachment.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)the Teabaggers smell blood in the water....
Wella
(1,827 posts)The would completely destroy their hopes for 2016. Now, unless Hillary and Bill are running the GOP, they will not impeach.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)until they did it....
The are emboldened even more now and they are a party of full on racists......they think they have it in the bag in 2016....they fucking think they are popular....
Wella
(1,827 posts)No impeachment.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)I know Republicans pretty fucking well.....I spent many years in the deep south....they want that asterisk beside the Black guys name....they want assurances that NO other Black guy thinks about doing that any time soon.
Wella
(1,827 posts)
jmowreader
(53,166 posts)...in exchange for being able to make Obama go down in history as only the third president to be impeached.
Wella
(1,827 posts)Just watch.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Wella
(1,827 posts)That is all.
Yupster
(14,308 posts)Too late to impeach anyway if they wanted to which they don't.
They'll put bills on his desk written to sound like plain common sense, many Democratic congress members will vote with them and then the President will get the tough choice of signing or vetoing and being the obstructionist to common sense bipartisan legislation.
The idea will be to show him as the obstruction and either make Democratic presidential candidates attack him or make them defend the obstructionism.
Wella
(1,827 posts)This puts a lot of pressure on the Senate Dems to vote "NO" as a bloc, so it's not just Obama alone but a party decision.
Cha
(318,850 posts)
doc03
(39,074 posts)him to oppose anything Obama does or vote to impeach him.
WhiteAndNerdy
(365 posts)I haven't heard one single credible example of anything Obama has done that merits impeachment.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)They want that asterisk by the Black guys name.....their racist White constituents are demanding Obama's scalp!
WhiteAndNerdy
(365 posts)But made-up accusations will not result in impeachment. They won't go anywhere.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)they want that asterisk. Their constituents believe he is illegitimate.....if they JUST impeach him....they can have that to hang around his neck into perpetuity....just like they do Bill Clinton.
WhiteAndNerdy
(365 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)but I am rarely...
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)We have nothing to worry about. President Clinton lied under oath that is how they were able to get the process started. The Republicans will not even bother with this.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)its why they chose a sexual peccadillo....they wanted Bill's scalp too..
It doesn't matter that WE know he doesn't deserve it. They have been lying to their constituents all along saying that he is "lawless".
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)Shenanigans with this President. We will see President Obama getting on the helicopter in January 2017 after breakfast with the new President. That I am 100 percent confident in saying.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)President Obama is a Black man in the White House and the VAST majority of Republican constituents believe that he is illegitimate....
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)President Obama.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Black person attemptsbto take "their White House" again. Thier base are very very afraid of minorities with power..
Yupster
(14,308 posts)I think you are really, really really wrong with sugar on top on this issue.
The Republicans keep putting simply written what they call common sense bills on his desk.
They are passed with bipartisan support and Obama has to veto them and be an obstructionist or sign them.
In 2016 moderate Democratic senate candidates will have to decide whether to "support the President's temper tantrum," or go against him which would splinter the Democratic coalition.
It doesn't make any sense for Republican to impeach Obama. They like the situation right like it is.
But can they avoid passing crazy radical stuff? That's their challenge.
An early indication of how it will play out will be the repeal of the medical device tax. Does Obama sign that or veto it?
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)White House. I doubt they want another Democratic minority in the White House.
MoonRiver
(36,975 posts)
madinmaryland
(65,727 posts)
karynnj
(60,949 posts)Their numbers will be better - likely in both the House and Senate. The important way is that the impeachment of Clinton has made the story of Lewinski something that even the sparsest biography of Clinton will include. Otherwise, his infidelities might have been mentioned to the degree that those of Johnson, FDR, Kennedy, Eisenhower ... are included. I would assume that he never pictured himself as a 2 term President whose best known words were both ignominius and (to many) a lie.
I would imagine that it might be more like the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, who was really impeached over overt political issues - mainly how to deal with the Southern states that had left the union once they returned.
Obama has not broken any laws. There is debate on how far executive orders can go. However, the real method of dealing with that - per the Constitution - is not to impeach the President, but take the issue to the Supreme Court. (A Supreme Court, incidentally, balanced slightly in their favor.)
I agree with you that they can impeach, can't remove and have the motivation in hating Obama. However, consider what initiating impeachment would do to the Republicans:
1) It would take over the House for however long they need to both grandstand and impeach him. Now, I know it was done in the lame duck session for Clinton, BUT they already had the special councilor and legal opinions that he did lie under oath (disputed of course). They did not need to develop the charges, investigate them or anything else - the Starr report did that.)
What charges could you have for Obama? He used EO with the EPA to control pollution - after the SC did rule that they could. The IRS "scandal" - that simply was the nonpartisan IRS trying to do the oversight the law required them to. Now the idiotic Gruber nonsense - that he tricked the House and Senate into not knowing that many pay more for insurance than they get back (duh!) - Note that because ONLY Democrats voted for it - if they all indicated they really weren't so stupid that they did not get this, it goes away. (Seriously, is there any reasonably intelligent person who does not get that if you remain very healthy, you will have paid more than you got --- and that you are much happier with that than having profited due to major illness!)
As to foreign policy, there is no precedent. GWB lied us into war, Reagan broke the law with Iran/Contra in multiple ways. There is nothing as glaring that Obama has done -- and he is asking for Congressional approval - which he always said he would like - on the fight against ISIS. (In fact, the problems the Republicans may have in using FP is that they want something more aggressive than what happened.)
Bettie
(19,664 posts)crazy people. Absolute loons who believe that the president being black is an impeachable offense.
Spazito
(55,435 posts)impeach the President, the repubs have that simple majority among their own members. President Clinton was impeached but not convicted.
In essence, the House can indict but only the Senate can convict by a 23rds vote, 67 votes.
If the republicans move to impeach President Obama, it is likely they will succeed but it means little of substance as the Senate won't vote to convict.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)Yupster
(14,308 posts)There's not a referee, the House just votes.
There's plenty there if they wanted to but they don't.
Obama could be impeached for making recess appointments while the senate was not in recess.
Kind of an open and shut case since the Supreme Court voted 9-0 against him.
Does that rise to an impeachable offense. Almost anyone would say no, but if the House wanted to, they could dress that up as a blatant abuse of power.
They won't because they don't want to impeach.
TheKentuckian
(26,314 posts)If you can get a majority in the House and 67 in the Senate to go for use of the wrong brand of ketchup or too shitty of a campaign theme you got it.
The Constitution calls for "high crimes and misdemeanors" but that is left to Congress with no oversight other than the next election.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)who happens to be black. It defies their assumptions\expectations, and best hopes that they could impeach or completely discredit him. For him to not have a crack habit, robbery, or gang activity somewhere in his background has left them confused.
I doubt they will be able to come up with anything credible enough for formal proceedings. I expect that we may see them scrambling and releasing press releases about possible impeachment every now and then.
WhiteAndNerdy
(365 posts)
0rganism
(25,627 posts)e.g. Benghazi
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)
Yupster
(14,308 posts)They could have impeached when Obama named recess appointments when the senate wasn't in recess for instance.
whistler162
(11,155 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)They won't go through with it, they didn't with Clinton and are not going to now. The GOP is not going to impeach him, he has them running around doing what he wants. They look like bumbling fools all stumbling about not sure how to actually do their jobs.
We went from a horrible loss, to Obama smiling and watching the GOP run around like bumblers. Just like that he flipped it around on them. One man against hundreds and he played them. They didn't want him to, but he did anyway. Said I have this pen and I will use it. In the end I think the POTUS is at a point where he just doesn't give a fuck about the drama fest from the morons in Congress.
He is more than happy with the ACA being a keynote imo. Fuck Congress, not like they wanted to work with him to begin with. And I would expect the rank and file member in the party to fall in line and do what he says.
Going to be bad enough keeping Clown Congress from starting WWIII. No doubt McCain is rushing to get in front of the cameras to announce war with Russia.
Obama will have to force Clown Congress to sit down and shut the fuck up.
sheshe2
(97,479 posts)That is one of my favorite gifs~
Great post, thanks.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)Between the teabaggers and everyone jockeying for the Presidential nomination, who knows what will play out in the next two years.
Hardly anyone in DC is worried about much more than if they will keep their jobs, so anything that makes sense as far as governing goes is on the bottom of the list of things to do.
Impeachment, and its success of failure, is solely at the mercy of 2016 election calculations
C Moon
(13,629 posts)world wide wally
(21,836 posts)Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)If it does happen, as for the vote in the Senate, it will depend on what the President is impeached on. If it is for something legitimate, then yes, I can see some of the Democrats voting to impeach, perhaps even enough to convict.
Old Nick
(468 posts)Given the abject cowardice they displayed during these midterms!
99Forever
(14,524 posts)
wyldwolf
(43,891 posts)
former9thward
(33,424 posts)There were two counts. In addition to the 45 Democrats 10 Republicans voted not guilty on one and 5 Republicans voted not guilty on the other.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton
wyldwolf
(43,891 posts)Feingold was the only Democratic senator to vote against a motion to dismiss Congress's 1998–1999 impeachment case of President Bill Clinton.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russ_Feingold
Feingold said he was open to impeachment, said Clinton "disgraced himself," and was the only Democrat to vote with Republicans on the key motions which could have ended the impeachment trial.
He later said that Clinton should seriously consider resigning. Even in the wake of the House impeachment vote, when Clinton was at his most politically vulnerable, Feingold refused to say say that Clinton shouldn't resign - even as fellow Wisconsin Senator Herb Kohl strongly insisted that Clinton should remain in office.
Feingold. Backstabber. Judas.
karynnj
(60,949 posts)This was a party line vote -- and likely would have been if the sides were changed as well. Feingold did not vote to remove, he voted for him to be tried. Although he was the only Democrat to do that, if you read the later statements before the impeachment voice, nearly every Democrat had the following pattern - several sentences describing their disapproval of Clinton - and it is interesting for what it shows of each as to what words they used - followed by a legal type opinion on how this did not meet high crimes and misdemeanors.
Feingold's vote did not make the difference between a trial or not a trial -- so it is hard to argue that he should have ignored his conscience and his respect for the law. It is a big deal to lie under oath -- and he did not (obviously) buy the way Clinton parsed various words.
As to other Democrats, I am not implying that they were hacks, they gave greater weight to whether this was sufficient reason to impeach a President. In retrospect, I think we might have been better served with President Gore assuming office after Clinton resigned. The next two years likely would have been better used and, though any change in history makes it impossible to know what then happens, I suspect that Bush would never have been President. His strongest argument - "bringing honor back to the WH" would have been laughable with Gore and his lovely family seen as the people in the WH. (I don't even know who Gore would select as VP because I would guess that it would NOT be Leiberman - as that would be a slap in Clinton's face after he took the high road.)
wyldwolf
(43,891 posts)Feingold was the only Democrat to vote against Robert Byrd's motion to dismiss the charges
Feingold was the only Democrat to support the motion to subpoena witnesses to testify against Clinton
Feingold was the only Democrat to vote against either of Daschle's motions to proceed to closing arguments - and he voted against both of them (on January 28 and on February 4).
Feingold even refused to sign onto Dianne Feinstein's bipartisan resolution to "censure and move on", a resolution pushed by the founders of MoveOn.org
He was a Judas.
karynnj
(60,949 posts)and then in the form of Gramm having a motion to table it. It might have originally been conceived as alternative to impeachment, but at the end, I suspect it was more designed for Democrats uncomfortable with being seen as condoning Clinton's actions -- which was not what any vote really implied.
Face it - Clinton put the entire Democratic Congress in a very awkward place. Though it was unreasonable for the Republicans to impeach him, his "clever" answers under oath did not ultimately serve him well.
wyldwolf
(43,891 posts)Feingold was the only Democrat to vote against Robert Byrd's motion to dismiss the charges
Feingold was the only Democrat to support the motion to subpoena witnesses to testify against Clinton
Feingold was the only Democrat to vote against either of Daschle's motions to proceed to closing arguments - and he voted against both of them (on January 28 and on February 4).
Feingold even refused to sign onto Dianne Feinstein's bipartisan resolution to "censure and move on", a resolution pushed by the founders of MoveOn.org
Face it, any action by any Democrat that aided and comforted the GOP's coup attempted should be condemned. Regardless of what YOU personally feel about Clinton, Feingold was a Judas.
karynnj
(60,949 posts)That is what the Constitution calls for. The fact is that the Republicans had the votes to open the trial. Another fact is that Feingold voted against the charges.
It is funny that you do not seem to see the censure bill for what it was. The idea of it was not completely dropped until a week or so after the trial votes. While at the beginning it could be seen as an alternative to a trial and votes, it had morphed into something Democrats (and a few Republicans) could use to say that it was no ok for Clinton to have done what he did. I don't get why you add that to the list of things Feingold should be trashed about.
Here is an article that explains that it could not be introduced until after the trial was over. The censure by Feinstein and Moynahan "cites Clinton for "shameless, reckless and indefensible behavior" that demeaned the office of the president and "creates disrespect for the laws of the land."
Gramm tabled it because:
"People want to be on both sides of the issue. They want to say the president's not guilty, they want to say the president's guilty. The problem is, this 'covering-your-fanny' approach has constitutional cost," he said.
It was said to have significant support, but in fact, Gramm's tabling it passed easily:
I think there will be a majority of the Senate that will support a censure resolution. That obviously means it will be bipartisan. I think a very significant number of Republicans who would want a strong censure resolution, so that a vote not to convict on the articles cannot be interpreted as a statement that the president is innocent," Sen. John Breaux (D-Louisiana) said Sunday on CBS's "Face the Nation".
In fact, here is what McConnell said of it:
"The question is, do you really want to leave this whole matter at the end of this week with an acquittal of the president, when in my view, he committed perjury and obstructed justice? It does leave you with sort of an empty feeling, and that's why, depending upon the words, it may have some appeal on the Republican side," McConnell said on "Face The Nation."
All quotes from - http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/02/08/censure/
Feingold, who acted on principle to allow the trial, gave his speech explaining why he was going to vote "no" on both impeachment charges and then voted, likely did not see any need to have something he could point to censuring Clinton.
wyldwolf
(43,891 posts)Proof of that was his belief Clinton 'disgraced' himself.
And your defense the Feingold after-the-fact shows that you also approved of the GOP attempted coup.
karynnj
(60,949 posts)Gore would become President, not some junta. Not to mention, it was the purpose of the trial to see if he should be. On both charges, all the Democrats and some Republicans, voted no. The simple fact is that pathetic as that behavior was, it did reach the level of high crimes and misdemeanors.
As to belief that Clinton disgraced himself - look at the censure that YOU implicitly supported by bashing Feingold for not joining on - that rather suggests Clinton disgracing himself.
You are blinded by your admiration of Bill Clinton.
wyldwolf
(43,891 posts)In 'principle' of course .
karynnj
(60,949 posts)who voted against both charges.) As to Obama, he has not taken an action that it would make it as easy as lying under oath did for Clinton
I noticed you have not backtracked on the censure resolution
wyldwolf
(43,891 posts)The both of you favored impeachment
karynnj
(60,949 posts)The fact is that you are denigrating an outstanding US Senator. Now there are many times when I would have disagreed with his vote. In fact, I would have preferred that he vote the way his Democratic peers did. However, I do not see this as a "betrayal" or "backstabing" Bill Clinton. His vote stemmed from his conscience.
I remember reading someone who I respect (I would say who if I remembered who it was) saying that in his opinion Feingold was the Conscience of the Senate. I really can see that - even when I disagree. I also saw it in his refusal to take any PAC money - even when facing Ron Johnson, who had far outraised him. He is a very good man now doing excellent work as a special envoy to the Great Lakes area in Africa, the region he chaired the SFRC subcommittee for for years.
Feingold's votes there did not in any way harm Clinton. I assume that you would be the first to defend Clinton to people angered by any of the many things that he did that they feel were detrimental to some group of people they respect.
wyldwolf
(43,891 posts)
You were in favor of impeachment, just like good ol' Russ. Question is - will you be in favor of Obama's impeachment? Or will you be against it until some other 'progressive' with principles comes out for it?
karynnj
(60,949 posts)Not to mention, there is nothing I can find that suggests that he wanted the House to push those charges. Given his votes against them - the answer though is obvious. He did not think that they rose to the level that justified removing him from office.
As to me, I absolutely did not want the House to impeach Clinton over this. I did not think it sufficient reason to change an election and personally, I did not want the constant discussion it led to --- all of which was repeated by the young kids I drove in middle school car pools.
IMO, while Clinton is clearly at least 10 times the successful politician that Feingold was - Feingold has at least 10 times the character and integrity that Clinton has --- both could have been better had they become more like the best side of the other.
wyldwolf
(43,891 posts)He was an enabler. And by your support of his actions, you were, too. Another reminder of his actions that you approved of:
Among Democrats, Feingold was the most persistent and vocal critic of Clinton and the greatest Democratic proponent of continuing the GOP investigations throughout the period from 1997-1999. During the Lewinsky scandal in particular, Feingold was Clinton's strongest and earliest Democratic critic.
And yes, this is the same Russ Feingold who is a hero of the progressive blogosphere.
When the scandal first broke, Feingold said, "If there is any proof that (Clinton) lied under oath, I will have no trouble voting on his impeachment," making him the only Senate Democrat to openly consider that most extreme measure.
He later said that Clinton should seriously consider resigning. Even in the wake of the House impeachment vote, when Clinton was at his most politically vulnerable, Feingold refused to say say that Clinton shouldn't resign - even as fellow Wisconsin Senator Herb Kohl strongly insisted that Clinton should remain in office.
At the actual Senate trial, Feingold was the Democrats' Critic-in-Chief, voting to continue the trial and keep the charges on the books right up to the final vote:
Feingold was the only Democrat to vote against Robert Byrd's motion to dismiss the charges
Feingold was the only Democrat to support the motion to subpoena witnesses to testify against Clinton
Feingold was the only Democrat to vote against either of Daschle's motions to proceed to closing arguments - and he voted against both of them (on January 28 and on February 4).
Feingold even refused to sign onto Dianne Feinstein's bipartisan resolution to "censure and move on", a resolution pushed by the founders of MoveOn.org.
He only supported censure after impeachment had failed, when censure was the strongest measure left on the table to use against Clinton.
After Clinton's impeachment trial was finally over, Feingold summed up his feelings succintly: President Clinton has disgraced himself.
karynnj
(60,949 posts)Would you be as unconcerned if a Republican President lied under oath -- and was caught? No, it does not matter about what he lied about.
Are you unconcerned that the President engaged in actions that would get executives of many big companies in major trouble?
Clinton WAS wrong in his actions - he paid a large price -- as did the Democrat party for his bad actions.
PS I think people have for years said that Lieberman was the strongest Democrat critic. However, if you read the statements, the norm was to strongly criticize Clinton.
Not to mention with your repeated cut and paste - you condemn him for not signing onto Feinstein's bipartisan amendment which condemned Clinton's actions. As this was drafted while the trial was going on and nothing could be introduced until the trial ended, this was Feinstein and the others attempt to say - yeah he was not thrown out of office, but his behavior was BAD!
You do know that not everyone who will vote yes will sign on as a sponsor of a bill.Given the timing, this was not a compromise bill to help Clinton. The Republicans did not allow the bill - not to protect Clinton - but to not give Democrats the chance to say they did censure him. The purpose - to protect some Democrats in more conservative states who had voted against impeaching Clinton. I assume that many of them were furious that Clinton had put them in this position.
wyldwolf
(43,891 posts)Clinton was not convicted of anything. There was no perjury. The GOP witchhunt failed. Feingold failed. Clinton left office with an approval rating of over 70%.
karynnj
(60,949 posts)Your comment makes as much sense as people who have said Bill Clinton is a GOP enabler because he is so close to the Bushes that GHWB says he is like a son. (or passing welfare reform, NAFTA, etc)
Just being outraged by Clinton's willingness to lie under oath does not make him a GOP enabler. He was a very independent Senator.
wyldwolf
(43,891 posts):shri
karynnj
(60,949 posts)He lost his law license for 5 years, gave up any attempt to recover his massive legal costs, paid a $25,000 fine and issued a statement, that while contorted admitted that "I am certain that my responses to questions on Ms Lewinsky were false."
http://edition.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/19/clinton.lewinsky/
I seriously don't know why you picked this particular fight. Arguments on Clinton's political acumen, or the accomplishments of his 2 terms are well worth fighting and defending him on these - even on DU (or maybe especially in places like DU) - is worth it.
In retrospect, I wish more Democrats would have joined Feingold here. Those votes were not going to pass and maybe they should not have even happened - other than obviously the votes needed as part of the process to start the hearing. (The censure bill was different - it was after he was acquitted and it was intended to help Democrats who voted to acquit who might have people in their state angry with them for doing so. After Gramm tabled it, the leaders abandoned the effort, saying that they should move on. )
I suggest you look at the Congressional record and read the statements before voting by Democrats. I have long said that reading the words by which they criticized Clinton on his actions or his not telling the full truth under oath tells a lot about the person. They then all pivoted - even Feingold - and made the case as to why this did not meet their interpretation of high crimes and misdemeanors.
I primarily blame the Republicans for starting an impeachment in the House they knew would fail in the Senate - essentially because they could. However, part of why they could do this was because Clinton gave them this huge gift. He actually did fail to tell the truth - and he cynically did it because he thought it would be impossible to prove he did. (Who in their right mind keeps a dirty dress - let alone sends it to their mother for safe keeping!) Between the Republicans and Clinton, considerable time and government effort was wasted to the detriment of the country.
Though I happily supported Clinton in 1992 once he became the nominee, he had been nearly my last choice in the primaries. In retrospect, I wish I would have retained my concerns that led me to not favor him in the primary - namely that he seemed to easily lie and blame others when faced with something he did that was seen as negative - whether it was Genefer Flowers or the letter he wrote to the NG official who had earlier gave him a way to beat the draft. I was also concerned about his bad environmental record in AR. However, it was the personal characteristics that ultimately made him a flawed man and President - in spite of his major talents, intelligence and abilities.
As to Feingold, I have said he was not my hero. In fact, there were many issues where I strongly disagreed with him - especially when he voted against the budget in 2009. I also hated his protest vote against Dodd/Frank, where he could have been our number 60 instead of Scott Brown. The cost Brown extracted wasto weaken the Volker rule and that instead of large banks being taxed to create an emergency fund for future bailouts, the government will pay. Had Feingold accepted that D/F was the best we could get and voted for it, we would have had a stronger bill.
Long ago, for completely irrelevant reasons, I seriously looking at the first half of 2009 votes Feingold made and determined that he was very independent and possibly more of a left libertarian than a liberal. For my study , I looked at ALL the votes where he and John Kerry differed. It is very hard to reach the conclusion that Feingold was my hero looking at this 2009 post that was the result of substantial work. http://journals.democraticunderground.com/karynnj/33 (In case, it could possibly be unclear, the politician I most admired then - is the statesman I most admire now and it is John Kerry, not Russ Feingold --- and that comparison was done to support Kerry.) You can look at my conclusion and see one similarity to the 1999 votes that bother you. Feingold is intensely independent and could never be accused of doing something just for his "team".
wyldwolf
(43,891 posts)karynnj
(60,949 posts)He did so as part of a plea bargain. If you don't see this as admitting he lied under oath, there is nothing more anyone could say to you. It is VERY clear cut and has nothing to do with Feingold.
The votes in the Senate did not include did he commit perjury or not. Their questions all revolved around whether things rose to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors. If you read the Democratic statements, you will find more than enough of them referring to the gravity of lying under oath.
You might even consider that Feingold did not introduce a bill to censure the President for perjury -- Feinstein did.
wyldwolf
(43,891 posts)karynnj
(60,949 posts)He gambled that he could get away with not answering either the truth or refusing to answer the question. If there were no blue dress, he would have won that gamble.
Question: Do you think Bill Clinton told the truth, the full truth, and only the truth?
(I will grant that Starr was the lead in a witch hunt and that he worked hard to find something Clinton did wrong.)
wyldwolf
(43,891 posts)karynnj
(60,949 posts)It makes a lot more sense to balance this against the good he did. It makes no sense to argue that the poor little President was picked on. He was a Yale trained lawyer. He knew that one can not lie under oath. He used his cleverness to try to walk on the edge of truth because he did not want to give any credence to the idea that he engaged in inappropriate behavior with someone - at a very low level - working for the government. His testimony on this was not honest.
It is beyond silly that you want to blame others for Clinton's failings.
wyldwolf
(43,891 posts)Yupster
(14,308 posts)with the Special Prosecutor to avoid a perjury prosecution once he left office.
To quote the NY Times,
"Mr. Clinton accepted a five-year suspension of his law license, agreed to pay a fine of $25,000 to cover counsel fees arising from the case and acknowledged that he had committed a breach of professional conduct because of testimony he gave in the sexual-harassment suit brought against him by Paula Jones."
wyldwolf
(43,891 posts)former9thward
(33,424 posts)I have never heard a single R in their leadership mention it. It is not healthy to go through life paranoid.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)nt
former9thward
(33,424 posts)Most never see the light of day.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Fox news is the propaganda outlet for the GOP. What their idiotic base wants, they usually get. Of course their crackpot politicians will all be for it too, automatically. The Ted Cruz's, the Louis Gohmert's, you know the type...
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)Before you accuse DUer's of going through life paranoid you should at least make sure you know what the hell you are talking about.
former9thward
(33,424 posts)Ernst isn't even a Senator yet. I said no one in the Leadership has mentioned a word. Try again.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)Anyone who has been elected Senator would be considered leadership by the people of their state. It looks like you are trying to limit the definition of leadership to Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, but they let the base stir things up before they act and Joni Ernst stirs up their base.
former9thward
(33,424 posts)But I know no one would pay up.
doc03
(39,074 posts)former9thward
(33,424 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)If they do then they have no place in the party.
I doubt they will actually try impeachment but with that crowd you never know.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)on the first pretext the Republicans can dream up. They will fail to convict in the Senate but they'll spin it as Obama staying in office due to an arcane technicality (the 2/3 rule). They view any Democratic president as illegitimate by definition.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)
SoCalDem
(103,856 posts)impeached = indicted/charged/ (house with 218 votes)
It's rather meaningless legally, unless 67 senators vote aye....and they won't have 67 votes
Right wingers LOVE impeachment because it's an easy thing for them to do.. The term "impeached" is all they really want because they know that most voters do not understand how it all works.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)It's not about removing Obama from office. It's about ruining his legacy so that, 50 years from now, that's how the history books will remember him.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)
True Blue Door
(2,969 posts)But their species doesn't really exist in the Senate, fortunately.
Progressive Senators, rare though they may be, are highly rational.
still_one
(98,883 posts)Democratic party would no longer exist
lonestarnot
(77,097 posts)
So let'em waste tax-payer dollars impeaching at a time like this. Idjits.
WHERE'S THE JOBS CRY BABY?
DONDE' ESTA' LOS TRABAJOS LLORON?
Welcome to the United States all you brown people!
Mr. President is about to throw down on the welcome mat.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)Paladin
(32,354 posts)Way too many years of compromising, playing it safe, abandoning principles, and giving respect to political opponents who are not entitled to it.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)back to donating to individual candidates.
Paladin
(32,354 posts)Once the national party made it clear that they wouldn't support efforts in our state, we started returning the favor. I'm glad my money went to Wendy Davis, rather than Alison (Obama? Never heard of him) Grimes.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)reason to donate individually.
Paladin
(32,354 posts)B Calm
(28,762 posts)Democratic voters are fed up!
LeftishBrit
(41,453 posts)president; but then the same could be said even more strongly of Clinton (if the impeachment had been successful, it would just have made Gore president, and given the likely Democratic candidate the advantage of incumbency). So I think Republicans are mostly just loonies, and could try anything.
I don't see why any Democrats would vote for impeachment, however. After all, even Joe Lieberman didn't vote to convict Clinton.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)"he's black" against him.
fredamae
(4,458 posts)and I can't even speculate.
Perhaps a greater question: Will "We"?
kentuck
(115,400 posts)For a generation. That would be very destructive for the Democratic Party.
onenote
(46,135 posts)Or do you think that they intend to vote to impeach Joe Biden too?
onenote
(46,135 posts)the first African American president, they can kiss good bye whatever tiny chance they had of making inroads with that portion of the electorate for a generation.
And if they impeach over immigration, they risk losing any chance of making inroads with the Latino vote for a generation.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)YES, the Democrats will have his back--every one of them.
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)when his former staff started loud and public criticism, copied by same-party politicians, and thus emboldened by them, the other-party politicians are safe in whatever they say, because "his own party criticizes him."
For whatever personal reasons - winning elections, being part of the next administration, jobs promised, campaign contributions, etc., those who don't defend the president, who is more of a populist and progressive than he has displayed thus far, have prevented much of his agenda. I dislike all of them.
librechik
(30,957 posts)bloody dead horse around until 2016 to poison Dems in the election. They never have to hold a vote to make it part of every fucking news cycle, as long as Murdoch wants it that way.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)ways did they do this? There are a few Blue Dog and Moderate Conservative types that I find reprehensible but Obama speaks highly of them and most people on DU say they are they only possible sort of Democrats we could ever hope to elect in those places. Do they really number enough to claim they represent the Senate Democrats? To say 'Senate Democrats seem keen to damage Obama'?
I am not seeing this keen desire to harm Obama streaming from the Senate Democrats. Can you point it out to me? Some majority of our delegation very keen on throwing Obama under the bus?
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Americans are getting too wise to the fact that this corporate oligarchy is a bipartisan scam by corporate vipers raping the future of the entire 99 percent.
Nothing like a good, voluntary impeachment circus to stoke partisan drama and try to herd/divide the sheep back into their rabid, defensive Red and Blue teams again.