Politicians who fllourished after a scandal

Great, well thought out post, Virgil. Here is my response:

Quote:

"My reason for using the dates (1955, 1980) is to reflect the actual age and years of Byrds involvement."

That I understand, however why didn't you simply use 1917-1942?

I was using those dates to give the issue a contemporary feel. I was trying to illustrate how quickly he went from being a KKK member wearing a hood and burning crosses on lawns to getting elected as a Democrat.

Quote:

Well, I would say that no matter how much change did or did not occur, Mr. Byrd would never have won an election in a Northern State. I just don't feel from my experience that the regions constituency could accept someone with his past, the South however I feel is more tolerant of it ( I mean look at Jeff Sessions of Alabama). Which may be a reason as you stated, that he at first won in West Virginia.

Research has shown that many racist Democrats voted for Byrd because he was "one of us." You are right, he would not have had a political career in the North.

Quote:

While I get the impression, that you feel that at 25 ones view points are set for life? (I know this cannot be what you think, I would be interested if you'd clarify. Is it that you feel he should pay for his past actions?)

I just believe that by age 25, you are truly an adult. At 25, one doesn't make those rash, 'hey look at me I'm cool' kind of life choices. This is reflected in our society in the courts (when is the last time a defense lawyer asked the court for mercy because his 25 year old client was 'young and immature'? There is a reason that courts will seal a criminal record at 18, but not at 25. And the best indication? Guess what age insurance companies incorporate the risky male driver vs mature driver risk? Yep, age 25. This probably carried even more weight back in 1942, when young people became more mature and adult-like far earlier then today's youngsters.

Quote:

"high esteem" is in itself quite a subjective term that means many different things to many different people. Its wording that just opens things up for semantics games, I feel a more objective operational definition of recovery would be better, however this is your thread and I shall use your rules

Fair enough; this seems to be an evolving topic, and I am open to suggestions on how to tighten it up. I guess what I was trying to say is that, this being a presidential election year and all, is a desire to focus on those who are

1. Active participants in their party, or
2. Extreme cases (point in hand: Marion Berry)

If you can think of a way to tighten this up, please say so. I'm actually loking for a historical motivation on why it seems like Democratic voters forgive canditates far more then Republicans.

Quote:

And using your rules I will offer a few more republicans who after being involved in a number of scandals and convicted of various misdemeanors have all gotten highly esteemed jobs under the current Bush administration (this is not an intentional slight on the Bush administration, it just happens that these three men were chosen more recently and stick out in my mind) and their political careers are better then ever. Those men and their new jobs are:

John Poindexter

"On March 16, 1988, John Poindexter was indicted on seven felony charges arising from his involvement in the Iran/contra affair, as part of a 23-count multi-defendant indictment. He was named with North, retired Air Force Maj. Gen. Richard V. Secord and Albert Hakim as a member of the conspiracy to defraud the United States Government by effecting the Iran/contra diversion and other acts."

source: http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/chap_03.htm

his new job? Director of the Pentagon's Information Awareness Office

Elliot Abrams

"On October 7, 1991, Abrams pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor charges of withholding information from Congress. Abrams admitted that he withheld from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) in October 1986 his knowledge of North's contra-assistance activities. In support of his guilty plea, Abrams admitted that it was his belief ``that disclosure of Lt. Col. North's activities in the resupply of the Contras would jeopardize final enactment'' of a $100 million appropriation pending in Congress at the time of his testimony.3 He also admitted that he withheld from HPSCI information that he had solicited $10 million in aid for the contras from the Sultan of Brunei."

source: http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/chap_25.htm

His new job? Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs

fun fact: I know his daughter

John Negroponte

John Negroponte was ambassador to Honduras from 1981-1985. As such he supported and carried out a US-sponsored policy of violations to human rights and international law. Among other things he supervised the creation of the El Aguacate air base, where the US trained Nicaraguan Contras during the 1980's. The base was used as a secret detention and torture center, in August 2001 excavations at the base discovered the first of the corpses of the 185 people, including two Americans, who are thought to have been killed and buried at this base.

His new job? United States Representative to the United Nations

Of all that, and of all the information provided, has any of them ever ran for a political office? To add to what I said further, I'm looking for those who have attempted or gained office thru an election.

Quote:

One? Did you forget about Stromy boy?

Besides being a dinosaur racist, was he ever involved in a scandal? Using your logic, we can't count his presidential bid decades ago because that was a sign of the times. I'm not really up on the old coot, but did he ever have one of those front-page, 'story at 6' kind of scandals?

Re your Guliani question: yes, he will be a keynote speaker. But my main question is if you think he would have had any kind of political comeback if 9-11 had not occured? Without that tradegy, he would have faded from the public eye, I believe.

Quote:

The whole basis of this question seems flawed to me. Almost as if its unanswerable. The political parties aren't monochromatic in terms of their values and priorities across the United States, the inequity that causes one politician to fall permanently in one part of the country is not seen so harshly in another so that same misdeed may only be a setback for a politician there. Democrats in different regions may very well have different priorities then Democrats in another and judge their politicians accordingly, each could have very different results in response to the same scandal.

My pupose was to point out the differences in the 'party faithful's' response to a scandal. If Bush would have done the same thing as Clinton, the Republicans would have turned their back on him. Remember the day the House voted to impeach Clinton, and the congressional Democrats held an impromptu rally on the steps of the capital? This would not have happened if it was Bush; too many congressmen would have been afaid of the backlash from their conservative voters from their home districts.

Quote:

So are Democrats more forgiving? Are Republicans more principled? Hell if I know, however both parties sure seem to do pretty damn well for themselves recovering from scandals.

Exactly! And what I'm trying to point out is the different responses from the different parties. Maybe a better way to put it is:

Are Democrats more forgiving? Are Republicans less forgiving? I looked at my original post, and noticed that I implied Republicans have more value and integrity. Those are shaded, emotional words which cause a defensive posture, so sorry for that. But I do think it would be fair to ask if Republicans hold their candidates to a higher standard then the Democrats, and so far the list of Democrats sure seems to be longer.....

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

I don't think that one can honestly compare the misdeeds of Clinton to those of Nixon. The question that Clinton answered dishonestly was one that I really didn't want the answer to. However, the things that Nixon did specifically betrayed the public trust and were probably criminal, and more serious than perjury. Also he resigned, an implication that he was guilty of what he was accused of

You are missing my point: Agreed, Nixon's criminal behavior was more serious then Clinton's boinking of Monica. My comparision is that both stood before a national audience, and lied. If Clinton would have fessed up right away, it wouldn't compare. But doesn't it bug you and other Clinton defenders that he looked right at you and said "I didn't have sex with that woman". Again, he didn't answer it "dishonestly". He lied!

In fact, taking this a bit further, Duck:

Nixon lied because he was involved in criminal behavior. Kinda like the bank robber who says he didn't do it.

Clinton, on the other hand, lied over something not as serious. If he is going to lie about something that isn't serious, what else did he lie about? This, to me, tells me that Clinton was much more likely to be dishonest about serious matters. Like Nixon, he should have had the grace to resign.

Quote:

Assuming that your hypothesis is true, one might suppose that Republicans, campaigning on Christian values and morality, must distance themselves from those in their party who have publicly been immoral. While Democrats, who rarely allude to personal morality, feel less need to. It's the hypocrite factor.

I don't belief basic decent human behavior is a "Christian value". Al Sharpton tried to ruin an honorable police officer's life when he went to the mat about the Tawana Brawley affair. Ted Kennedy left a date to drown and die. Robert Byrd was a member of the KKK. Marion Berry was re-elected by Democrats after he was convicted as a crack fiend.

Show me where "Christian values" have anything to do with all that.....

0 Replies

Quote:

You are missing my point: Agreed, Nixon's criminal behavior was more serious then Clinton's boinking of Monica. My comparision is that both stood before a national audience, and lied. If Clinton would have fessed up right away, it wouldn't compare. But doesn't it bug you and other Clinton defenders that he looked right at you and said "I didn't have sex with that woman". Again, he didn't answer it "dishonestly". He lied!

So it looks like I'm not missing your point at all -- we are comparing Nixon to Clinton, and their respective shunnings subsequent to naughty behavior. And no, it really doesn't bother me that Clinton lied about something none of us should have been talking about in the first place.

Quote:

In fact, taking this a bit further, Duck:

Nixon lied because he was involved in criminal behavior. Kinda like the bank robber who says he didn't do it.

Clinton, on the other hand, lied over something not as serious. If he is going to lie about something that isn't serious, what else did he lie about? This, to me, tells me that Clinton was much more likely to be dishonest about serious matters. Like Nixon, he should have had the grace to resign.

Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but to me there is no way that what Clinton did rose to the level of what Nixon did, so it is impossible to compare the two to see if their punishments should have been the same.

Quote:

I don't belief basic decent human behavior is a "Christian value".

Hey, neither do I.

Quote:

Show me where "Christian values" have anything to do with all that.....

I think your original question had to do with the difference between Republicans and Democrats in how they treat those in their party who have been involved in public scandal in some way. My theory was, and is, that it might have something to do with the fact that Republicans run on a platform of Christianity and morality and therefore must protect that image. Dems, on the otherhand...

0 Replies

"Clinton, on the other hand, lied over something not as serious. If he is going to lie about something that isn't serious, what else did he lie about?"

Certainly not as serious on a national scale, however I feel you are forgetting that he IS human, and that he does have a wife and daughters and a family. Simply telling them that he received fellatio from another woman is not at all an easy thing to do, I would expect most married men to lie in such a situation.

"This, to me, tells me that Clinton was much more likely to be dishonest about serious matters. Like Nixon, he should have had the grace to resign. "

I don't feel Clinton's lies were of the malicious nature that Nixon's were. It was simply a man who was trying to save his image, his personal life, and his marriage from his stupid error. I don't think they were at all analogous to Nixon's lying about trying to sabotage the very foundation of Americas democracy, the vote.

" I don't belief basic decent human behavior is a "Christian value". Al Sharpton tried to ruin an honorable police officer's life when he went to the mat about the Tawana Brawley affair."

I'm not very knowledgeable about that entire affair, however I wasn't under the impression that Mr. Sharpton was aware that Miss Brawley was lying. From my limited knowledge. Mr. Sharpton too was fooled by that girl. Is there proof that Mr. Sharpton had malicious intent and was just trying to assassinate an innocent mans character fully understanding that the allegations presented against him were false? If not, it was a foolish action taken by Mr. Sharpton (worthy of much criticism) but scandalous? No, not by him, by the girl yes. But not by him. However as i said my knowledge of the affair is limited.

i'll respond to your other post later tonight when i have more time.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

So it looks like I'm not missing your point at all -- we are comparing Nixon to Clinton, and their respective shunnings subsequent to naughty behavior. And no, it really doesn't bother me that Clinton lied about something none of us should have been talking about in the first place.

Clinton has been shunned by the Democratic Party? What convention were you watching? But I agree with you about the Monica BJ issue not being a public matter; but then again, the same press that investigated Nixon is the same press who acts as a government watchdog, and we can't expect them to report some items and skip others. Especially if a person is lying about whatever activity they are trying to hide.

But it deeply bothers me when a president, regardless of his motivation, lies directly to the American people. So he didn't want to tell his wife and child? So what. That gives him the right to lie to all of America? Obviously, partisan Democrats thought so.

Like I said before, (which you didn't address), do you think the Republicans would have had a rally on the steps of the capital after their president was impeached? Again, their constituency would not have stood for it.

Quote:

Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but to me there is no way that what Clinton did rose to the level of what Nixon did, so it is impossible to compare the two to see if their punishments should have been the same.

Again, I agree. Getting a BJ in the White House does not compare to what Nixon did.

But their actions afterwords; Nixon's "I am not a crook" and Clinton's "I did not have sex with that woman" are identical[/u] in nature. Both looked the American public in the eye, and both lied. Both had their reasons to do so, but to excuse one and not the other is disingenuous.

Thus, I think Clinton is a perfect example of the theory I proposed in my original post. If he happened to have been a Republican, Clinton would not be THE keynote speaker of the convention...

0 Replies

"But their actions afterwords; Nixon's "I am not a crook" and Clinton's "I did not have sex with that woman" are identical in nature. Both looked the American public in the eye, and both lied. Both had their reasons to do so, but to excuse one and not the other is disingenuous."

You may be right, however my personal distaste of Nixon is not from the fact that he lied (this is politics after all), its from what he lied about...i thought that was the case with everyone?

Your bigger post above i'll respond to later tonight. I'm quite busy at the moment and only have time for this short blurb.

0 Replies

Quote:

Clinton has been shunned by the Democratic Party? What convention were you watching?

I was speaking of Gore's obvious distancing himself from Clinton in the 2000 election. I don't think I indidcated that he was shunned by the Democratic party.

Quote:

Like I said before, (which you didn't address), do you think the Republicans would have had a rally on the steps of the capital after their president was impeached? Again, their constituency would not have stood for it.

It's possible that you have my posts confused with someone else's -- I don't remember that question being put to me. And I wasn't aware that the Dems had a rally on the front steps of the capitol after Clinton was impeached, but Clinton always had public support. Is it possible that not everyone was as offended by his behavior as you were?

I reiterate my firm belief that if there is any difference in the way the two parties behave towards those caught in scandal it is due to the platform that they run on and the public image they wish to preserve.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

I was speaking of Gore's obvious distancing himself from Clinton in the 2000 election. I don't think I indidcated that he was shunned by the Democratic party.

This is why I'm using the year 1980 for Nixon. I'm skipping one presidential election (and not using 1976) for Nixon to make it comparable.

Quote:

It's possible that you have my posts confused with someone else's -- I don't remember that question being put to me. And I wasn't aware that the Dems had a rally on the front steps of the capitol after Clinton was impeached, but Clinton always had public support. Is it possible that not everyone was as offended by his behavior as you were?

oops, sorry there Freeduck. That was actually for Virgil. Re the rally, after the House impeachment vote just about all the congressional Democrats gathered for a pro-Clinton rally.

And to make myself clear, I thought Clinton was a knucklehead getting BJs from an intern. And, if he would have fessed up and say he was only human (as he did in his book), I would have still somewhat respected him for telling the truth.

What amazes me is how some in American society are so willing to overlook the fact that an American president told a flat-out, bold-face lie. Doesn't this just bother you a bit, duck? Isn't there a part of you that shudders when you find a president can so easily lie? Are you not "offended" that he lied like he did? What bothers me about people who say "it was only sex", or "not our business" is how they so easily brush off the lie he told. That behavior seems to be strictly partisan, which does offend me.

I just think politicians should be held to a higher standard

Quote:

I reiterate my firm belief that if there is any difference in the way the two parties behave towards those caught in scandal it is due to the platform that they run on and the public image they wish to preserve.

I agree. Which is my original assertion in my first post: Democrats seem more willing to forgive scandal then Republicans.....

0 Replies

Quote:

What amazes me is how some in American society are so willing to overlook the fact that an American president told a flat-out, bold-face lie. Doesn't this just bother you a bit, duck? Isn't there a part of you that shudders when you find a president can so easily lie? Are you not "offended" that he lied like he did?

I guess not, no. Maybe I am cynical but my premise is that politicians and especially American presidents lie to the public frequently, and have done so since the very establishment of this country. In fact, if they weren't good at lying I'm not sure they could get elected. I am more concerned with a lie that conceals from me something that I feel I have the right to know.

Quote:

What bothers me about people who say "it was only sex", or "not our business" is how they so easily brush off the lie he told. That behavior seems to be strictly partisan, which does offend me.

I disagree that brushing off the lie is strictly partisan -- unless you mean that only conservatives are offended. I am not a Democrat and have never voted for one. I didn't vote for or like Clinton -- though he's starting to look really good to me in retrospect. And I don't care that he behaved like a sleezeball as many powerful men have. I cannot see how you can honestly compare Nixon's offences to Clinton's -- no matter what dates you choose for comparison.

0 Replies

"I just believe that by age 25, you are truly an adult. At 25, one doesn't make those rash, 'hey look at me I'm cool' kind of life choices. This is reflected in our society in the courts (when is the last time a defense lawyer asked the court for mercy because his 25 year old client was 'young and immature'? There is a reason that courts will seal a criminal record at 18, but not at 25. And the best indication? Guess what age insurance companies incorporate the risky male driver vs mature driver risk? Yep, age 25. This probably carried even more weight back in 1942, when young people became more mature and adult-like far earlier then today's youngsters."

I'm tired of the Byrd issue, I feel I've made my argument in my past responses and they still apply to this. We have a difference of opinion it seems.

"Fair enough; this seems to be an evolving topic, and I am open to suggestions on how to tighten it up. I guess what I was trying to say is that, this being a presidential election year and all, is a desire to focus on those who are
1. Active participants in their party, or
2. Extreme cases (point in hand: Marion Berry)"

Alrighty. That makes things more interesting...

"Of all that, and of all the information provided, has any of them ever ran for a political office? To add to what I said further, I'm looking for those who have attempted or gained office thru an election."

Seems to me you are guilty of a contradiction here. You claim that you want "those who have attempted or gained office thru an election." Yet on the first page you said "Ollie? Military guy leaves the military. Unsuccessfully runs for the Senate". You say he could not be counted because he did not WIN his campaign. However he did ATTEMPT as you say above, a blaring contradiction.

And further going back to the Al Sharpton issue, you claim that he CAN be counted because he is an "active participant" in the democratic party strictly because he spoke at the Democratic National Convention, however every person i mentioned "Poindexter, Abrams, and Negroponte" can be characterized as "active in their party" much moreso then Al Sharpton will ever be. Why on earth would you put so much emphasis on a speech that essentially means nothing, while highly appointed officials you dismiss? You have even said that a candidate doesn't even need to WIN in order to be counted here, then why is it so significant that they run at all? The three people I mentioned should be and will be counted (as far as I am concerned) unless you come up with a REAL reason that they shouldn't be, that doesn't come off as a cheap rationalization in order to keep Republicans from the list.

"Besides being a dinosaur racist, was he ever involved in a scandal?"

I told you, he cheated on his wife many times.

"Using your logic, we can't count his presidential bid decades ago because that was a sign of the times."

I'm not talking about his racism. I'm talking about his infidelity with his wife when he was in his late eighties. (it was going on much longer than that). And I'm not talking about his presidential bid, I'm talking about the fact he always held his senate seat (which is held by being constantly reelcted to office) despite the scandal involving his wife.

"Re your Guliani question: yes, he will be a keynote speaker. But my main question is if you think he would have had any kind of political comeback if 9-11 had not occured? Without that tradegy, he would have faded from the public eye, I believe"

Complete speculation. You said in your original post that you want to stay on FACTS. It is impossible to tell what would have, or would not have happened had 9/11 not occurred. We can only go by what DID happen. And Guiliani being saved or not by extraneous circumstances should not effect the fact that he DID recover and should thus be counted.

"My pupose was to point out the differences in the 'party faithful's' response to a scandal. If Bush would have done the same thing as Clinton, the Republicans would have turned their back on him. Remember the day the House voted to impeach Clinton, and the congressional Democrats held an impromptu rally on the steps of the capital? This would not have happened if it was Bush; too many congressmen would have been afaid of the backlash from their conservative voters from their home districts."

That's kind of hard to say, it wouldn't surprise me if they did and it wouldn't surprise me if they didn't. Karl Rove is a genius with damage control. It really depends what kind of spin was put on it.

Of course I'm assuming we are looking at this situation in a vacuum, if Bush did this now, after he and other members of the Republican party put so much emphasis on it as a reason to be anti-Clinton, it would be base hypocrisy that would be unreconsiaiable with the US constituents.

However if one goes on the idea that the entire scandle with Clinton never happened. I would not at all be surprised if the Republicans fully supported Bush through the scandal. And I wouldnt at all be surprised if Bush got through it with about the same damage done to his character as Clinton had.

But i want to emphasize again a quote you yourself said on the front page. "I'm just going to try to stick with known facts. All the above is not proof. While it might be entertaining, it is not factual or proven yet."

In conclusion, I feel you are possibly confused about what you are asking. You attempt to discount any republican from being counted in this game, despite the fact that many of your rationalizations contradict one another.

The List So Far as I see it (going by the admittedly mercurial standards presented throughout the thread)

Democrats:

1. Robert Byrd

2. Al Sharpton

3. Ted Kennedy.

4. Bill Clinton

5. Marion Berry

Republicans:

1. Oliver North

2. John Poindexter

3. John Negroponte

4. Eliot Abrams

5. Rudy Guliani

6. Strom Thurmond

7. Vincent Cianci (gala mentioned him on the first page. This can be construed as questionable as he did get reelected as an independent, but common sense would dictate that given his former party affiliation most of his stances were more familiar with the conservative mind set, and it can be reasonably assumed that it was more the conservatives who voted for him. Showing that the conservative electorate forgave his past deeds, which is the point of this thread. Though given the semantics i'll label this questionable.)

0 Replies

Quote:

In conclusion, I feel you are possibly confused about what you are asking. You attempt to discount any republican from being counted in this game, despite the fact that many of your rationalizations contradict one another.

No, I think I'm still on point. Of course, this is not a 100% accurate theory; I believe I said "Unless I'm missing something, why are there more Democrats then Republicans who have had scandals in their past who went on, and continue to be, held in high esteem by their party?"

One last issue regarding Byrd: He is the only member in the history of congress who was a KKK member, and there will probably never be another.

I'm kind of lost with your Oliver North/Al Sharpton comparison: North was in a scandal which probably cost him a senate seat; Sharpton was involved in a scandal which boosted his visability. But the big difference I was trying to make was Sharpton's role at the DNC.

Poindexter, Abrams, and Negroponte were all political hacks, nothing more. I guess I didn't explain my thoughts well enough what 'active in the party' entails. I meant it as someone who puts him/herself before voters, and win or lose, is still giving speechs at party conventions after being embroiled in scandal.

Quote:

Why on earth would you put so much emphasis on a speech that essentially means nothing, while highly appointed officials you dismiss?

Sharpton's speech meant a lot to some people. The main point is that his party embraces him.

Re Thurmond, you're right. Put him on the list on the Republican side*.

Quote:

Of course I'm assuming we are looking at this situation in a vacuum, if Bush did this now, after he and other members of the Republican party put so much emphasis on it as a reason to be anti-Clinton, it would be base hypocrisy that would be unreconsiaiable with the US constituents.

However if one goes on the idea that the entire scandle with Clinton never happened. I would not at all be surprised if the Republicans fully supported Bush through the scandal. And I wouldnt at all be surprised if Bush got through it with about the same damage done to his character as Clinton had.

Interesting concept. You should throw it out there on a new thread and see what people think. I believe that Bush would have resigned, just as a lot of media thought Clinton would. Do you remember when the whole Monica issue first came out, and the major network anchors were doing remote newscasts from in front of the White House? It was like a media seige, and most of the commentators were expecting a resignation speech from Clinton.

But back to my original theory:

You pointed out Thurmond and Guiliani on the Republican side. The Democrat side still has Byrd, Ted Kennedy, Clinton, Sharpton, and Berry. And while Guiliani is there because of speculation, I do think it is a fair hypothesis. *And if you insist Thurmond should be there, we should probably add JFK to the Democrat side. Isn't the example you used for Thurmond accurate for Kennedy? Both scandals were known, but not reported by the press until decades later.

Anyway, Virgil; my original post's purpose was to point out a stark contrast between the two parties and the way they handle scandals.

Oops, I just posted and saw that you edited your post; I had asked you to throw some names out.

To make this more interesting, let's list politicians who have spoken at their party's national convention. That seems to be an accurate way of determining if the party embraces the subject of interest....

0 Replies

Quote:

I guess not, no. Maybe I am cynical but my premise is that politicians and especially American presidents lie to the public frequently, and have done so since the very establishment of this country. In fact, if they weren't good at lying I'm not sure they could get elected. I am more concerned with a lie that conceals from me something that I feel I have the right to know.

Yes, I agree with you that you are cynical. Interesting that you qualify a president's lies as being ok unless it conceals something you feel you have the right to know. Millions of US citizens would have differing opinions on what they felt which lie they had the right to know about; it sure makes for a mess, doesn't it?

Quote:

I disagree that brushing off the lie is strictly partisan -- unless you mean that only conservatives are offended. I am not a Democrat and have never voted for one. I didn't vote for or like Clinton -- though he's starting to look really good to me in retrospect. And I don't care that he behaved like a sleezeball as many powerful men have. I cannot see how you can honestly compare Nixon's offences to Clinton's -- no matter what dates you choose for comparison.

As I said before, I'm not comparing Nixon and Clinton's offenses; I'm comparing the fact they both lied when they were caught dirty. You may be cynical, but it is foolish to turn a blind eye to such a blatent lack of integrity....

0 Replies

"Yes, I agree with you that you are cynical. Interesting that you qualify a president's lies as being ok unless it conceals something you feel you have the right to know. Millions of US citizens would have differing opinions on what they felt which lie they had the right to know about; it sure makes for a mess, doesn't it? "

Well I am more in agreement with freeduck, though i wouldn't word it as such, I do understand what he is trying to say. I wouldnt call it cynicism either, i would call it being realistic

The fact remains that if a politician tells nothing but the truth he will not get elected. Its the nature of democracy, you may not like the fact, but it will always be that way. When Walter Mondale (if my memory serves me right) ran against Ronald Reagan in 1984 he said to the American people (verbatim) "we will both raise taxes, the difference is I'll tell you about it" and what do you think happened? His polls fell dramatically and he lost.

In order to get elected you have to water down your stances in order to appeal to the widest possible base and even fudge issues and lie, democratic politics has been and always will be about who is the most persuading to the widest amount of people.

I feel your views, while idealistic, would not be politically prudent and it would even be foolish to expect politicians be honest at all times in reality. I don't dismiss all politicians who lie as being unworthy to hold office(because they all lie), rather i judge what they lied about.

Clinton's lied about something inconsequential. Nixon however lied about an assault on the American voting process.

The lie by itself in both of their cases did not (in my opinion) realistically justify the impeachment. However what they lied ABOUT justified it in Nixon's case.

your other post i'll answer later.

0 Replies

Quote:

In order to get elected you have to water down your stances in order to appeal to the widest possible base and even fudge issues and lie, democratic politics has been and always will be about who is the most persuading to the widest amount of people.

I'll agree with here, Virgil. In fact, a good example would be George Bush and his "Read my lips, no new taxes" pledge. Hmmm, a lie..... Then he wasn't re-elected..... Does he go on the Republican side of the list???????

0 Replies

Quote:

Yes, I agree with you that you are cynical. Interesting that you qualify a president's lies as being ok unless it conceals something you feel you have the right to know. Millions of US citizens would have differing opinions on what they felt which lie they had the right to know about; it sure makes for a mess, doesn't it?

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I stand by mine. If the country required absolute honesty in all things from all politicians we would have no government.

Most people look at Nixon and think of Watergate, not lying. Most people think of Clinton and think Monica, not lying. I sense that it is simpler for many people to look at things in absolutes to avoid being confused. The simple fact of the matter is that Clinton's actions did not harm the country in any discernable way, though we could argue all day long about morality. In the end, personal morality is, well, personal.

0 Replies

Politicians who fllourished after a scandal

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know