DVD Talk Forum

DVD Talk Forum (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/)
-   Religion, Politics and World Events (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/religion-politics-world-events-47/)
-   -   Richard Mellon Scaife now thinks Clinton was a good President (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/religion-politics-world-events/493092-richard-mellon-scaife-now-thinks-clinton-good-president.html)

cungar 02-20-07 11:20 AM

Richard Mellon Scaife now thinks Clinton was a good President
 
From the NY Times:

February 19, 2007
As Clinton Runs, Some Old Foes Stay on Sideline
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
WASHINGTON, Feb. 16 — Back when Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton was first lady, no one better embodied what she once called the “vast right-wing conspiracy” than Richard Mellon Scaife.

Mr. Scaife, reclusive heir to the Mellon banking fortune, spent more than $2 million investigating and publicizing accusations about the supposed involvement of Mrs. Clinton and former President Bill Clinton in corrupt land deals, sexual affairs, drug running and murder.

But now, as Mrs. Clinton is running for the Democratic presidential nomination, Mr. Scaife’s checkbook is staying in his pocket.

Christopher Ruddy, who once worked full-time for Mr. Scaife investigating the Clintons and now runs a conservative online publication he co-owns with Mr. Scaife, said, “Both of us have had a rethinking.”

“Clinton wasn’t such a bad president,” Mr. Ruddy said. “In fact, he was a pretty good president in a lot of ways, and Dick feels that way today.”

Full article: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/19/us...in&oref=slogin

VinVega 02-20-07 11:30 AM

Well, I'm sure this will turn around some of our Conservative Clinton detractors on this board. ;)

Red Dog 02-20-07 11:31 AM

Hell, Bill Clinton is starting to look good to me after 6 years of Bush. ;)

kvrdave 02-20-07 11:41 AM

He was a good president in a lot of ways and he wasn't such a bad president.

classicman2 02-20-07 11:47 AM

I have 2 major problems with Clinton - violating his oath of office & doing nothing about Social Security & Medicare.

If I were to rate him (A-F), I'd give him a C+.

I'd be generous and give George W. and D-.

X 02-20-07 11:48 AM

Yeah, and Nixon was an excellent president. Unfortunately some things they both did weren't so good.

JasonF 02-20-07 11:48 AM

Hats off to Mr. Scaife for being big enough to admit (through a flunky, but still ...) that he was wrong. If only he hadn't caused so much damage during the 90s.

kvrdave 02-20-07 11:53 AM


Originally Posted by JasonF
Hats off to Mr. Scaife for being big enough to admit (through a flunky, but still ...) that he was wrong. If only he hadn't caused so much damage during the 90s.

I wonder if George Soros will have the same epiphany in a decade?

classicman2 02-20-07 12:05 PM

What do you think about Bill becoming the U. S. Senator from New York after his wife is elected president?

classicman2 02-20-07 12:09 PM

epiphany:

Hmm! I see someone has a crash course in vocablulary building. :lol:

dick_grayson 02-20-07 12:14 PM

who?
http://www.dvdreview.com/fullreviews...kToSchool3.jpg

JasonF 02-20-07 12:25 PM


Originally Posted by kvrdave
I wonder if George Soros will have the same epiphany in a decade?

George Soros has always supported President Clinton, so no -- probably not. ;)

Jason 02-20-07 05:29 PM


Originally Posted by kvrdave
I wonder if George Soros will have the same epiphany in a decade?

I don't think Soros is going to be proven wrong, though.

kvrdave 02-20-07 06:47 PM


Originally Posted by Jason
I don't think Soros is going to be proven wrong, though.


Given that he probably thinks Reagan was a terrible president as well, I don't think he could see if he was wrong or not.

Venusian 02-20-07 07:15 PM


Originally Posted by classicman2
What do you think about Bill becoming the U. S. Senator from New York after his wife is elected president?

I dont think he'd do it. its a step down.

Red Dog 02-20-07 07:27 PM


Originally Posted by classicman2
What do you think about Bill becoming the U. S. Senator from New York after his wife is elected president?


I would be envious of his short commute to work.

NCMojo 02-20-07 10:33 PM


Originally Posted by classicman2
I have 2 major problems with Clinton - violating his oath of office & doing nothing about Social Security & Medicare.

If I were to rate him (A-F), I'd give him a C+.

I'd be generous and give George W. and D-.

Couldn't it be argued that Bill Clinton tried to do something about Social Security -- proposing the transfer of $2.8 trillion from the general fund to the trust fund between 2000 and 2014, along with limited privitization -- and Medicare -- with his proposed 1993 health care reform plan -- only to be stymied by a recalcitrant Congress?

As for "violating his oath of office" -- how did Bill Clinton not "faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and... preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States"? Are you arguing that a puffed up perjury charge from a civil trial somehow means he violated his oath? Or is this based on something more nebulous, more character-driven?


(And I'm not sure on what basis you would not flunk GWB. I don't see it. Did he complete any of his term work? Did he turn in a single paper? Hell, do we have any documentary proof that he even attended the class??? If his Presidency was an SAT score, I'm not sure he'd even get the 200 points for signing his name correctly.)

Nutter 02-20-07 10:45 PM


Originally Posted by NCMojo
As for "violating his oath of office" -- how did Bill Clinton not "faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and... preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States"? Are you arguing that a puffed up perjury charge from a civil trial somehow means he violated his oath? Or is this based on something more nebulous, more character-driven?

Even if it had little impact on the governance of the nation, the lying under oath thing is probably the thing most people have a problem with. I still say that lying about blowjobs is infinitely better than lying to start a war. One has to wonder where the U.S. would be today had Bush engaged in some oval-office-intern-hijinks instead of trying to play "war president".

classicman2 02-21-07 07:46 AM

Bill Clinton, the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the Country, violated his Oath of Office when he lied under oath before a federal grand jury & in a civil deposition. That's hardly defending the Constitution. Come on, let's not be blinded as to the wrongs that Clinton did while attacking the wrongs that George W. Bush has done.

JasonF 02-21-07 08:05 AM


Originally Posted by classicman2
Bill Clinton, the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the Country, violated his Oath of Office when he lied under oath before a federal grand jury & in a civil deposition. That's hardly defending the Constitution. Come on, let's not be blinded as to the wrongs that Clinton did while attacking the wrongs that George W. Bush has done.

Is every crime a violation of the oath of office? If George W. Bush jaywalks, is he violating his oath of office?

Understand, I believe that lying to a grand jury or in a deposition is serious, contemptable, and under certain circumstances, criminal. I just don't think it constitutes a violation of the oath of office.

NCMojo 02-21-07 11:35 AM


Originally Posted by JasonF
Is every crime a violation of the oath of office? If George W. Bush jaywalks, is he violating his oath of office?

Understand, I believe that lying to a grand jury or in a deposition is serious, contemptable, and under certain circumstances, criminal. I just don't think it constitutes a violation of the oath of office.

This is sort of what I meant. To me, the oath of office encompasses two areas: faithfully executing the office of the Presidency (not using selective enforcement or misusing your position as Commander in Chief), and defending the Constitution (not trying to pack the Supreme Court, or circumvent the role of Congress, etc.) I don't see where Bill Clinton slipped up in either of those areas.

Now -- as far as being blinded to Clinton's wrongs -- that's a seperate matter. If you want to argue that his sexual pecadillos overshadow any real Presidential accomplishments, well, that's OK. I disagree, but I respect your opinion. I personally believe that the reverse is true -- that more people are blinded to Clinton's accomplishments by their personal opinion -- but I can at least understand where you're coming from.

(I'd personally give Clinton a solid B, maybe even a B plus. The frustrating thing is that he had A+ potential.)

Red Dog 02-21-07 11:52 AM


Originally Posted by JasonF
Is every crime a violation of the oath of office? If George W. Bush jaywalks, is he violating his oath of office?

Understand, I believe that lying to a grand jury or in a deposition is serious, contemptable, and under certain circumstances, criminal. I just don't think it constitutes a violation of the oath of office.


I think lying under oath qualifies as a 'high crime' but I also believe in prosecutorial discretion, and were I a 'prosecutor,' I wouldn't waste my time and resources (the public and government's time and resources) trying to prosecute this violation.

NCMojo 02-21-07 01:09 PM


Originally Posted by Red Dog
I think lying under oath qualifies as a 'high crime' but I also believe in prosecutorial discretion, and were I a 'prosecutor,' I wouldn't waste my time and resources (the public and government's time and resources) trying to prosecute this violation.

What you're talking about, though, are standards for impeachment. You can violate your presidential oath of office without committing a crime; similarly, as President, you can kill a man in cold blood, and be tried, convicted and sentenced, without violating that same oath. In fact, you could easily commit a high crime in the course of faithfully executing the office of the Presidency -- the attempted impeachment of Andrew Johnson comes to mind.

Again -- not defending Clinton's actions, or attempting ad nauseum to rehash the whole Kenneth Starr fiasco -- I just didn't agree that Clinton lying under oath in a civil trial qualified as a violation of his oath of office.

classicman2 02-21-07 01:13 PM

Impeachment is not a legal process. It's a political process. Therefore, what a prosecutor might or might not do is immaterial.

As has been said a number of times on this forum - quite a few times by me - if Clinton's job approval rating was 27% instead of 57%, he would have been gone.

btw: Who did Clinton put on the SC? Aren't they just as philosophically to the left as the Bush appointees are to the right?

Red Dog 02-21-07 01:18 PM


Originally Posted by classicman2
Impeachment is not a legal process. It's a political process. Therefore, what a prosecutor might or might not do is immaterial.


Hence why I used quotation marks around the word 'prosecutor.' I was simply saying how I would approach it if I were the 'prosecutor.' I would have exercised 'prosecutorial' discretion not to pursue impeachment.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:22 AM.


Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.