Bob-

At the risk of being accused of giving a civics lesson myself, Mr. Clinton was not impeached for getting a blow job. Congress impeached him on two counts, the first being that he committed perjury (a felony) regarding his relationship with Ms. Lewinski, and the other was for abuse of power. In the Senate trial phase, the second charge was dismissed, and he was tried on the sole count of committing perjury.

What was said to have happened? Bob, you’re dangerously close to violating Moynahan’s paradigm about a person not having the right to making up one’s own facts.

Larry

Lary,Haberm
First, thanks again for commenting.
Let me explain: I’m an adherent of Jurgen Habermas, and in particular, his Theory of Communicative action. Briefly, (for you or other readers who may not be familiar with his frequently impenetrable writing) Habermas says that when people speak to each other for the purpose of reaching mutual understanding, which he says is imminent in speech itself, they implicitly raise and announce themselves ready to redeem four “validity claims”: [1] that what we are saying is “comprehensible” (which i think of as being “comprehensible as”; in effect, making sense; [2] that what we are saying is “true”, or “factual?; [3] that we are speaking “truthfully”, or “sincerely”; and [4] that we are speaking “rightly”, or “legitimately” (socially authorized).
My essay–admittedly through sarcasm–questioned the sincerity of House Republicans, who claimed that they were sincere in saying that they were motivated to impeach Bill Clinton for Constitutionally well-found reasons; rather than… say… motivated by political expediently, and insincerely citing the Constitution for “cover”. I’ve always thought that the developments you recounted, and particularly the actions of Senate Republicans, lend some support to my questioning the sincerity of House Republicans.
I should add that Habermas acknowledges a second kind of speech in addition to speech oriented toward mutual understanding: “strategic communication”, which is more or less speech oriented to persuade listeners to accept a speaker’s message–essentially, whatever it takes.
i realize that citing an impenetrable philosopher doesn’t make me correct i just hope to clarify the basis for my argument. I should add that i’ve long thought that the actions of House Republicans warranted impeachment for reasons of insincerity and wasting public time and money.
bob

On Blowing Hot Air…

Mr. Sakin, I read Bob Letcher’s column and his statement that Clinton was impeached for a blow-job, in the spirit in which it was intended. Sometimes clear expression doesn’t require rehash of the full legal record, but rather simply a statement of opinion in short terms that leave little doubt as to the writer’s leanings in/re. the full legal record. As I recall, the Clinton impeachment process set the stage for the subsequent eight long years of return to policies, many of which have long been debunked, and which were supported through concerted efforts to enforce insistent ignorance.

So far, no impeachment process has been initiated with much success in response to this period of arguably treasonous excess. The list of basics which the Bush team violated goes on and on, and perhaps the public mind boggles at the prospect of addressing all the issues that must be addressed. Therefore!!!!! Therefore !!!!! the whole point of the article (I might retitile it, “What? Repugs dare presume to give civics lessons? Egad!), speaking for myself at least, revolves about the disdain which I find to be more than adequately expressed by reducing the entire Republican complaint of 1998 to “… over a blow-job.”

Italians are still laughing at us, although one might take a look at their ever-changing government and strings of oddball scandals as food for thought. Using an Italian model, if I were in such a position of power, and if I were presented with a “recreational opportunity” unrelated to performance of my (ahem) leadership responsibilities, I might follow through. Afterwards, the matter would be “none of the public’s business.” Corporate culture! So intoxicating! I think I’ll sell that private jet.

I’m still reeling under my misunderstanding. I still lean toward the belief that, considering our impressive availability of source materials and expertise, we have no excuse for such incompetent governance.

Well George, the devil is always in the details. While some may choose to filter down the Clinton impeachment to a ‘blow job’, it’s important to emphasize that it was Clinton’s actions post blow job that got him in trouble. Yes, he probably perjured himself in order to save himself and his family embarrassment but he perjured himself no less. Considering that Republican attack dogs were after him about extra-marital affairs since he first ran for president and throughout his administration, he made some pretty bad decisions by engaging in affairs he had been accused of all along.

While it may be true that alleged crimes by the Bush Administration are far worse than Clinton’s dalliances, that doesn’t change the facts of the Clinton impeachment. Republicans were gunning for him, and he gave them the ammunition they needed to shoot him down. Even Shrub wasn’t that stupid.

George and Larry — sorry to take so long, but i’m so unaccustomed to anyone taking my side at all, and especially so for such enthusiastic support… thanks, George. Having said that, let me ask Larry, do you see a room for a distinction between what the Republicans CLAIMED was their reason for impeaching Bill Clinton and their ACTUAL reason? I accept that you are fairly reporting what they claimed AND that your purpose is sincerely to correct what you sincerely see as my incorrect account of why thy did what they did. But that’s not what i was up to. My purpose was to challenge the sincerity of their claims, which you appear to accept. AT bottom, you were right when you wrote that it wasn’t the blow-job that got him impeached. Nor was it what you said. It was simply that the Republicans OBJECTED TO HIS POLICIES and HAD THE POWER TO OBSTRUCT HIS ACTING UPON THEM — and COULD COUNT ON THE PUBLIC TO NOT DISTINGUISH BETWEEN CLAIMS OF TRUTH AND CLAIMS OF SINCERITY.

Interesting that you bring up the Shrub. Clinton could have learned from Bush’s campaign demeanor. Too bad Bush campaigned AFTER Clinton “came clean” and rolled over in the face of disingenuous Republican hammering. In response to questions about his college-age alcoholism, Bush simply responded that it was none of anyone’s bidness. Somehow he escaped further scrutiny on that until too late….. that is, if one connects his mistakes to relapse alcoholism or something of that ilk.
Now that’s the ONLY lesson Clinton could have learned from Bush. I don’t know what waves of idealism or callow advice compelled Clinton to behave in the touchy-feely-contrite manner he did, and he is/was clearly smart and jaded enough to recognize that his admissions and dissembling would only cause problems. I find it interesting that the Obama camp has finally learned to ignore “handlers.” But that’s another story.
Where the alleged offense was obviously victimless, the proper retort to the Repugs would have been forceful stonewalling, and retaliation in kind. Think Chicago politics, but don’t read too much into it.
Clinton lost that battle, and provided Larry Sakin et al with lots of ammo, simply because he allowed idiots to frame the issues. As Mr. Rove has taught us, politics is ultimately NOT about acting on the basis of evidence. Idealists often lose. The devil, as Larry so smugly puts it, is indeed in the details, and one is free to choose which details to emphasize.
So I stand by my standing-by of the original dealie: Clinton got impeached, and Democratic Party politics slammed for a long time, simply due to a blow job. Get used to it.
G

Bob,

To answer your question, of course the impeachment of Clinton was politically motivated as was the impeachment of Andrew Johnson and the inevitable impeachment of Richard Nixon. However, this doesn’t change the fact that laws were broken by Clinton, Johnson and Nixon during their terms in office. It just means that in these cases, Congress chose not to look the other way.

It is possible the GW Bush violated laws as well. Like so many things in politics, different people will interpret different degrees of legality and illegality based on their political persuasions. But one thing is for sure- so far Congress has shown willingness to look the other way as to Bush’s alleged crimes and the question we may want to ask is: why? Personal belief is it’s because Congress has slowly given more power to the executive over the years and this practice has bit them on the ass with Bush. To impeach him would be exploring their own culpability, something legislators are loathe to do.

I’d address George’s last comment, but based on the ending of his last comment, he has deemed himself correct with no room for debate.

Larry

Bob- If you’re asking if I believe the Clinton impeachment was politically motivated, my answer is: of course it was! But that doesn’t diminish the fact that Clinton perjured himself under oath when asked about his relationship with Ms. Lewinski.

If you look at the history of presidential impeachment, all of them were politically motivated including Andrew Johnson’s and Richard Nixon’s. However like Clinton, they all performed illegal acts like many presidents before and since. The difference is that with Johnson, Nixon, and Clinton, Congress chose not to look the other way. Which brings us to the question of why GW Bush did not receive the same politically motivated impeachment process from the democratic Congressional majority. My personal belief is that because Congress handed more power to the executive over the years, they would have had to scrutinize their own actions regarding Bush’s executive powers- something Congress is loathe to do.

I’d address George’s comment, but it seems he’s decided that there can be no more debate on the matter. Very sad.

Larry

Larry — Each person owes -self to decide what to do in the next moment, although “deciding” is only one way to ground one’s next action: there’s also the Taoist *wu wei* (doing without doing), just doing it (Nike’s version, and I guess Plato’s “virtuous” person approach—to name a few. Frankly, i’m not surprised that George moved on at this point. furthermore, i am not sad; nor do i find any “its” to be sad over. We three discussed, then George moves on to doing other things, as i soon will.

As for why, let me just say that i m disappointed that i failed in my efforts to persuade you of the difference i see between Person A citing Person B’s fact claims as “true facts”, sincerely rendered; and A acknowledging that B has conveyed a claim, and may have done so insincerely.

Please note that I have claimed the Republicans were *insincere* what they said, to which i am now adding a claim of “hypocrisy”. As for the substance of the fact claims themselves, I’ll just stipulate to your recounting of them.

Hi, Larry & Bob!
No, the issue will always be open for debate. I haven’t washed my hands of it; I’m simply busy, and have a life.
I’m simply not convinced by the argument that Bush got a pass solely due to dems’ fears over their ratcheting up executive branch power, and that after the party-in-power change the ratcheting-up would come back to bite [choose who] on the proverbial ass.
We have a Constitution still, I think, and there are procedures and perhaps some un-bought lawyers left.
I believe the Reagan Right finally perfected moronic-level coverage of foreign and domestic affairs with Rove and Murdock. It’s astounding how the entire profession of journalism in the US — and I stuck around there for a few years as a participant observer (HA!)– caved in to that makeover. The Affairs de State (’scuse-me, that’s “Les Affairs d’Etat”) — French, to make me appear cultivated — were in deep doo-doo, and the apoplectic Right made much mash over Clinton’s fraternity panty-raid “rising to the level of” that same deep doo-doo. Please spare me. If I haven’t stated so here yet, here goes: Italians are STILL getting laughs over this at our expense. Our continued handwringing over Clinton’s non-crimes is also dragging out our tainted credibility on all other issues world-wide. Our incredible hypocrisy on NOT running the Bushies into prison only intensifies the damage.
(Bob, thanks, and drive on….)
Larry, go read Zepp’s latest (Mar 14 2009-ish) on Stewart! I’ve made Stewart (and Colbert) a semi-regular habit! It’s therapeutic! Now go file charges against me for “suborning purgery” and passing myself off as cultivated.
G