PDA

View Full Version : Should Clinton have resigned?



CaughtintheMiddle1990
03-29-2011, 01:10 PM
Looking back at Monicagate, should Clinton have resigned in 1998? I seem to recall reading some GOP senators were calling on him to resign.

Likewise, on the other hand, should Nixon have stayed on and fought it out in 1974--even if it did land in a conviction by the Senate?

Personally my opinion is no, Clinton shouldn't have resigned, and I'm glad he fought it out...and Nixon should've fought it out as well.

Adam Wood
03-29-2011, 02:05 PM
Given that he went through the Senate trial and was not removed, I'm going to have to say no, he should not have resigned. Granted, the vote in the Senate was pretty much just political brinksmanship, but nonetheless, I don't think he needed to resign if he wasn't going to get fired anyway.

Of course, we don't have the benefit of looking back to see whether or not Nixon survived a Senate trial, so that makes it a little different. But, we can look back at the Senate in 1974 and see that it was 56 Democrats and 42 Republicans, and public support for Nixon was absolutely in the dumper, so the chances were pretty damn good that he would not have survived a vote to remove him from office. As such, it probably was best for Nixon to bow out. Doing so saved the country a lot of pain.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
03-29-2011, 02:13 PM
Given that he went through the Senate trial and was not removed, I'm going to have to say no, he should not have resigned. Granted, the vote in the Senate was pretty much just political brinksmanship, but nonetheless, I don't think he needed to resign if he wasn't going to get fired anyway.

Of course, we don't have the benefit of looking back to see whether or not Nixon survived a Senate trial, so that makes it a little different. But, we can look back at the Senate in 1974 and see that it was 56 Democrats and 42 Republicans, and public support for Nixon was absolutely in the dumper, so the chances were pretty damn good that he would not have survived a vote to remove him from office. As such, it probably was best for Nixon to bow out. Doing so saved the country a lot of pain.

Actually I think had he stayed on (Nixon) he could've done a lot better with the economic woes than Ford did, and he might've prevented South Vietnam from falling the next year--He had made a commitment to restart bombing if the North made any major offensive, which they did when he left office.

In September 1974, just a month after leaving office, Nixon suffered a massive and life threatening pulmonary embolism. Had he been in office when this occurred, it might have garnered public sympathy to him, and softened the general opinion toward him (the senate might've realized they were indeed in danger of literally killing him with the trial) and might've delayed the impeachment. In the meantime the business of government could continue.

Also, had he not left office--even if he was convicted--his reputation would've been better. Even if convicted, he still wouldn't have quit. Ford could've pardoned him in any case, sparing him from prison.

I think if he was anywhere near as honest during the trial in Senate as he was in the interview with David Frost, he would've survived impeachment.

Lanie
03-29-2011, 02:32 PM
I'm not so concerned about Clinton's lack of self-control as much as I'm concerned about the fact that he cost tax payers a lot of money with his lie. Some want to blame it all on the DA, but that's just wrong. That's saying Clinton had no responsibility.

In the moral sense, yes I think he should have resigned. In reality, that might have been disastrous for the country. People feared what would happen to the economy and in other situations if the President suddenly resigned. I have to say no matter who the President is, resignation might be disastrous.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
03-29-2011, 02:35 PM
I'm not so concerned about Clinton's lack of self-control as much as I'm concerned about the fact that he cost tax payers a lot of money with his lie. Some want to blame it all on the DA, but that's just wrong. That's saying Clinton had no responsibility.

In the moral sense, yes I think he should have resigned. In reality, that might have been disastrous for the country. People feared what would happen to the economy and in other situations if the President suddenly resigned. I have to say no matter who the President is, resignation might be disastrous.

When Nixon resigned, what seemed like a mild recession became much worse, with unemployment hitting the highest levels since the Great Depression in the summer of 1975 (9.5% in July 1975, which was surpassed by 10.8% unemployment in December 1982). Maybe this would've happened even if Nixon hadn't resigned, or maybe it was due to Ford's level of ability or perhaps the team had on board; I don't know. I do know that Ford was later able to calm the recession down and unemployment levels dropped quite a bit...And then Jimmy Carter came into office.

Adam Wood
03-29-2011, 03:20 PM
Actually I think had he stayed on (Nixon) he could've done a lot better with the economic woes than Ford did, and he might've prevented South Vietnam from falling the next year--He had made a commitment to restart bombing if the North made any major offensive, which they did when he left office.

In September 1974, just a month after leaving office, Nixon suffered a massive and life threatening pulmonary embolism. Had he been in office when this occurred, it might have garnered public sympathy to him, and softened the general opinion toward him (the senate might've realized they were indeed in danger of literally killing him with the trial) and might've delayed the impeachment. In the meantime the business of government could continue.

Also, had he not left office--even if he was convicted--his reputation would've been better. Even if convicted, he still wouldn't have quit. Ford could've pardoned him in any case, sparing him from prison.

I think if he was anywhere near as honest during the trial in Senate as he was in the interview with David Frost, he would've survived impeachment.Interesting angle with the sympathy factor. I hadn't really considered that before. I have to wonder whether there would be enough sympathy for him to have spared him. The country was soooooo angry at the time. Just about everyone in the country was furious with Nixon. There was just so much malaise at the time: gas prices were climbing, there was gas rationing that gave us long gas lines and generally just inconvenienced people, interest rates were sky-high, American cars were a complete joke, it seems like everyone who actually had a job was on strike, we were still at war in Vietnam and it was on the TV every night, and this was all coming right after the '60s, which was still a sore spot for a whole lot of people in this country, including a lot of sore wounds from the lingering racial tension in the country. I'm sure there would have been some sympathy for Nixon, but there were a whole lot of people out there who would have been glad to see Nixon just die and go away.

I don't know if just un-checked, brutal honesty would have been a salvation for Nixon. The country was just traumatized by this. You have to remember that this was still a relatively "innocent" time for Americans. Absent 24-hour news channels and such, Beltway scandals just didn't really leak out like they do nowadays. Americans simply had never felt so betrayed before. Sure, much of the same lies, deception, scandal, and corruption existed in DC long before, but nothing like this had ever really blown up before. People in the country just weren't aware of much of it before Nixon. I think that more unvarnished telling of everything that had transpired in the Oval Office would have just angered people even more.

Odysseus
03-29-2011, 03:47 PM
Nixon was correct in resigning. He had broken the law and been caught, and he had the decency to see that any attempt to cling to power would have done irreparable damage to the nation. Clinton, faced with a far more petty scandal (Nixon was genuinely concerned that McGovern was colluding with criminal elements within the antiwar movement to undermine the election, while Clinton was caught committing and suborning perjury in pursuit of an attempt to fix a lawsuit. His conduct with Lewinsky violated several laws, including sexual harassment laws that he had signed. Clinton should have resigned, as he was guilty on all counts. As George Will correctly noted at the time, "Any decent man would resign, which is why Clinton won't." The Senate's failure to convict him on the evidence is one of the most shameful events in our history.

BTW, when JFK beat Nixon in 1960, there was more than enough evidence of fraud in Illinois and Texas to challenge the election, but Nixon refused. He would not allow the presidency of the United States to be tainted by questions of the legitimacy of the holder of the office. Al Gore, who had no evidence of fraud, sought to steal the 2000 election because he thought that he could get away with it. The damage that this would do to subsequent administrations was obvious, but Gore didn't care.

noonwitch
03-29-2011, 03:57 PM
Clinton shouldn't have resigned. He shouldn't have lied, but he wasn't going to be removed by a bunch of guys who were guilty of the same thing-Larry Flynt made sure of that.


Nixon is more difficult. I personally think he was a brilliant man and that he had a strong foreign policy. He gets blamed for Vietnam unfairly-he inherited a bad war and got us out of it, after first putting all effort forward to win it (it was too late by 1968). He opened relations with China and started the process that led to the end of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact. Kissenger is one of the best diplomats ever, and Ford was smart enough to keep him around. Nixon supported civil rights, was of a humble backround, and he had a really nice family.


By today's political standards, what Nixon did is standard campaign practice. At the time, though, spying on one's opponents using electronic devices implanted during a burglary was considered to be a horrible thing. I don't know how much Nixon knew about it beforehand, but he did help cover it up once people started investigating it.

All I know is this-G. Gordon Liddy was convicted of federal crimes in the Watergate matter, and served time. There is no way in hell I'm going to buy gold from any company that uses him as a spokesperson.

fettpett
03-29-2011, 06:42 PM
Only reason it was "too late" by 1968 was because the dumbasses in Congress and people like Cronkite basicly making it look like we couldn't win, when in fact we WERE winning the War under Nixon.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
03-29-2011, 06:52 PM
Nixon had to dissuaded from using tactical nukes against Vietnam.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
03-29-2011, 07:41 PM
It's amazing to watch the footage of him leaving, walking to Marine 1 with the new President Ford and Mrs. Ford...a red carpet rolled out for him and Pat as they left...with hundreds of onlookers all over the WH waving goodbye. Even in the midst of what some would call disgrace, it was somehow dignified.
http://sharing.wtnh.com/sharewlin//photo/2010/08/08/nixon_resigns_walk_080974_ap_20100808062130_640_48 0.JPG

Novaheart
03-29-2011, 07:44 PM
Who cares?

Sonnabend
03-29-2011, 11:11 PM
He should not have resigned. He should have been convicted and jailed for perjury

KhrushchevsShoe
03-30-2011, 02:13 AM
Interesting angle with the sympathy factor. I hadn't really considered that before. I have to wonder whether there would be enough sympathy for him to have spared him. The country was soooooo angry at the time. Just about everyone in the country was furious with Nixon. There was just so much malaise at the time: gas prices were climbing, there was gas rationing that gave us long gas lines and generally just inconvenienced people, interest rates were sky-high, American cars were a complete joke, it seems like everyone who actually had a job was on strike, we were still at war in Vietnam and it was on the TV every night, and this was all coming right after the '60s, which was still a sore spot for a whole lot of people in this country, including a lot of sore wounds from the lingering racial tension in the country. I'm sure there would have been some sympathy for Nixon, but there were a whole lot of people out there who would have been glad to see Nixon just die and go away.

I don't know if just un-checked, brutal honesty would have been a salvation for Nixon. The country was just traumatized by this. You have to remember that this was still a relatively "innocent" time for Americans. Absent 24-hour news channels and such, Beltway scandals just didn't really leak out like they do nowadays. Americans simply had never felt so betrayed before. Sure, much of the same lies, deception, scandal, and corruption existed in DC long before, but nothing like this had ever really blown up before. People in the country just weren't aware of much of it before Nixon. I think that more unvarnished telling of everything that had transpired in the Oval Office would have just angered people even more.

First, I thought that was a really good post that helps people understand the climate then.

Second, its probably on some level true that the overall grip the scandal had was such a boon for the media that they now spend immeasurable efforts trying to create another one of equal magnitude. Notice how every petty scandal nowadays seems to end in "-gate", part of me always thinks its just wishful thinking on the media's part. They want another Watergate, they want that unflinching attention of the population.

The internet has of course made this unbelievably worse as print, TV and radio media do have some standards to make claims that are remotely true, while trying to exact recourse on a blog spewing lies to cook up a scandal is difficult at best.

I mean, is it any surprise that all three presidents who have existed during the era of widespread internet usage have had some horrible (made up) issue that demands immeadiate removal of office? Clinton had Lewinsky, Bush had Florida and now Obama has his citizenship (among other things). Unfortunately I think people have kept at each others throat instead of the media's so much that they refuse to "waste" good political ammunition by questioning the motives of those who provide it to them.

txradioguy
03-30-2011, 02:17 AM
Looking back at Monicagate, should Clinton have resigned in 1998? I seem to recall reading some GOP senators were calling on him to resign.

Likewise, on the other hand, should Nixon have stayed on and fought it out in 1974--even if it did land in a conviction by the Senate?

Personally my opinion is no, Clinton shouldn't have resigned, and I'm glad he fought it out...and Nixon should've fought it out as well.


He shouldn't have resigned over the Lewinsky thing. There were far worse things he did that they should have gone after him for, like perjury and illegal campaign cash from the ChiComs. But after he skated on the Monicagate stuff, there was no way the American people would let the Republicans get a second bite at the apple.

txradioguy
03-30-2011, 02:19 AM
Who cares?

Riiiight. Because only "impeachable offenses" by Republicans should ever get rehashed ad naseum?

RobJohnson
03-30-2011, 05:39 AM
I'm not so concerned about Clinton's lack of self-control as much as I'm concerned about the fact that he cost tax payers a lot of money with his lie. Some want to blame it all on the DA, but that's just wrong. That's saying Clinton had no responsibility.

In the moral sense, yes I think he should have resigned. In reality, that might have been disastrous for the country. People feared what would happen to the economy and in other situations if the President suddenly resigned. I have to say no matter who the President is, resignation might be disastrous.

I blame the blue dress. :D

Odysseus
03-30-2011, 10:24 AM
Only reason it was "too late" by 1968 was because the dumbasses in Congress and people like Cronkite basicly making it look like we couldn't win, when in fact we WERE winning the War under Nixon.
Very true, but that's what you get with a Quisling press.

Nixon had to dissuaded from using tactical nukes against Vietnam.
I'm not sure that would have been a bad idea. In a country the size of North Vietnam, tactical nukes would have had strategic effects. A nuclear strike would have ended the conflict and the Soviets would not have done anything except wring their hands.

First, I thought that was a really good post that helps people understand the climate then.

Second, its probably on some level true that the overall grip the scandal had was such a boon for the media that they now spend immeasurable efforts trying to create another one of equal magnitude. Notice how every petty scandal nowadays seems to end in "-gate", part of me always thinks its just wishful thinking on the media's part. They want another Watergate, they want that unflinching attention of the population.

The internet has of course made this unbelievably worse as print, TV and radio media do have some standards to make claims that are remotely true, while trying to exact recourse on a blog spewing lies to cook up a scandal is difficult at best.

I mean, is it any surprise that all three presidents who have existed during the era of widespread internet usage have had some horrible (made up) issue that demands immeadiate removal of office? Clinton had Lewinsky, Bush had Florida and now Obama has his citizenship (among other things). Unfortunately I think people have kept at each others throat instead of the media's so much that they refuse to "waste" good political ammunition by questioning the motives of those who provide it to them.

Except that Clinton's scandals weren't "made up." He lied under oath, suborned perjury and obstructed justice. These are crimes, regardless of whether or not the admissions are embarrassing. If Clinton had simply settled the Jones case (as he eventually did) instead of trying to fix it by corrupting the process, he'd have only had the Travel Office firings, the illegal use of FBI files of opposition party leaders, the wholesale barbecuing of the Branch Davidians, the sale of sensitive technology to the Chinese in return for illegal campaign contributions and the sleazy pardon deals to taint his otherwise squeaky clean administration. :rolleyes:

KhrushchevsShoe
03-30-2011, 04:37 PM
That's what the country really needed, some good old fashioned nuclear holocaust to bring everyone together.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
03-30-2011, 04:40 PM
That's what the country really needed, some good old fashioned nuclear holocaust to bring everyone together.

Worked in WWII.

fettpett
03-30-2011, 04:42 PM
That's what the country really needed, some good old fashioned nuclear holocaust to bring everyone together.

yeah...cuz thats what happens when Tactical nukes are used....dumbass

Odysseus
03-30-2011, 04:56 PM
That's what the country really needed, some good old fashioned nuclear holocaust to bring everyone together.

Hey, it almost worked for your namesake. In fact, he and his former boss were more than happy to proliferate nukes, when the US offered to unilaterally dismantle ours after WWII.

But, I forget that your world, the only justifiable weapons are those aimed at America, not by America.

KhrushchevsShoe
03-31-2011, 01:02 AM
There was a completely different set of circumstances in the Second World War. Even then it was horrific.

Of course you'd rather go after the screen name (which you still dont understand) or mention your gung-ho fascination with nuclear warfare than actually attack the point I made in my post. Its fairly typical Odysseus, if he cant find some right-wing source to copy and paste he cant make an argument.

Rockntractor
03-31-2011, 01:06 AM
There was a completely different set of circumstances in the Second World War. Even then it was horrific.

Of course you'd rather go after the screen name (which you still dont understand) or mention your gung-ho fascination with nuclear warfare than actually attack the point I made in my post. Its fairly typical Odysseus, if he cant find some right-wing source to copy and paste he cant make an argument.

you think you are the only one who has heard of the episode with Khrushchev beating his shoe on the table.

KhrushchevsShoe
03-31-2011, 01:12 AM
you think you are the only one who has heard of the episode with Khrushchev beating his shoe on the table.

The screename not named after Nikita Khrushchev, its named after his shoe. KhrushchevsSHOE. Cant have apostrophes in a screename but I figure anyone who's been speaking English for more than 10 years can generally figure out that the 's' after Khrushchev is possessive and not plural.

I expect you to basically say the same exact thing you've been saying for months. You're incredibly stupid, and very difficult to communicate with.

Rockntractor
03-31-2011, 01:15 AM
The screename not named after Nikita Khrushchev, its named after his shoe. KhrushchevsSHOE. Cant have apostrophes in a screename but I figure anyone who's been speaking English for more than 10 years can generally figure out that the 's' after Khrushchev is possessive and not plural.

I expect you to basically say the same exact thing you've been saying for months. You're incredibly stupid, and very difficult to communicate with.

And you have a week off to learn some manners!

fettpett
03-31-2011, 07:58 AM
And you have a week off to learn some manners!

HHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHHA


+10 :D

Odysseus
03-31-2011, 11:44 AM
There was a completely different set of circumstances in the Second World War. Even then it was horrific.
War is horrific. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved over a million American lives, not to mention the millions of Japanese who would have died in the invasion. A tactical strike in North Vietnam would have saved hundreds of thousands of South Vietnamese who died at the hands of the North after the war ended, not to mention the thousands of Americans and Vietnamese (North and South) who died between the time that the decision not to drop the bomb was made and the final US pullout. It's a dark calculus, but the fact is anything that shortens a war saves lives. Pretending to fight, using half-measures and bowing to the tender sensibilities of people who are already on the other side of the conflict does nothing but prolong the conflict.


Of course you'd rather go after the screen name (which you still dont understand) or mention your gung-ho fascination with nuclear warfare than actually attack the point I made in my post.

We all know about Krushchev banging his shoe at the UN and announcing that communism would bury us. We get it. If you have another meaning in mind, then it it's obscure. I went after your name because it's hypocritical for you to name yourself after someone whose nation forced us to arm to the teeth when we would have been perfectly happy to go back to our own business and lament our military posture. Besides, you clearly don't get my screen name. Odysseus wasn't a gung ho killer, but a reluctant warrior who was forced to leave his family and home because of his duty. When the time came, however, he used everything at his disposal to win, because he knew that defeat would be unacceptable. If you think that I would casually drop nuclear weapons on every enemy of the US, you're wrong. But when the time comes to fight a war, my "fascination" is wth ending it as quickly as possible on the best possible terms for America. Nothing is off the table, and that includes our most powerful weapons. As I said above, using half-measures and bowing to the people who have no interest in victory prolongs conflict, and if you have the means to win quickly and fail to use it, then you are wasting the lives of the people who trust you to lead them and of all of the people involved in the conflict. That is the true atrocity in war. The sudden shock of overwhelming force is preferable to a slow bleed.


Its fairly typical Odysseus, if he cant find some right-wing source to copy and paste he cant make an argument.

Really sucks when I find right wing sources to refute the arguments of leftists, like the CDC, for example (my source for the number of people who didn't starve in the Great Depression in another thread), when you can't find any source to back up your arguments, beyond your childish fears and ignorance. For example, the smallest-yield tactical nukes are actually less destructive than some conventional munitions, but are more compact, and therefore can be more easily and accurately deployed. A B-52 can carry a payload of 70,000 lbs of ordnance, of 35 kilotons. The smallest tactical nukes have selectable yields equivalent to 10 kilotons, but because they are far smaller and lighter, they can be deployed far more accurately, and cause far less collateral damage, even if radiation is taken into account.

Odysseus
03-31-2011, 11:55 AM
And you have a week off to learn some manners!

Leftists are ill-mannered by nature, but I don't think that he crossed any lines here. What am I missing?

CaughtintheMiddle1990
03-31-2011, 12:01 PM
Leftists are ill-mannered by nature, but I don't think that he crossed any lines here. What am I missing?

He basically insulted the guy for no reason, saying he was "incredibly stupid." That's just rude, especially coming from someone who'd want to be named for the shoe of a Communist dictator.

lacarnut
03-31-2011, 12:11 PM
And you have a week off to learn some manners!

The Shoe done gone and shit in his britches. Too funny.

I guess we will have the bleeding hearts asking why, why, why. Answer, cause it just feels good to slap around an asshole.

Rockntractor
03-31-2011, 12:53 PM
He basically insulted the guy for no reason, saying he was "incredibly stupid." That's just rude, especially coming from someone who'd want to be named for the shoe of a Communist dictator.

He has done it to me many times before, I guess this was one time to many.
Surprises make your life more interesting.:)

Odysseus
03-31-2011, 02:56 PM
He basically insulted the guy for no reason, saying he was "incredibly stupid." That's just rude, especially coming from someone who'd want to be named for the shoe of a Communist dictator.
He's insulted more than a few of us, but that's par for the course when the debates get hot. If you want to really see insults, do a search of comments from Gator to me, and then hold onto the top of your head. :D

The Shoe done gone and shit in his britches. Too funny.

I guess we will have the bleeding hearts asking why, why, why. Answer, cause it just feels good to slap around an asshole.
I'm a bleeding heart? And here Shoeboy was calling me a nuclear maniac. I don't know whether to sing a chorus of Kumbay or destroy a civilization. :D

He has done it to me many times before, I guess this was one time to many.
Surprises make your life more interesting.:)

Fair enough. I was just asking.

namvet
03-31-2011, 08:18 PM
as much as i dislike Clinton, no he should not have left. I think he was to close to his last term anyway. if he leaves we get you know who. and I didn't want to see Clinton impeached. I remember watergate all to well. never saw the country so close to civil war. what a mess. Nixon did right in leaving. and Ford did the right thing with the pardon, even though he commited political suicide. had Nixon been impeached there would have been a trial. it was time to end it.