Will Congress Applaud At Clinton's State Of Union Address?
Bill Mulcahy
advisors are hoping that this will work in his favor by Republicans jeering
and Democrats applauding, showing the "partisan" nature of the impeachment.
Clinton's are hoping for something even better, which may very well happen,
where BOTH sides will applaud wildly. This always happens as we are told
that it "is important to give the world a impression of solidarity" behind
our President. If Congress does this they are phony as Slick Willy is.
Everyone knows Congress is deeply divided over Clinton's criminality.
I think the best response would be for those politicians (and I'm not ruling
out democrats) who want Clinton to resign, should turn their backs to him as
he walks in, instead of applauding. What a signal THAT would be! If enough
representatives did that, we wouldn't even need a trial, Clinton would
resign the next day! I know. It will never happen, but I can dream can't I?
Bill Mulcahy
Joyce Harmon
rock...@prodigy.net says...
>
>I think the best response would be for those politicians (and I'm not
ruling
>out democrats) who want Clinton to resign, should turn their backs to him
as
>he walks in, instead of applauding. What a signal THAT would be! If enough
>representatives did that, we wouldn't even need a trial, Clinton would
>resign the next day! I know. It will never happen, but I can dream can't I?
Are you trying to script the Democrats campaign commercials for 2000 for
them? Dream on, loser. This would cause more negative fallout for the
Republicans than you can possibly imagine. As for Clinton resigning, he's
tougher than that.
Joyce
Dan Kimmel
<rock...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>I think the best response would be for those politicians (and I'm not ruling
>out democrats) who want Clinton to resign, should turn their backs to him as
>he walks in, instead of applauding. What a signal THAT would be! If enough
>representatives did that, we wouldn't even need a trial, Clinton would
>resign the next day! I know. It will never happen, but I can dream can't I?
Ah, wouldn't it be great? And the day after it would be the
Republicans who find themselves sinking ever lower in the polls as the
entirely partisan nature of this charade was made vividly clear. You
should hope that cooler heads prevail. Given the extremists running
the GOPher side of the aisle, though, that death wish is awfully
strong.
Bill Mulcahy
Dan Kimmel wrote in message
>Ah, wouldn't it be great? And the day after it would be the
>Republicans who find themselves sinking ever lower in the polls as the
>entirely partisan nature of this charade was made vividly clear
Of course THAT is the current Clintonite line. However, polls are funny
things as they can be distorted and sometimes change very rapidly. Why are
so many DemocRATS afraid of witnesses? Aren't they concerned about the
truth, or have they already decided, in violation of the written oath to the
contrary, like Sen. Schumer and Boxer that Clinton is innocent?
Bill Mulcahy
Docky Wocky
RE: Bubba's Coming State of Union Performance
"He is going ahead with it on schedule as I was sure he would. I think his
advisors are hoping that this will work in his favor by Republicans jeering
and Democrats applauding, showing the "partisan" nature of the
impeachment..."
________________________________________
Constitution requires that he does it, but I didn't see anything in there
about requirment that congress critters have to stay there to listen to it.
Repubs should just walk out and let him give his cute little scam talk to
his Democrat henchmen. Want to play partisan? Then play partisan!
Joseph Java
<rock...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>He is going ahead with it on schedule as I was sure he would. I think his
>advisors are hoping that this will work in his favor by Republicans jeering
>and Democrats applauding, showing the "partisan" nature of the impeachment.
>
>Clinton's are hoping for something even better, which may very well happen,
>where BOTH sides will applaud wildly. This always happens as we are told
>that it "is important to give the world a impression of solidarity" behind
>our President. If Congress does this they are phony as Slick Willy is.
>Everyone knows Congress is deeply divided over Clinton's criminality.
>
>I think the best response would be for those politicians (and I'm not ruling
>out democrats) who want Clinton to resign, should turn their backs to him as
>he walks in, instead of applauding. What a signal THAT would be! If enough
>representatives did that, we wouldn't even need a trial, Clinton would
>resign the next day! I know. It will never happen, but I can dream can't I?
>
>Bill Mulcahy
>
>
They will probably applaud; they always do. Maybe just with less
enthusiasm. Clinton supporters will applaud like mad I suppose and
give him a standing ovation for at least 5 minutes to show their
support. Am I wrong?
The main reason he is giving the address is that he must give the
appearance of business-as-usual. If he stops looking presidential he
will lose support.
-JJ
Bill Mulcahy
Joseph Java wrote in message
>They will probably applaud; they always do. Maybe just with less
>enthusiasm. Clinton supporters will applaud like mad I suppose and
>give him a standing ovation for at least 5 minutes to show their
>support. Am I wrong?
I think Clinton is hoping to use the State of the Union speech to
divide the Senate along partisan lines.
I almost threw up watching Democrats AND
Republicans applauding him last year AFTER the scandal broke!
That why I'm saying pro-impeachment representatives MUST
make some kind of demonstration of their disgust with him or
it will look as if Clinton has the whole Congress behind him.
The Clintonistas will be not only be applauding but SCREAMING
their adulation for him to make it appear so.
>The main reason he is giving the address is that he must give the
>appearance of business-as-usual. If he stops looking presidential he
>will lose support.
That's Clinton. All image and no substance. They don't call him
Slick Willy for nothing. It's just amazing that he has got his
President act down so well. If I was there I would probably
be booing him as hard as the Clintonistas were applauding.
Bill Mulcahy
Dave Hazelwood
request it in writing citing the seriousness of the trial.
Seems to me by going ahead with it Clinton is degrading and making a
mockery of the trial.
This is not good for him at all.
Anyway he can't give the speech if Congress does not allow him to
right? I mean it is their call NOT Slicks. You see Slick wants to
control EVERYTHING.
Bill Mulcahy
Dave Hazelwood wrote in message <36a2f2ae....@enews.newsguy.com>...
>I think Congress should simply not allow him to do it and simply
>request it in writing citing the seriousness of the trial.
That would be a good solution which Clinton would label as another
right wing scheme. However, if a DEMOCRAT proposed it I think it
would have a good chance of passing. Even some Clinton supporters,
like Sen. Diane Finestein, have recommended he NOT give a State
of the Union Address, which at one time was given to congress in writing.
>
>Seems to me by going ahead with it Clinton is degrading and making a
>mockery of the trial.
It COULD backfire on him and I am willing to bet that there will be
no State of the Union Address.
Bill Mulcahy
>
Pixie
phrases, and we'll then see Maxine, Barney, et al, mumble their assigned
responses. No big deal... And it might even bring forth a few laughs.
tai...@newsguy.com (Dave Hazelwood) wrote:
>I think Congress should simply not allow him to do it and simply
>request it in writing citing the seriousness of the trial.
>
>Seems to me by going ahead with it Clinton is degrading and making a
>mockery of the trial.
>
Lynn Wallace
>
> I think Congress should simply not allow him to do it and simply
> request it in writing citing the seriousness of the trial.
>
> Seems to me by going ahead with it Clinton is degrading and making a
> mockery of the trial.
Hmm. Who was it who were saying just a couple months ago how impeachment
wouldn't distract the nation, or disrupt the nation's business? We're a vibrant
democracy, and all that.
Was it, maybe, SATAN???? Sorry, I mean, the REPUBLICANS????
> This is not good for him at all.
Just conducting the nation's business, you know.
The case that a president under trial of impeachment in the Senate should not
give a State of the Union address as scheduled is not a prima facie one.
> Anyway he can't give the speech if Congress does not allow him to
> right? I mean it is their call NOT Slicks. You see Slick wants to
> control EVERYTHING.
Now there's a crafty thought. We all quiver at the might of the intellect that
came up with that one.
No, Congress will invite, Clinton will speak. Congress doesn't want to appear
petty, Clinton wants to do his job.
--
Sincerely,
Lynn Wallace
P.S. I do not speak for the Salt Lake City Olympic Organizing Committee on this
issue.
Dan Kimmel
<rock...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>Dan Kimmel wrote in message
>
>>Ah, wouldn't it be great? And the day after it would be the
>>Republicans who find themselves sinking ever lower in the polls as the
>>entirely partisan nature of this charade was made vividly clear
>
>Of course THAT is the current Clintonite line. However, polls are funny
>things as they can be distorted and sometimes change very rapidly. Why are
>so many Democrats afraid of witnesses?
Not afraid. They're simply not necessary. The GOPhers argued this
themselves in refusing to hear such witnesses when the Judiciary
Committee conducted its sham investigation. Now they're being taken
at their word and it's KILLING them.
>Aren't they concerned about the
>truth, or have they already decided, in violation of the written oath to the
>contrary, like Sen. Schumer and Boxer that Clinton is innocent?
On the contrary, you should be concerned about any rightwing GOPher
who does not declare him or herself in favor of the presumption of
innocence that we ALL enjoy in a legal proceeding. I think several of
the Republicans have already violated their oaths.
The American People
There will be witnesses and it is killing the White House.
Al Shurgalla
Do his job? Like bomb Iraq again and kill innocents to postpone a
vote? He intends to use the SOTU message as nothing more that another
Hollywood stunt similar to the pep rally he had on the WH lawn after
the impeachment vote. Giving the SOTU at this time is intended by him
to trivialize the Senate trial.
I just BET that he is going to come up with some fantastically wild
idea with the sole purpose of sucking up to the public that gets him
roaring public support for the SOTU. He intends to use that to shove
in the faces of the Senators daring them to convict him. To me this is
another form of obstruction of justice. Whatever he comes up with of
course be impossible to actually implement (like his earlier medical
reform) and he knows it but he don't care because it is all just a
Hollywood stunt anyway to avoid conviction based on the truth and the
facts. It is yet another mirror and puff of smoke by Slick.
Dan Kimmel
Shurgalla) wrote:
>Do his job? Like bomb Iraq again and kill innocents to postpone a
>vote? He intends to use the SOTU message as nothing more that another
>Hollywood stunt similar to the pep rally he had on the WH lawn after
>the impeachment vote. Giving the SOTU at this time is intended by him
>to trivialize the Senate trial.
President Clinton doesn't have to do anything to trivialize the Senate
trial. The Republicans are taking care of that for him.
>I just BET that he is going to come up with some fantastically wild
>idea with the sole purpose of sucking up to the public that gets him
>roaring public support for the SOTU. He intends to use that to shove
>in the faces of the Senators daring them to convict him. To me this is
>another form of obstruction of justice.
Quick. Call Henry Hyde. Maybe they can add a new charge: "Giving the
State of the Union address."
There are none so blind as those who REFUSE to see.
David Goldman
>vote?
No, no. His job is having extra-marital affairs on the job with
subordinates and engaging in fund raisers besides not meeting with his
cabinet for 8 months........
Lynn Wallace
>
> Lynn Wallace <law...@xmission.com> wrote:
> >
> >No, Congress will invite, Clinton will speak. Congress doesn't want to appear
> >petty, Clinton wants to do his job.
>
> Hollywood stunt similar to the pep rally he had on the WH lawn after
> the impeachment vote. Giving the SOTU at this time is intended by him
> to trivialize the Senate trial.
Then I guess it's just tough shit for you guys who hate him that Congress
scheduled the trial to coincide with his long-planned SOTU. Cry if you must,
it's therapeutic.
> I just BET that he is going to come up with some fantastically wild
> idea with the sole purpose of sucking up to the public that gets him
> roaring public support for the SOTU. He intends to use that to shove
> in the faces of the Senators daring them to convict him.
You mean try to get the approval rating fro 70 to 75%? (With compliments to Joe
Lockhart.)
To me this is
> another form of obstruction of justice.
With a razor-sharp legal mind like yours, you too could be a House (mis)Manager.
Whatever he comes up with of
> course be impossible to actually implement (like his earlier medical
> reform) and he knows it but he don't care because it is all just a
> Hollywood stunt anyway to avoid conviction based on the truth and the
> facts. It is yet another mirror and puff of smoke by Slick.
I bet he just pisses you off, don't he?
Insanity Set
quite pleased NOT to have witnesses during the Impeachment Inquiry since
they thought the votes to impeach would never be there. They guessed
wrong.
Dan Kimmel wrote:
>
> On Mon, 11 Jan 1999 10:24:48 -0500, "Bill Mulcahy"
> <rock...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >Dan Kimmel wrote in message
> >
> >>Ah, wouldn't it be great? And the day after it would be the
> >>Republicans who find themselves sinking ever lower in the polls as the
> >>entirely partisan nature of this charade was made vividly clear
> >
> >Of course THAT is the current Clintonite line. However, polls are funny
> >things as they can be distorted and sometimes change very rapidly. Why are
> >so many Democrats afraid of witnesses?
>
> Not afraid. They're simply not necessary. The GOPhers argued this
> themselves in refusing to hear such witnesses when the Judiciary
> Committee conducted its sham investigation. Now they're being taken
> at their word and it's KILLING them.
>
Dan Kimmel
wrote:
>You don't cross examine witnesses in the investigation. The Demos were
>quite pleased NOT to have witnesses during the Impeachment Inquiry since
>they thought the votes to impeach would never be there. They guessed
>wrong.
That what was James St. Clair (Nixon's lawyer) doing during all those
sessions of the Judiciary Committee back in '74?