Kucinich voted for the impeachment of Clinton inquiry

[ButterflyBlood]

just found this, thought it was interesting:

http://clerkweb.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.exe?year=1998&rollnumber=498

anyone know why?

[dsc]

1. No idea I am embarassed to admit

I lived in his district then too and I honestly don't recall what if any reason he gave.

[Wonk]

2. Could you edit "Clinton" into your subject line please? nt

[Wonk]

4. My guess? Peer pressure, aka his church. nt

[unfrigginreal]

3. Unbelievable, he wanted to impeach Clinton!

Now I'm sorry that I encouraged a few Kucinich supporters to fight hard for him. The slimeball can rot in hell!

[FreedomReload]

5. Let's trash the good guys

Any misstep, any mistake, any stupid statement, let's crucify them for it. Democrats, republicans, both, it doesn't matter.

[unfrigginreal]

7. You've got to be kidding

Impeaching a President isn't any misstep, any mistake or any stupid statement. It's a carefully thought out punishment for the most heinous of criminals. Do you think Clinton deserved that?

[ButterflyBlood]

10. He voted for the INQUIRY

not the impeachment itself. He voted against all 4 articles, which he wouldn't of done if he wanted to impeach him.

[charlie]

6. No, he didn't want to impeach Clinton

He voted against all the articles of impeachment. He wanted everyone to play their cards in open daylight and put an end to the Republican fishing expedition. You can call him foolish, but you can't make him out to be anti-Clinton.

A formal impeachment inquiry is the only way to put the Clinton-Lewinsky matter to rest, said Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio.

"There will be no accountability without an open hearing," he said. "And there will be no closure for the country, for this Congress and for our president without an open hearing."

http://www.thehollandsentinel.net/stories/100998/new_defectors.html


"Let the president make his case. Give him a chance to clear his name and get back to his job. Bring everything out into the open. Bring forward the accusers and subject them to the light of day. Settle this and then move forward to do the business of the people, the business for which the people elected us, to further economic growth, to protect Social Security, to improve health care, and to meet all the other pressing needs of the American people."

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/white_house/july-dec98/impeach_10-8.html


Two Democrats took to the floor to speak in favor of the resolution sponsored by the Republicans -- Reps. Paul McHale of Pennsylvania and Dennis Kucinich of Ohio.

Kucinich characterized his vote as one for an open inquiry rather than one against the president. "There will be no closure for the country, for this Congress and for our president without an open hearing," he said. "Let the president make his case. Give him a chance to clear his name and get back to his job."

http://www.ardemgaz.com/prev/Clinton/aaxmonica9.html

[Il_Coniglietto]

8. Thanks for posting that

Clears a lot up, doesn't it? Kucinich seems to like open hearings. Good for him :)

[FreedomReload]

9. CONTEXT must always be considered before jumping to a conclusion

Unfortunately, most people seem to forget about it.

[Tinoire]

12. Thanks! I couldn't find those. Now I can bookmark. :) n/t

[0007]

18. Thank you Charlie

*

[Le Taz Hot]

24. <Whew!>

Thank you for that article. I'm not a Kucinich supporter for other reasons but that opening thread stunned the hell out of me. Thank you for clearing that up, Charlie.

I still disagree with his vote for an investigation into a blow job but that is a completely different matter than "voted to impeach." Way different.

[mvd]

31. Yes, thanks for posting

For a moment, I was thinking that I would be limiting my choice to Kerry or Dean - now I still back Kucinich, but I'd gladly vote for one of those other two.

[JohnKleeb]

43. thanks Charlie

That eased my fears.

[Tinoire]

11. Not to impeach; only to authorize an inquiry

On edit: It took me so long to lay my hands on this that other people already responded but here you go with Kucinich's own words.

Clinton had assured us he had nothing to hide and that he had not had sex with 'that woman'. Based on that adamant assurance, what's the big deal about voting to authorize an inquiry to get the truth out and put the matter to rest?

That vote was taken on 8 October 1998.

Here's what Kucinich had to say on December 18, 1998; it directly contradicts your statement that "he wanted to impeach Clinton". People interested in this issue should have it brought up during a debate so the matter can be cleared.


Transcript: House debates articles of impeachment
December 18, 1998

((Kucinich's statement))

KUCINICH: Mr. Speaker, in the name of the American people who oppose this impeachment as being manifestly unfair, behold the prophetic power of the biblical injunction: Judge not that ye not be judged.

In the name of all the people who have suffered a dark night of the sole, feel the might of the warning: Let he is without sin cast the first stone.

KUCINICH: In the names of Washington, of Jefferson, of Lincoln and all those who fought to create one nation indivisible, do not cleave this nation with a partisan impeachment, for a House of Representatives divided against itself shall not stand.

We speak of one nation under God, in God's name do not tear apart this House and this nation with a low-rent impeachment. There's much misunderstanding about just what impeachment means. It is not a form of censure. Impeachment is not a punishment. It is part of a process for removing a president. It's been reserved for the highest crimes, not low crimes.

And I submit if we are to impeach President Clinton for his offenses, we will have committed an offense more grievous because we will have nullified the votes of 97 million Americans. Don't take away the people's voice. Don't nullify the people's choice. Punish the president with censure if you must, but don't punish the American people by canceling their vote.

Someday, a generation far into the future will look at this moment and ask why. And they will conclude that in impeaching a president, this House chose partisanship under the cover of patriotism and sanctimonious salutations to that all-hallowed and selectively perceived rule of law.

Fifteen seconds, Mr. (OFF-MIKE).

CONYERS: With pleasure.

KUCINICH: And they will conclude that in impeaching a president, this House chose partisanship under the rule of patriotism, and sanctimonious salutations to the all-hallowed and selectively perceived rule of law. And that cloak of shame prepared for the president will also cover those carrying the cloak.

For this moment, we are troubling our America. We are troubling our common bond. We are troubling our American community. We are troubling our American unity. The sun will rise and the year 2000 will soon come, and those who have troubled their own house will have inherited the wind.


http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/18/transcripts/index18.html#kucinich

[unfrigginreal]

13. Based on these revelations...

I'd say that you folks have even less of a chance than Sharpton. How can you support someone that enabled the GOP led impeachment of the best President that this country has seen in 2 generations? I can't believe that there are actually people on DU that support this asshole!

[GeronimoSkull]

14. CAN YOU READ???

?

[Mairead]

15. I presume you're going to apologise, now that you've read Charlie's post?

Or would that be expecting too much of you?

And Clinton was NOT "the best president in two generations" unless you like Republicans who smile while they sell us out. Two generations is 50 years. That goes back to Truman, and there was a guy in there called Johnson, who was a HELL of a lot better than Clinton. Even Kennedy was arguably better.

[charlie]

16. That's fine

Just remember that you've been shown that he wasn't motivated by opportunism, expediency, political strategy, or Clinton hatred. It wasn't the only time he eschewed party partisanship for principle -- he also had a hand in convincing enough Democrats to deny Clinton House approval for continued bombing in Serbia, and joined a suit against the president for violation of Article 1 Section 8, and the War Powers Act.

[unfrigginreal]

17. Sorry, but I don't see that as principled

The Clinton impeachment was nothing but a witchhunt from the beginning. That your candidate could support that effort is sickening! I can't believe that he's still got any Democratic support.

[charlie]

19. Hell yes, it was a witchhunt

That a partisan investigation into a nickel-and-dime real estate deal (in which the Clintons lost money) could be progressively enlarged into probing charges of murder and blowjobs -- "well, we couldn't make this stick, what else can you think of?" -- was a farce and outrage. But note, Kucinich never proffered his opinion on the charges against Clinton (unlike a certain Joe-somebody), he decided that a public hearing of the Republican offense vs Clinton's defense was the right way to settle the matter. Call him naive, call him a fool, but don't call him an anti-Democratic shitbag. I like to call him transparently honest.

[unfrigginreal]

20. Charlie

I'm not going to call him anything ONLY out of respect for you. You sound like somebody that has their head on straight and a nice guy to boot. I just hope that you reconsider where you should be placing your effort for the 2004 election. Kucinich had to know what the impeachment inquiry would be about and still decided to support it. That's pretty amazing considering there was NEVER any evidence of wrong doing. In my opinion, the guy shouldn't even still be a congressman.

[Mairead]

21. I think you should go calm down.

You're completely mis-stating the case even though you have direct quotes in front of you and I have to wonder why it's important to you to do that. It doesn't sound good, pal.

[kayell]

22. Please go READ posts 6 and 11, the actual statements of Kucinich

then if you care to continue slamming DK, you will need to explain why he made those statements if he was so hot on impeachment. If you cannot respond to those arguments, but can only keep dropping baseless insults, I must conclude that your nick is highly appropriate.

[Suspicious]

23. Comprehend much?

Is this deliberate obtuseness on your part? She (Tinoire) even bolded some of the pertinent information in a previous post:

And I submit if we are to impeach President Clinton for his offenses, we will have committed an offense more grievous because we will have nullified the votes of 97 million Americans. Don't take away the people's voice. Don't nullify the people's choice. Punish the president with censure if you must, but don't punish the American people by canceling their vote.

Someday, a generation far into the future will look at this moment and ask why. And they will conclude that in impeaching a president, this House chose partisanship under the cover of patriotism and sanctimonious salutations to that all-hallowed and selectively perceived rule of law.

If you don't support Kucinich or his campaign, that's fine and certainly your prerogative - but your posts on this particular subject are way off the mark. You're accusing Kucinich of something he's clearly not guilty of, and you continue to do so, despite numerous posts evidencing Kucinich's stand on the issue.

[unfrigginreal]

25. Here's some evidence

HE SUPPORTED the IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY! What else needs to be said? You, I and everyone else on this board knows that it was a bunch of hooey from the start. The fact that your candidate thought he could get brownie points for supporting the fiasco should turn your stomach. He did it based on principle? Really? What exact evidence did he have that Clinton had done something wrong? He didn't have any because there was NONE!

Your sanctimony doesn't impress me.

[kayell]

26. You seem very determined

to avoid the Kucinich statements in posts 6 and 11 above.

Just so we can all be sure that you aren't missing them, here is a small sample.

"A formal impeachment inquiry is the only way to put the Clinton-Lewinsky matter to rest, said Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio.

"There will be no accountability without an open hearing," he said. "And there will be no closure for the country, for this Congress and for our president without an open hearing."

http://www.thehollandsentinel.net/stories/100998/new_defectors.html


"Let the president make his case. Give him a chance to clear his name and get back to his job. Bring everything out into the open. Bring forward the accusers and subject them to the light of day. Settle this and then move forward to do the business of the people, the business for which the people elected us, to further economic growth, to protect Social Security, to improve health care, and to meet all the other pressing needs of the American people."

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/white_house/july-dec98/impeach_10-8.html

Now make your accusations WITH an EXPLANATION of why Kucinich spoke as he did.

[tinanator]

27. sanctimony?

yeah thats a good word for a guy calling other people assholes because they arent as smart as your uncomprehending ass.
sanctimony.

[unfrigginreal]

28. Ok tinanator

Since I'm so uncomprehending, tell me why Kucinich was SO WRONG on the following statements:
---
"A formal impeachment inquiry is the only way to put the Clinton-Lewinsky matter to rest, said Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio.

"There will be no accountability without an open hearing," he said. "And there will be no closure for the country, for this Congress and for our president without an open hearing."
---
Was either of those statements true? Did Kucinich join the rest of the Dems in trying to do the right thing for the country, or was he out for himself?

[kayell]

30. Kucinich answers the question himself

"Let the president make his case. Give him a chance to clear his name and get back to his job. Bring everything out into the open. Bring forward the accusers and subject them to the light of day. Settle this and then move forward to do the business of the people, the business for which the people elected us, to further economic growth, to protect Social Security, to improve health care, and to meet all the other pressing needs of the American people."

It appears to me that Kucinich believed that openness in general is the best way for government to operate, and that he believed that the inquiries would exonerate Clinton and expose the accusers as small-minded mudlingers. He also believed that the government was so bogged down in accusations, that getting past an inquiry was the only way to get people to move on to more important issues. I think the worst that can be set about Kucinich on this issue is that he may have been too optimistic in his assesment of Clinton's honesty, and in trusting the country to move on to more important issues. (in fact, the country would have if not for the media, who loved the chance for tabloid headlines on major newspaper pages)

I would much rather have a president who expects to bring out the best in people than one who always cynically plays to peoples baser instincts.

[unfrigginreal]

32. Sure am glad Dennis doesn't try play to peoples baser instincts.

[kayell]

34. Are you able to respond with a reasoned argument?

or only with little digs that are by there nature unanswerable? (and in this case can't even be understood)

[charlie]

38. I understand your suspicion

of anyone who didn't join the wagon-circle in defense of Clinton. I'm not one who thinks he walked on water, but my God, never in my lifetime have I seen a president tormented by such orchestrated partisan warfare. In spite of his shortcomings, I think we're fortunate that Clinton was such a resourceful, smart, and tenacious politician. Otherwise, the Orwellian neocon madness we're suffering today would've bloomed in 1994, and for that I'm grateful.

I support Kucinich's candidacy because of his vociferous defense of certain first principles important to me. I'm not nearly as far to the left as he is -- for example, I think that the benefits of commerce can be easily be choked by gov't overregulation, I'm "soft" on gun control, I'm absolutely pro-choice (yes, I'm aware of his turnabout), and I'm not convinced that purely gov't-managed health care is possible. But Kucinich's willingness to buck popular sentiment in this fear-soaked climate and unreservedly slam the Bush gang for their contempt of due process, their belligerent imperialist foreign policy, their cynical gaming of the budget (it's possible your kid's kids will be dealing with the fallout), their manipulation of public goodwill for personal enrichment... is valuable beyond measure. His stances may be impolitic, his candidacy may be doomed, but Kucinich's refusal to soft-pedal his criticisms of Bush's thuggery benefits all Democrats.

[NicRic]

29. Another 1 of the 9 dwarfs off my list !

Honestly Iam not moved by any of the politicians trying to be the Democrat nominee ! I believe Al Gore not running was and is a bad call ! Gore is still leading in most polls and he would have been a uniting force in the party .Instead the repugs are salavating , knwowing none of these guys will win against bush ! The guy that beat bush last time was their biggest fear! Why are the Dems are making so many bad choices since the 2000 selection , is beyond me ! DRAFT GORE 2004 !!

[DemBones DemBones]

33. Gore put himself out of the 2004 race and, let's be candid, he

sometimes seemed unsure he wanted to be running in 2000. He could have been more forceful in fighting the usurper during the prolonged coup as well.

Kucinich was right to call for an open inquiry. If the impeachment inquiry had been voted down in the House, we would never hear the end of it. Our great-great-grandchildren would never hear the end of it. It was a terrible time but in the end Clinton was not convicted because he hadn't committed high crimes, just a bit of tawdry slap and tickle.

If you have to be angry at someone, be angry at Clinton, a highly intelligent man who was too dumb to see the possible consequences of fooling around with an intern.

[clar]

44. I respectfully disagree

"If the impeachment inquiry had been voted down in the House, we would never hear the end of it. Our great-great-grandchildren would never hear the end of it."

Nor do I agree with Kucinich's logic about giving Clinton the opportunity to clear his name, or the importance of an open inquiry.
We needed that circus like 260 million holes in our heads.

Having said that, Trying to impugn DK for his vote is just partisan silliness. C'mon, whether or not you agree with his reasoning, it's clear that he wasn't colluding with the Republicans. This is not an issue.

And having said that, I'm not a big DK fan and I am troubled by his switching a long held belief on abortion.

[robbedvoter]

35. Flag burning, anti choice, impeachment - a trifecta!

I have to wonder about the whole progressive thingy...I am still giving him my attention but I sense something dark a-brewing with all the greens involved. It reminds me of a certain candidate for NYC mayor race - Ferrer. He was for the death penalty, anti choice and mediocre - but Al Sharpton's mantle and the fact that he was Hispanic dubbed him "progressive" - the champion of the poor against the bad whitey- in uninformed circles. Once he lost the primary, he (and Sharpton) jumped on the GOP bandwagon, giving them the election. May I be wrong on this - but some of the energy in here gave me a deja vue!

[AnAmerican]

36. OK lets talk about this

Anti-choice. Nope

Impeachment. Nope

Flag-burning. A non-issue

Dennis has stated, numerous times, he will protect a woman's LEGAL rights while using education and other methods to make abortions safe, legal, and RARE. HE will not attempt to alter existing law. What he will do is address the issues that make abortion more prevalent than most of us would like.

He voted for the impeachment INQUIRY in the hope of putting the whole issue to rest, and getting on with the business of running the country, which is what he and every other elected official are sent to DC to do. When it turned into a full blown impeachment he voted no. Both of his votes were correct and based on priniciple.

Flag-burning. He voted his stance based on respect for the flag and the fact that thousands have died defending what that flag stands for. He was not acting out of the sense of jingoism and false patriotism that the right wing has. Is it a free speech issue? Yes. Am I a bit disappointed? Yes. Does it mean he is a conservative in progressive clothing? No way.

These issues are being brought up by people who, for some reason, want to limit the impact of one of the most honest, principled, straightforward, and progressive politicians in the country right now.

I have to wonder what their true motiviation is.


AnAmerican

[kayell]

37. True motivation?

"These issues are being brought up by people who, for some reason, want to limit the impact of one of the most honest, principled, straightforward, and progressive politicians in the country right now.

I have to wonder what their true motiviation is."


I'm curious too. It kinda looks like trial baloons of RW (or DLC) talking points. Spin, spin, spin.

[LiberalLibra]

39. Kucinich supporters please explain something. Why was it......

....wrong for some Dens to vote for the war and yet it was ok to vote for impeachment of our last duly elected President??

I know that no Pres candidate is going to be perfect - god knows I've preached that very point many a time - so I am by no means trying to apply a double standard here. Rather, I am going back to the begining of all this, which was the impeachment of our last President. My thinking is that without the impeachment of PRESIDENT Clinton we wouldn't be stuck with the idiot boy king today.

After that little rant let me state VERY CLEARLY that if Kucinich wins the Dem nomination I WILL VOTE FOR HIM, whether I might prefer someone else or not.

[kayell]

40. Once AGAIN, Kucinich did NOT vote for impeachment

He voted to allow the INQUIRY to go forward. Kucinich voted AGAINST all 4 articles of impeachment. http://www.jsonline.com/news/president/1220roll1.asp

DK explained at the time why he voted for the inquiry. "Let the president make his case. Give him a chance to clear his name and get back to his job. Bring everything out into the open. Bring forward the accusers and subject them to the light of day. Settle this and then move forward to do the business of the people, the business for which the people elected us, to further economic growth, to protect Social Security,

The reference for this quote is up above in either post 6 or 11. These posts give many refernces to what Kucinich had to say at the time about the issue.

[AnAmerican]

42. Again, let me restate the facts

Kucinich voted for the INQUIRY to begin. He did so in the hope that the process would bring to light that FACTS. When the facts were revealed, they did NOT rise to the level of impeachment and therefore Kucinich voted AGAINST the actual articles of impeachment.

Looking back, Clinton was adamant that he was innocent. Dennis wanted to get it out in the open, all the charges, all the defense, etc.

The way the game played out, Clinton did lie, about a ill-advised flling with an intern. The impeachment proceedings eventually succeeded and were sent to the Senate. The Senate did not convict, Clinton served out his term. This was appropriate because the lies, albiet stupid, did not warrant removal from office.

I cannot speak for Dennis but I can surmise he voted for the initial inquiry thinking that the rightwing would find nothing. Clinton's denials caused him to lose the impeachment vote in the House.

It would have been much better for him to own up immeadiately and mend the rift between himself and Hillary such an admision would have caused. The country would have accepted that a man makes mistakes and moved on. The story would have died before impeachment was ever discussed.

Dennis took a principled stand, a stand I applaud him for. A stand I wish more politicians, of all stripes, would take regularly.

Clinton was a good President in most ways, he also fell into a trap of his own making. Yes he did what other Presidents have done, he had affairs. But when caught with his pants down (so to speak) he did not act with integrity. He just gave the right more ammunition and, as a result, came very close to being forced out of office.

Dennis wanted to end the whole tawdry scenario. He wanted to do the work he and others were elected to do.

This is the type of man I want sitting in the Oval Office. No bullshit, no equivicating, no spinning. He calls them as he sees them. He is the first politician in my adult life that I can support 100%. No more voting for the lesser of two evils.

I am so thrilled we have someone of his caliber running.

(climbs down off soapbox)

I gotta head off to work, Have fun people. :)

[LWolf]

41. Why is this the 3rd thread in 2 days to make this claim?

The voting record was entered in the first thread; "nay" to impeachment. Why are we still doing this? Are people struggling to find skeletons in the closet? Can't find any substance, so we're going to "spin" something? Why does this smack of the never-ending whitewater controversy? This is weaker than whitewater. It is weaker than the stain on the blue dress. The man did not vote to impeach. As has already been pointed out in this thread and others, he opposed the impeachment with his statements and his votes.

Give it a rest.