They're Impeaching the President (fwd)
The Tin Man
"There may be a great fire in our soul, Robert Fernandez
yet no one ever comes to warm himself rfer...@chuma.cas.usf.edu
at it, and the passers-by see only http://chuma.cas.usf.edu/~rfernand
a wisp of smoke." - Vincent van Gogh AIM: Gamaliel8
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 00:09:16 -0800 (PST)
From: Robert Fernandez <rfer...@chuma.cas.usf.edu>
Reply-To: Mailing list for Honors Program <honors...@lists.cas.usf.edu>
To: Mailing list for Honors Program <honors...@lists.cas.usf.edu>
Subject: They're Impeaching the President
Congressional leadership is determined to impeach the President. This is not in the best interests of our country. We face real economic and foreign policy challenges. A besieged President and distracted Congress will not address these issues.
I'm participating in an Internet campaign to tell our representatives that we've had enough. The President should receive censure from the Congress and we should all move on. It's time for the public interest to come first, and for our representatives to show real leadership.
Will you help? Just go to http://www.moveon.org to sign the petition and take action. It only takes a minute. And then if you send a message on to your friends and colleagues, the ball will keep rolling. It's up to us.
Please feel free to forward this message to anyone you think would be interested. Don't send this message indiscriminately. Spam hurts the campaign.
---
You are currently subscribed to honorslounge as: [rfer...@chuma.cas.usf.edu]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-honor...@lists.cas.usf.edu
pjantzen
trading cocaine for arms or hostages (or whatever the whole
Iran-Contra-Ollie "smarmy-git-who-needs-a-good-kick-in-the-teeth" North
brouhaha was about) was a far more egregious transgression than anything
Bill has even been accused of, much less the sex and lies that is the
fodder for our collective attention these days.
With the results of November's election and the recent acquittal of Mike
Espy (former Secretary of Agriculture, under Independent Counsel
investigation costing in the millions over less than $30,000,
essentially in football tickets) one must wonder how hard the Republican
leadership in congress was dropped on their heads as children, to
thicken their collective skulls to such a degree that they've quit
paying attention to their constituents as a whole.
PTJ.
"Soundwave [Chad Gould]" wrote:
>
> I'm beginning to get concerned. Not really because of Clinton or whatever, I'm
> not sure I give much of a darn. I'm more concerned that this will set
> precedence. Lying about sex (raise your hand if you HAVEN'T done this?) or
> whatever the charge is is a pretty minor offense.
>
> The last president to be popular had a minor scandal around him (Iran-Contra)
> that luckily did not evolve into an impeachment trial. What now? If a president
> gets a popularity rating over 55%, you start an impeachment trial or some
> other scandal on silly stuff? Scandals have always existed, it's the
> impeachment trials that bother me.
Soundwave [Chad Gould]
not sure I give much of a darn. I'm more concerned that this will set
precedence. Lying about sex (raise your hand if you HAVEN'T done this?) or
whatever the charge is is a pretty minor offense.
The last president to be popular had a minor scandal around him (Iran-Contra)
that luckily did not evolve into an impeachment trial. What now? If a president
gets a popularity rating over 55%, you start an impeachment trial or some
other scandal on silly stuff? Scandals have always existed, it's the
impeachment trials that bother me.
--
Chad Gould / Soundwave / cgo...@gate.net
http://tilt.largo.fl.us/ - MST3K / Samples / Synth FAQ / More...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The wonderful things about Tiggers is Tiggers are wonderful chaps
They're loaded with vim and with vigor
They love to leap in your laps
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Soundwave [Chad Gould]
: With the results of November's election and the recent acquittal of Mike
: Espy (former Secretary of Agriculture, under Independent Counsel
: investigation costing in the millions over less than $30,000,
: essentially in football tickets) one must wonder how hard the Republican
: leadership in congress was dropped on their heads as children, to
: thicken their collective skulls to such a degree that they've quit
: paying attention to their constituents as a whole.
Hmm... I just read that House Speaker Elect Livingston (R) is planning to
admit to his own marital infidelities.
This is breaking news, so accuracy may or may not be valid. If it is, could
expose a nice element of Congressional hypocrisy to this impeachment
debate...
David L. Pringle
Soundwave [Chad Gould] wrote:
> Hmm... I just read that House Speaker Elect Livingston (R) is planning to
> admit to his own marital infidelities.
>
> This is breaking news, so accuracy may or may not be valid. If it is, could
> expose a nice element of Congressional hypocrisy to this impeachment
> debate...
>
Yes, and I heard on CNN that he got a standing ovation from the GOP hacks in
his House when he did it, in supposed appreciation of his honesty:
"For Brutus is an honorable man
They are all honorable men . . ."
Sheesh.
(Incidentally, doesn't "House Speaker Elect Livingston (R)" make it look like
the guy's title is trademarked? Just curious. . .)
--dlp (who thinks that "Hacks in the House" could be the next R&B hip-hop smash
hit)
Drew Smith
> Yes, and I heard on CNN that he got a standing ovation from the GOP hacks in
> his House when he did it, in supposed appreciation of his honesty:
Ummm, if he were honest, wouldn't he have admitted it *before* he found
out that he was about to be exposed about it? In other words, prior to
being discovered, he thought that he was still qualified to be Speaker,
and after being discovered, he thought that he wasn't? So he thinks it's
ok to be unfaithful to your wife and be Speaker as long as you're not
found out?
Puzzled over this idea of "Republican morality",
Drew
The Tin Man
> Puzzled over this idea of "Republican morality",
They're astonishing, aren't they? Now we're up to four adulterers and
counting in the congress, and they brush it off and trot out the priests
for forgiveness.
"Noel Noel Noel Noel. May all my enemies go to hell." - Hilaire Belloc
Robert Fernandez
rfer...@chuma.cas.usf.edu
http://chuma.cas.usf.edu/~rfernand
AIM: Gamaliel8
Rain Man
because the Radical Republicans figured out a way to usurp Andrew
Johnson's power through bills. If one more person had voted to convict
Johnson, this country might now have a President that would be nothing
more than a figurehead while Congress made all the rules.
Now we have a bundle of rich, fat, lecherous slobs (for the most part) who
are ignoring their own skeletons and dragging one of Clinton's out of the
closet because he's too damned popular. It is setting a precedent. If this
actually happens (which it probably won't, I'd like to see 12 Democrats
vote against Clinton), we'll be saying that lying about sex is a "high
crime and misdemeanor", as the Constitution puts it. By that logic,
about 50 more Congressmen (at least) should resign for doing something
they want to crucify Clinton for.
And I still want to see the Chief Justice stand up on the first day of the
trial, scream "This trial is crap!", and throw it out.
(By the way, the only reason Reagan didn't have an impeachment trial
started was because his second term was almost over anyway.)
On 16 Dec 1998, Soundwave [Chad Gould] wrote:
> I'm beginning to get concerned. Not really because of Clinton or whatever, I'm
> not sure I give much of a darn. I'm more concerned that this will set
> precedence. Lying about sex (raise your hand if you HAVEN'T done this?) or
> whatever the charge is is a pretty minor offense.
>
> The last president to be popular had a minor scandal around him (Iran-Contra)
> that luckily did not evolve into an impeachment trial. What now? If a president
> gets a popularity rating over 55%, you start an impeachment trial or some
> other scandal on silly stuff? Scandals have always existed, it's the
> impeachment trials that bother me.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Jamie DeVriend | "Although it's been said, many |
| SG Senator -- College of Business | times, many ways, Merry Christmas |
| All complaints go to | to you." -- Robert Wells and |
| jdev...@helios.acomp.usf.edu or | Mel Torme |
| jdev...@aol.com | |
| 4 shopping days until Christmas. | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Tin Man
> And I still want to see the Chief Justice stand up on the first day of the
> trial, scream "This trial is crap!", and throw it out.
Well, he wouldn't be that uncivil about it. :)
Actually, Renquist is *not* in favor of such things (he wrote a book about
the Johnson impeachment) and is probably against this nonsense.
Between Renquist and the 11 vote shortage, the Republicans don't have much
of a chance of doing anything but slinging mud, which is exactly their
plan.
> (By the way, the only reason Reagan didn't have an impeachment trial
> started was because his second term was almost over anyway.)
This summer by best friend and I chatted with a John Bircher who was
passing around a petition to impeach Clinton. My friend said "Why bother?
By the time you impeach him he'll be out of office anyway." Famous last
words.
Rain Man
> Actually, Renquist is *not* in favor of such things (he wrote a book about
> the Johnson impeachment) and is probably against this nonsense.
Thanks for filling in Rehnquist. I forgot who the Chief Justice was. :)
> Between Renquist and the 11 vote shortage, the Republicans don't have much
> of a chance of doing anything but slinging mud, which is exactly their
> plan.
Actually, it's 12 votes. As Andrew Johnson so dramatically proved back in
1868, every vote counts. (Interestingly enough, 1868 was an election
year.)
And if you heard Arlen Specter, R-Pa., on the news last night, he's not
for this at all. I wouldn't be surprised if, if this even goes to the
"jury", they don't even get the break-even number of 50 votes.
I wish our country was more proactive in the voting booth. Then we might
see an overturn of power as dramatic as has been seen in other countries
where the electorate gets off their fat asses and votes. If this were one
of those countries, you could probably take it to the bank that there
would be maybe 50 Republicans left in Congress after the 2000 election.
Time for the voting public to put their votes where their mouths are.
> This summer by best friend and I chatted with a John Bircher who was
> passing around a petition to impeach Clinton. My friend said "Why bother?
> By the time you impeach him he'll be out of office anyway." Famous last
> words.
Oh, and the AP took a poll on Sunday for the President's approval
rating... it's **72%**. Yes, you read that right. (I almost did a spit
take when I read that at lunch.)
Matthew Clark
The last time they were (60+%), Jesse The Body was elected
governor of Minn...<grin>
Matt
Rain Man
Goes to prove how tired voters are of status quo politics. Whether their
choice is stupid or brilliant, they want change. If Hulk Hogan seriously
runs for President in 2000, don't be surprised if he pulls in Perot 1992
kind of numbers (around 15-20% of the popular vote) because he would get
an electorate out to the polls who wouldn't dream of voting for Al Gore or
George W. Bush.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Jamie DeVriend | "Although it's been said, many |
| SG Senator -- College of Business | times, many ways, Merry Christmas |
| All complaints go to | to you." -- Robert Wells and |
| jdev...@helios.acomp.usf.edu or | Mel Torme |
| jdev...@aol.com | |
| 1 shopping day until Christmas. | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Clark
>(I find it amazing that the Christian Coallition is lobbying so heavily for
>this. I've always gotten the impression that the New Testament philosiphy
>discouraged intervening directly with the government in the name of
>righteousness?)
I'm sure it does, but that's never stopped someone from twisting
words to suite their agenda. Ask how many peace loving Muslims
appreciate having the Koran twisted by terrorists...
Matt (Christian and "over" the Republican party...)
Soundwave [Chad Gould]
: >I wish our country was more proactive in the voting booth.
: The last time they were (60+%), Jesse The Body was elected
: governor of Minn...<grin>
Understandable given the popularity of today's conventional politicians. (:
Soundwave [Chad Gould]
: And if you heard Arlen Specter, R-Pa., on the news last night, he's not
: for this at all. I wouldn't be surprised if, if this even goes to the
: "jury", they don't even get the break-even number of 50 votes.
: see an overturn of power as dramatic as has been seen in other countries
: where the electorate gets off their fat asses and votes. If this were one
: of those countries, you could probably take it to the bank that there
: would be maybe 50 Republicans left in Congress after the 2000 election.
Actually, last election I think WAS influenced by the impeachment process, the
next one might be this way even more so. I'm not sure the Democrats can
nominate someone that can win the presidential race, but the house and senate
might be swayed enough to make them Democratic majority (another reversal!).
If the Republicans keep up their self-centered campaign, they might encourage
enough anti-impeachment votes to make an entire Democrat government.
What most people seem to want is congress folks that look up for their local
issues. The impeachment process is seen by everyone except the right-wing
holy-rollers as dirt, something that blocks actual issues from taking place.
(I find it amazing that the Christian Coallition is lobbying so heavily for
this. I've always gotten the impression that the New Testament philosiphy
discouraged intervening directly with the government in the name of
righteousness?)
--