Posted on 05/13/2014 11:00:01 PM PDT by kingattax
“Don't stop thinking about tomorrow,” commands the relentlessly chirpy Fleetwood Mac tune that served as Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign theme.
But last week, in an exclusive article for Vanity Fair, “that woman,” Monica Lewinsky, forced Bill, Hill and the rest of us to take a look back.
Lewinsky, now 40, is someone who definitely didn’t “love the ‘90s.” “The Clinton administration, the special prosecutor’s minions, the political operatives on both sides of the aisle” and the emerging new media turned Lewinsky’s youthful indiscretion into a life-wrecking mistake, making her the permanent punchline to a dirty joke.
It seemed like great fun at the time, I’m embarrassed now to admit, digging through the Starr Report and cackling over the naughtiest footnotes. With the benefit of 15 years of mature hindsight, what should we make of the Clinton impeachment imbroglio?
Clinton figured out what he thinks long ago: he's the hero of this sordid little drama. “I am proud of what we did [on impeachment]” he proclaimed in April 2000: “I think we saved the Constitution of the United States."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
We just need term limits on Congress Critters and the Senate. And a limit on how long they can serve in “government service”.
Please provide the name of the author, the name of the original source and a working link to the original article at the original source. Thanks.
What you are in effect saying is that men cannot be trusted with power over other men.
And if men cannot be trusted with power over other men, then they cannot be trusted even for fixed periods of time.
I don’t think that there is any fixing this, because human nature cannot be fixed.
So why do we have a term limit on POTUS? What's good for POTUS is good for the congress critters.
If men are appointed by people and actually DO the jobs they are appointed to do there is no problem....
> We just need term limits on Congress Critters and the Senate. And a limit on how long they can serve in “government service”.
+ 1 to infinity
If PC didn’t exist and the president was white there would be no problem. He would have been run out of office in 2010...
Laws like this only ever benefit Democrats - they are the ones who will use any means to gain power - remember all the crap Sarah Palin had to go through as governor because of the laws up there. Remember all the recall efforts by Democrats - some balanced out as the GOP played the get back game. The GOP would never use it the Democrats would never stop using it!
“If men are appointed by people and actually DO the jobs they are appointed to do there is no problem....”
Forty percent of the people look at the facts and see a capitalist plot to (fill-in-blank.) Another forty percent look at the same facts and see a Marxist plot to (fill-in-blank.) Twenty percent can barely be bothered to see anything and will vote the candidate who is best advertised. So, no. Forty percent wanted to get rid of Ronald Reagan because he was forcing us into war with the Soviet Union. He was against abortion. He was not sufficiently pro-green. (The list is a long one.) Another forty percent liked him. Twenty percent wavered in their views depending on what they’d seen on CNN that day.
Making it easier to remove the president would mean there will be a constant, ongoing effort to remove every president starting on January 20th of his first term.
We need a president who will diminish the power of the office and remove some of the layers that protect him from blame. (Cabinet positions)
As it stands, second term presidents do not have to look over their shoulders and wonder if they have gone too far.
I’ve long thought that the country would have been better served had perhaps one president in five been impeached and removed from office.
Would keep Presidents on their toes, and would eliminate the common idiocy of the “three co-equal branches” of government.
Most important, it would tend to make Congress assume its actual supreme constitutional authority rather than passing it off, unconstitutionally, to the President and Courts.
This allows individual congresscritters to avoid taking stands that might piss off their constituents, and thus enhances their chance of continual re-election, but in the long run it has drastically damaged the actual authority and credibility of the institution.
Making presidents easier to remove would only affect REPUBLICAN presidents. The dems would go for it whenever they had a congressional majority, under any pretext. Repubs, not so much.
I would definitely support such a change, especially seeing as how having a gutless “opposition” party essentially means that impeachment doesn’t even exist.
I just don’t see the point in trying to make centralized government work anymore.
It serves no purpose other than to consume the freedom of citizens, so I’m pretty much all for scrapping it at this point. All it does is draw the worst of the worst, and I can’t see any benefit to its existence at all.
Human nature will prevent that from ever happening.
I’m not opposed to term limits. Got to try something I suppose but, it would be more accurate for me to say that I am opposed to centralized government altogether.
This is the assumption inherent in the founders' philosophy when constructing the Constitution. It's reality. It's truth. And it's rejected by the leftist/humanist worldview.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.