Hypocrisy and cronyism are not the domain of only one American political party.
With all of the uproar from both sides over Scooter Libby's sentence commutation, a few people out there are attempting to remind us all that for every Republican complaint about Bill Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich, there is an equal and oppositely corresponding Democratic complaint about a Bush president pardoning minions for crimes against our national law.
Scooter Libby merits special attention concerning this debate, for he's involved on both sides of it. Not only was his prison sentence eliminated by presidential decree, he campaigned the Clinton White House for a pardon of Marc Rich to eliminate his.
Many Bushcovites have loudly proclaimed the schoolyard principle of "It's OK for George to do it because Slick Willie did!", but it should be noted that the initial outrageous pardons of the current political era were issued by Republican presidents, beginning with Gerald Ford's infamous pardon of Richard Nixon immediately upon ensconcing himself in the still-warm seat in the Oval Office while Tricky Dickie was winging it west aboard Heir Farce Won to his San Clemency retreat. Why infamous? Nixon minion John Ehrlichman was sure that the deal was done long before Nixon actually resigned, indicating a deal was struck, maybe as early as when Ford was selected to replace convicted felon Spiro Agnew as Vice-President. The current president of vice, Dick Cheney, had a ringside seat for that bout!
Then there was Poppy Bush, who outraged many when he pardoned the traitorous actions of of Caspar Weinberger, et al, for the very same reasons Junior did. It was to ensure silence, as a raft of media representatives - which include the White House Staff Stenographers at The Washington Post, and the fiscally-conservative Republicans at The Chicago Tribune, and the mass-Red State-marketeers at USA Today - each remind us. The current president of vice had a ringside seat for that bout also!
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - gonzo marx
to me Hagel and Ron Paul remain two of the "best" within the GoP...both stand up for their Principles and aren't afraid of speaking out against what they think is wrong
now, i don't Agree with them on a lot of Issues, but in the vein of my admiration for Buckley or Will..i Respect their integrity
much as i dislike how many have used/abused their Executive powers of pardon and commutation, that one doesn't bother me nearly as much as the fictitious "executive privilege" that gets abused by both sides of the aisle..at least the power to pardon is clearly granted in the Constitution
if memory serves, "executive privilege" was something Eisenhower first claimed, and has never really been tested for legality...but i do know that it just doesn't appear in any copy of the Constitution i've read and is the tool used to cover quite a lot of abuses from both "gangs" when they hold office
thanks for the read, Realist...keep typing
Excelsior?
2 - bliffle
Of course, Clinton at least offered the excuse that pardoning Marc Rich would yield $156million in back taxes to the IRS, but personally I figured that Willie just wanted to get into Denise Rich's blouse. I mean, I did, didn't you? What a babe!
3 - moonraven
I have to agree with gonzo on this one. Pardons are never surprises, and they DO come with the turf. If you don't want crooks being pardoned by other crooks, change the Constituion.
The stonewalling that is going on right now under the guise of "executive privilege" is a crock. And although there is no legal base for tolerating it, I don't see anyone doing a damn thing about it.
4 - Les Slater
The problem that I see with everyone here is that you're looking to solve the problem within the system.
Of course, we do have to work 'within' the system, but the closer we get to real and fundamental change, the 'system' will attempt to exclude this change with the use of the 'sytem'.
We all seem to know that this has been going on for some time and is getting worse. Many of us had hopes that someone would clean up the mess. It hasn't happened and there is no reason to believenthat it will.
We need another approach.
Les
5 - gonzo marx
well Les, our system does indeed give us plenty of options
but until the population is willing to step up and vote for candidates from other parties, or complete Independents , one has to work with the tools one has available
as i have stated many times before, there are rarely any i want to vote for, but ALWAYS someone i want to vote against
your mileage may vary
Excelsior?
6 - moonraven
It's hard to say what "the population" is willing to do.
The real problem is that independent candidates can't raise enough money from the savage capitalists (the ones that pay for "elections" in your name) to get into office.
Voting against candidates is just playing the game.
7 - gonzo marx
i'm not so certain about that, moonraven
take a look at Obama's fundraising...250,000 folks giving small donations each...no where near the limit, so they can give many more times if they so choose
you get a million folks who want an Independent candidate, each giving $20 a month over the course of a year and you have plenty of cash to run a campaign by any standard...and still leave plenty of room for those among your followers who are able to give more, thus raising the total even higher....stretch that out over 2 years and the figure becomes ridiculous...make it 2 million people and...
well...you get the Idea
that kind of Independent candidate has yet to stand up and speak out...but it IS possible
Excelsior?
8 - moonraven
But Obama is a completely specious example since he is in no way independent. Folks giving money are simply jumping on the bandwagon of a candidate that savage capitalism has already ordained as a possible winner.
9 - gonzo marx
and there appears to be some miscommunication here....
i didn't say look at Obama..i said look at his fundraising...big difference, eh?
i was speaking about the methodology of the fundraising, and the implications of small amounts of cash from a large donor base, and what it can do in the American system of elections
i did this in response to your statement- "The real problem is that independent candidates can't raise enough money from the savage capitalists (the ones that pay for "elections" in your name) to get into office."
to show exactly how an Independent candidate CAN raise more than enough money to campaign effectively
it's not about money, in this instance..it's about a candidate with a Message that will reach enough of the population to give that 10 or 20 dollars a month in support of said message
hope that helps
Excelsior?
10 - moonraven
It doesn't help ME.
I do not believe that enough US voters would ever vote for a non-system candidate to make the candidacy viable.
So they are not going to give the quanitity of donations that you suggest.
11 - gonzo marx
well, one cannot argue with a belief by utilizing reason...so we will just have to disagree
i merely wanted to point out that raising money was not the real problem, that a viable candidate with a compelling message was...
Excelsior?
12 - Les Slater
moonraven,
"I do not believe that enough US voters would ever vote for a non-system candidate to make the candidacy viable."
I don't think it is a simple as that. What do you mean by viable? All it takes is for a candidate to be a significant spoiler to put the two-party system into a crisis. After one shot and this party not backing down, there would be a sense that voting for a Democratic candidate would be a wasted vote.
New ballgame.
Les
13 - Ray Ellis
2000 taught us that voting for a dem is not wasted--at least until the "liberal" US Supreme Court steps in.
14 - moonraven
By viable I mean obviously having a chance at winning.
15 - Les Slater
"By viable I mean obviously having a chance at winning.
There's a good portion of self-defeat in that definition.
The viability of any campaign is whether it results in politics coming out at a higher level. In the current game it gets lower all the time.
16 - Lumpy
Change the system. We need to break up the existing parties and reform them on lines that actually represent the political beliefs of the people. We ought to have a socialist party and a religious party and a couple of moderate parties. All it would require is the current parties purging their extreme elements.
17 - moonraven
Les,
If you do not win, you do not change anything--because you don't have the power to do so.
I don't know if it's self-defeating to believe the US is finished--that all is needed now is to flush it--since I don't live there.
18 - Les Slater
moonraven,
"If you do not win, you do not change anything--because you don't have the power to do so."
What candidate winning in the U.S. gave women the right to vote? What candidate winning gave unions the right to strike?
A more recent example is Roe v Wade. We had Nixon in office and a Supreme Court that was not put on the bench by any elected official that was elected that had the slightest support for women controlling their own bodies.
This last example came obout in the wake a massive civil rights movement, anti-war movement, womens movement, gay rights movement, etc.
None of this came about because of results of elections.
Les
19 - Lumpy
Keep an eye on Ron Paul's fundraising when it is announced next week. In some waya it's going to make Obama's grassroots success look pale. It won't be as much money but it'll be lots of small contributors and no big ones. Like 200,000 contributions of under $100.
20 - gonzo marx
good to see you got that shift key fixed, Lumpy
but sticking with the gist of your comment...
i'll give some $$ to Ron Paul..i may not agree with some of his positions, but i Respect the integrity he shows by being willing to stand up and speak out
doubt i'd vote for anything with a GoP tag...but i would give him cash to win the primary
Excelsior?
21 - moonraven
Les,
Be specific. Don't talk about the past--that's nostalgia--tell us what you believe needs to be changed that can be changed without elections.
22 - Les Slater
moonraven.
"Be specific. Don't talk about the past--that's nostalgia--tell us what you believe needs to be changed that can be changed without elections."
You know that I am trying to get a political party off the ground so obviously I contemplate using the elections.
I plan for this party to be single issue, namely for the defense of immigrant rights, regardless of whether or not they have proper papers.
The main initial focus of the party would to build broad working class participation in next year's May Day mobilizations with the emphasis on the defense of immigrant rights. During the campaign for this mobilization there will be a call to vote for this party so as to begin building a mass public voice of the working class.
Les
23 - gonzo marx
Les sez - "I plan for this party to be single issue, namely for the defense of immigrant rights, regardless of whether or not they have proper papers."
oh my stars and garters...
Les, this one you and i are gonna brawl over
besides basci Human rights, which every homo sapiens deserves...what "rights" exactly are you espousing for illegal immigrants...
do note, i specify illegal ones, those who have broken the Law...NOT those who have gone through the process legally for visa or citizenship
my thought on this whole thing is to crack down on those who hire illegal immigrants, remove the demand by making it too costly, and the supply dries up
but this does not excuse those who broke the law, and the other bit that galls me, those who would reward said lawbreakers by allowing them to jump the line in front of people who have followed the Rules and are waiting (while working to qualify for citizenship)
Excelsior?
24 - Les Slater
Gonzo,
It is becoming increasingly clear to a growing portion of the population, especially within the working class, that the capitalist class is thoroughly incapable of running a government that benefits the majority of its population. The time is overripe for a serious alternative to this little gang of thieves and their hangers on.
It is only the working class that objectively has no interest whatsoever in continuing this deepening of the crisis of capitalism that they are trying to make pay the price for.
Before the working class will be able to undertake this task it needs to know who their real enemies are and who are, in reality, an integral part of OUR class. The biggest obstacle to this is the reactionary blaming of immigrants, especially those without papers, for the ills of capitalism.
You do recognize that it is the employers that are the ones that insist that there be some form of mechanism for these workers to be here for them to exploit so they can have higher profits. None of them supports the idea that these workers have full rights. They NEED these workers to not have the same rights as the working the citizen part of the working class. They WILL NOT solve the problem. THEIR government will see to it that they can continue this super exploitation.
Just like any workers that don’t have the same rights, they DO depress the wages of other parts of the class. If our class does not defend these workers, if the government gets away with how they are treating these workers, then the attacks will expand to other parts of a weekend working class. The capitalist class does not believe in the rights of anyone. Haven’t you noticed the increase in this trend?
The indignation about these people is totally reactionary. All progress in this country was accompanied by people breaking laws, from those that dumped tea in the harbor, to slaves crossing the border of the plantation, to women chaining themselves to capitol steps, to workers daring to form unions and strike. Many people were jailed, lost all, even their lives. I salute all of them, not condemn them.
Les
25 - gonzo marx
Les - i can easily agree as to the need for more political parties as part of the process
i can also easily agree that civil disobedience has done much in the history of the USA
however, i still stick to my stated position that allowing those who have broken the law to gain over those who follow the Law is inherently unjust and wrong on every level
you also don't answer the direct Question in my previous comment
big difference between committing civil disobedience for a Cause and to fight injustice...
another thing altogether to reward lawbreaking for personal gain over those who follow the rules
if that distinction is not apparent, then i don't know what more can be said
Excelsior?