Tea Party/ GOP-

[Joe]

From what I've read, the Clinton Impeachment is what ratcheted up the level of polarization to what it is now.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by Joe

From what I've read, the Clinton Impeachment is what ratcheted up the level of polarization to what it is now.

I think you could be right Joe but if I recall the Dems effed over GB1 pretty good too.
Remember the good old days, when a lie "no new taxes" could bring down a President.

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

I think you could be right Joe but if I recall the Dems effed over GB1 pretty good too.
Remember the good old days, when a lie "no new taxes" could bring down a President.

Bush 41 made a massive flip flop and couldn't spin it as he had no charisma...you can't say the Dem's were out of line here, the issue was with the voters.

From what I've read the difference in tone started in the House under Clinton. Certainly there has always been intense partisanship, but pre-Clinton Republicans and Democrats were often friends and would go have a drink after a good fight on the floor.

Today, your party leadership will chastise you for fraternizing with the enemy.

I blame Tom Delay and Newt Gingrich.

-spence

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

Bush 41 made a massive flip flop and couldn't spin it as he had no charisma...you can't say the Dem's were out of line here, the issue was with the voters.

From what I've read the difference in tone started in the House under Clinton. Certainly there has always been intense partisanship, but pre-Clinton Republicans and Democrats were often friends and would go have a drink after a good fight on the floor.

Today, your party leadership will chastise you for fraternizing with the enemy.

I blame Tom Delay and Newt Gingrich.

-spence

Bush 41 got screwed over by the Dems. Bush 42 worked with the both sides on many issues.
I'm shocked that you don't find the Dems at fault at all..
The arrogance of that has occured since last Jan. has stunned the nation. To you it's no big deal.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Joe

From what I've read, the Clinton Impeachment is what ratcheted up the level of polarization to what it is now.

There was a previous impeachment attempt that had direct bearing on the "polarization." During the inquiry into the impeachment of Richard Nixon, a young lawyer named Hillary Rodham was appointed to the staff of Jerome Zeifman, the House Judiciary Committee Chief Counsel for the proceedings. She was recommended by Ted Kennedy. She played a significant, albeit nasty role, in the inquiry. She, along with others, tried to create a scheme to deny Nixon the right to counsel during the investigation. She endeavored to write a legal brief arguing there is no right to representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding. Zeifman told her that she was wrong, that there was precedent for such counsel in the impeachment attempt of S.C. Justice William O. Douglas. And he told her that all documents establishing this fact were in the Judiciary committee's public file. So, she then removed those files to her offices which were secured and inaccesible to the public. Then she wrote a legal brief arguing that THERE WAS NO PRECEDENT FOR RIGHT TO COUNSEL DURING AN IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING! The brief, of course, was fraudulent and ridiculous, and Zeifman believes she would have been disbarred if it had been submitted to a judge. He believes the attempt to deny Nixon counsel was to block any attempt to cross-examine Howard Hunt (the Watergate break-in mastermind), who had the goods on nefarious activities of the Kennedy administration that would have made Watergate look "like a day at the beach." There were a couple of other illegal or dirty actions by Rodham during the proceedings. As a result, Zeifman, a life-long Democrat, refused to give her a letter of recommendation "Because she was a liar. She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the constitution, the rules of the house, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality."

Much of the "polarization" that may have surfaced during Clinton's impeachment, certainly was inspired by the actions, not only of the hounding of Nixon for what was no worse than what had gone on in previous administrations (perhaps, less worse--covering up someone else's petty crime in comparison to Clinton covering up his own,) but the fact that Clinton was married to the woman who was instrumental in bringing Nixon down. And she was now "standing by her man" who was, essentialy, guilty of what she had opposed. A lot of payback, political and personal, was involved in the "polarization."

She certainly showed, later on, that same propensity to cover things up and move documents after that early foray into politics and the law. Rather than learning to be better, she learned how to do it better.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

There was a previous impeachment attempt that had direct bearing on the "polarization." During the inquiry into the impeachment of Richard Nixon, a young lawyer named Hillary Rodham was appointed to the staff of Jerome Zeifman, the House Judiciary Committee Chief Counsel for the proceedings. She was recommended by Ted Kennedy. She played a significant, albeit nasty role, in the inquiry. She, along with others, tried to create a scheme to deny Nixon the right to counsel during the investigation. She endeavored to write a legal brief arguing there is no right to representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding. Zeifman told her that whe was wrong, that there was precedent for such counsel in the impeachment attempt of S.C. Justice William O. Douglas. And he told her that all documents establishing this fact were in the Judiciary committee's public file. So, she then removed those files to her offices which were secured and inaccesible to the public. Then she wrote a legal brief arguing that THERE WAS NO PRECEDENT FOR RIGHT TO COUNSEL DURING AN IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING! The brief, of course, was fraudulent and ridiculous, and Zeifman believes she would have been disbarred if it had been submitted to a judge. He believes the attempt to deny Nixon counsel was to block any attempt to cross-examine Howard Hunt (the Watergate break-in mastermind), who had the goods on nefarious activities of the Kennedy administration that would have made Watergate look "like a day at the beach." There were a couple of other illegal or dirty actions by Rodham during the proceedings. As a result, Zeifman, a life-long Democrat, refused to give her a letter of recommendation "Because she was a liar. She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the constitution, the rules of the house, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality."

Much of the "polarization" that may have surfaced during Clinton's impeachment, certainly was inspired by the actions, not only of the hounding of Nixon for what was no worse than what had gone on in previous administrations (perhaps, less worse than covering up someone else's petty crime in comparison to Clinton covering up his own,) but the fact that Clinton was married to the woman who was instrumental in bringing Nixon down. And she was now "standing by her man" who was, essentialy, guilty of what she had opposed. A lot of payback, political and personal, was involved in the "polarization."

She certainly showed that propensity to cover things up and move documents after that early foray into politics and the law. Rather than learning to be better, she learned how to do it better.

You forgot the part about Hillary pulling the trigger on Vince Foster.

-spence

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

You forgot the part about Hillary pulling the trigger on Vince Foster.

-spence

There sure were alot of dead people around those two...tragic

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

You forgot the part about Hillary pulling the trigger on Vince Foster.

-spence

Ah . . . good point. But that would not have contributed to the "polarization."

Anyway, Zeifman didn't speak about that.

Is your non sequitur supposed to discredit what he says? He was there. You were not. He was the House Judiciary Committee Chief Counsel. He was her boss, and was speaking of first, hands on, experience. Are you accusing him of, as JohnnyD would say, fabrication?