Half of America Fears Corruption if Clinton Elected

[Lemur]

Some nice poll-smoking from Zogby (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200704/POL20070405b.html). All I have to say is this: only half?


More than six years after the Clintons left the White House, nearly half of the respondents in a new poll -- 45 percent -- worry that if they return, they could bring "high levels of corruption" with them.

A Zogby International poll released Thursday in Washington highlights in particular concerns about former President Bill Clinton's ability to "behave honestly in the White House" if his wife, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), is elected president in 2008.

[Marshal Murat]

I don't doubt that larger governments leads to larger amounts of corruption. It's just to darn bad we can't fall on swords more often.

Wasn't it Tacitus or some Roman poet who said...
"The more laws there are, the more corruption there is." ?

[Martok]

Right. And the Bush administration has been absolutely free of corruption as well.... ~:rolleyes:

Besides which, if Hillary is elected, I think corruption will be the least of our problems. (Canada, here I come!) ~D

[Odin]

Right. And the Bush administration has been absolutely free of corruption as well.... ~:rolleyes:

Besides which, if Hillary is elected, I think corruption will be the least of our problems. (Canada, here I come!) ~D

Martok how you been?

The Bush admins corruption was far more devious in my opinion, maksed under the patriot act they certainly pissed on civil liberties.... And I am still very bothered over the valerie plame wmd fiasco.

The clintons were a case of good old fashion greed, the bush admin have some fundementalists steering the adgenda which is a hell of a lot more scary then billy clinton lying under oath.

I dont think Hilary is going to get in anyway, too much baggage from the past, however given the field of democrats the other 2 front runners (obama and edwards) have very little political expirence.

[Marshal Murat]

Edwards isn't going to get as many votes as he hoped for.

I think Obama will get it, but go out like Robert Kennedy.

[lars573]

(Canada, here I come!) ~D
I believe the words frying pan and fire apply here. :clown:

[Lemur]

I think Obama will get it, but go out like Robert Kennedy.
If he gains the nomination, I certainly hope that isn't the case. Assassination is so sixties.

[doc_bean]

Err, what did they say about the other candidaes and previous presidents ?

I'd consider 45% low, personally.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Killing Obama would be disgraceful.

on a side note, lately i've been rooting for Romney. I believe that Governors make better Presidents than Congressmen?????? lets review it. anybody up for it?

[Odin]

on a side note, lately i've been rooting for Romney.

He was my Govenor in MA and if anyone can manage to get things done with the opposition party controlling the legislature Romney can. He got hamstrung in MA because its a very liberal state (perhaps the most) and he is a moderate.

I think he is a good candidate but his lack of foreign policy expirence is worrisome given current conditions, I also think his faith will be an issue in traditional southern red states.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Only half? Thats distressing :laugh4:

It dont matter anyway as none of these Dems stand a snowballs chance in hell of being elected. Look for a Rep pres and a dem congress in 08.

[Crazed Rabbit]

All I have to say is this: only half?

Really. I've no wish to see another Bush or Clinton in the white house after '08.

The Clintons are just so corrupt and power hungry.

Given the current Dem field, it seems likely Hillary will probably get the nomination - and make it real easy for the GOP candidate. I'd rather Obama - he may be even more liberal and socialist, but he doesn't seem so low and dirty.

I'm holding out for Fred Thompson - a real conservative, dangnabit. No Rudy 'Public Funding For Abortion' Guliani (but guns are to be regulated and consficated, apparently) or John 'Free what?' McCain for me. And no Mitt '2nd Amendment=hunting!' Romney either.

Crazed Rabbit

[Adrian II]

I'm holding out for Fred Thompson - a real conservative, dangnabit. No Rudy 'Public Funding For Abortion' Guliani (but guns are to be regulated and consficated, apparently) or John 'Free what?' McCain for me. And no Mitt '2nd Amendment=hunting!' Romney either.Ayyyy me hearty! Are you saying that's all that this election is about: guns and abortion?

[Crazed Rabbit]

No. Tis simply that I will never vote for a candidate who wants to use my tax dollars to support murder, and I will not support candidates who don't understand and respect the constitution.

CR

[ICantSpellDawg]

No. Tis simply that I will never vote for a candidate who wants to use my tax dollars to support murder, and I will not support candidates who don't understand and respect the constitution.

CR


YAr! WelL pUt me MAtEy


Some people put the Environment above all else
Some people put Gay and Female rights above all else
Some people literally put "the whales" above all else


God forbid we put the re-writting of the constitution and the government allowed murder of American children first. Stupid right-wing women-haters that we are.

[KafirChobee]

I'm confused. What corruption occurred under Bill's administration that he or Hillary were involved in?

I mean, we suffered through two investigations of Whitewater - and nothing could be found tying them to the corruption. Though they had been friends with the numbnuts that was (his ex-wife spent 2 years in jail without being charged because she refused to lie - as her ex-hubby did).

Are we talking about "Travelgate"? Where Republican left-overs were fired and replaced with people more loyal? After those fired persisted in putting Bill's advisors on stand-by or in economic class (no way they did that to Bush41's people).

I can't recall Bill handing out uncontested $Billion dollar$ contracts to his friends, or putting his oil buddy friends in critical possitions to change laws that favor them. But, I could be wrong. Doubt it though, I'm pretty sure any wrong doing would have been reported with the same furvor the BJ was.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I'm confused.

Obviously :laugh4:

[Lemur]

The Clintons certainly know how to play bare-knuckle politics (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17995773/site/newsweek/). Not necessarily a good idea with your donors, though ...


Clinton operatives have warned donors not to contribute to other campaigns, and put a price on disloyalty: early supporters will be valued and latecomers scorned. [...] The Clinton campaign denies that it has strong-armed anyone, saying the warnings were made in jest.

[doc_bean]

No. Tis simply that I will never vote for a candidate who wants to use my tax dollars to support murder, and I will not support candidates who don't understand and respect the constitution.

CR

So guns and abortions it is :laugh4:

Two things that no president will be able to change (without sufficient support in congrees and SCOTUS approval at least). Amusing.

[Odin]

I'm confused. What corruption occurred under Bill's administration that he or Hillary were involved in?

I mean, we suffered through two investigations of Whitewater - and nothing could be found tying them to the corruption.

True but he agreed to be disbarred in arkansas for 5 years in exchange for whitewater prosecutors not persuing purgery charges. So what did he lie about that time?

He was impeached for committing purgery

ever hear of the little didd in 96 when it was revealed that there were some donations to his reelection bid by front companies of the peoples republic of china? A very unpopular story you dont hear much about but I remember it.

The pardon of marc rich and hillaries brother excepting bribes for his influence on the pardon process?

his unethical sexual conduct while in office as govenor and president, some charges going as far as rape.(never proven).

Sadly many of these were never proven out so technically there is no law broken, but these stories appeared in the "liberal media" these are from Rush Limbaugh or the drudge report.

Hillaries claim in all this? She was on the inside mate, she isnt a stupid woman.

[scooter_the_shooter]

So guns and abortions it is :laugh4:

Two things that no president will be able to change (without sufficient support in congrees and SCOTUS approval at least). Amusing.

I'm actually with rabbit ranking guns up in the top 2. And the laws can change very easily. HR1022 is still making its way through congress trying to become a bill. It already has 34 co-sponsors.

(it's a permanet assault weapons ban similar to the one in 94' but even worse)




The only suitable candidate is Fred Thompson. The front runners for both parties right now make me cringe.



Here are some quotes from Fred thompson during a fox news interview.http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258222,00.html



When being asked when he would make his desicion wether to run or not



WALLACE: I read one article that said that the timetable was you would make a decision by May.

THOMPSON: I don't know where that came from. I've never said that.

WALLACE: Do you have any kind of a deadline?

THOMPSON: No.

WALLACE: Could you go into the summer? Could you go into ...

THOMPSON: I think so.


Another quote




People are going to have different ideas. That's why we have states. We ought to give great leeway to states and not have the federal government and not have the Supreme Court of the United States making social policy that's contrary to the traditions of this country and changing that overnight. And that's what's happened in a lot of these areas.


Another one from the interview.



WALLACE: On the other hand, you have taken some stands that conservatives may not like. For instance, you voted for John McCain's campaign finance reform.

THOMPSON: I came from the outside to Congress. And it always seemed strange to me. We've got a situation where people could give politicians huge sums of money, which is the soft money situation at that time, and then come before those same politicians and ask them to pass legislation for them.

I mean, you get thrown in jail for stuff like that in the real world. And so I always thought that there was some reasonable limitation that ought to be put on that, and you know, looking back on history, Barry Goldwater in his heyday felt the same thing.

So that's not a non-conservative position, although I agree that a lot of people have interpreted it that way.



When asked about gun control.



THOMPSON: Well, I'm against gun control generally. You know, you check my record. You'll find I'm pretty consistent on that issue.

WALLACE: So this federal court — appeals court ruling this last week, I guess Friday, in the case of D.C. — you'd be perfectly happy to have people have handguns in their homes?

THOMPSON: Yes. Absolutely. The court basically said the Constitution means what it says, and I agree with that.




Better then Gulliani, Hilary, Obama and Mcain by a long shot, and best of all he is not another dirty career politician!

[AntiochusIII]

Like doc_bean masterfully observed, Presidents can't do a thing about landmark Constitution-breaking laws or whatever without Congressional and/or SCOTUS' support. We are a goddam three-part government for a reason, you know!

A President's single most important quality is competence/intelligence in general. He is the Executive. He is the one to act and administrate the government of the nation. With the issue of competence being equal, the political ideals the man (or the woman) subscribes to becomes a deciding factor.

While I'm sure yours truly the President could influence the directions of the laws whats with his credentials and a de facto leadership of his party, in the end it is your Congressman who decides, or perhaps the free-for-all political playground that SCOTUS has become -- I observe the blatant partisanship in such nominations with sadness.

As for me, while I understand the tenets of the concept of state's rights and all that, I actually find it most...irrelevant in terms of modern political beliefs. America is one nation. I treat States as provinces for all intends and purposes. It wasn't before this, I'm aware, and the natives of the USA have their roots to think about, but I don't see any real advantage "getting back there;" only more possibility for a Civil Rights nightmare that the state's rights cause once was.

I also greatly dislike the idea of such a political election being grounds for a moral Crusade -- especially a Crusade I don't appreciate -- and desperately despise the media circus every election...

[Gawain of Orkeny]

A President's single most important quality is competence/intelligence in general. He is the Executive. He is the one to act and administrate the government of the nation. With the issue of competence being equal, the political ideals the man (or the woman) subscribes to becomes a deciding factor.


GWB proves this beyond a doubt :laugh4: Or was he elected because of his competence and intelligence in general?

[AntiochusIII]

GWB proves this beyond a doubt :laugh4: Or was he elected because of his competence and intelligence in general?Well of course, I'm giving critique against the American electorate here, my friend. Just complaining about the misplaced priorities, as usual. ~:)

He was also billed as a guv'nor, and therefore supposedly superior in management qualities to Congressmen and Vice Presidents as well, no? :beam:

[doc_bean]

I'm actually with rabbit ranking guns up in the top 2. And the laws can change very easily. HR1022 is still making its way through congress trying to become a bill. It already has 34 co-sponsors.


And if it has enough support to get through congress then it will probably have enough support to become a rider to a much more important bill. The president has executive power, not legislative, he has influence, but in no way would I say this is large enough to vote someone into office based on this. certainly not considering his other duties and he can royally screw over if he sucks at those *cough*Dubya*cough*.