Kyl: Lame Duck START Vote Unlikely (UPDATED)

Evidently, Massimo Calabresi’s attempt to lobby Kyl (“pronounced KILE”, according to Calabresi) into supporting the treaty was a big FAIL.

Maybe Time magazine will have better luck lobbying Republicans to support amnesty for illegals or Al Gore’s Cap and Tax scheme to fight the fraud known as “global warming” or tax increases on productive Americans.

This is ridiculous.

First thing Obama can do is stop negotiating with the GOPers holding the START treaty hostage in exchange for government handouts.

Second thing is to get Reid to put it up for a vote, over and over again if necessary.

The third thing to Obama and the Dems can do is to bombard the media, accusing the GOPers of practicing cronyism and playing politics with our national security…accusations which have the benefit of being true.

Show us that there’s some fight left in you, dammit.

Obama hasn’t made a case for Start. Until he does he can whine all he wants. I’d prefer to do not business with the Russians at this time. They can’t be trusted. Kyle will have absolutely problem voting against Start 100′s, There’s also the point people genuinely do not trust the idea of passing major legislation in lame duck sessions.

I’m guessing this isn’t on the top 30 of anyone’s wish list.

To repeat what I just noted on the previous post, Kyl is the Republican Whip, a fact which gets scant attention here (hint: Harry Reid is asking a Republican what he thought). And I think those 6 new senators are of greater importance than implied here, as probably does Kyl as he prepares for the new Congress.

whoever that administration official was made a huge mistake. why would you telegraph to a reporter, “if kyl goes, so does mcconnell.” you know, mcconnell, the guy who said he wants to destroy obama’s presidency.

ive had it with these obstructionist cowards. there is NO GOOD reason to block this treaty. obama gave kyl what he wanted and the only reason they’re blocking this is to make obama look weak. and the administration is just doing nothing. not only will they now lose this, but the public will blame him for losing it.

who are the f-ing amateurs over there?

Those “amateurs” over there recognize the influence and skill of Kyl, as I keep trying to point out.
.
Oh, and I agree that there is no good reason to block this treaty, but then again, my mind obviously is on another wave length from the right wing.

Obama hasn’t made a case for Start.
.
Hogwash. They’ve been making the case at least as far back as May:
.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703339304575240164048611360.html
.
Up through yesterday:
.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2010/1115/START-treaty-Mullen-delivers-tough-speech-on-nuclear-weapons-agreement
.
Kyl’s angling for bigger payoffs, now that he’s had some success in extorting his Republican Ransom from Obama in exchange for better national security.
.
Disgusting.

so where are the votes in the new congress?

the democrats have 53 seats next year. how will they find 14 republicans?

the gop will do anything, esp. after the horrific midterms, to deny the president a win or anything that smells or looks like a win, even if it means we can’t inspect russia’s nukes.

ive def. been on the side of “let obama be obama” and looking at things through a long-term view, and have defended the president at every term bc i believe in what he is doing, but seriously, he’s gotta come out and make the case strongly for this and the middle class tax cuts.

it’s becoming clear he was naive about “bipartisanship” and was all last year. why can’t he see they’re trying to destroy him? this is the major-leagues. enough of the namby-pamby.

Traitors don’t advance the national interest, they obstruct and undermine it for political and/or financial gain. Isn’t that clear by now?

He’s made speeches but not a convincing case. The man passes legislation with super-majority muscle not by making convincing cases. He’s not moved the needle on anything.

That’s why he’s doing this in a lame duck session except most Senators dislike the idea of using a lame duck session for important legislation for obvious reasons. This will not pass as is in the next Congress.

“He’s made speeches but not a convincing case. The man passes legislation with super-majority muscle not by making convincing cases. He’s not moved the needle on anything.”
.
When will the grown ups in the GOP party show up? The ones that together with dems managed to ratify something like this decades ago without anti-American horse trading?
.
Like there’s no compelling argument to reduce the amount of nukes we have and will continue to have even after the reduction?
.
I’m wondering when the right hand side of the isle will make a compelling argument that they want to do whats best for every single American and this country and not just for their clique and tribe.
.
Irrational hatred of everything Obama isn’t a very compelling argument anymore.

He’s made speeches but not a convincing case.
.
It would help if you would take your fingers out of your ears and stop saying, “la-la-la-I-can’t hear you” over and over.
.
The man passes legislation with super-majority muscle not by making convincing cases.
.
What more would it take to convince you, rdw? What more proof or evidence do you require?
.
He’s not moved the needle on anything.
.
When it comes to START, it looks like your needle is stuck.

“make the case strongly for this and the middle class tax cuts.”

Because they’re not middle class tax cuts. Everyone wants to keep the BUSH Tax cuts but voters really dislike some sleezy politician telling them he’s going to be seeing a tax cut when they are not

The real case he wants to make but is unable to make, because he is a poor communicator, is the roll back the tax cuts at the top. Americans are not reflexively anti-wealth and they understand these are the people creating many of the jobs.

Obama’s new world is extreme fiscal conservativism. voters saw his huge expansion of spending and govt as a backdoor move closer to the European model and are rejecting it in no uncertain terms. If any of the house republicans support a tax or spending increase of any kind they will be tossed out of office in the next election. They want a balanced budget and to get there via spending cuts. And it’s going to happen.

I have not kept up on Start but am aware several of the sources I trust such as the National Review and the WSJ do not support it. I would do some research if I were interested but I am not. My problem right now is I don’t want any major legislation passed in a lame duck session. If the case was as simple and straightforward as you suggest he should have passed it before the election. Now he can wait.

All of his major initiatives are under 50% support. He’s been ineffective at best as a communicator.

“voters saw his huge expansion of spending and govt as a backdoor move closer to the European model and are rejecting it in no uncertain terms.”
.
What “huge expansion of spending”? The Stimulus Bill, Obama’s only spending, will cost $800 billion or so over several years (producing this: boosted the gross domestic product by between 1.7 percent and 4.5 percent, lowered the unemployment rate by between 0.7 percentage points and 1.8 percentage points, Increased the number of people employed by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million, and Increased the number of full-time-equivalent jobs by 2.0 million to 4.8 million compared with what would have occurred otherwise) while the federal budget is around $3.5 trillion annually.
.
If your point is that Republican voters are clueless brainwashed idiots like you, point taken.

what the hell?

european model? what european model? have you even been to europe? please tell in what way the united states is close to a european model? and don’t even try citing health care. that wasn’t even CLOSE to a european model. hell, it wasn’t even close to a canadian model. it was the massachusetts model with more experimentation on cost controls. and republicans are trying to defund the portions that were written for cost controls, get rid of the mandate, and then pretend they can still cover 30 million nmore americans while stopping insurance abuses.

actaully they’re not even pretending. they can’t cover 30 million more americans or stop insurance abuses bc they don’t really care.

huge expansion of spending? do you even know how much money the us budget is relative to the amount of money that was spent to stave off a great depression? the only reason we have a big hole in the debt/deficit is UNFUNDED bush tax cuts, UNFUNDED wars in iraq and afghanistan, UNFUNDED medicare prescription drug plan, and a great recession that led to large decreases in tax revenue.

actually, the deficit grew smaller for this fiscal year bc tarp and the auto bailouts are expected to be much smaller in cost. and the stimulus did what it needed to do. prevent an economic collapse by padding demand when there was none.

jesus, learn to deal with percentages and get back to me. repeating fox news talking points is not the answer.

Because they’re not middle class tax cuts. Everyone wants to keep the BUSH Tax cuts but voters really dislike some sleezy politician telling them he’s going to be seeing a tax cut when they are not

Who is this “everyone” you speak of? Please show some evidence that at least a vast majority of Americans are for continuing all the Bush Tax cuts.
.
Personally, I’m in for continuing those for $250k and below and letting above that expire. Hell, double it to $500k and I’m fine if we want to cry about small businesses and the like.
.
The thing is, those making under $250k (or even $500k) are the ones who will put that money back into the economy. When someone has millions of dollars, do you really think their tax savings will go back into the economy?
.
And what “sleezy politician” has been saying that he is going to be seeing a tax cut when those on the bottom and the middle will not? Obviously this sounds like a case for tax reform.

“I have not kept up on Start but am aware several of the sources I trust such as the National Review and the WSJ do not support it. I would do some research if I were interested but I am not. My problem right now is I don’t want any major legislation passed in a lame duck session. If the case was as simple and straightforward as you suggest he should have passed it before the election. Now he can wait.
.
All of his major initiatives are under 50% support. He’s been ineffective at best as a communicator.”
.
So what you’re saying is that something that would have been a no brainer decades ago historically is no a no no because its a lame duck session and you don’t like the guy and that it’s his fault that GOP have said no to everything including appointment and this treaty and want to horse wrangle monies and favors out of the administration for a yes. But other than that you would be for it.
.
Being for something that’s in the best interest of this country and every single American isn’t about your tribe. Sorry, but if this is the best reason you have for not wanting START, especially since you admit you haven’t read up on it, you really have to dig deep in your soul for an answer. What you displayed here is the reason why America is totally screwed.

I have not kept up on Start but am aware several of the sources I trust such as the National Review and the WSJ do not support it.
.
Any other sources than those with a right-wing slant?
.
I would do some research if I were interested but I am not.
.
That’s not atypical.
.
My problem right now is I don’t want any major legislation passed in a lame duck session..
.
That’s a silly excuse. Say an earthquake hit Hawaii and we needed Congress to authorize an emergency relief/reconstruction bill. You’d wait until the next session?
.
All of his major initiatives are under 50% support. He’s been ineffective at best as a communicator.
.
So? What does that have to do with the value of those initiatives?

“He’s been ineffective at best as a communicator.”
.
That may or may not be true. The point is, right-wing liars have been very effective.

“The real case he wants to make but is unable to make, because he is a poor communicator, is the roll back the tax cuts at the top. Americans are not reflexively anti-wealth and they understand these are the people creating many of the jobs.”
.
I know. He use ‘hard’ words. He’s not just going to tell you to hide under the table when code red is blaring on the tellie and ask you to not worry and shop a lot otherwise.
.
If people understand that the people at the very top somehow ‘creates’ jobs they’re dumb ’cause there’s no statistic that support that the rich have created jobs when they got the tax cut. In fact there’s more support that shows that it leads to a lot of risky investment in stuff that blows up the economy. Not jobs for you and me.
.
If people such as yourself believe in that mythology its because you think that ‘advanced form of communication’ is a bummer and you don’t want to trust facts that isn’t spoon fed to you by the likes of Rush. It’s up to you if you look at facts objectivly or if it ‘ain’t’ true because it wasn’t one of your guys that told you it. Intellectual incuriousity isn’t a good compelling reason for the rest of us to suffer the stupidity of the intellectually lazy.

Also, too:

“And if it fails, the consequences will be severe. U.S.-Russian relations will deteriorate dramatically; inspection of Russian long-range nuclear bases will be suspended indefinitely; and American credibility on the global stage will take a painful hit — all because one-right Arizonan hates the president a little too much.

We are, by the way, talking about a treaty endorsed by six former secretaries of state and five former secretaries of defense from both parties; the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; seven former Strategic Command chiefs; national security advisers from both parties, and nearly all former commanders of U.S. nuclear forces.

French Ambassador Pierre Vimont recently said that after he and other diplomats reported back to Europe about the possibility of congressional opposition to the treaty, ‘People ask us, “Have you been drinking?”‘

The world simply doesn’t understand how hysterically ridiculous the Republican Party of the 21st century has become. Why would American lawmakers reject a treaty that benefits America? The notion that a legislature would hate their president more than they love their country just doesn’t seem plausible.

The administration reached out to Kyl in good faith, and gave him what he wanted. Kyl’s response isn’t just a betrayal of the White House; it’s a betrayal of all of our interests. It’s as shameful a moment for Kyl as at any point in his career — and he doesn’t even realize it.”

We have been fed this line of garbage about those at the high end take their tax cut money and invest in new jobs. If that was the case, and there is absolutely no data on that, why was George Busgh losing 700,000 jobs in December 2008 and over 4 million jobs during his 8 years of mismanagement. I think any jobs created were overseas in 3rd world countries where they could get a better return than US banks.

Make the limit $1 million if that is what you have to do to “please” the Republicants, but no higher. Otherwise, let them expire fully and let the voters ask Boehrner and McConnell why any party would come up with a tax program like this?

please, save the bogus stats, even morons smell that crap.

“Say an earthquake hit Hawaii and we needed Congress to authorize an emergency relief/reconstruction bill. You’d wait until the next session?”

That doesn’t even approach minor legislation. Americans do this all the time. It’s a matter of routine,.
.

What does that have to do with the value of those initiatives?

************************************

It’s not intended to deal with the value of the initiatives but the Messiah’s communications skills. You have to know he is going to be compared now and for the rest of his life with the great communicator. He ain’t doin so hot!

“The world simply doesn’t understand how hysterically ridiculous the Republican Party of the 21st century has become. Why would American lawmakers reject a treaty that benefits America? The notion that a legislature would hate their president more than they love their country just doesn’t seem plausible.
.
The administration reached out to Kyl in good faith, and gave him what he wanted. Kyl’s response isn’t just a betrayal of the White House; it’s a betrayal of all of our interests. It’s as shameful a moment for Kyl as at any point in his career — and he doesn’t even realize it.”"
.
Apparently GOP is about destroying everything Obama does every which way to Sunday regardless if it’s good for the country or not. It’s irrelevant at this point because they have their stooges ready to defend every single moronic GOP obstruction with red herrings, straw men and ‘liberals are evil’. It doesn’t matter if common sense, statistics, facts or anything else supports anything Obama does; the excuse will always be the intellectually lazy cop out – America have rejected his agenda and thats that.
.
Meanwhile China is licking their chops since they didn’t have to become a democracy to see themselves top dogs; all they needed to do was to fuel our greed and stupidity until the dumb combusted common sense.

why any party would come up with a tax program like this?

*******************************************

If your point is just the tax rates it’s because liberals are economically illiterate. If your question is more broadly about the ridiculous complexity of the tax code know it’s about to be addressed. The deficit commission has skirted the concept of a flat tax with no exemptions but not quite. Think of it as a trial balloon. There is going to be a great debate about the level of spending which will end up back at 2000ish levels (as a % of GDP) and then how to tax in order to best fund that spending.

We are in a period not unlike the early to mid-80′s when Reagan was striving to junk the tax code to get the politicians out of the business of picking winners and losers and to restore market signals and the incentives to work and invest. It was until 1986 he got marginal rates down to 28%, That famous bill wasn’t designed to reduce taxes. It was designed to reduce marginal rates.

IN this era the 1st focus isn’t going to be taxes or rates but spending. Obama tried to turn us into France. Ain’t happening. We are going to cut spending and decide how to target spending and then decide on the tax rate structure.

Here is a time-lapse map of the 2053 nuclear explosions that began with 1945 Trinity test and continues until 1998. It really gets interesting around 1962.
.

Meanwhile China is licking their chops since they didn’t have to become a democracy to see themselves top dogs;

*********************************************************

You give the game away here. You really are the quintessentially clueless liberal. Or as Lenin said, useful idiot. You are one of the useful idiots the day before the wall fell was screaming about how we needed to get used to Russia and socialism because it was a viable alternative and we had to learn how to share the planet. China is still a centrally controlled totalitarian govt. They can never hope to be efficient. It’s simply not possible.

Democracy isn’t a weakness you twit, it’s our strength

Help me understand why Fox generates so much angst when their audience share is a fraction of the MSM?

“Help me understand why Fox generates so much angst when their audience share is a fraction of the MSM?”
.
Because it’s a propaganda organ for right-wing liars and traitors and millions of American are too ignorant, brainwashed and/or psychologically damaged to realize it. The MSM is simply a failure at telling the public the important truth…including the truth about FOX.
.
That explain it for ya?

“Help me understand why Fox generates so much angst when their audience share is a fraction of the MSM?”
.
I personally don’t know why you have such angst listening to Fox. I don’t watch it myself. If I want clownery I watch 3 stooges reruns and if I want comedy I watch comedy channel. If I want news I research it.
.
You should take your angst up with a professional.

Well said, rdw56 and 100% accurate. Our progressive friends have a different outlook and their version of democracy excludes majority rule and expression of a different viewpoint. Reading some of their commentary shows the extreme positioning of liberal ideology, calling conservatives “traitors” and batsh*t crazy, for questioning their motives. Certainly not my idea of democracy, rdw56, it sounds more proletariat to me.

“You give the game away here. You really are the quintessentially clueless liberal. Or as Lenin said, useful idiot. You are one of the useful idiots the day before the wall fell was screaming about how we needed to get used to Russia and socialism because it was a viable alternative and we had to learn how to share the planet. China is still a centrally controlled totalitarian govt. They can never hope to be efficient. It’s simply not possible.
.
Democracy isn’t a weakness you twit, it’s our strength”
.
You got the last part completely right. The rest just flew straight over your head. I’m not the one selling our country down the tube in order to enrich your own tribe. I tell you – you guys sure love projection. You accuse people of being useful idiots but can’t help yourself slobber down every single dumb word that comes out of your own circular world. It’s comical and entirely predictable. As I said – China didn’t have to go through a democratic transformation to get where we are today – all they had to do is to have us use their cheap labor while we cut our own throats with people such as yourself.
.
I would ask WTF is wrong with you but I already know. When facts don’t matter unless it’s filtered through the tribe you get exactly the kind of person you are. Completely insular to reason unable to argue facts other than regurgitating talking points. It’s like a slot machine with a few set responses no matter what goes in.

“their version of democracy excludes majority rule and expression of a different viewpoint.”
.
i swear to god if you guys couldn’t have more cognitive dissonance…
.
so how many times did the republicans block legislation because the democrats had more than 50 but less than 60 votes? majority rule my ass.

“…some of their commentary shows the extreme positioning of liberal ideology, calling conservatives “traitors” and batsh*t crazy, for questioning their motives.”
.
Just to be clear, your leaders are traitors, not because they question anyone’s motives – they’re lying anyway – but because they’re actively and intentionally undermining the national interests of the United States for personal and political gain, the very definition of a traitor short of meeting the legal definition for treason. I’m sorry that you find the truth so shrill but that’s not liberals’ extremism, it’s “conservative” extremism. You, on the other hand are just an authoritarian-following, useful idiot, so don’t flatter yourself.

This isn’t about democracy (Russia is one now, read the news, beginning with Stalin’s death over 50 years ago), or economics necessarily (capitalist giant China is still ruled by a politburo), it is about common sense. The stockpile reduction still leaves more than enough to destroy the world and then some. It does appear to be about Republican idiocy.

it’s because liberals are economically illiterate

This from a moron that worships at the alter of Reagan and “trickle-down” economics. It’s obvious the concept of irony eludes you.

Thank you, sheperd, you once again, most succinctly, prove my point beyond any shadow of doubt.

Here’s irony for you, or maybe just blinding contrast. Remember that GHW Bush called the Reagan tax plan “voodoo economics”? That is until he joined the voodoo doctor on the ticket. Apparently, his son wasn’t paying attention during all of this, and never asked daddy about it later. He was busy running up the deficit with unnecessary destructive war.

Just to continue my thought train, and I’m sorry this is buried in the middle of the thread, but I also regret the defeat of GHWB. Although I greatly admire the leadership of B Clinton, he could have waited a few years and not caused the revolt of the extreme religious right wing which we are still enduring. Remember what caused that? “Read my lips”. Tax increases? His little boy would never have been elected were it not for the icon worshiping right wing. They were confused about Reagan and Greater Bush, and caused no end of turmoil, as they continue to do.

Entirely plausible that GOP wants to use this as another chip in the debate to extend tax cuts for the rich.

“Well said, rdw56 and 100% accurate. Our progressive friends have a different outlook and their version of democracy excludes majority rule and expression of a different viewpoint. Reading some of their commentary shows the extreme positioning of liberal ideology, calling conservatives “traitors” and batsh*t crazy, for questioning their motives. Certainly not my idea of democracy, rdw56, it sounds more proletariat to me.”
.
Pretend doctor earl – how can someone who went through pretend medical school for all those years miss a perfectly simple point that even my 7 year old can figure out. When you get all whiny about being called batsh!t crazy I’ll remind you about the phrase you guys coined…libtard. And we questions your motives? That cackle comes from the side who have made a point out of calling liberals unamerican and unpatriotic for a decade. Unreal. Like your degree.

Ah yes, hippolina has her panties all twisted again. I know you never amounted to anything, hippolina, but your jealousy gets the best of you sometimes.When confronted with fact, she gets flustered and starts with the name calling and false accusations. Just how transparent can you be? but, but, but, YOU called me a meanie first, she splutters, all helpless with rage. If I were your doctor, hippolina, I could prescribe a good, mood altering drug for you. Perhaps a nice cup of Chamomile tea will have a soothing effect on those jangled nerves. Good night, dearie, no more time to chat, for some of us have to work for a living and a good nights sleep is essential. (sleepy surgeons are prone to making mistakes)

rd,

“I have not kept up on Start but am aware several of the sources I trust such as the National Review and the WSJ…”

There is your problem.

There is no debate, unless you consider “Gimme, gimme, gimme!” a valid debate tactic.

is no a no no because its a lame duck session and you don’t like the guy and that it’s his fault that GOP have said no to everything

**********************************************

Not liking the guy has nothing to do with it. If it’s such a good piece of legislation why pass it during a lame duck session. It’s called lame for a reason.

specially since you admit you haven’t read up on it, you really have to dig deep in your soul for an answer.

*****************************************

I haven’t read up on it, recently. Meaning I’m not in a position to debate details because I don’t remember them well enough for an intelligent debate and am not interesting in having the debate because a lame duck session is not the time for such legislation. It’s really a minor issue because no one thinks this is the time and there is not going to be a vote.

Liberals are not economically illiterate by definition.
.
Many people don’t possess enough information on basic macroeconomic theory and how our economy (and the global economy) functions, but that condition isn’t confined to liberals, not by a long shot.
.
On the other hand, people who honestly believe, i.e. aren’t simply partisan or ideological liars, that massive tax cuts are offset by increased government revenue aren’t just economic illiterates, they’re essentially repeating the the equivalent of “the earth is literally 6,000 years old” or “natural selection is just a theory, like intelligent design.”

This seems to be the case.

It’s not my angst, I enjoy Fox. It’s liberals in need of medication over Fox. You are all advocates of free speech, unless it’s on Fox. That’s why they’re priceless. Just one great story of where Fox exposed not just weak character on the part of a Presidential candidate but of the entire MSM.

You remember Xmas in Cambodia. Kerry had his epiphany in Cambodia on Xmas Eve when President Nixon announced to Americans we were NOT in Cambodia. John knew immediately he must act to bring this war to an end. It was a story he repeated and the MSM published for 30 years. Until someone pointed out NIxon wasn’t President on xmas in 1968 when John was supposed to be in Cambodia. How is it possible not even one member of the MSM could figure something so obvious? Some rigorous fact checking there.

so how many times did the republicans block legislation because the democrats had more than 50 but less than 60 votes? majority rule my ass.

*******************************************************

No clue, how about the reverse?

If it’s such a slam dunk why the sleezy trick of passing it in a lame duck session? I should add politically inept sleezy tirck since it’s not going to happen….

Not at all true. The GOP IS going to extend all of the tax cuts hopefully for 2 years so Obama can run in 2012 promising to raise taxes.

“If it’s such a slam dunk why the sleezy trick of passing it in a lame duck session?”
.
Considering that a lame duck Republican Congress, after getting “shellacked” by Democrats in 1998, nonetheless impeached the President of the United States in a nakedly political fashion , GOP caterwhauling along these lines is the usual shameless, hypocritical nonsense that has become their sole stock and trade.
.
Approval for impeaching the popular president was 40%. President Clinton’s approval at the time of impeachment- 66%. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9406E4D7143BF932A15751C1A96E958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all .
.
60 sitting House Republicans voted for the 1998 lame duck session but against this one. Shameless, hypocritical nonsense.

Impeachment isn’t legislation per se and it was done at that time in part because it wasn’t legislation and should not be done before an election. These were not classic lame duck sessions but scheduled specifically to consider impeachment.

The interesting thing about that is while is was bad for the GOP politically it was devastating as a historical issue for Slick Willie. For there is no doubt he was a pig. That he abused a 21-yr old. That he lied under oath. That he whored his own cabinet That he used the office to cover up his sleeze. That Jonah Goldbergs Mama is one savvy operator.

One of my favorite memories of that entire episode was her appearance on Chris Matthews where long before we heard about the dress she promised Chris that he was absolutely quilty and we would absolutely find out because he left evidence. Chris was at the time geniunely concerned because she was so certain. As we came to find out it was Lucianne who told Linda Tripp to make sure Monica did not have that dress dry-cleaned and to get it out of her house and to a safe place. We now know without the dress Bill is still lying and there’s no impeachment and he still has his law license.

I think there is a reasonable difference of opinion as to the charges deserving removal from office but there is no question Bill Clinton is a liar, abuse the girl and his office and is a dirtball. That’s one of those things kids will read about in History class and just laugh at him.

Political ramifications

Polls conducted during 1998 and early 1999 showed that only about one-third of Americans supported Clinton’s impeachment or conviction. However, one year later, when it was clear that House impeachment would not lead to ouster of the President, half of Americans said that they supported impeachment and 42% disapproved of the Senate’s decision to keep him in office.[27]

While Clinton’s job approval rating rose during the Lewinsky scandal and subsequent impeachment, his poll numbers with regard to questions of honesty, integrity and moral character declined.[28] As a result, “moral character” and “honesty” weighed heavily in the next presidential election. According to The Daily Princetonian, after the 2000 presidential election, “post-election polls found that, in the wake of Clinton-era scandals, the single most significant reason people voted for Bush was for his moral character.

***************************************************************

Ah, good memories. So politically it was a very mixed bag. While Gore can’t place all of the blame on Clinton he certainly was a factor. Gore himself as a devoted family man but his serial lies and exaggerations clearly mattered more to an electorate wanting an honest man. Someone who would not humiliate the country.

Contempt of court citation

In April 1999, about two months after being acquitted by the Senate, Clinton was cited by Federal District Judge Susan Webber Wright for civil contempt of court for his “willful failure” to obey her repeated orders to testify truthfully in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit. For this citation, Clinton was assessed a $90,000 fine, and the matter was referred to the Arkansas Supreme Court to see if disciplinary action would be appropriate.

Regarding Clinton’s January 17, 1998, deposition where he was placed under oath, the judge wrote:

“Simply put, the president’s deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. (Monica) Lewinsky was intentionally false, and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false….”

In January 2001, on the day before leaving office, Clinton agreed to a five-year suspension of his Arkansas law license as part of an agreement with the independent counsel[clarification needed] to end the investigation. Based on this suspension, Clinton was automatically suspended from the United States Supreme Court bar, from which he then chose to resign.

Civil settlement with Paula Jones

Eventually, the court dismissed the Paula Jones harassment lawsuit, before trial, on the grounds that Jones failed to demonstrate any damages. However, while the dismissal was on appeal, Clinton entered into an out-of-court settlement by agreeing to pay Jones $850,000.

***************************************************
The above from Wikipedia. Michael Isakoff and newsweek broke this story years before and sat on it to protect Clinton. In hindsight that was a mistake. It was one of Slick Willies few missteps. Isakoff was one of the 1st to find out about Paula. When he mentioned it to Clinton he responded that it didn’t happen because he left the convention after lunch to go back to the capital. Of course that’s easy to check out. When Isakoff followed up he knew Clinton was lying and after asking his editors started a real investigation. He found out that Bill and Paula did spend some quality time alone that evening but never reported it until someone else did. And you wonder why conservatives think the MSM are frauds.

rdw is off and running again with his undocumented random Rep talking points.

If he hates the president, even a little bit, and his hate causes harm to the nation, it’s too much.

Reminds me of what I read about the plutocrats’ reference during the New Deal about FDR: “that man in the White House”, as if he didn’t belong there – and was a traitor to his “class”.

16.2 –
“Not at all true. The GOP IS going to extend all of the tax cuts hopefully for 2 years so Obama can run in 2012 promising to raise taxes.”

Huh? Your statement makes no sense whatsoever.

Anyhow, I’ll try to counter the jeer you tried to launch with this one:

The GOP will tax-cut all of the people all of the time if they can tax-cut the rich all of the time.
The GOP will tax-cut some of the people some of the time if they can tax-cut the rich all of the time.
The GOP will tax-cut the rich all of the time.

Official announcement in response to the overwhelming emergency:
“Hellofajob, Brownie!”

2.7 – hipooath,

rdw – soul? Joke?

Fortunately he only killed a few brain cells. As with the Clinton debacle, nobody died.

Under his successor’s debacles, however…

Herby,

It’s not complicated. The GOP now controls the debate on taxes. They will extend all of the bush tax cuts for 2 or 3 years so it is again a campaign issue in the 2012 cycle. That way Obama can run promising to raise taxes and we’ll see how many democrats join him.

Its a hedge – I wrote he had to dig deep.

So, correct me if I have the wrong line of reasoning here:
.
To me it appears that the GOP is only concerned about furthering its own agenda rather that what is good for the American people. For being “fiscal conservatives” they do seem eager to increase the deficit by continuing these unfunded tax cuts.
.
Leave the tax cuts for those under $250k, yes, because they will be the ones who will put money back into the economy. But those over that? not nearly as likely.
.
Nevermind that tax cuts for the rich don’t magically stimulate job growth. Businesses don’t hire because they have extra cash lying around. They hire due to increased demand for their product or service. That demand is created by consumers, ie the middle class. If there’s not demand, there’s not going to be any new jobs.

“Gore himself as a devoted family man but his serial lies and exaggerations clearly mattered more to an electorate wanting an honest man.”
.
That must be why they elected Gore by half a million votes. @sshole.

“For being “fiscal conservatives” they do seem eager to increase the deficit by continuing these unfunded tax cuts.”
.
That’s because they’re liars.