S. Carolina Gov Takes Missing in Action to get some tail. Should he step down ?

I agree, I completely agree.

But, what is different between me and you is, I never believe either political party's platform. In short, I believe little of what a candidate says, because he/she is merely pandering. I look at what the candidate has actually accomplished.

Now, it's clear that you place more importance in what a candidate says than I do.

The Dems pretend to preach "live and let live" in exactly the same way that the Repubs pretend to preach "family values". Neither of them practice what they preach. The Repubs cheat on their wives, and the Dems treat minorities like pets. Anyone who expects differently is sadly naive.

At the end of the day, a personal corruption is only a personal corruption. But if they break the law, or commit an abuse of power, then it becomes important. I may be wrong, but I think President Clinton's affair was the only affair that involved abuse of power and office. None of the other political affairs, even lowlife scummy John Edwards, involved abuse of power.

Curiously, President Clinton balanced the budget, lowered the debt, and grew the economy by leaving it alone. Pres. Clinton also created a lot of jobs by moving some administrative functions of the military to the private sector. President Obama could learn a lot from him.

 

This confession is shocking for republicans. A real one two punch with Palin stepping down although Palin is getting most of the attention. Not a better time to get a scandal to slip through the cracks.

 

Not at all, just a history of the kind of issues they support and attempting to make everyone pay their fair share.

Presidents and other high ranking officials have been abusing power since the Declaration of Independence, it's just that now we have more tools, technology and watchdogs looking to catch them.

I think he does. All Presidents have an open line to previous Presidents, and they leave each other notes. No matter what party they belong to, there is still a shared sense of duty for the office itself.

 

I'm not sure I follow you here. Clinton lied under oath. No one lied to get him to lie.

 

First of all The President is under no obligation , while in office, to testify or be called as a witness in any pending litigation or outside investigation. The White House has counsel for that and it is in place to protect the office against lawsuits and protect national security. The President cannot be put under oath, and be forced to answer questions for fear that he may be put into a line of questioning that undermines the nations security.
He can submit a deposition, but cannot be forced to answer questions under oath for things that happened before he was President.
Any litigation is typically postponed until after the term.

He can be called to testify in front of Congress for specific matters, but they need to be specific to the issue at hand, not random questions about anything under the sun.

Clinton volunteered his cooperation into the White Water Investigation to clear his name about that, under the premise that he would only be answering questions about THAT.

Kenneth Star agreed to the terms of the questioning to get the President's cooperation, and then once under oath, brought up Monica Lewinsky, which had nothing to do with White Water.

I thought that was, although legal, dirty. An as an Attorney, I thought Starr was very unethical, however, the cat was out of the bag.

 

I haven't researched this, but it sounds like you are claiming that the President is exempt from a Sixth Amendment subpoena (see below)? If that is so, what "law" exempts the President from complying with the Constitution?

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

 

Where do you come up with this stuff?

Do you mind letting me know what you think supports this statement?

 

I'm sure there are people trying to defend Nixon's behavior as well... Pathetic.

 

Well most of them are almost dead now. Time to move forward.

 

@hmansfield, we're all waiting to hear why you think the President is under no obligation to be called as a witness in any pending litigation or outside investigation.

 

The President doesn't answer personal lawsuits while in office. They either get differed until after his term, or handled by his own counsel.

A President can however be sued for things that happened before he was President, there is no protection there, unless it falls under other Federal guidelines, like he was a Senator , Congressman or other protected Federal employee at the time.

In other words, you can't sue the President because of things he did as President. You can't sue him for being a bad President, or not fulfilling a campaign promise.

Not only that, but the federal Government has to allow you to sue them.

The President cannot be disposed by an outside entity while in office. There are also rules in place for suing the Federal Government...too many to list, read the Constitution:
http://www.constitution.org/grossack/bivens.htm

Sorry that's the wrong link. I'm pretty sure I'm right on this, but if I am mistaken I will certainly make it right.
Edited:
OK, I was partially wrong, the separation of powers act does not protect the president against civil lawsuits for things that happened before he was President, however...presidential immunity does apply if the President could show that a private civil lawsuit would somehow interfere with the President's constitutionally-assigned duties...which would pretty much cover everything since he is President 24/7.

 

Lots more posts. Still have yet to see Corwin, Mia, or PittbullJack acknowledge Sandford was wrong. None of them referenced Ensign was wrong. None of them have a problem with Foley. None of them have a problem with Larry Craig.

They simply cannot admit a member of the GOP can ever be wrong ever.

Its no wonder this highly partisan narrown ultra-extremist element of the GOP has led that party into an utter disaster at the polls.

 

here is an interesting update...http://www.palmettoscoop.com/2009/09/09/sc-house-gop-caucus-asks-sanford-to-step-down/

60 of 73 members of the GOP legislature in South Carolina want Sanford to step down. Ethics probes found that he used expensive aircraft to fly around on other jaunts.

What I found very interesting in this forum was that regardless of the obvious inappropriateness of Sanford's actions, not one member of the Extremist Right wing here at DP P&R could ever directly condemn him. Not one.

Now an overwhelming majority of GOP members in that legislature want his butt out of the governor's chair. The guy makes them all look bad. Its obviously self defeating for them.

Regardless, the inability of any of the extremists here to be able to identify his actions as inappropriate speaks to the problems of extremism, whether its on the far right of American politics or anywhere's else.

Everything that is said and done from an extremist perspective is horrendously twisted to fit a political agenda. It never matters whether its good, bad, appropriate or not. Its always twisted to fit a political agenda...and when its an extremist one, its typically going to be a problem for the majority of folks.

I suppose this guy, Sanford is going down and will lose his position. Good riddance.

 

That's because the BIG difference between Liberal Dems and Conservative Reps is Dems can admit fault and mistakes within the party of past political actions and look at the situation as a whole, not just as it pertains to ME.

Reps walk the line, drink the Kool Aid, and shout the conservative fundamentals all the way and when ever faced with their own hypocrisy or ridiculous on sided selfish rhetoric , the usual response is not to discuss it or admit any fault, but to bring up the deeds and actions of a past Dem to redirect the conversation.

I suspect for the rest of my life, when ever I talk politics with any Conservatives, I can expect to hear, "Well, what about Clinton" until the end of time.

If you notice, on this forum, the response to any questioning of Conservative Issues or Republican Politicians is usually met with a slew of attacks against Democrats (like they are some kind of race of people), and not a discussion about the issue or an answer to the question.

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Republicans OFTEN admit fault (like Sanford did). Democrats will lie, Lie, LIE about it up until the very last second (like Edwards and Jefferson and Blagojevich AND...), and even when they are caught, Democrats still have to be dragged kicking and screaming, out of office despite mountains of evidence of their guilt (like Jefferson and Blagojevich)

Clinton? He cheated on his wife and was accused of RAPE. To cover it all up, he:

• committed multiple counts of Willful Perjury,
• encouraged others to perjure themselves in sworn affidavits,
• supported a scheme to conceal evidence that had been subpoenaed in a Federal civil rights action brought against him,
• Admitted to witness tampering,
• Attempted to "bribe" a witness with a job, and
• Encouraged his attorney to lie (even after his attorney confessed)?

President Clinton set the bar for political corruption and abuse of power.

But for pure cold-hearted EEEEEVIL, you have to look at that LOWLIFE John Edwards.

Not only did Edwards lie to the American people, and lie to his party - and in the interview with Oprah, he was a constant scummy scuz bucket of lies to his cancer-stricken wife - he paid off a campaign aid BY ILLEGALLY USING CAMPAIGN FUNDS to take the fall for the child Edwards fathered!

And now? After he promised his wife for the 1,000th time the affair was over? Well, he's moving his mistress CLOSER TO HOME!!!

Take away Edwards' layers of deceit, and there's nothing there but dead rotting putrid meat.

Please tell me how anything Sanford did comes even CLOSE to this.

 

Actually, Corwin, I was commenting on the extremist right wingers here. You, like the other extremists here, did not specifically admit wrong doing by Sanford.

Who cares what Clinton did. If somebody screws up, the ability to acknowledge it is both a sign of maturity, and of a rational thinking process.

The inability to ever acknowledge it is an example of immaturity and extremist behavior. Who trusts that perspective?

In other forums, more rational members of the Right immediately (IMMEDIATELY) flagged Sanford's behavior as wrong.

Not here.

Of course, as Hmansfield showed and as Ronald Reagon once said...."there you go again". Harping on Clinton. Who cares?

From a right wing extremist perspective as you are demonstrating....harping on Clinton...essentially becomes an excuse to allow any kind of bad behavior. Just scream about Clinton. Many of us from a perspective of the non-extremist right wing (that could be moderate, centrist, liberal, far lefty) acknowledge Clinton was a dirt bag.

Again, who cares? Does that absolve all dirt bagging by anyone else at any time? How immature.

Actually, Hmansfield, I don't consider myself liberal....far more centrist than that. I like responsible business perspectives. Still in this DP P&R world, where the current political perspective of the far far far right dominates...anyone who doesn't think that Sarah Palin is God's gift to the USA is labeled a liberal.

Again that is the result of the twisted perspective of the far extremist right wing. You know....the ones who have literally destroyed the GOP and rendered it a deep minority party.

As far as GOP members of a less extremist perspective...well a strong majority of elected GOP members in South Carolina now definitively want Sanford out. It took a while. Okay. They are acting in their acknowledged best interest. That is okay also. At least they are not carrying the baggage of the far far extremist right wing. More power to them.

 

Hmmm... I thought I had written:

And ME? an "extremist right winger"? Wow, I really hope you are joking...

So, your point is that Sanford is mature, while Clinton, Jefferson, Blago, and Pelosi are all immature and all have irrational thinking processes? Wow, you must really hate the Democrats, don't you???

Uh, are you even bothering to read this thread? I'm not harping on Clinton, I'm RESPONDING to claims about Clinton!

But thanks so much for making me laugh, I really enjoyed it.

O.K.!

 

I think that there is one thing that we SHOULD be able to agree on, and that is that politicians are humans..with all the greed, lust, sins and faults of every other man. There is no difference in party lines when it comes to human behavior and fallibility.
People are people.
If Clinton was a Republican he probably still would have cheated on his wife. That was his nature as a man.

It's just as unfair (and I have done it plenty of times to make a point or a joke) to judge a whole political party by the actions of a few, as it is to judge all Korean people because the one that owns the store by your house ripped you off once.

Unless we start electing Clergy (which will just make corrupt clergy members), we should expect politicians to behave just like the rest of us. With fault.

I don't care how educated, loved and respected someone is..no one can really know what is in their heart and mind when no one is looking.
Take it from an ex-Las Vegas Limo driver that has seen more than his fair share of attached and married women, and men do what they want when they don't think anyone is looking, and don't think they will ever get caught.

People do some shady crap when they don't think anyone can catch them. From housewives in swingers clubs, to shoplifting school teachers.

It's part of human behavior and moral caliber. You just can't predict it.

 

@hmansfield, great post! I couldn't have said it better myself!