|
|
| Author |
Message |
bdh3
|
|
| 
Mar 30 10:05 UTC 2002 |
SJ Editorial: A New Type Of Scandal Fatigue, Enron
Scandal Boring
Fri Mar 29 2002 10:51:24 ET
We'd like to lodge a protest against the Bush
Administration: It is dragging down scandal standards in
Washington. Not too long ago, we journalists could write
about affairs with interns, Arkansas land deals, Lincoln
Bedroom sleepovers and Presidential pardons for sale.
Now, that was fun.
But what do the Bushies give us? Meetings between Energy
Secretary Spence Abraham and . . . energy companies!
This is the shocking news contained in the 11,000 pages
of documents released this week on the drafting of the
Bush energy plan. "Investigative" reporters combed
through the documents to expose such five-bell scoops as
"energy companies met more than 30 times with top
officials." All of America is abuzzzzzzz.
There's more, if you can stand the suspense. Mr. Abraham
gave more face time to people who backed Mr. Bush for
President than he did to environmentalists who supported
Al Gore. In drafting a bill to increase oil and coal
production, in other words, the Bushies consulted people
who know something about oil and coal. Even more
amazing, they often took the advice of those very same
people!
It goes without saying that these proposals weren't
covered up but were presented to the public and
Congress. The ideas have all since been debated in the
light of day. And nearly all of the most controversial
have passed the House or the Senate, or both.
Having to read about all this has given us a whole new
appreciation for what James Carville and Lanny Davis
called "scandal fatigue." And we empathize with our
peers who actually have to report it. The lack of
scandal has been so disorienting that the poor souls
have begun to quote Larry Klayman of Judicial Watch, who
was dismissed during the Clinton years as a right-wing
crank. For Beltway journalism, it's going to be a long
four years.
END
|
| 69 responses total. |
scott
|
|
response 1 of 69:
|
Mar 30 14:07 UTC 2002 |
And the Bush apologists continue to push to the party line.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 2 of 69:
|
Mar 30 16:05 UTC 2002 |
When Clinton was in the White House the Republicans INVENTED
scandals, like Whitewater, Lincoln bedrooms, pardons, etc. Now
that they are in office the create REAL scandals by bypassing
the democratic processes with secret consultations over policy
with their financial supporters.
|
klg
|
|
response 3 of 69:
|
Mar 30 16:28 UTC 2002 |
Weren't people convicted fo Whitewater-related crimes?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 4 of 69:
|
Mar 30 18:50 UTC 2002 |
Yes, but nothing to do with the Clintons. I should add the sexual
scandals attributed to Clinton. They had nothing to do with
government. The recent Bush scandals have everything to do with
government. ANWR for the rich, energy policy for the rich, reversal
of roadless policy for the rich.....all rewards for his cronies.
|
jazz
|
|
response 5 of 69:
|
Mar 30 20:08 UTC 2002 |
Unlike his father, whose first act of kickback benefitted members of
his "Team 100" to the tune of 187 million through real-estate capital gains
tax subclauses.
|
klg
|
|
response 6 of 69:
|
Mar 30 22:09 UTC 2002 |
Thank goodness Clinton had not cronies.
|
oval
|
|
response 7 of 69:
|
Mar 30 22:12 UTC 2002 |
pick one:
a) your president uses a cigar as a dildo.
b) your president wipes his ass with the constitution.
|
klg
|
|
response 8 of 69:
|
Mar 30 22:14 UTC 2002 |
nincompoop - Does b mean giving perjured testimony to a federal court?
|
oval
|
|
response 9 of 69:
|
Mar 30 22:28 UTC 2002 |
leeron - not really - as the constitution is covered in shit.
referring to me as nincompoop is mean.
|
scott
|
|
response 10 of 69:
|
Mar 30 22:41 UTC 2002 |
Re 3: True, some Clinton people got convicted. Not as many as Reagan had,
however. If Clinton was so sleazy, how come it was Reagan who had so many
staffers & appointees convicted?
|
mcnally
|
|
response 11 of 69:
|
Mar 31 00:22 UTC 2002 |
Probably the Republican opposition just weren't trying hard enough..
|
jazz
|
|
response 12 of 69:
|
Mar 31 07:58 UTC 2002 |
Clinton did a number of very corrupt things.
Clinton, however, is not currently in office.
Therefore Clinton's corruptions are, though germane to a discussion
of Bush's corruptions, not a good excuse them.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 13 of 69:
|
Mar 31 20:15 UTC 2002 |
What did Clinton do that was "corrupt"? He did some things that many
consider immoral, but "corrupt"? " Clinton has been cleared on Whitewater,
Filegate, Travelgate, Troopergate, Vince Foster's death, cocaine smuggling
at Mena airport and dozens of other baseless accusations. The only thing
they could get him on was the cover-up of an entirely legal and consensual
affair." (http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-clintoncorrupt.html). So, what
did he do that was "corrupt"?
|
mcnally
|
|
response 14 of 69:
|
Mar 31 21:57 UTC 2002 |
I'm not a right-wing Clinton-phobe but I find his dealings with the
Riady family and connection to illegal overseas fundraising to be
moderately well-proven instances of corruption.
|
drew
|
|
response 15 of 69:
|
Mar 31 22:32 UTC 2002 |
Re #7:
What president *didn"t* do both of these?
|
jazz
|
|
response 16 of 69:
|
Mar 31 23:01 UTC 2002 |
Clinton's handling of the investigation about the affair he had with
Lewinsky was certainly corrupt. Backing the DMCA was a pretty far cry from
the moderate values he espoused, too.
|
oval
|
|
response 17 of 69:
|
Mar 31 23:23 UTC 2002 |
i think clinton was a bit sleazy, but not because of the lewinsky fiasco.
|
bdh3
|
|
response 18 of 69:
|
Apr 1 02:26 UTC 2002 |
It depends on what the meaning of the word 'corrupt' is...
|
rcurl
|
|
response 19 of 69:
|
Apr 1 05:56 UTC 2002 |
Re #14: the DNC returned the illegal donations. So, nothing and no one
was corrupted. Why raise a dead issue?
|
bdh3
|
|
response 20 of 69:
|
Apr 1 06:04 UTC 2002 |
The bell can in fact be unrung...
|
mcnally
|
|
response 21 of 69:
|
Apr 1 07:17 UTC 2002 |
re #19: that's like saying that if I break into your house and steal
your television set but you catch me and force me to give it back that
I haven't committed a crime.
Giving the proceeds back when you get caught in the act doesn't make you
innocent..
|
klg
|
|
response 22 of 69:
|
Apr 1 14:11 UTC 2002 |
re; " What did Clinton do that was "corrupt"? He did some things that many
consider immoral, but "corrupt"?"
curlie- The definition of "corrupt" is "morally unsound." Thanks for
proving our point!
|
brighn
|
|
response 23 of 69:
|
Apr 1 14:35 UTC 2002 |
#22> Rane's point may be that "corrupt" in the context of politicians usually
implies something involving inappropriate tit-for-tat: Donation money for
legal considerations, for instance. I'm not sure I'd consider having sex
outside of marriate "corrupt" because it has nothing to do with his job *as
a politician*: It makes him a corrupt person, if that's your morality, but
it doesn't make him a corrupt politician.
Lying under oath, though, does.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 24 of 69:
|
Apr 1 14:44 UTC 2002 |
Political corruption is the only matter at issue. I do not know of any
politically corrupt actions by Clinton, even if some of the things he
did were unwise, or stupid, or unjudicious.
Re #21: the money was *given* to the DNC, it was NOT *taken* by the DNC.
The only person "caught in the act" were the foreign donors. If any
crime was committed the foreign donors committed the crime.
|