Bill Clinton was Impeached

[Upchurch]

In fact he was the first elected president ever to be impeached. (Andrew Johnson not having been elected.)

How does his not being elected prevent him from having been impeached, Oh He Who Researches His Posts Well Before Submitting Them?

Impeachment is the indictment of an government official, not specifically an elected government official.

 

[Tricky]

How does his not being elected prevent him from having been impeached, Oh He Who Researches His Posts Well Before Submitting Them?

Impeachment is the indictment of an government official, not specifically an elected government official.

Correctomundo. In the early fifties there was a strong push by social conservatives to impeach Earl Warren^WP whose activist court rendered the dreaded "Brown vs. Board of Education" decision as well as the Miranda Rights that many Americans now regard as central to our freedom. The backlash against B v BoE in segregated Southern states led to "Impeach Earl Warren" bumperstickers appearing across the South.

The real reason Johnson was impeached (according to my history class) was that he was too concilliatory toward the former Confederate states.

The real reason Clinton (IMO) was impeached was because his centrist politics were too powerful for the Republicans to handle.

So I definitely don't want any talk of GWB's impeachment. He doesn't deserve to be in such lofty company.

 

[firecoins]

Yes obstruction of justice and perjury were bad. Bill Clinton had the chance to settle the case before needing to do any of that. Bad president! Bad! Go to your room and don't come out until you apologized.

Yes impeachment and trial should never have happaned. It was overblown big time. Clinton should have been censured and we should have moved on.

 

[Darth Rotor]

The real reason Johnson was impeached (according to my history class) was that he was too concilliatory toward the former Confederate states.

What he was doing was trying not to implement Radical Reconstruction, as his vision more closely matched Lincoln's -- heal the rift -- while Thaddeus Stevens, and his cohorts, were bound and determined to treat the South as a conquered enemy and milk every nickel in retribution from them that they could. (Think Versailles Treaty versus Germans, only without the kindness. )

The real reason Clinton (IMO) was impeached was because his centrist politics were too powerful for the Republicans to handle.

I think it was partisan revenge for Watergate and Iran Contra.

DR

 

[hgc]

I think it was partisan revenge for Watergate and Iran Contra.

Watergate was very far in the past, and so was Iran-Contra for all intents and purposes (10 years). I think they did it simply because they could. Not even a sense of revenge to guide as a moral compass, merely the basest of cynicism.

 

[Garrette]

What he was doing was trying not to implement Radical Reconstruction, as his vision more closely matched Lincolns -- heal the rift -- while Thaddeus Stevens, and his cohorts, were bound and determined to treat the South as a conquered enemy and milk every nickel in retribution from them that they could. (Think Versailles Treaty versus Germans, only without the kindness. )

I think it was partisan revenge for Watergate and Iran Contra.

DR

I agree with DR, but add that the reason he was impeached was his poor performance as a politician. Too stiff. Couldn't manage nuance. Lack of eloquence.

Of course, it would have been hard for anyone to fill the shoes he was thrust into.

Lincoln had the political stature, power of intellect, and political understanding to manage disparate groups. His death brought their bickering back into the fore, and Johnson was not capable of reigning them in, despite an apparent desire to do the right thing.

 

[Trantor]

The Republican hatred for Bill Clinton is truly amazing. It is almost religious in nature. I too have experienced this, as I was once a Clinton hater. I do remember disliking him and thinking that he was perhaps the worst President ever, even thou there was never any real logic to this type of thinking. The Republican Party said he was bad, and I was a loyal Republican who wanted to believe their propaganda at the time.

Since I left the Republican group think mentality, I have been able to see Bill Clinton in a different way. Looking back at it, I think Clinton did an excellent job as President. From 1994 onward, he was under almost constant attack by the Republicans, who were looking to derail him at all times. He did not have an easy ride, like Bush has had so far. He had to fight hard for everything that he wanted done. He survived the fight and left office with a very high approval rate. I respect that.

Some things never change. I spent some time with my parents this past weekend, and they assured me that now that the Democrats are going to control Congress, I can expect many more terrorists attacks and heavy new taxes!

I told my father that this new Congress was just the beginning, and things will be getting even better when Hillary and Bill are back in the White House. He was not amused.

 

[Garrette]

I was never a Clinton hater in that I supported much of what he did, especially NAFTA, but I did have several misimpressions which I have since corrected (I think).

I don't know what either history or I will ultimately judge him as, but if it's anywhere near the bottom third, it's a travesty.

 

[Loss Leader]

I suggest reading The Hunting of the President. The absolute dedication with which these people set about to destroy Clinton is astounding. They weren't a large group but they were tenacious and well-funded. And, in general, every single thing they tried to accuse Clinton of was a lie - not just false but a bald-faced lie.

Had Clinton not shot himself in the foot with the Lewinsky nonsense, he would have been the most unfairly maligned President in history.

 

[Darth Rotor]

The Democrat hatred for George W Bush is truly amazing. It is almost religious in nature. ==snip== The Democrat Party said he was bad, and loyal Democrats wanted to believe their propaganda at the time. (the 2000 election.)

When one leaves the Democrat group think mentality . . .

Need I go on?

The vitriol over GW Bush began in November of 2000, when Al Gore made his concession speech. If you watched Senator Clinton's face and body language at the President's Speech in 12 September 2001, (it was broadcast live) the theme was obvious: regret that GW had a chance to lead in a tough time. (Of course, he's been given enough rope and seems to be busily fashioning a noose for his legacy. )

The foaming at the mouth anti-war rhetoric was all over the news in the fall of 2001, and in 2002, over Afghanistan. The "war for oil" line was being used then, and the irony is still thick.

The "religious" left side hatemongers have been working over time since Novermber 2000. Lucky for them, they got their Christmas wish. GW Bush took a big risk with Iraq, and it has exploded all over him, and all over America. Our blood and treasure are being soaked into the sand and mud of the Land Between Two Rivers.

The rhetoric and hatred was prepositioned, all the Iraq War did was feed it.

To little avail, until the swing voters got their back up. The cavalier style of the BushCo became evident, the grinning Erik Stratton who looked them in the eye and quipped: "You f___ed up, you trusted us."

The foaming at the mouth hate mongers remain narrow minded and shrill. They are a fine complement to the Fallwell and Phelps crowd across the divide. They deserve each other.

DR

 

[wastepanel]

I don't know where this discussion thread will spin off to.
I can think of 4 directions.

• Denial
• Refusal to believe that is a big deal
• Old History and does not impact Hillary's possible presidency because Hillary did not have anything to do with it (ironically, this is not true).
• Bush is worse (dispite what the press wants you to believe this is not true either).

I have issues with each of these points. I will wait and see which one gets picked.

Denial--Oh no you di'nt! (snaps fingers)

Refusal to believe that is a big deal--That's about the only thing the impeachment didn't cover: How big he was.

Old History and does not impact Hillary's possible presidency because Hillary did not have anything to do with it (ironically, this is not true).--Now, wait. How am I supposed to argue with this if you tell me it's false? Give me a chance here buddy!

Bush is worse (dispite what the press wants you to believe this is not true either)--Again, no chance to argue this. Sheesh.

 

[varwoche]

Enhanced with blue text:

Historically we look at a candidate spouse when choosing the person to occupy our hightest office because "we" are blithering buffoons. If we do not do so in this case it is a double standard.

 

[Trantor]

Need I go on?

The foaming at the mouth hate mongers remain narrow minded and shrill. They are a fine complement to the Fallwell and Phelps crowd across the divide. They deserve each other.

DR

This I can agree with.

While the Far Left Dems can spew hate; in my opinion, it is less so than the more organized Republican hate machine. The Democrats are a much looser political outfit. Their political organization seems to include a wider variety of people, with different agendas, than the Republicans do. I do think that the Democratic Party move toward the center is going to payoff nicely for them in the long run.

 

[Darth Rotor]

This I can agree with.

While the Far Left Dems can spew hate; in my opinion, it is less so than the more organized Republican hate machine. The Democrats are a much looser political outfit. Their political organization seems to include a wider variety of people, with different agendas, than the Republicans do. I do think that the Democratic Party move toward the center is going to payoff nicely for them in the long run.

A purge of the leftist socialists from their ranks would induce me to register for the party. If more Democrats like James Webb (new) and Ike Skelton (veteran) were The Party, I'd be one. They aren't, and have not been since JFK was shot.

DR

 

[Crossbow]

Hmm, it seems I have a bad idea in my head. I had understood that amendment to mean that no person may serve more than two consecutive terms, but upon re reading that, I seem to have needed a wake up call, and I thank you all for that correction to my body of understanding.

Doh!

Unlearn something (wrong) new each day.

By the way, Crossbow, the next time you call me a lawyer, I'll be expecting you at dawn, with a second and duelling pistols. I do not take such insults kindly.

*ducks the bushels of rotten produce flung by the lawyers on the board*

DR

Consecutive terms does not have anything to do with it. Just the number of terms and ten year time limit.

As for the lawyer bit, after reading your posts in the "Military Commissions Act of 2006" thread and a few others, it seemed to me like you were a lawyer.

I am now quite pleased that my suspicions about your job were incorrect.

 

[Meadmaker]

I'm curious if there are any young people reading this. By "young people", I mean people who were too young to understand the events of the impeachment when they were happening, but had to listen to a discussion of those events when they studied civics in Junior High or High School.

For people in that demographic, I'm just guessing that it was a lot more interesting than the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, and I'm wondering what that was like.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I am now quite pleased that my suspicions about your job were incorrect.

Me too.

I once acted as "the court" in a Summary Court Martial, but that was over 20 years ago. My familiarity with the Military courts thing is due to my mild familiarity with the MCM (Manual for Courts Martial) and the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) that came with the various jobs I had in the military, and being on two Judge Advocates General investigations. (Those suck, by the way, for a line officer, but they get assigned when needed.) Likewise Geneva Conventions and the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC)

I am at a loss to understand the rules for the non-military organs of the US Gov't (those Other Agencies) regarding prisoners, secret jails, and legal (or otherwise) interrogation techniques not covered in the Army regulations, which regs I only looked into thanks to the Abu Ghraib mess.

DR

 

[RandFan]

I'm curious if there are any young people reading this. By "young people", I mean people who were too young to understand the events of the impeachment when they were happening, but had to listen to a discussion of those events when they studied civics in Junior High or High School.

For people in that demographic, I'm just guessing that it was a lot more interesting than the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, and I'm wondering what that was like.

I remember the hearings during Watergate. I remember Howard Baker asking "what did the president know and when did he know it"?

It was pretty powerful stuff.

 

[Trantor]

A purge of the leftist socialists from their ranks would induce me to register for the party. If more Democrats like James Webb (new) and Ike Skelton (veteran) were The Party, I'd be one. They aren't, and have not been since JFK was shot.

DR

I don't think that the Democtrats can purge their Left Wing anymore so than the Republicans can purge their Right Wing. Like you, I too like many of these new Democrats. Webb is a fantastic addition to the Senate. The Democratic Senator from Colorado Ken Salazar is also a Centralist and an excellent addition from 2004. In my opinion, even Clinton was basically a Centralist who could work with people on both sides of the sprectrum, even thou the Right Wing never stopped trying to destroy him. I don't think that they could ever get over the fact that he beat them - twice. I think that Rove may have blundered in his long term political strategy by putting all his eggs in one basket - namely, the Right Wing Confederacy of the South.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I don't think that the Democtrats can purge their Left Wing anymore so than the Republicans can purge their Right Wing. Like you, I too like many of these new Democrats. Webb is a fantastic addition to the Senate. The Democratic Senator from Colorado Ken Salazar is also a Centralist and an excellent addition from 2004. In my opinion, even Clinton was basically a Centralist who could work with people on both sides of the sprectrum, even thou the Right Wing never stopped trying to destroy him. I don't think that they could ever get over the fact that he beat them - twice. I think that Rove may have blundered in his long term political strategy by putting all his eggs in one basket - namely, the Right Wing Confederacy of the South.

I don't think a centrist nominates Lonnie Guinear (sp?) to the Supreme Court. He was, I'll tend to agree, most effective when he approached things from "the center."

DR