Speaking od PARDONS...

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Unk's Wild Wild West : One Thread

... how come the Repugnants didn't get all riled up about these??

IRAN CONTRA

Summary of Prosecutions

After Independent Counsel Lawrence E. Walsh's appointment in December 1986, 14 persons were charged with criminal offenses. Eleven persons were convicted, but two convictions were overturned on appeal. Two persons were pardoned before trial and one case was dismissed when the Bush Administration declined to declassify information necessary for trial. On December 24, 1992, President Bush pardoned Caspar W. Weinberger, Duane R. Clarridge, Clair E. George, Elliott Abrams, Alan D. Fiers, Jr., and Robert C. McFarlane.

-- Repugnants (are @ hypocritical. scumbags), February 17, 2001

Answers

Did these guys buy their pardons? Hey, it's not only Republicans that are offended by Clinton-Rich. The NY Times is all over the guy. Democrats in Burton's committee are pissed.

You should be pissed too, if for no other reason than Clinton embarrassed your party. For your own sake, don't defend the indefensible. Shun the tarbaby Clinton. He did not do you proud. Take the offense in battles that you can win.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), February 17, 2001.


Shun the tarbaby Clinton

Methinks you're getting a little emotional there, Lars. There hasn't been a president in MY lifetime who hasn't done some good, as well as some bad. I have no reason to shun Clinton. IMO, he did more good for the country than bad. I know that opinion may be contrary to yours. I can't get excited about previous administration pardons either, but [as I said in another thread], if the complaint is over Rich, he's had more years of ties to Cheney than Clinton, and I doubt the complaint will go far.

2002 could be a year of promise [to me], although for the first time in my now long life, it looks like I'll have to declare myself affiliated with a particular party. The only advantage to that seems to be in the nomination of a particular candidate for primaries, and I'd really like to be in a position to do that for multiple parties....not to pick the best in one versus the worst in the other, but to pick what I thought to be the best in each. There's something wrong with this whole party thing, IMHO.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), February 17, 2001.


I hate it when I screw up and must clean up after myself.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), February 17, 2001.

Anita:

In some states or localities, the primary is the only interesting election, because the national parties are largely irrelevant. If 90% of the people are going to vote for one party anyway, then what matters is the candidate for that party. I always registered for the majority party in those places, because only my primary election vote was meaningful.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 17, 2001.


Lars:

Pardons are always sensitive, because of course whoever is pardoned was found guilty, so whoever does the pardoning is exonerating guilty people, and his enemies can always use this to make him look bad.

However, I seriously doubt that Clinton has set a precedent by selling pardons for personal gain. Others have surely done this in the past, but most outgoing presidents don't need the money, or have too much integrity to take it. And priests have been selling indulgences for profit for 2000 years, or nearly.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 17, 2001.



OK, I just think that Dems are wasting their time and energy in defending old Bill. I respect you guys and (beyond a point) hate to see you tilting at windmills.

As a Republican, I admit that I enjoy this spectacle. But my pleasure is tempered by frustration that Clinton is still on stage and we are keeping him there. I don't think Bush appreciates it either (or Hillary).

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), February 17, 2001.


Flint:

Share a little more with me on this declaration of a party thing. I grew up in Chicago, so I tended to vote for Republicans when the Democrats were obviously just engaging in the whole experience for the benefits of power, and Democrats when the Republican counterparts just went against all my beliefs, but I'd never before thought ahead to the primaries.

Presidentially, I would have preferred Bradley in a race with McCain. How might I have accomplished something had I declared a party preference previously? [I'm still not convinced I want to do this thing, yet I was really offended that I was offered no choices on the ballot this year in some races, as the Republicans ran unopposed.] It almost seems as though I would be better off registering as a Democrat to PUT someone on the plate in opposition to the other parties, yet I'm quite aware that the Democratic Party CHOSE to support only two candidates state-wise, and I don't have the money personally to pay for someone's campaign.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), February 17, 2001.


Anita:

This depends on the state. In some states, you register as a member of a poltical party, and this allows you to vote in the primary elections held by that party. Texas was such a state when I left.

When I first moved to Texas (30+ years ago), Democrats ran unopposed for most offices in November, or else the Republican opposition was just a token candidate without funding. But the primaries were where the big bucks were spent, and these were hotly contested, often with runoff elections. If you were conservative, you voted for the conservative Democrat (who would be a Republican in most places), otherwise you voted for the liberal democrat (normal Democrat in most places). Whoever won the primary was your representative/senator/dogcatcher, pending the November rubber stamp. In these states, voting in the important primaries is how to be represented.

However, other states don't have party registration, or allow registered members of any party to vote in any primary. Then it doesn't matter which party you register with. But the primaries are STILL important in most places.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 17, 2001.


Flint:

I'm not convinced I understand the whole thing, but it LOOKS like I need to wait and find out who the candidates are in each party and THEN register for the 2002 primary. I guess the BIG question in my mind is: "Once I've done this in 2002, can I UNDO it in 2004 if my preference would be the another party?" I really hate this whole party system.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), February 17, 2001.


Anita:

Parties are inevitable in a system where we have single member districts, winner take all. What would you propose instead? That all candidates run on custom platforms of their own personal devising? We nearly have that now, and parties in the US are more of a situational convenience than otherwise. Contrast with Britain, where party-line voting is strict in their houses. Changing either system requires really fundamental alterations, like proportional representation.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 17, 2001.



Flint:

It's not my intent to waste your time. I'm well aware of the problems associated with having so many parties that each individual goal projects one more. If you have an answer to whether I can change [easily] an association from 2002 to 2004, I'd be interested in it.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), February 17, 2001.


Anita:

I remember John Tower, a Texas senator, giving a speech I attended. He told a story of someone who came up after another speech he gave and said "I like your ideas. How do I become a Republican?" And Tower replied, "How did you become a Democrat?" And this person answered, "I was *born* a Democrat!"

So all you need to do is change your registration, if Texas still has you registered for a party. Go to the nearest voter registration place and fill out the forms. People do it all the time. There might be some time limit between party switches, but it can't be very long.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 17, 2001.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ