Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Clinton's Scandals: Is this corruption the worst ever? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Borzou Daragahi who wrote (8158)	10/12/1998 9:07:00 PM
From: George Coyne	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

Borzou, Leaving aside the fact that you misunderstand the real problem with this president's behavior, you make some points to be considered. As I'm sure it must be with any country, it is difficult for an American to view the world other than through an American prism. More disturbing however is your suggestion that the people of this or any country should tolerate criminal behavior in their leaders because criminal behavior may have occurred in the past. Should that in any way preclude "high minded rhetoric" and enough indignation to correct the situation? I hope you believe not. G. W.

To: Borzou Daragahi who wrote (8158)	10/12/1998 11:08:00 PM
From: Zoltan!	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 13994

Watergate bipartisanship is pro-Clinton spin, not reality One of the great myths going unchallenged in the impeachment debate is that the process has fallen into shameful partisanship and unfairness in contrast to the Watergate inquiry. Republicans and Democrats were supposedly models of bipartisan comity in that probe. Most of the media and much of the public have bought the line, carefully spun by the White House and Democrats in general as they try to delegitimize the investigation of President Clinton led by Republicans in Congress. The latest Time magazine quotes John Seiberling, an Ohio Democrat who served on the House Judiciary Committee in 1974, summing up the comparison: ''Our results were clearly a bipartisan effort; I don't detect any of that today.'' One of the most vocal Cassandras pressing the point is Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., the ranking minority member of the House Judiciary Committee conducting the impeachment inquiry. Speaking in most solemn tones, he talks about how civil it was back then, when Republican President Richard Nixon was the target, and how nasty it is now. Conyers should know. He was a member of the committee in 1974 that looked into Watergate. So if he says the process was bipartisan then and partisan now, he must be right. But checking the historical record, it would appear his memory is a bit faulty. It turns out that Democrats and Republicans fought bitterly, just as they are doing now, over every detail, from the length and scope of the inquiry to the right of Nixon's lawyer to sit in on closed committee sessions. The main difference is then the president was Republican and Democrats controlled the Congress. Now it's the reverse. Back then, majority Democrats, over minority GOP objections, led probes not only into Nixon's role in the Watergate burglary and subsequent cover-up, but also into the president's tax returns, his role in conducting the Vietnam War and fund-raising by his re-election committee. This time, majority Republicans want the open-ended investigation of Clinton, Democrats want it limited to the Monica Lewinsky matter. It was Conyers himself who introduced an article of impeachment against Nixon that charged him with concealing plans to bomb Cambodia. The measure was defeated 12-26 when nine Democrats and all 17 Republicans voted against it in committee. Conyers also was harshly critical when the president balked at turning over certain tapes and files to the committee. He pushed for an immediate House vote on impeachment ''for contempt and obstruction of the constitutional process.'' The Conyers motion lost, 29-9. An editorial on July 30, 1974, in The Dallas Morning News, which criticized the fairness of the impeachment hearings, noted: ''(Democrats) like John Conyers and Jerome Waldie (of California) could scarcely be restrained from charging Nixon with setting the 'Great Fire of London.' They made it plain that the evidence, so far as they were concerned, already was in.'' Many Watergate votes on procedural issues - such as whether hearings should be open or closed, what material should be subpoenaed and what witnesses should be called, went mostly along party lines. But much of that fighting was hidden from public view because the committee held many procedural meetings in secret. Of course, plenty of what went on did leak out and get into the papers, if not onto live TV. ''The (Watergate) committee's closed session June 26 to consider summoning witnesses was marked by sharp partisan discord,'' reported Congressional Quarterly, relying on what had to be leaks. What leads many to believe the Watergate process was less partisan was that the ultimate votes on articles of impeachment included many Republican crossovers. But it remains to be seen whether the comparable votes at the end of the current inquiry will be any different. One clear difference between now and then is that we didn't have 24-hour news programs amplifying the rhetoric. Nowadays, the endless cable and radio chat shows air all manner of overheated rhetoric at all hours of the day and night. In the 1970s, TV consisted of a few national networks on which the dialogue had to be more restrained. The media then tended to be more fastidious in their reactions. An editorial in The Philadelphia Inquirer chastised then-vice president Gerald Ford for calling the committee's impeachment vote ''partisan.'' The point of the editorial being that because Ford could become president if Nixon was removed from office, he should not be taking sides in the fight. We haven't heard similar criticism of Vice President Gore for his partisan defense of Clinton. But myths die hard. usatoday.com