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.  For example, here is how to disable FireFox ad content blocking while on Silicon Investor.

   PoliticsDid Slick Boink Monica?

Previous 10 Next 10 
To: lazarre who wrote (17852)7/30/1998 12:29:00 AM
From: Catfish
   of 20980

7-29-98 Mike Collins

Nicholson: "Republicans Have Won the Party Switching Powerball"


WEDNESDAY, JULY 29, 1998 TEL.: (202) 863-8550

WASHINGTON (JULY 29) - Republican National Committee Chairman Jim Nicholson today welcomed Florida State Senator George Kirkpatrick to the Republican Party. Kirkpatrick announced his switch today during a barnstorming tour of Northern Florida with state GOP leaders.

"This is almost as good as winning the lottery," Nicholson said. "Republicans have won the party switching Powerball! Instead of gambling on ineffective, big government policies of the past, sensible Democrats across America are tossing away their Democrat membership cards and finding a new home in the Republican Party. Welcome aboard, Senator Kirkpatrick!"

The 18-year veteran lawmaker becomes the 371st elected Democrat nationally - and 39th in Florida - to ditch the Democrat Party and become a Republican since Bill Clinton and Al Gore took office in 1992. The Florida Republicans now hold a 25-15 advantage in the Senate.

"It's one more sign that the Democrat Party in Florida - and throughout the U.S. - is falling apart," Nicholson concluded.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: lazarre who wrote (17852)7/30/1998 12:33:00 AM
From: Catfish
   of 20980
Why are all of these elected Democrats switching to the Republican party? I would like to see your comments on this one.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: jlallen who wrote (17856)7/30/1998 1:22:00 AM
From: Catfish
   of 20980
Rep. John Linder Claims Lewinsky Matter Only 4% of Starr Report

Local Radio
July 28, 1998 Self

I hate to do it this way, but I searched the net repeatedly, and have not been able to find this anywhere. I searched Free Republic as well, but found nothing to refrence this, and if it has already been reported here, excuse the intrusion.

Today, my Representative, John Linder, gave a statement to a local radio station. In this statement, he said: "We are expecting a full report from Judge Starr within a month, and are told that Ms. Lewinsky comprises only about 4% of that report."

This was on the radio (WGAU, Athens, GA) several times today while I was at work. I tried to post it here when I got home, but this place was swamped. So, I am going for the "late nite" post.

I am not making this up!! Perhaps some media type out there would be so kind as to contact Mr. Linder's office and inquire as to the source of his comments. I will attempt to do so tomorrow if I am not busy at work.

My question is this: If Lewinsky only accounts for 4% of the upcoming report, and that report is allegedly well in excess of 200 pages already, what is the other 94% about, and why is it still just "sex, sex, sex" in the media?

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: MulhollandDrive who wrote (17769)7/30/1998 1:26:00 AM
From: Catfish
   of 20980
White House to Rewrite Federalism Order

Now With State-Local Input
By David S. Broder
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 29, 1998; Page A19

The Clinton administration promised yesterday to start with "a clean slate" and negotiate a mutually acceptable executive order on federalism to replace one denounced by state and local government organizations that were not consulted when President Clinton signed it.

"Everything is on the table. . . . We want to consult with them and get this done and go on to other things," said G. Edward DeSeve, acting deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget. DeSeve made his pledge at a congressional hearing on the executive order, which was suspended temporarily 10 days ago after municipal and state groups demanded its withdrawal.

DeSeve was summoned as a witness by Rep. David M. McIntosh (R-Ind.), chairman of a subcommittee of the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, after two hours of nonstop complaints about Clinton's action from elected officials of both parties. The elected officials said the new order reversed the thrust of those that had guided federal regulators for the past decade as they considered actions with potential impact on states and local communities.

Instead of demanding justification for federal preemption, for instance, the new order offered multiple, subjective justifications for federal intervention, they said. And the order, which requires federal agencies to consult with state and local governments, was -- without consultation -- signed by Clinton on May 14 while attending the summit of industrial nations in Britain.

Utah Gov. Michael O. Leavitt (R), testifying on behalf of the National Governors' Association, said issuing Executive Order 13083 without consultation was "wrongheaded and unacceptable" and that the new language "is inconsistent with the principles of balance on which this nation was founded."

Philadelphia Mayor Edward Rendell (D), appearing for the U.S. Conference of Mayors, said the contents of the order are "a serious step backward" from the language of the two earlier executive orders on federal-state relations, one signed by President Ronald Reagan in 1987 and the other by Clinton in 1993, which were superseded by the May 14 order.

Spokesmen for the National League of Cities, the National Association of County Officials and the National Conference of State Legislatures joined the chorus of complaints, and said their organizations are united in the demand that the new order be withdrawn.

The White House has refused to do that but offered earlier this month, when the protests erupted, to delay its effective date from mid-August until mid-November to let the states and local governments have their say.

Philadelphia Councilman Brian J. O'Neill, president of the League of Cities, warned, "There is not a lot of negotiating room here. This is a flawed document -- totally wrong." But most of the others said they are willing to work out the problems with the White House, as long as it does not insist that 13083 be the basis of the discussion.

Mickey Ibarra, assistant to the president for intergovernmental relations, confirmed in an interview that the state and local groups' condition would be met. "We hope to begin talks as early as next week," Ibarra said. "We will listen to our partners and begin wherever they want to."

McIntosh, who supervised regulatory issues in the Reagan and Bush administrations before being elected to Congress, was unable to solve the mystery of why the new Clinton order was issued without notice to the "Big 7" organizations representing state and local governments in Washington.

DeSeve said the order was written by officials at his agency and the White House counsel's office, mentioning by name Sally Katzen, who has since moved from OMB to the White House National Economic Council, and William Marshall of the counsel's office. DeSeve said he was not involved in the process and could not explain the lack of consultation.

North Carolina state Rep. Daniel T. Blue Jr., president of the National Conference of State Legislatures, said the lack of consultation was "atypical of the way NCSL and others have been dealt with by this administration."

Rep. Bernard Sanders, an independent and former mayor of Burlington, Vt., drew support from many of the witnesses when he said Congress was often as guilty as any White House of trampling on state and local governments. "States' rights do not get in the way when someone has something he wants to do," Sanders said. "Liberal Democrats or conservative Republicans -- they just go whoosh." Utah's Leavitt responded, "I agree. The administration has no corner on preemption." c

Copyright 1998 The Washington Post Company
From: Bommer () *
07/29/98 01:17:12 EDT

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: jlallen who wrote (17853)7/30/1998 2:57:00 AM
From: Dayuhan
   of 20980
<<No one is above the law not even (and most especially) the President.>>

<<he should be playing on the same field we all have to play on if we were in his shoes.>>

How many men ball their secretaries every year? How many lie about it? How many are dragged in front of a special investigator and interrogated over it?

If he wasn't President, nobody would give a damn.

I live overseas, and nobody here can understand it. They all ask the same questions: The economy is doing well, no? No wars, no foreign policy disasters? So why is everybody so upset about a little squirt in the wrong hole? Don't all men in power do that?

They're wrong of course. Recent Republican Presidents and candidates have been moral paragons, mainly because most of them haven't had an erection since the bomb dropped on Nagasaki.

Has anyone tried the morality quiz on, say, Newt?


Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (3)

To: Dayuhan who wrote (17863)7/30/1998 3:43:00 AM
From: Rick Slemmer
   of 20980

I live overseas, and nobody here can understand it. They all ask the same questions: The economy is doing well, no? No wars, no foreign policy disasters? So why is everybody so upset about a little squirt in the wrong hole? Don't all men in power do that?

It's not about sex (although in your neck of the global woods I can understand why that springs to mind - you may know, as I do, of a legendary establishment in Olongapo known as Jolo's). It's about obstruction of justice and perjury. It's not just that the president lied; the evidence at this point seems to indicate strongly that he lied to the public and he lied under oath. It shouldn't matter whether the original offense was not changing the toilet paper roll, accepting illegal contributions, or selling influence to foreign governments. Lying under oath about anything undermines the trust we place in our officials.

Monica gets all the press because sex sells. The average American understands a little infidelity more than he understands the implications of having an "enemies list," FBI files rifled, crypto-keyed missile guidance systems being given to China, the convoluted payoff schemes and kickbacks of Madison Guarantee and Whitewater, and violations of federal campaign finance laws. And most reporters are too pressed for time, too unobjective, or too lazy to explain the importance of these issues to us. Clinton has taken full advantage of our ignorance of civics and our willingness to take White House press releases at face value. So far, Ken Starr has over 300 pages of material to present to the House; I would imagine there's much more in that document than Monica Lewinsky.

BTW, if you enjoy the fruits of "Foreign Earned Income Exclusion," you can thank President Reagan for that. Have a San Miguel for me, please.


Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)

To: Rick Slemmer who wrote (17864)7/30/1998 4:24:00 AM
From: Dayuhan
   of 20980
Jolo's is, alas, no more - departed along with the US Navy. Things are a bit quieter around here than they once were. I'm a little older than I once was too, and I prefer it the way it is.

I appreciate the tax break, but I shiver at the memory of George Bush getting off a plane in Manila and telling Marcos how much we Americans loved his devotion to democracy and democratic principles. Our boy Ferdie, the best friend the Philippine Communist Party ever had. I introduced myself as a Canadian for a few months after that - it was easier than trying to explain why we could be so fond of somebody who stole so much of their (and our) money. Aside from a few other unmentionable things the old boy got around to.

As for the immorality and the perjury, well, extramarital sex is something everybody lies about. The question is why anybody asked the question. In most countries, people would ask no questions and hear no lies.

About the other issues, I'm probably not sufficiently well informed to comment credibly. I do think that, despite whatever was sold to China, we are probably farther from nuclear war then we have been in generations. I wouldn't give credit for that to Clinton, but I'd have to say that, judged purely on the basis of results, you'd have to rate him fairly well. And I suspect that serious digging into any recent administration would bring up scandals at least as bad - and sometimes with far greater negative effects - than Clinton's.

Not a Democrat, though, or a Republican. I'm conservative on economic issues, more liberal on all that "social" stuff. Foreign policy needs to be conducted on the basis of reality, not ideology - and there has never been anything so twisted by ideology as the "unrealpolitik" of the Kirkpatrick years. I voted for Bill over George purely because I don't believe any party should sit for 16 years in a row. Feeling the same way now about 12 years, and I hope the GOP can come up with a candidate that is neither a fossil nor a villain next time around.

I will definitely have that San Miguel for you... and one for anybody else that asks as well.


Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)

To: Rick Slemmer who wrote (17864)7/30/1998 6:48:00 AM
From: jimpit
   of 20980
Well said, Rick. Thank You.


Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: Dayuhan who wrote (17863)7/30/1998 7:55:00 AM
From: jlallen
   of 20980
Your response would be appropriate if this was simply a sex scandal. Its not. Its about disrespect for the law, perjury, obstruction of justice, subornation of perjury and abuse of office. Character does matter. In fact, its all that matters. JLA

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: Catfish who wrote (17860)7/30/1998 8:04:00 AM
From: lazarre
   of 20980
On the plus side for these folks you could say it was for heartfelt political beliefs; the cynical side will tell you they switched for purely political reasons. There is a distinction between the two.

I think you can get fooled with labels, though. E.G. for decades southern democrats were democrats in name only; their affiliation was essentially an ever reverberating knee jerk reaction to Reconstruction. To this day its never been explained logically why in the world these guys ever voted in tandem with the likes of FDR,JFK,LBJ, etc. when their reactionary little hearts cried out to do the opposite.

e.g.: Shelby, Gramm--these guys were Republicans even when they were no big deal; glad to see them go from their collective social agenda points of view---though from time to time I like what the Walrus has to say on pocket book issues.


Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read
Previous 10 Next 10