tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-408858764761620479.post449510647387046226..comments2024-03-28T14:14:11.551-06:00Comments on Unabashedly American: The Pledge to Prevent the Convening of a Lame Duck CongressDarrell Michaelshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05474956372325309461noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-408858764761620479.post-30623445269056112182010-08-06T17:49:19.374-06:002010-08-06T17:49:19.374-06:00Only when the right IS right. (Of course there is...Only when the right IS right. (Of course there is a reason why they are called "The Right".) :)<br /><br />I did notice that you cannot dispute the truth of my argument though, sir...Darrell Michaelshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05474956372325309461noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-408858764761620479.post-16021551896634006702010-08-06T13:43:00.450-06:002010-08-06T13:43:00.450-06:00always a caveat for the right.always a caveat for the right.Dave Splashhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16416298425231496822noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-408858764761620479.post-8822148427704998242010-08-06T12:54:54.486-06:002010-08-06T12:54:54.486-06:00So can I assume you didn't sign then? :)
You...So can I assume you didn't sign then? :)<br /><br />You are correct in your statement of the facts, Dave. The difference is that the Republicans impeached Clinton knowing that they would likely pay for it in public opinion and votes. <br /><br />They chose to do the right thing anyway and hold a president that perjured himself, suborned perjury, witness tampered, and hid subpoaened evidence accountable.<br /><br />They did not do it to further an agenda or consolidate power like the current Democrats are cynically doing. They knew this would cost them and they gained nothing for it, except the knowledge that they were doing the right thing. THAT is the difference, my friend!Darrell Michaelshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05474956372325309461noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-408858764761620479.post-71903817453967394942010-08-06T10:52:50.630-06:002010-08-06T10:52:50.630-06:00And the impeachment example I used was clearly &qu...And the impeachment example I used was clearly "against the will of the people". All polling in late '98 showed a large majority of the country was strongly opposed to impeachment. Plus the Repubs lost seats in the election, shrinking their majority.<br /><br />ABC News in September 98: "If he does not resign, do you think Congress should or should not impeach Clinton and remove him from office?"<br />Should impeach 25<br />Should not 69<br />No opinion 6"<br /><br />Gallup/CNN/USA Today Poll. October 6-7, 1998:<br /><br />"Finally, we would like to ask you one overall question about what you would prefer to see happen with President Clinton. Would you prefer to see him stay in office for the remaining two years of his term, OR, would you prefer to see him leave office before the end of his term, either through impeachment or resignation?"<br />Stay in office 65<br />Leave office 34<br />No opinion 1"<br /><br />You can find an entire report <a href="http://www.pollingreport.com/scandal2.htm" rel="nofollow">here</a>.<br /><br />Not sure how passing a bill - any bill - is more serious than trying to impeach a president, against the clear will of the nation, in a lame duck session.Dave Splashhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16416298425231496822noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-408858764761620479.post-36641396049753858642010-08-06T10:38:00.432-06:002010-08-06T10:38:00.432-06:00Funny how when Newt impeached the president in a l...Funny how when Newt impeached the president in a lame duck session, no one on the right was forced to wait until the new Congress was in session to proceed.<br /><br />This is nonsense. Bills have been passed in lame duck sessions for over a hundred years.<br /><br />There is no "Obama exception" to the rules of Congress. Nice try, though.Dave Splashhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16416298425231496822noreply@blogger.com