Monk responds to me:
quote:
quote:
No, it doesn't. I am hardly saying that the Democrats are all sweetness and light. I am saying that the actions of the Republicans are different both in kind and in scope compared to those of the Democrats.
Bull. Republicans and Democrats ARE the same in tactic and scope.
When the Democrats were in power, did they suggest removing the filibuster? And then with the ludicrousness of just on judicial appointments?
When the Democrats were in power, did they suggest that all programming put forward by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting be scanned for "balance"?
When the Democrats were in power, did they shut down the Ethics committee, replace three members of it, and then insist that the rules for how ethics investigations were carried out be changed?
When the Democrats were in power, did they revoke rules such as anybody convicted of a crime could not be Majority Leader?
Do you really see no difference in the kinds of things the Republicans have been doing with what the Democrats did?
quote:
Democrats are just as extreme in their views, just as likely to spew propaganda, just as ready to ignore evidence contrary to their positions as are the Republicans. In short, politics is the same on both sides.
I never said there wasn't politics involved. What I said was that the actions of the Republicans are distinctly different both in scope as well as in kind compared to the Democrats.
Question: How many press conferences did Clinton have? How many has Bush had?
Why did Bush completely reverse the FOIA rules? Why did he place his records from when he was governor into his father's library and then declare his father's papers off limits to release as required by the Presidential Papers act?
quote:
quote:
Indeed. But there is a big difference: It wouldn't be true of the Democrats. Let's not forget that for a time, the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress as well as the Presidency and yet they had nowhere near the amount of control that the Republicans have been enjoying.
When the Democrats controlled both houses, they did indeed have similar control that the Republicans now enjoy.
Then why did they not get rid of the filibuster when they had the chance? They were already having trouble getting Clinton's appointments pushed through. So why did it never occur to them to do away with the filibuster?
quote:
They did lose some measure of control in Clinton's second term, but if you take a longer view of history, 1994 was the first time in 40 years that Republicans were able to wrestle control of congress from the Democrats. Beginning with Roosevelts new deal in 1936, Democrats have controlled the government for most of the 20th century.
(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you?
Do you seriously not recall that the Senate was a Republican majority body for most of Reagan's administration? Since 1995, the Senate has been Repbulican controlled (save for a brief moment when Jeffords left the party).
Since WWII, there have been 11 presidents: Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush Five Democrats and six Republicans. There has been more time under Republican presidents than Democratic ones.
And in all that time, even when Democrats were in charge of Congress and the Presidency, never were there attempts to consolidate power as we have seen.
quote:
quote:
Take the biggest "scandal" of the Clinton era: Lewinsky.
Not a single Democrat ever said that Clinton's behaviour was justifiable. They simply said it didn't rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors.
I would agree with this. Many republicans felt the same way.
And yet, Clinton was impeached. And now we have Republicans calling for the heads of judges (both figuratively and literally) who didn't vote the way they wanted them to.
quote:
What made the Clinton situation so startling was that he was not only caught lying, but caught in such a public way.
Indeed. He was a fool to have lied. The fact that he should never have been asked such questions in the first place is immaterial. But to claim, as Republicans did, that lying about having an affair rises to the level of an impeachable offense was even more foolish. It was quite clear that the various Republicans in the country were out to get Clinton on something and it didn't matter what. Despite all the investigations into his administration, only one conviction ever made it.
Compare this to Reagan's dozens of convictions. And nobody seemed to think that defying a direct order of Congress was a problem.
quote:
Pointing straight into the camera and flat out lying through his teeth in such a convincing fashion was why many found the situation repugnant.
So why wasn't Reagan impeached for lying about Iran-Contra? Why wasn't Bush? They both lied about their involvement. Why is everybody so quick to let them off the hook but somehow Clinton's lie was so much worse?
Isn't lying about a war more repugnant than lying about an affair?
quote:
I know, I know, you don’t need show proof of Republican lying because there is plenty of that and a lot is also repugnant. Its just that Clinton’s lie was more of a spectacle.
Only because it involved sex. Reagan's and Bush's lies were about the actual running of the country. Isn't that more of a spectacle?
quote:
quote:
Compare this to the comments of the Republicans as they try to claim that the myriad witnesses who have testified that Bolton has tried to get people fired don't exist. McClellan got up in front of the press and said that the allegations were "unsubstantiated" when the people who Bolton tried to get fired, the bosses of those people Bolton tried to get fired, and even Bolton, himself, all admitted that he did try it.
Clinton/Lewinsky verses Bolton do not compare.
That's the point. They go directly to the claim that the actions of the Republicans are of a completely different scope and kind than the actions of the Democrats.
When Clinton lied, he lied about a personal issue that had no effect upon governmental policy. When the Republicans lied, it put people like Rice, Bolton, Wolfowitz, Rove, Rumsfeld, and Negroponte into positions of governmental power.
Is that not indicative that the actions of the Republicans are of a completely different scope and kind than the actions of the Democrats?
quote:
On the one hand you have the President of the US caught in a bald faced lie on national TV. On the other hand, you have partisans supporting their candidate through lies and propaganda.
Huh? Are you saying when the President is caught in a bald-faced lie about the potential ambassador to the UN, it is simply "propaganda"? When he is caught in a bald-faced lie about the Secretary of State, it is simply "propaganda"?
And most importantly, when the President is caught in multiple bald-faced lies about the reason to go to war, it is simply "propaganda"?
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!
™ Version 4.2