Posted on 06/08/2003 11:21:27 AM PDT by kattracks
Let's review, shall we?
It may be safe to say that both the RNC and DNC have had their fair share of leaders commiting indefensible acts. The telling trait, the identifying attribute, is how each party responded to such actions.
Back in the 70s, the GOP had one of it's leaders commit indefensible acts in the form of theft. In the end, Nixon was never defeated by impeachment because the party at the time (interestingly the head of the RNC at the time was none other than George HW Bush) told Nixon "Your party will not defend the indefensible" and informed Nixon that not only did he not have votes, but that the GOP would not lobby to get them, and that his support was dried up.
What's more? Nixon took this advice very seriously and resigned, thus saving the party further damage, and sparing the country a long drawn out fight that would ultimtly end in his impeachment. It was the best thing for the country, it was the best thing for the executive branch, and it was the honorable thing to do, and I, as a proud american, am very, VERY proud of the actions of the GOP, (namley George WH Bush Sr). during that trying time.
Let's contrast and compare.
In the late 90s, Bill Clinton was exposed as the weak willed person that he is when the good people of this great nation learned of his indefensible acts.
How did the DNC respond? Did the head of the DNC tell the head of the executive branch that they will not defend the indefensible???? No.
Did the then head of the DNC put his country above party???? No.
Did the then head of the DNC show respect for the American people???? No.
Not only did the then head of the DNC not rise to the cause before him, and look at the greater needs of his country, they released their tax-payer-funded media shills to defend the indefensible for weeks and months and even years on end, thus causing the party a great deal of damage, and still costs them votes across much of this country to this day.
This decision, to put your own blind lust for power, your own naked passions, and your own wanton disregard for the needs of the nation above and beyond the needs of the party, is simply a lack of statesmanship, and shows a complete lack of respect for the American people.
This is why, among other reasons, America wanted a statesman in 2000 and got a good man in GWB, and this is also why the DNC lost more power in 2002.
Let's be straight.
An entire generation of Americans know the DNC for one thing, and one thing only.
Shilling for a pig.
Unlikely. The early primaries will determine a winner early. It certainly won't be a mess. The only ones who have a chance at winning will be Kerry, Edwards or Dean. Dean is a longshot. Lieberman is too moderate (for the primaries) and too boring. Kucinich and Mosley-Braun are jokes. Sharpton will start losing support if it actually comes to the point that he might have an outside chance of winning. Graham is too boring as well. Gephardt has no gravitas.
I can't envision a scenario in which the winner will not be obvious by the convention.
in other news: http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/607.htm
In "Living History," which officially goes on sale tomorrow, Clinton also compares her willingness to forgive Bill with Nelson Mandela's decision to forgive his white jailers.
"It was a challenge to forgive Bill . . . [but] if Mandela could forgive, I would try," she writes.
Usualy forgiving comes after a Divorce. You know, you figure your husband cannot fix his mistakes so you let another man fix his mistakes for you. You divorce and get married again. No, the truth is Hillary had no choice, because she could not find another husband, end of story.
... same thing with Mandela by the way... he could not find qualified recruits to man jails, so he had to keep the same jail wardens on their jobs...
"Look, who do you think we'd have in office come the 2000 elections--a discredited lame-duck Clinton, or a President Gore who would not only be eligible for election in 2000, but again in 2004?Had the Republicans taken that approach, they probably would have weathered the 1998 elections much much better."Politically, it would be best for us if this whole issue went away so the Democrats had a lame duck going into 2000. But our duty isn't to do what's politically best for us, but rather to do what's right under the law. And under the law Bill Clinton's actions constituted the serious crime of perjury."
Sorry Babs, but Hillary, Whitewater, FBI Files, Monica, Chinagate, and so on and so on and so on, (list is too long to name them all) are ALL fair game if she dares make a run for president. Dear God, I shudder at the mere thought.
Good question. But think about it. To RATS, even being caught telling a lie is better for them then telling the truth.
Think of the magnitude of that dilemma. They HAVE to lie in order maintain their political viability. The truth is much more damaging to a RAT than being caught telling a lie.
How long can a house built on such a weak foundation stand?
Anybody accusing others of a conspiracy must be part of a bigger one just as it takes a thief to know a thief.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.