Why are Repub presidents allowed to break the law, but Dems aren't?

[Philosoraptor]

The standard answer to this is that the repubs control both the house and senate, therefore, the republican president can virtually ignore all laws that a Democratic president must obey or be impeached.

The nasty icky republicans impeached Clinton as if the fate of the nation depended on it, for almost no reason at all, yet, here we are with a fascist dictator, pissing in our faces, declaring wars with wild abandon, stealing us blind, and telling us to fuck off and die, and you don't hear a peep of complaint or outrage.

I DON'T CARE if the repubs control the house and the senate, that don't make it right.

[Mandate My Ass]

1. IOKIYAR

Seriously, it's about winning at all costs with them. You gotta break a few eggs to make an omelet. You have to break laws if you want to wipe out the middle class to enrich your already rich cronies. :shrug:

[ixion]

3. you beat me to it

my answer exactly.

[rodeodance]

4. its all about control. as they do not know how, nor care about governing

[FloridaPat]

2. Two reasons: the repubs sling mud until it sticks & the Democrats

don't put up a fight for justice, their reputation, or the constant lies coming out of the repubs mouths. And don't forget all the crimes done by Reagan and Bush 1 that were never tried in an open court.

[cgrindley]

5. Actually, neither are

It's a shame that no one has the balls to go up against Bush, but it's really a matter of shameless political cowardice. Bush is a asshole who should be slapped until senseless.

And as far as Clinton goes, as a university professor, I would be fired from my job if I did what he did. Fired. Not warned. Fired. He got off easy. If I have sex with a 20 year old student, I lose my job. Period. I have no respect for what Clinton did, and yet I think he was one of the country's best presidents.

Just because someone shares my politics, effectively led this country and was as popular as hell doesn't make them a good role model. And no matter how popular and effective some people are, they can still break the law.

[Philosoraptor]

7. I just want W held to the same standard, under oath.

and then impeached for lying.

[cgrindley]

8. Absolutely

I think he'd probably be convicted.

[onehandle]

9. You make it sound like he got off for his non-illegal act...

...of sex with a 20 year old. He was impeached for lying about it. That's hardly getting off easy.

As for a role model, I'll take the smart and generous skirt-chaser over the giggling, murderous, major lawbreaking, election-stealing crony anytime.

[cgrindley]

10. That's a fallacy of choice

We don't have to have either Clinton OR Bush as a role model. There are plenty of people to choose from if we want a role model.

Clinton's impeachment, by the way, failed. He wasn't convicted. Congress is free to impeach whoever they want.

[AndyA]

11. And isn't it sad, that in the greatest country in the world, those are

our two choices?

A murderer or a pervert, take your pick. I have to believe there must be someone better out there for the job, but I think the secret is to do away with career politicians. Something happens to them when they serve for too long.

[atreides1]

13. A Pervert????

How does a sexual relationship between consenting adults make one of them a pervert? Or does that title apply to Miss Lewinski as well?

[cgrindley]

15. Yeah, a pervert

The age difference and the power imbalance was disgraceful. I'm of the opinion that an unpaid 20 year old intern cannot even provide informed consent to engage in sexual behavior with the leader of the world's most powerful nation.

But this doesn't mean that I didn't appreciate Clinton as a president. He was a great one. Just a pretty shitty human sometimes (as are we all).

[shimmergal]

25. "The power imbalance. . .?" Open your eyes.

Who really had more power in that relationship? In many ways, Monica did, because it was
Bill Clinton who'd have be hurt by word of their affair getting out. As it ultimately did.

Now that wouldn't apply to GWB; he can seemingly get away with anything, and if the young woman in the rumor suicided, oh well. But because Clinton was a basically decent person, he _didn't_ have the power _within the relationship_ that the knee-jerk response attributes to him.

[AndyA]

17. Yes, a pervert.

Clinton was a married man at the time. What he did with Miss Lewinski was completely unacceptable.

Clinton was also the President of the United States at the time. The President should be held to a higher standard than the rest of us, due to their position, influence, and level of power.

Miss Lewinsky knew Clinton was a married man. Shame on her for having such low standards that she did not respect his commitment.

I think Clinton was a great President, and I think overall he was/is a decent man who made a few bad decisions and got caught. But that does not excuse the fact that he was doing things with a woman who was a White House aid, and as such was under his supervision at the time.

Think about it: If Clinton had honored his commitment to Hillary, he would have had a stunning Presidency. His moments of weakness are a black mark on his time in office.

[onehandle]

18. Some people think the 800 Club definition of Pervert holds water.

Cheating on your wife with a younger woman is hardly sexual perversion.

She wasn't underage. She wasn't a goat.

Some people need to get out more.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

22. Who are these people?

I haven't heard fellatio referred to as a perversion since the 1950's, and even then it was a joke.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

20. University professor, eh?

If she had wanted to persue sexual harassment charges, sure. Seeing as how it was consensual I call bullshit.

[cgrindley]

23. In loco parentis

I don't think she was capable of providing informed consent.

I love Clinton, don't get me wrong, but he did a bad thing with that chubby girl.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

28. LOL

[bowens43]

6. Of course it's not right

but it is the way it is.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. Here's why: Impeachment is a political act not a legal one.

Politicians must initiate the act. Politicians seldom do anything that might threaten their first allegience, which is to themselves and their seats. The Republican politicians aren't about to initiate impeachment against Bush and the Democrats lack the courage to attempt to do so with the convenient excuse that the Republicans control the House and the Senate. If the Democrats take over both in 2006, they will be forced to find another excuse. Which, I have no doubt, they will.

The Impeachment Process in a Nutshell

1. The House Judiciary Committee deliberates over whether to initiate an impeachment inquiry.

2. The Judiciary Committee adopts a resolution seeking authority from the entire House of Representatives to conduct an inquiry. Before voting, the House debates and considers the resolution. Approval requires a majority vote.

3. The Judiciary Committee conducts an impeachment inquiry, possibly through public hearings. At the conclusion of the inquiry, articles of impeachment are prepared. They must be approved by a majority of the Committee.

4. The House of Representatives considers and debates the articles of impeachment. A majority vote of the entire House is required to pass each article. Once an article is approved, the President is, technically speaking, "impeached" -- that is subject to trial in the Senate.

5. The Senate holds trial on the articles of impeachment approved by the House. The Senate sits as a jury while the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides over the trial.

6. At the conclusion of the trial, the Senate votes on whether to remove the President from office. A two-thirds vote by the Members present in the Senate is required for removal.

7. If the President is removed, the Vice-President assumes the Presidency under the chain of succession established by Amendment XXV.

[Cha]

14. Oh, haven't you heard?

The monkey says he gets to be creative. Clinton may have gotten away with it if 9/11 happened on his watch..yeah right.

I say impeach the motherfuckers.

[texpatriot2004]

16. That is a damn fine question nm

[EstimatedProphet]

19. That's why they impeached Clinton

So that we could get that fascist dictator.

Laws do not matter to these people. Their only concern is that they get their way.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

21. Well, there was that Nixon feller.

Don't give up hope.

[Biernuts]

24. Why do you say dems don't get to? He was acquitted wasn't he? n/t

[leeroysphitz]

26. Here is the "frame" on that (not to be confused with the truth)

When Dem presidents break the law it's for personal gain. Dems are greedy and corrupt and use government to enrich themselves. This vile and despicable.

When Puke presidents break the law it is ALWAYS for a higher, virtuous ideological cause. They HAVE to cut corners because they are on a holy mission and can't allow things like man made laws and constitutions to hinder the righteous quest.

That is the FRAME or the SPIN. We all(most of us anyhow)now know the truth.

[Nikki Stone 1]

27. This is a good explanation

thanks