Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4913" target="_blank">http://www.americanthinker.com /articles.php?article_id=4913</a> (Selected paragraphs only, go read the full article) >>Those of us moderate Democrats who fret over the current state of the party might well take a moment and look back in time to lament what might have been, had the party heavyweights possessed the moral fiber to make a few hard decisions when it mattered most. Where might the party be now if, after President Clinton’s speech of August 17, 1998 in which he admitted that he had been lying for well over 8 months regarding his inappropriate relationship with Monica Lewinsky, someone actually acted in the party’s best interest? What if someone with some Democratic Party stature said: “Hey wait a minute Bill! This admission of yours comes after you addressed the nation on January 22 and denied the relationship, and then on January 23 you assured your cabinet of your innocence. Don’t you think you might have compromised everyone around you Bill? Do you think perhaps the party is at risk now unless you do something chivalrous - like fall on your sword? Now it gets a little stickier because we find that Bill has even less morals than we thought and prefers hubris as a character trait.†When the press finally had the decency to ask Clinton if he would resign, says Bill on February 6, 1998 “I would never walk away from the people of this country and the trust they placed in me.†What should have happened is that a good Democrat should have convened a smoke-filled room meeting of other good Democrats and said this: “The guy is damaged goods, who is bringing the party down, and we need to jettison him now before he can do us any more damage.†Of course that wasn’t done and the scandal was allowed to go the full route to the ultimate impeachment and trial of the President of the United States. Mrs. Clinton referred to it as a vast right wing conspiracy, but we all know the number of convictions, fines, pardons or disbarments that came during the administration. In the end it was a matter of law enforcement not conspiring, but doing its job. Clinton served out his term, but the smell of his presidency lingered. <<
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<“The guy is damaged goods, who is bringing the party down, and we need to jettison him now before he can do us any more damage.†Of course that wasn’t done and the scandal was allowed to go the full route to the ultimate impeachment and trial of the President of the United States>> The problem with the democrats and their liberal base is that they EMBRACE people like Bill Clinton and wack jobs like Howard Dean and War criminals like John Kerry. If a Repubican breaks the law, we will come down harder on that person than anyone on the left does. It's called being morally honest. What is hillarious is the left acctually accuse the Right of being the dishonest ones. I think I will put my money on the guy who goes to church and leads a godly life vs. the atheist on the left.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Where might the party be now if, after President Clinton’s speech of August 17, 1998 in which he admitted that he had been lying for well over 8 months regarding his inappropriate relationship with Monica Lewinsky, someone actually acted in the party’s best interest?>> That did not happen because most of us Democrats really didn't give a rip if Clinton was getting BJ's, and if so, from whom. We don't mind that he lied because we felt that the question should never have been asked. I feel the same regardless of party. I also don't give a rip if Bush is getting BJ's, and if so, from whom. (As long as it did not happen in public. On a boat. On Lake Minnetonka. With girls from Atlanta. With pictures being taken.)
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>If a Repubican breaks the law, we will come down harder on that person than anyone on the left does.<< You guys seem to come down harder on the people accusing others of crimes than you do on the alleged criminal. You did it with Earle, and you're about to start doing it with Fitzgerald.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "You guys seem to come down harder on the people accusing others of crimes than you do on the alleged criminal. You did it with Earle, and you're about to start doing it with Fitzgerald." Exactly.
Originally Posted By seanyoda Short answer... no. If Slick Willie had resigned in 1998, I don't think it would necessarily have helped the Democrats in 2000. Did Tricky Dick's resignation over Watergate help Gerald Ford in 1976? Actually, in a couple of "term out" elections, the reason the party holding the presidency lost is because the VP distanced himself from the Prez. In 1960, Nixon did not utilize Ike on the campaign trail and lost to JFK. In 1988, George HW Bush fully utilized the Great Communicator despite Iran-Contra, and won in a lanslide. In 2000, Al Gore repeated the Nixon mistake. Slick Willie was still pretty popular in 2000, and in places where he stumped for Gore, Gore's numbers went up.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I think Bill Clinton could pretty easily win a third term if he were allowed to run, so I don't think the premise of this article holds water.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "I think Bill Clinton could pretty easily win a third term if he were allowed to run, so I don't think the premise of this article holds water." I didn't vote for the guy either time, but I believe you're right.
Originally Posted By ecdc “The guy is damaged goods, who is bringing the party down, and we need to jettison him now before he can do us any more damage.†Actually, my guess is that he's more popular now than when he was President. It's a lot easier to like people when their not in office. Hey, look at how popular Jimmy Carter is. If Bush senior wasn't tied to someone in office right now, we'd probably all love him too. Bill Clinton is my Ronald Reagan. With a combination of hindsight and that human ability to remember things as you want them to be, not as they may have been, it makes me love the guy - just like conservatives with Reagan. I proudly voted for Clinton when I cast my Presidential vote, and would do so again in a second.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I would without a doubt vote for a third term for Clinton. Heck, I'd vote for Hillary just to have my buddy slick Willy back in the White House. Heck, if Chelsea were old enough to be president I'd vote for HER just to have old slick back at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Originally Posted By AgentLaRue >>If a Repubican breaks the law, we will come down harder on that person than anyone on the left does.<< The remainder of the quote should read as follows: "But we'll never actually concede that a Republican broke the law, rendering this statement completely useless."
Originally Posted By AgentLaRue >>If a Repubican breaks the law, we will come down harder on that person than anyone on the left does.<< Here's another version which may be more accurate: "If a Republican breaks the law, we will come down harder on the left than anyone."
Originally Posted By TomSawyer The last time that a special prosecutor focused on a GOP White House was for Iran-Contra. And George I pardoned the conspirators in that case that had already been convicted. He also pardoned those who hadn't even been tried yet just before Clinton was inaugurated.
Originally Posted By TiggerRulz Yeah but Clinton pardoned Riche right before he left office. (That is the proper retort, right?) I don't think the Democrat's love of red state rednecks is a secret as long as their last name is Clinton. However, I don't think any true liberals (not just people judged a liberal by the right) has any great love affair of Clinton. I for instance would love Clinton to have served a 3rd term, but as a lesser of two evils. Clinton did a lot of good, but he disappointed this liberal a few times as well.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Clinton did a lot of good, but he disappointed this liberal a few times as well.>> And I'm sure that is why Clinton was so electable and other Democrats have not been. Clinton was a pragmatist and went for the center when necessary. Purists who always remain true to their liberal beliefs generally lose elections.
Originally Posted By Spree ^Yep....Lets see; last 3 Dem Presidents were from good ol boy States; 4 of the last 5. Too me, that spells love
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Of course the Democrats love folks from the Red States - it's not an either/or, black and white proposition you know.
