Partisanship and Impeachment
 

When the results of the Watergate investigation were presented to Congress, both Republicans and Democrats voted to impeach.

I do not want to get into the merits of Clinton's impeachment, which was not about White House involvement in campaign abuses.

If Watergate happened exactly as it did before today, could bi-partisan support be found to impeach a president or has partisanship reached the point where the presidents party would ignore even such an blatant abuse?

I think things have degenerated to a point where neither party would be willing to hang its own president out to dry.

I'd tend to agree with SteveDallas but I think if something like Watergate occured again the public outcry would be enough to force both parties to impeach.

At least that's what I would like to hope.

Sorry if I'm opening a can of worms here, but are we talking about impeachment in general, or anything specific? Whatever I may think about Clinton, I think a slap on the wrist for being a horndog was all the man deserved. Ken Starr was the only person who benefited from that whole freaking sideshow. The republicans made themselves look like jackasses for pursuing the issue.

I think clear criminal behavior would have to occur before a party would impeach their own candidate. Even then it would be a way to save face in the public's eye.

I think JFK got our attention. Then Nixon taught us the lesson of how dirty the politicos really are. Since then we've been so deluged by Woodward and Bernstein wannabes that nothing shocks us anymore.

JFK was a clean administration much as the Eisenhower and Truman administrations before it. Johnson set new standard for corruption. But Americans had so much trust in presidents that we did not even question Johnson. Nixon also could have also gotten away with corruption. But Nixon was so blantantly crooked (and made little effort to hide it) that eventually it took a Watergate hearing to demonstrate how corrupt his administration was at virtually every level.

Post WWII America never had a reason to question a president - until Nixon. Even then, America still refused to believe what Woodward and Bernstein wrote.

Nixon's plumbers were caught red handed in bugging. In most countries, that would have been obvious political corruption. Watergate was exposed long before a Democratic candidate had even been selected. Yet Americans denied the corruption for years - long after Nixon was reelected! It took years even after Watergate for America to believe a president could be corrupt.

You younger folks don't really have anything that can portray the mentality of America back then. Even years after Watergate and with so much damning evidence from Woodward and Bernstein, still most major American news organizations refused to believe the administration was that corrupt - or would even assign reporters to investigate it. Virtually most all news about Watergate was only reported by the NY Times and Washington Post. Dan Rather was about the only TV newsman to report anything significant about Watergate - and suspects the plumbers tried to break into his house as a result. Most all Watergate stories were only reported as "The Washington Post reported today..." Yes, Watergate was almost completely ignored by most every American new service for one year.

People also forget that most Americans were against sending military to liberate Kuwait. People tend to forget how much they were in denial back then. It is a very human condition to suddenly claim they supported liberation of Kuwait when most Americans were against it.

Most people denied Watergate until those live hearings every day for weeks on TV. No soap operas and game shows for weeks! Americans did not believe Watergate plumbers were traceable to the White House even after the Saturday night massacre!

Nixon changed America's preceptions and trust of the White House. Previously presidents, with the exception of Johnson, were not blantantly corrupt. We know today that Nixon was so crooked that he even refused to admit so right up to his death. And so we have the famous Nixon news conference where he outrightly says he is not a crook - when his own staff had already concluded they were all at great risk for jail.

Before Nixon, nobody ever thought, had even the slightest idea that any American president, with so much press exposure, could ever be so corrupt. Nixon set new standards for corruption in spades.

I meant that JFK sparked the interest of the public in the people in the offices. Before that they were distant figures in the news. I don't believe JFK was crooked but his sexual antics were not reported in the press because we would have shot the messenger at that time. by the time Clinton got a blow job the public couldn't get enough of it.

Couldn't you have said that the first time Bruce? Toad ain't made of bandwidth you know. :)

     It was odd just how much info was made public in Clinton situation. I didn't need to know that much. Did we really need to know Monica doesn't swallow?
     Side note: What do Lucy Arnez and Monica Lewinski have in common?
     They've both done a cuban!

I never give it all up on the first date.:rolleyes:

I think a sitting president could be photographed having sex with barnyard animals while holding someone's grandmother at gunpoint and no one in their party would vote for impeachment. Our political process is so polarized at this point in time that anything one party thinks is a good idea is automatically thought to be a bad idea by the other, regardless of the idea's actual merit.

Our political system sucks, and anyone who runs for office within it is suspect as far as I'm concerned. Ick.

In JFK's time, we were a more tolerant bunch. Back then your religion was between you and your god. It was not a principle that was imposed on your neighbor. Your sex was between your and your partner - not anyone elses business.

But two homosexuals must be exposed to the world today as violating principles of the bible. A politician having sex with someone besides his wife is more important that a massacre of thousands in Srebrenica - as demontrated by the press coverage.

Suddenly the right wing has enough power to "save us all from ourselves". They would protect us from evil mariguana and from judges that cannot be trusted by imposing mandatory 5 years sentences. They would demand that people be 'informed' about religious concepts in abortion clinics. The voters in Oregon and people in Europe must be saved from their misguided desire to make euthanasia legal. They would demand (as in Iowa) that biblical teachings of Genesis be taught as science rather than real science called evolution. They would demand that naked statues be covered so that we would not be accidentally corrupted by that nakedness. They would even and again attempt blacklisting of Hollywood again because some actors don't agree with a right wing president. And you thought this country would never experiment with McCarthyism again.

That is what has changed. Tolerance has been replaced by mandated conformation to principles mostly based upon Christian doctrines. God forbid if you instead believe in a Buddist principle that contradict Christian beliefs. Heaven forbid if you use classical American Indian tribal herbs in your religious celebrations.

And so sexual infidelity even among unmarried adults is a sin - and should be made illegal. A man who marries outside of his religion inherits the devil for a father-in-law. He might have dangerous weapons, therefore he must have dangerous weapons and be attacked - preemption. These are all new philosphies of saving us from ourselves.

Tolerance is out. Conforming to right wing principles is why polictics have become so confrontational. But then that is what happens when religion and other intolerant concepts gets its ugly paws into politics.

If Kennedy did that today, the right wing would make sure it was headline news every day - so as to save the nation from the evils of that president. Legalized bribery - no problem since god's chosen people need those campaign contributions.

Oh come on! We were more open minded in 1962? You must be joking. We may have been more discrete, definitely more closeted, but we certainly were not more tolerant of sexual diversity.

Stressed out?

True. In the 60s, we did not condon open displays of homosexuality. Homosexuality may be a bad example. But then I do recall a Cellar discussion in the early 1990s where (I believe it was Ghost) an acknowledged homosexual found himself attacked as being unfit for military service. Same attitudes as were in the 60s.

Gays were everywhere. As long as it was discrete, it was usually acceptable. I am rather surprised today at how many are so intolerant of gays. It just was not a problem in the 60s. We all knew of some gays. Worked with many. Never had a problem and never personally saw outright hostility towards gays then. Maybe it is just where I was then and today. But today, I see some open hosility towards homosexuals. It may have also existed in the 60s, but may also have been discrete. Best to chalk it up as a bad example.