Moynihan Myths

3.29.03 | Mia T

[Mia T]

Moynihan Myths

 

Moynihan Myth 1:
"Scholastic" Means "Smart"

Mia T
March 26, 2003

Flip-flopping aside, Daniel Patrick Moynihan's scholastic and excessively subtle reasoning justifying his vote not to impeach and remove bill clinton reveals more about the hog-and-bow-tied senator and his party than about the Constitution of the United States.

It had long been rumored that Sen. Moynihan was the Democratic Party's mind. A complete absence of the construct failed for decades to disabuse us of this notion.

This apparent incongruity only widened in the '90s. Under the tutelage of the clintons, "Democratic Party mind " quickly devolved from simple oxymoronic construct to standing joke.

Myth invariably trumps the plain facts. How can the Democratic Party's mind be both Moynihan and absent? No one ever sought to reconcile this seeming contradiction.

For the answer, one has to look no further than the reasoning behind Sen. Moynihan's impeachment vote. Not only did Moynihan fail to discern bill clinton's high crimes, he failed to consider the risk of not impeaching and removing a president that he, himself had long ago branded dysfunctional and corrupt.

That is to say, Moynihan was apparently so intent on saving the Constitution that he --ooops! -- forgot about saving the country.

How can the Democratic Party's mind be both Moynihan and absent? How can it not?

Moynihan Myth 2:
Moynihan Defined Deviancy Down,
i.e., Moynihan Endorsed Missus clinton

Mia T
March 26, 2003

Biography lends to death a new terror.

Oscar Wilde

 

''There is a sort of absence of character that has been the quality of this administration.''

Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D.-N.Y.)
commenting on clinton administration in a New Yorker interview.
"Mr Moynihan, 71, plans to retire in 2000"

Yesterday, Daniel Patrick Moynihan died. Today, the clintons are arrogating his soul. Hardly surprising. In 1999, the clintons were not at all shy about seizing his still-warm senate seat.

One has merely to recall the Thomas Jefferson double-helix hoax to understand that posthumous misappropriation is, for the obvious reason, the clintons' preferred method of legacy inflation….

Standard-Issue clintonism
If the misappropriation of Jefferson's alleles hinged on a broken line of descent, the misappropriation of Moynihan's endorsement depends on a broken line of dissent. Like Sally Hemmings' progeny, Moynihan's later acquiescence is of dubious lineage.

When clinton told Moynihan she wanted his seat, his initial public reaction -- one must read between the lines -- provided Moynihan a hedge against any later forced conversion.

The details of running for Senate in New York are "more complex than you might think," ["you arrogant, ignorant carpetbagging three-bagger"] Moynihan said after his meeting with Hillary Clinton. He did not give her any advice, he said, ["I don't endorse her…"], but added that early polls showing her beating all potential rivals -- including New York City Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani (R) -- mask the large and diverse political riddle that is New York.["Perhaps you should reconsider. New Yorkers really do detest arrogant, ignorant carpetbagging b*tches."]

First Lady, Moynihan Discuss Senate Race
By David Von Drehle and John F. Harris
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, February 20, 1999; Page A10

Mrs. clinton's version of the event:

And it was Senator Moynihan who welcomed me to his farm in Pindars Corners on a picture perfect July day in 1999 and offered his support, sending me on my way with a gesture of profound kindness.

March 26, 2003
Statement of Senator Clinton in Tribute
to Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan

That Moynihan, the man who proffered one of the more incisive operant definitions of clintonism, "defining deviancy down," would sponsor hillary clinton for anything short of the hoosegow is absurd on its face.

"Defining deviancy down"

Daniel Patrick Moynihan. American Scholar (Winter 1993)

   

"Well, how would you imagine that we would have got ourselves in the situation we're in now? We have a crisis of the regime. You cannot have this kind of conduct as normal and acceptable and easily dismissed unless there is a great effort to do so. And if, in addition to what we know, there are things we don't know, that will make it worse."

Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D.-N.Y.)
commenting on Lewinsky et al.
ABC's "This Week," Sept. 6, 1998

 

"I should think not. If it's so, it represents a disorder."

Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D.-N.Y.)
when asked if Clinton could survive if the Lewinsky allegation was true
New York Post, Jan. 26, 1998

 

[I will] have none of the "it-isn't-so-much-the-sex-its-the lying" [argument].

Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D.-N.Y.),
ibid.

 

Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, D-N.Y., also opposed censure, saying Congress should carry out its constitutional duty and decide whether Clinton should be held accountable for impeachable offenses in connection with his affair with Monica Lewinsky or other matters.

Censure unlikely, Lott says, as Congress awaits Starr report
By Jim Abrams
Associated Press

 

"[T]he critical subject for the politics of the years ahead," [is] "redefining the character issue for the post-Monica era.… There's a sort of absence of character which has been the quality of this administration."

Daniel Patrick Moynihan
Corporate Character: The Humanities and the Businessperson

 

In the Senate, only Moynihan has called for Clinton's impeachment. …For now, White House and party strategists appear unworried by the criticism they have heard from various Democratic senators and members of Congress. Rather than view the criticism as part of a mounting wave of disillusionment within the party, these strategists are weighing the authors of the criticism one by one: Moynihan and Kerrey, they say, have never liked Clinton, so their remarks are personal.

"Everyone will be punished"
BY JONATHAN BRODER
Salon

"We have so many things coming on in the world that we have to be ready for and be able to deal with. This [the President's dilemma] is a distraction which is doubly dangerous because of the world's situation." [Moynihan then ticked off the dangers, which included the building of nukes by North Korea and biological weapons by Iraq.]

Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D.-N.Y.)
commenting on Lewinsky et al.
ABC's "This Week," Sept. 6, 1998

COLOR COMMENTARY, Sept. 17, 1998:

A few weeks ago, we were reminded of the continual danger lurking in Iraq when U.N. Weapons inspector Scott Ritter resigned claiming that the Clinton administration had interfered with at least six inspections since 1997 in an attempt to avoid conflict with Saddam Hussein. It is difficult for a weakened President to deal decisively with a foreign military threat. Hussein has repeatedly proved to the world that he has no respect for democratic processes and will cooperate only in the face of force. He has continually tried to take advantage of weakness. The United States' current state of weakness has made the world more susceptible to Iraq's potentially destructive actions.

Just a few weeks ago, the world received a violent reminder of the ever-present threat of terrorism as U.S. embassies in Afghanistan and Kenya were bombed. Immediately following his testimony before the Independent Counsel, the President ordered counter-attacks against bases of the organization responsible for the embassy bombings. The timing and justifiability of the attacks was immediately questioned by some members of Congress, the news media, and many Americans. People thought it was possible that Clinton ordered the bombings to divert media attention from the Lewinsky affair.…the terrorists who committed these bombings and terrorists contemplating future acts were sitting at home watching the United States unsuccessfully trying to project an image of unity and competence. The United States only opens itself, and the world, up to more acts of terrorism when it seems not to know how to deal effectively with terrorist situations even when it knows who the perpetrators are.

MOYNIHAN FLIPPED, February 12, 1999

Thus the Framers clearly intended that a President should be removed only for offenses `against the United States.' It may also be concluded that the addition of the words `high Crimes and Misdemeanors' was intended to extend the impeachment power of Congress so as to reach `great and dangerous offences,' in Mason's phrase.

The question now before the Senate is whether the acts that form the basis for the Articles of Impeachment against President Clinton rise to the level of `high Crimes and Misdemeanors.' Which is to say, `great and dangerous offences' against the United States.

Over the course of 1998, as we proceeded through various revelations, thence to Impeachment and so on to this trial at the outset of 1999, I found myself asking whether the assorted charges, even if proven, would rise to the standard of `great and dangerous offences' against the United States.

More than one commentator observed that we were dealing with `low crimes.' Matters that can be tried in criminal courts after the President's term expires. ...

Senators, do not take the imprudent risk that removing William Jefferson Clinton for low crimes will not in the end jeopardize the Constitution itself. Censure him by all means. He will be gone in less than two years. But do not let his misdeeds put in jeopardy the Constitution we are sworn to uphold and defend.

Statement by Senator Daniel Moynihan for not supporting impeachment of clinton
Congressional Record for Friday, February 12, 1999

 

the logic of pathologic self-interest

by Mia T

 

There was a third chance to get rid of the clintons. In '98, when there was still time to stop bin Laden...

The failure to remove the clintons in '98 was a monumental error and is directly traceable to the logic of pathologic self-interest.

Recall in particular:

• THE LIEBERMAN PARADIGM: (clinton is an unfit president; therefore clinton must remain president)

 

• THE SHAYS SYNDROME: (clinton is a rapist; therefore clinton is a fit president)

 

THE LIEBERMAN PARADIGM

Senator Joseph Lieberman's bifurcated Monicagate speech in 1998 on the floor of the Senate was almost universally misperceived as an act of honesty and courage.

In reality, it was neither.

Reduced to its essence, Lieberman's argument was this:

clinton is an unfit president;

therefore, clinton must remain president.

I have called this argument "The Lieberman Paradigm."

Lieberman's argument that sorry day was rightly headed toward clinton's certain ouster when it suddenly made a swift, hairpin 180, as if clinton hacks took over the wheel. . .which they probably did.

What was Joe promised? A place on the 2000 ticket?

To be fair, it was not the Lieberman speech but rather a New York Times apologia that institutionalized this shameless scheme to protect a thoroughly corrupt and repugnant--and--as everyone except The New York Times now acknowledges-- dangerous -- Democrat regime.

The Lieberman Paradigm made its debut in The Times' utterly loony 1996 endorsement of clinton. The Times actually argued--NOTE: this is NOT satire--that although bill clinton was a "corrupt," "dysfunctional personality [with} delusions" -- The Times' own words -- we need not--we must not--remove bill clinton; we need only remove.the character lobe of bill clinton's brain.*

 

THE SHAYS SYNDROME

Not an aberration, the Shays Syndrome was quickly adopted by the entire Senate as its impeachment show trial deus ex machina of choice.

Shays, you may recall, examined the evidence in the Ford Building, concluded that clinton did, indeed, rape Broaddrick -- "VICIOUSLY!" AND "TWICE!" he declared at the time-- and was planning to vote to impeach; he changed his mind, however, after a tete a tete with the rapist.

Any cognitive dissonance Shays may have experienced rendering that verdict was no doubt assuaged by the political plum clinton had given Mrs. (Betsi) Shays...

Each of the 50 senators, on the other hand, cured the cognitive dissonance problem pre-emptively by making certain not to examine the damning Ford Building evidence in the first place.

Well, with the help of the 100 corrupt and cowardly cullions, clinton walked. The senators' justification for their acquittal votes requires the suspension of rational thought (and, in the curious case of Arlen Specter, national jurisdiction).

--Mia T, Musings: Senatorial Courtesy Perverted

THE OTHER NIXON

by Mia T

Hypocrisy abounds in this Age of clinton, a Postmodern Oz rife with constitutional deconstruction and semantic subversion, a virtual surreality polymarked by presidential alleles peccantly misplaced or, in the case of Jefferson, posthumously misappropriated.

Shameless pharisees in stark relief crowd the Capitol frieze:

Baucus, Biden, Bingaman, Breaux, Bryan, Byrd, Cohen, Conrad, Daschle, Dodd, Gore, Graham, Harkin, Hollings, Inouye, Kennedy, Kerrey, Kerry, Kohl, Lautenberg, Leahy, Levin, Lieberman, Mikulski, Moynihan, Reid, Robb, Rockefeller, Sarbanes, Schumer.

These are the 28 sitting Democratic senators, the current Vice President and Secretary of Defense -- clinton defenders all -- who, in 1989, voted to oust U.S. District Judge Walter Nixon for making "false or misleading statements to a grand jury."

In 1989 each and every one of these men insisted that perjury was an impeachable offense. (What a difference a decade and a decadent Democrat make.)

Senator Herb Kohl (November 7, 1989):

"But Judge Nixon took an oath to tell the truth and the whole truth. As a grand jury witness, it was not for him to decide what would be material. That was for the grand jury to decide. Of all people, Federal Judge Walter Nixon certainly knew this.

"So I am going to vote 'guilty' on articles one and two. Judge Nixon lied to the grand jury. He misled the grand jury. These acts are indisputably criminal and warrant impeachment."

 

Senator Tom Daschle (November 3, 1989):

"This morning we impeached a judge from Mississippi for failing to tell the truth. Those decisions are always very difficult and certainly, in this case, it came after a great deal of concern and thoughtful analysis of the facts."  

 

Congressman Charles Schumer (May 10, 1989):  

"Perjury, of course, is a very difficult, difficult thing to decide; but as we looked and examined all of the records and in fact found many things that were not in the record it became very clear to us that this impeachment was meritorious."

 

Senator Carl Levin (November 3, 1989):

"The record amply supports the finding in the criminal trial that Judge Nixon's statements to the grand jury were false and misleading and constituted perjury. Those are the statements cited in articles I and II, and it is on those articles that I vote to convict Judge Nixon and remove him from office."

 

* * * * *

"The hypocrite's crime is that he bears false witness against himself," observed the philosopher Hannah Arendt. "What makes it so plausible to assume that hypocrisy is the vice of vices is that integrity can indeed exist under the cover of all other vices except this one. Only crime and the criminal, it is true, confront us with the perplexity of radical evil; but only the hypocrite is really rotten to the core."

If hypocrisy is the vice of vices, then perjury is the crime of crimes, for perjury provides the necessary cover for all other crimes.

David Lowenthal, professor emeritus of political science at Boston College makes the novel and compelling argument that perjury is "bribery consummate, using false words instead of money or other things of value to pervert the course of justice" and, thus, perjury is a constitutionally enumerated high crime.

The Democrats' defense of clinton's perjury -- and their own hypocrisy -- is three-pronged. 

ONE:

clinton's perjuries were "just about sex" and therefore "do not rise to the level of an impeachable offense."

This argument is spurious. The courts make no distinction between perjuries. Perjury is perjury. Perjury attacks the very essence of democracy. Perjury is bribery consummate.

Moreover, (the clinton spinners notwithstanding), clinton's perjury was not "just about sex." clinton's perjury was about clinton denying a citizen justice by lying in a civil rights-sexual harassment case about his sexual history with subordinates.

TWO:

Presidents and judges are held to different standards under the Constitution.

Because the Constitution stipulates that federal judges, who are appointed for life, "shall hold their offices during good behavior,'' and because there is no similar language concerning the popularly elected, term-limited president, it must have been perfectly agreeable to the Framers, so the (implicit) argument goes, to have a perjurious, justice-obstructing reprobate as president.

clinton's defenders ignore Federalist No. 57, and Hillary Rodham's constitutional treatise on impeachable acts -- written in 1974 when she wanted to impeach a president; both mention "bad conduct" as grounds for impeachment.

"Impeachment," wrote Rodham, "did not have to be for criminal offenses -- but only for a 'course of conduct' that suggested an abuse of power or a disregard for the office of the President of the United States...A person's 'course of conduct' while not particularly criminal could be of such a nature that it destroys trust, discourages allegiance, and demands action by the Congress...The office of the President is such that it calls for a higher level of conduct than the average citizen in the United States."

Hamilton (or Madison) discussed the importance of wisdom and virtue in Federalist 57. "The aim of every political constitution is, or ought to be, first to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society; and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous whilst they continue to hold their public trust."

(Contrast this with clinton, who recklessly, reflexively and feloniously subordinates the common good to his personal appetites.)

Because the Framers did not anticipate the demagogic efficiency of the electronic bully pulpit, they ruled out the possibility of an MTV mis-leader (and impeachment-thwarter!) like clinton. In Federalist No. 64, John Jay said: "There is reason to presume" the president would fall only to those "who have become the most distinguished by their abilities and virtue." He imagined that the electorate would not "be deceived by those brilliant appearances of genius and patriotism which, like transient meteors, sometimes mislead as well as dazzle."

(If the clinton debacle teaches us anything, it is this: If we are to retain our democracy in this age of the electronic demagogue, we must recalibrate the constitutional balance of power.)

THREE:

The president can be prosecuted for his alleged felonies after he leaves office. (Nota bene ROBERT RAY.)

This clinton-created censure contrivance -- borne out of what I have come to call the "Lieberman Paradigm" (clinton is an unfit president; therefore clinton must remain president) -- is nothing less than a postmodern deconstruction in which the Oval Office would serve for two years as a holding cell for the perjurer-obstructor.

Such indecorous, dual-purpose architectonics not only threatens the delicate constitutional framework -- it disturbs the cultural aesthetic. The senators must, therefore, roundly reject this elliptic scheme.

In this postmodern Age of clinton, we may, from time to time, selectively stomach corruption. But we must never abide ugliness. Never.

 

History Lesson

by Mia T

 

Someone--was it Maupassant?--

once called history "that excitable and lying old lady."

The same can be said of historians.

 

Surely it can be said of Doris Kearns Goodwin,

the archetypical pharisaical historian,

not-so-latently clintonoid,

Lieberman-Paradigmatic

(i.e., clinton is an unfit president;

therefore clinton must remain president),

intellectually dishonest,

(habitually doing what the Arthur Schlesingers of this world do:

making history into the proof of their theories).

 

The Forbids 400's argument is shamelessly spurious.

They get all unhinged over the impeachment of clinton,

claiming that it will

"leave the presidency permanently disfigured and diminished,

at the mercy as never before of the caprices of any Congress."

 

Yet they dismiss the real and present--and future!!--danger

to the presidency and the country

of not impeaching and removing

this admittedly unfit, (Goodwin)

"documentably dysfunctional," (The New York Times)

presidency-diminishing, (Goodwin)

power-abusing,

psychopathic thug.

 

Doris Kearns Goodwin and those 400 other

hog-and-bow-tied-save-clinton,

retrograde-obsessing historiographers

are a supercilious, power-hungry,

egomaniacal lot in their own right.

 

For them, clinton validates

what Ogden Nash merely hypothesized:

Any buffoon can make history,

but only a great man can write it.

Copyright Mia T 2003

 

[Mia T]

Thx for your comments.

I understand your position, but my intent wasn't to "bash" Moynihan. On the contrary. This post was in fact a reaction to hillary clinton's self-aggrandizing exploitation of Moynihan's death.

If anything does indict Moynihan, it is his own hypocrisy, his lack of courage, his pathologic self-interest. Moynihan held the key. Had Moynihan taken that walk to the Oval Office, clinton would have been forced to resign. Had Moynihan not acquiesced, the clintons would not be poised to take back the presidency.

Frankly, as the reports hit the wires of our soldiers being blown to bits, I think less about aesthetic sensibilities and more about the narcissistic, power-hungry , dysfunctional politicians who got us into this mess.

Remember, in the mid-90s there was still time to do something about the terrorism…

[duckln]

No one is denying Moynihan was exceptional, but he lacked the big one quality, character. He consistently 'sold out to the devil' to keep his platform.

Cicero's post puts it brilliantly. Other big talkers as Lieberman and Byrd have the same flaw, convincing prose followed by a washing of hands.

Private post to Mia for the unnecessary length and graphics, takes 15 minutes to download. Very very, very, very annoying.

[Mia T]

I should learn from my mistakes. When I posted the following on Buddy's death, even my own dog barked!

Buddy Death Report Raises More Questions Than It Answers

 

By MIA T

 

 

HAPPAQUA, N.Y., Jan. 4 -- The clinton-PR-machine-generated report of the death of Buddy, the impeached ex-president's chocolate Labrador, raises more questions than it answers. The report states: "Buddy playfully took after a contractor leaving the Clinton home about noon and was struck by a sport utility vehicle on Route 117 at the bottom of Old House Lane...Neither Mr. Clinton nor Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton were [sic] home at the time. The only comment they will make on the matter is by way of a statement issued by Mrs. Clinton's office: 'My best memory is that I did not have any involvement in that death.'"

 

 

The report fails to explain how Buddy was able to wrest from the strong arm of the Secret Service and negotiate the multimillion-dollar, taxpayer-financed retrofits that were installed to make the poorly located suburban house safe for the universally despised former first couple. The report also fails to include a timeline detailing the whereabouts of the clintons on the day of the death. The clinton report's indictment of a sport utility vehicle (SUV) has caused incipient whispers of a vast left-wing conspiracy and the ever-expanding list of dead adverse clinton witnesses to fill the Senate cloakroom.

 

 

Buddy was a 1997 'gift' from a 'benefactor' who subscribed to the notion: "If you want a friend in Washington, get a dog," particularly sage advice for a DC couple forever mired in scandal and antipathy. Whether Buddy also subscribed to that notion was questioned as recently as last January when he entangled himself in clinton's legs, dropping the impeached ex-president to the pavement; clinton insisted at the time that there was no malevolence involved, that they were simply playing a game of fetch. clinton refused to say who was doing the fetching. (see BILL & HILL & BUDDY & HELEN, Helen Thomas Syndrome: THE SYMPTOMS )

 

 

The White House reported that the clintons' first First Pet, Socks, a cat, greeted the canine acquisition with "a hiss previously reserved only for Ken Starr." Because Buddy remained Socks' nemesis throughout the clinton dog days, Socks was eventually exiled to Virginia, to the suburban home of Betty Currie, former clinton subornee and sex scheduler. At the time, clinton observed: "I made more progress in the Middle East than I did between Socks and Buddy." Retrospectively, it is clear that clinton's characterization was not correct.

 

 

Buddy web sites quickly exploded throughout cyberspace. (Socks web sites, too, he would add.) Mrs. clinton, a long-time adherent of synergistic exploitation, "authored" an instant book about three groups favored for exploitation by the clintons: dogs, cats and children. "Dear Socks, Dear Buddy: Kids' Letters to the First Pets" was published by the clintons' personal agitprop-and-money-laundering machine, Simon & Schuster. (see Is hillary clinton's $8M "book advance" a Peter-Principle artifact?)

Although Chappaqua locals share the national repugnance for the clintons, their feelings never spilled over to Buddy. "The big highlight for people was, 'I just saw Buddy,' never mind Mr. and Mrs. Clinton," said Christine Meyer, owner of Wags and Whiskers here.

[Mia T]

bump

[Mia T]

The same pattern repeated itself again and again. Moynihan had the intelligence to discern the truth, and he had the moral insight to discern right from wrong; but again and again he chose wrong out of political expediency.

The clinton impeachment trial and the gift of his senate seat to Hillary! were only two of the latest incidents in this sad decay of a great man.

 

I cannot call Moynihan great precisely because he could discern these things and chose to abandon them.

Most of the time it could be seen by the dullest eye that Senator Moynihan was drunk. I doubt that his blood alcohol level ever went below 0.1%, even when he woke up in the morning before taking his first drink. I have always assumed that he drank like a fish because he had a bad conscience and was seeking forgetfulness.

It never occurred to me, but you are so right. Politicking under the influence is dangerous to our country's health.

[Cicero]

Those of us with cable connections love Mia's posts. She's been posting great artwork for years--especially the clinton years.

[litany_of_lies]

Moynihan's failure to vote for impeachment on the basis of universally acknowledged perjury in a federal court proceeding was the "crowning point" of his entire career. As noted elsewhere, he was great at identifying the problem, but refused, with rare exception, to cast an unpopular vote to do anything about it.

He saw the breakup of welfare families that would occur because of the welfare state, but always voted to keep feeding it, and in fact predicted catastrophe when Welfare Reform passed in 1996.

I will give him some credit for sounding the alarm on the Clinton's attempted takeover of the health-care system in 1993-1994. Thank God it never got to a Senate vote, though, because he probably would have gone along with it.

He also spoke out against partial-birth abortion, but that is such a "duh" issue that the only credit he deserves is for recognizing an atrocity when he sees it. He was otherwise strongly pro-abort. Moynihan's career can generally be summed up in the four favorite words of all so-called "moderate" Democrats in public office: "Talk conservative, vote liberal."

[Incorrigible]

There is nothing wrong with your post about Moynihan Mia at this time or anytime.

I great that you were able to sum him up so concisely.

Keep up the good work.

[Stay the course]

Nice to see Moynihan's comments on the Clintons recorded for posterity. Thanks.

Sen. Byrd is another one who despises the Clintons (he refused to attend x42's State of the Union addresses), but failed to do the right thing on impeachment.

Lest we forget, here are the roll call votes on the four articles of impeachment:

Article I	House vote	Senate vote
Article II	House vote
Article III	House vote	Senate vote
Article IV	House vote

[Mia T]

excellent. bump!

[Mia T]

thx. ;)

[Mia T]

I suspect that most of Congress despises the clintons…

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

Enough traditions have already been thrown to the wind. Things like respecting adults, not cussing in front of little kids, and RESPECTING the dead. Heck, we used to turn on our headlights if we saw a funeral procession coming our way.

I think the timing of this criticism is what I object to the most. Perhaps on another day I will debate the merits of his service, or his lack of them. But it won't be right now.

Call me old fashion.. but thats my opinion. I don't care to look like the very political party I disagree with. I am still reeling from Sen. Wellstones funeral.

I won't be a hypocrit and say it was OK for the Dems to politicize his death.. then do the same thing with Sen. Moynihans death.

God Bless the Senator. May he rest in peace.

[NYpeanut]

And I remember Hillary in her black pants suit up at Moynihan's farm. For this alone, Moynihan should be excoriated...he's the only person on the planet who could have prevented Hillary from becoming senator.

I agree completely. All of Moynihan's pretty words amounted to absolutely nothing as he remained a loyal democrat and delivered an evil woman to his Senate seat. I refuse to cut him any slack just because he's dead.

History is history. We're all going to die someday, and our actions are our legacy. The co-rapist is part of his.

[Helms]

I wonder whether Lieberman has rented "8 Mile " yet? These folks possess no essence or sustance. only mutable form.

[mickie]

Good one, here....thanks Mia.

[WFTR]

First, the notion of respecting the dead seems silly to me. Once I'm dead, I'll be beyond the judgments of anyone left here on earth, and therefore their judgments will be meaningless. Whether you or I respect Moynihan will no longer have any effect on him. There are some actions that would not be appropriate, but discussing his record as a public person is still entirely appropriate.

I agree with showing respect for those who are left behind. I wouldn't protest at Moynihan's funeral. I likely wouldn't even talk about his record at this time on a public forum that was meant to be nonpartisan. However, Free Republic is not a nonpartisan forum. This forum is intended as a venue for conservative thought and ideas. As such, it is a place where posting the truth about how this guy performed as a public servant is entirely appropriate.

I have two more questions.

1. If you weren't ready to hear these things at this time, why did you bother to open a thread with the title "Moynihan Myths?" Would it have been okay to run a thread that whitewashed his hypocrisies?

2. Would you feel the same way if he were Bill Clinton? On the day that Bill Clinton dies, will his history of being a liar, traitor, and rapist suddenly pass? As far as I'm concerned, Bill Clinton will just be dead rapist on that day. I won't intrude on the grief of those fools who admire him, but those of us at Free Republic shouldn't hesitate to be glad that the scum is gone.

WFTR
Bill

[185JHP]

Right. But OTOH she might be Governor of one of the few states that would put someone so foul in the Governor's Mansion. Not any Senators make it to 1600 Penn.

[Cboldt]

Respectful - bump - for truth over fashion