Set Up Legislation

[Allison]

Have any of you heard this term before?

I read a little snippet about this campaign tactic, but had never heard the term before.

An example would be this: The minority part in Congress introduces popular legislation that they know would be irresponsible and has no way of passing, like a massive tax cut. Some or all of the minority party can vote for it, forcing the majority to vote against it. Then, at election time, the minority party can campaign on it: "We tried to give you good citizens the tax cut you deserve, but the majority voted against it. They're evil!"

[Rooster]

I've thought about it before... but not heard if it's been done. I would think it would:

A) Be dishonorable

B) Hard to prove that was the original intent; but may sully the reputation of the one initiating the bill anyway.

[Kegg OBeer]

Didn't Hillary Clinton do something very similar to this with all the suposed health care reform she claimed she was trying to pass but never really got accomplished?

[Allison]

Kegg, as for specific legislation, as you know, Hillary wasn't a member of Congress and so couldn't have proposed any herself. But, other than that, I really don't remember the specifics of any healthcare legislation proposed by Democrats at the time. I'd have to look it up.

All I remember is that her commitee on healthcare reform was disbanded after they lost a court battle to keep the meetings private. (Dick Cheney is going through the same thing right now with his energy commitee. You gotta give him credit for, if nothing else, sticking to his guns and taking it to the U.S. Supreme Court.)

But, it wouldn't surprise me at all if this "set up" legislation were common practice on the Hill. I know it exists in lesser degrees. And it's just another reason why I try to analyze the context of every "Candidate X voted against blah blah" claim.

(On a sidenote, that whole issue of private vs. public meetings is another perfect example of short-term-memory partisan bickering. There exist Democrats who supported Hillary then but criticize Cheney now, and Republicans who criticized Hillary then but support Cheney now. Kinda funny how positions change when the issue is exactly the same. )

[Kegg OBeer]

(On a sidenote, that whole issue of private vs. public meetings is another perfect example of short-term-memory partisan bickering. There exist Democrats who supported Hillary then but criticize Cheney now, and Republicans who criticized Hillary then but support Cheney now. Kinda funny how positions change when the issue is exactly the same. )

From what I understood she was leading some kind of task force that was proposing changes to the health care system.

To a degree I agree with you here, but I do have to say that the things Hillary was trying to do were just ridiculous and all political fluff. She just wanted people to think the republicans were the bad guys for "blocking healthcare reform". In actuality, she was effectively trying to raise the prices of healthcare by setting ridiculous standards for them to follow. As if health care isn't expensive enough...

From what I understand about the energy thing with Cheny, the changes actually make sense but he's running into too much partisan blocking to get anything accomplished. Perhaps it's Hillary and her butt buddies blocking him? Or perhaps it's the corporations trying to keep their monopolies intact? Just a thought...

[Allison]

Whatever your feelings about Hillary Clinton's healthcare reform or Dick Cheney's energy commision, I think you have to agree, though, that the issue of the validity of holding their meetings in private is the same.

[Boom]

But did Hillary try to keep the names of the people on the committee private?

I think that is the issue with Cheney, he might have like Ken Lay and those kind of Big Energy CEO people on the committee and their agenda may be more geared towards protecting their evil monopolies then towards coming up with a solution to the Energy issue that is in the best interest of us common folk.

Of course, you should have one or two of those type people on the committee, they know how the Energy system works and it would be silly not to get their input. But the committee should be balanced with some public advocate type people too.

Maybe they are entitled to some privacy as they do their work. Its hard to work with people hovering over your shoulder. But I would like to know at least the names of the people on the committee. That shouldn't hinder their work. And it seems kind of UnAmerican to hide the identity of the people who are making our Energy policy. I know the government has secrets, like we can't know everything the FBI is doing, but we know who is in charge of the FBI.

Also, once all the work is done on this Energy Committee (and aren't they done now??), all the stuff should be made public. Give them some privacy so they can get their work done, but don't shred everything afterwards. Once they are all done everything should be made public. This is a democracy and all that jazz of "for the people, by the people, etc etc"

[Swifty_Johnson]

The differance is Hillary was a private citizen, Cheney is an elected public offical. The laws that are in question protect elected public officals and the imput they get in making policy. If Hillary was elected she too could have taken it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Swifty

[Boom]

Well hell...

I have no right to peek in on a private citizen holding meetings. I certainly have a right to know what my government is doing.

[Allison]

The differance is Hillary was a private citizen, Cheney is an elected public offical. The laws that are in question protect elected public officals and the imput they get in making policy. If Hillary was elected she too could have taken it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

SwiftyI have to disagree with you, Swifty. Whether elected or not has no bearing on the case.

First, there really aren't any laws to speak of regarding Executive Privelege. It derives from the Constitution, although it's not specifically mentioned there. It's more of a gentlemen's agreement that has evolved over the years, and subsequently been invoked by various administrations on behalf of both elected and non-elected officials, sometimes successfully, sometimes not. The courts have ruled on it many times, namely United States v. Nixon, and have concluded "the valid need for protection of communications between high Government officials and those who advise and assist them in the performance of their manifold duties." However, they have also found that the privelege is not absolute. And that is why, when challenged vigorously, each case will be decided by the judiciary.

But typically, the President has invoked Executive Privelege on behalf of his advisors, saying that those who advise the president must feel free to do so without the threat of public scrutiny. However, even if we assume this authority is absolute, which it isn't, it still isn't clear as to whether anyone other than the President can invoke this privelege. Right now, Cheney is invoking it on behalf of the unnamed private citizens who are advising him in the energy commission. But the Constitution gives no Executive powers to the V.P. as long as the President is healthy.

It will be interesting to see what the Supreme Court decides.

But bottom line, there are no clear laws here. And neither is there anything that grants an elected official more rights or authority under Executive Privelege than an appointed official would have.

[Boom]

If we can ask Clinton what he did with his penis while he was still President, we should be able to ask Cheney who he is working with to form our country's energy policy. You can work in secret, till the job is done, then release everything. But tell us who is involved right now.

[Allison]

It's interesting how many times this issue has come up during this administration. Right or wrong, they do love their secrecy. Or, privacy, whichever you prefer. ;)

And I tend to agree with you Boom. Arguments can be made for and against making public the content of those meetings before their work is completed. But, it seems silly that our government has to be sued before we can even know who it is that's shaping our public policies.

I think the key issue here is trust. People who trust the government typically don't care what's done in private. Those who don't trust the government typically want everything done in public. But there is a delicate balance here. Some things need to be private. And the government needs to maintain the trust of the public in order to do that. If they start claiming executive privelege for every little thing, on principle alone, then people will start getting suspicicious and start demanding more and more that things be public. And then, the government's ability to do its job is compromised in those situations that really do require privacy.

It doesn't matter whether something shady is actually going on. The only requirement for the people to lose faith is the perception that something shady is going on. That's why I think it's important that the government operate as transparantly as possible. If they save the privacy demands for when they're really needed, then the people will have enough faith to allow for it.

[Swifty_Johnson]

If we can ask Clinton what he did with his penis while he was still President, we should be able to ask Cheney who he is working with to form our country's energy policy.

BBBZZZZTTTTT wrong. The case vs. Clinton promary focus was his sexual harrassment vs an employee and his lying under oath, it was not about adultry.

So Boooms, is it now okay for bosses to expose their privates to their employees? After all, Clinton did it and appearently it was okay.

Swifty

[Boom]

Sexual harrassment? Where are you getting this from? There has never been any implication that his affair was anything but consentual. Monica never ever ever ever claimed anything like that at all. She was totally in love with him. Hell, by her account she was the main instigator. That's HER account of what happened.

If you are just gonna make stuff up then there is no point in this forum at all.

[Allison]

I think Swifty is saying that the questioning of President Clinton regarding his affair with Monica was the result of the civil suit filed by Paula Jones. What that affair had to do with the allegations made by Jones is still beyond my comprehension, though.

[Boom]

Oh, that load of crap lawsuit.

Still, I think I have a right to know the identity of the people making my country's energy policy. This is supposed be a relatively open government. Let them deliberate in private, but let me at least know who they are. After they are done with the work it should all be made public. I can see how someone looking over your shoulder during the work would effect things, but making it public afterwards doesn't impede any work.

[Sparky]

Shit, rejected again. You are The Last Man on Earth.

Sorry, but most men would rather see the human species wither to an end--and therefore deny the most fundamental instinct that living creatures have--than sleep with you.

We've learned the following: you don't think things through. You're haphazard. You're dangerous. You're somewhat inexperienced. It's totally obvious that you're a horny bugger, as well. Everybody knows that and steers clear.

To top things off, when you do find your way into a relationship, you tend to be a dick somewhere down the line and fuck it all up.


Your exact opposite:
The Gentleman

Deliberate Gentle Love Master

There's a small, but negligible, chance we're wrong. In any case, your friends find your shit hilarious. There's nothing cooler than a dude reducing himself to human rubble.


ALWAYS AVOID: The Slow Dancer

CONSIDER: The Last Man on Earth, The Billy Goat

anyone find this as depressing as I do? LoL.

[spyder913]

sparks...... . wrong thread?

[Swifty_Johnson]

If you are just gonna make stuff up then there is no point in this forum at all.

Make stuff up? It seems you have totally fallen for the propaganda than. Do you want to know the truth or do you still insist on the head-in-the sand?

Time line.

Bill Clinton exposes himself to Paula Jones while governer of Arkansaws.
Paula Jones files a suit vs Clinton for sexual harrassment.
As part of the suit, her lawyers try to portray Clinton as a man who preys on his employees, he and Monica are interviewed and both claim nothing happened.
Suit is thrown out on the grounds that there is no evidance.
Kenneth Starr is tipped off that Clinton lied under oath, he is given evidence of it.
Monica is bought in, confronted and confesses.
Judge of the lawsuit is furious, good chance the suit is going to be picked back up.
Clinton settles out of court.

Oh, that load of crap lawsuit.

So when a women is sexally harrased by her boss, she should just "relax and enjoy it"?

Swifty

[Popo]

So when a women is sexally harrased by her boss, she should just "relax and enjoy it"?

Swifty

ugh............


BBZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT: it's ARKANSAS. Sorry, ppl should at least spell states correctly :P

[Allison]

Reel it in there a tad, Swifty. There's no need to make "head in the sand" accusations when Boom clearly misunderstood to what you were referring, and already acknowleged as much in a subsequent post.


And in the interests of fairness, I just want to clarify a couple of things in your timeline there.

First, Clinton allegedly exposed himself to Paula Jones.

Second, the case wasn't thrown out for lack of evidence, at least not relating to whether or not the incident occurred. The judge in the case had earlier excluded all evidence relating to Monica Lewinsky. So, although I wouldn't be surprised if she were "furious" at Clinton's lie, as you say, whether or not he had admitted the affair wouldn't have changed her decision to dismiss the case. In her decision she said that even if the events had occurred exactly as Jones had described, although "boorish and offensive, it did not rise to level of the legal definition of sexual harassment. In order to do that, Jones would have to prove that the incident resulted in either a hostile work environment or that she was otherwise hindered in her career, of which, the judge concluded, there was no evidence.

[Swifty_Johnson]

First, Clinton allegedly exposed himself to Paula Jones.

First, Clinton exposed himself to Paula Jones. That was an awefully large settlement she got for an "alleged" incident.

Second, Paula Jones was able to describe Clinton's genital area and her description of his erection matched the fact he had penrelis (sp?) diease, which he did have.

So, please tell me how she was able to do all of that without ever seeing Little Willie.

Swifty

[Allison]

I'm not saying it did or didn't happen. I'm saying it's unproven and in dispute by the parties involved. You can say you believe it happened as much as you want. But, saying it did happen misrepresents your opinion as fact.

[Swifty_Johnson]

Okay, explain why the case was setteled for Millions if it didn't happen?

????

Swifty

[Allison]

It wasn't millions, it was 850,000. And, I could just as easily ask why she refused similiar settlement offers that were made much earlier on in the process. Following your logic, I could safely assume she refused them solely for political reasons. But, hey, maybe there were other reasons.

Be serious, Swifty. Corporations settle tons of harassment suits out of court every year. They do it because it's cost effective and it reduces the negative public relations impact that a public trial would have. It doesn't imply guilt.

[Noleader]

Still, I think I have a right to know the identity of the people making my country's energy policy. This is supposed be a relatively open government. Let them deliberate in private, but let me at least know who they are. After they are done with the work it should all be made public. I can see how someone looking over your shoulder during the work would effect things, but making it public afterwards doesn't impede any work.

Boom, what you don't understand is we have been brainwashed by the backhill, one branch family tree, no teeth hillbilly democrats that want to down talk our great leader.

On a serious note if a publicly traded company needs to publish their meeting notes our president can publish the contents of a non-classified meeting that is not covered under national security.


If you are just gonna make stuff up then there is no point in this forum at all.
I promise myself that I will not visit here every day because of this issue. For some damn reason I always come back.

I think it is because I like debating with Roo :)

[Noleader]

It wasn't millions, it was 850,000. And, I could just as easily ask why she refused similiar settlement offers that were made much earlier on in the process. Following your logic, I could safely assume she refused them solely for political reasons. But, hey, maybe there were other reasons.

Be serious, Swifty. Corporations settle tons of harassment suits out of court every year. They do it because it's cost effective and it reduces the negative public relations impact that a public trial would have. It doesn't imply guilt.Also has to do with does the risk of going to court outway the benifit.

For all we know she could have made it up but with the monica thing going on it was doubtful that anyone would beleive him. So looking at it he decided to settle it and not pay the lawyers craploads of cash just to risk losing in the end and paying more cash out.

Lots of people settle because the risk of moving forward is to great.

On a side note Swifty...

To be found at fault in civil court does not mean you are guilty of the criminal offense. Civil court works on preponderance of the evidence and criminal courts work on the basis of without a shadow of doubt.

[Swifty_Johnson]

I could safely assume she refused them solely for political reasons. But, hey, maybe there were other reasons.

Unfortuantly she was played by her "free" lawyers for political gains. The promised her more money, ect, and pushed her on. She's not the britest person either and was used by them to attack the president. Yes, she was victimized twice.

They do it because it's cost effective and it reduces the negative public relations impact that a public trial would have. It doesn't imply guilt.

Clinton did it becasue there was details that he didn't want getting out. Paula jones on the stand describing his gential region and problem in detail would not have been very good for him. Also the whole mess with lying under oath, ect.

To be found at fault in civil court does not mean you are guilty of the criminal offense. Civil court works on preponderance of the evidence and criminal courts work on the basis of without a shadow of doubt.

Sexual harrassment isn't a criminal offense, it's a civil offence. If Clinton was so innocent, than he would have fought on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boom
If you are just gonna make stuff up then there is no point in this forum at all.

I promise myself that I will not visit here every day because of this issue. For some damn reason I always come back.

Stop making stuff up and this wouldn't be an issue eh? :)

Swifty

[Allison]

Clinton did it becasue there was details that he didn't want getting out. Paula jones on the stand describing his gential region and problem in detail would not have been very good for him. Also the whole mess with lying under oath, ect.

Swifty
Probably. But neither of those things imply guilt in the Paula Jones case. It was an unwinnable case for her. As the previous judge had said, even if she proved that he had exposed himself to her, it wouldn't have risen to the level of sexual harassment.

Is it really that much trouble for you to use the word "allegedly," or at least to say, "I believe he did it," as opposed to "He did it.?"

[Boom]

The cost of defending a lawsuit like that would have easily been over a million dollars. People settle on this basis alone all the time, trust me I know. When your lawyer says to you, "Ok, you can pay this bitch $800k and be done with it, or pay me $1.5 million over the next 5 years and be dragged into depositions and court every few weeks, what do you want to do?" Many times the person will settle. Settlement is not an acknowledgement of guild. Yeah, its totally unfair, its a crappy system, but that's the way it is.


Not only that, if the person being sued is the President of the United States, he might say, "I should be working, not messing around with this, make it go away." Say what you want about Clinton being horny, he put in his time while he was in office. None of his critics say he didn't work hard, they all concede he is very hardworking, putting in loooong hours day after day. Even his worst critics admit it. Unlike our current President who has taken more vacation days then any President in history, and is known for his afternoon naps.

And if Ms. Jones was there from some moral duty to show the nation what happened, she wouldn't have settled for any amount. Real harrassment cases are about wanting to be vindicated in court, not about wanting to buy yourself a nosejob and boobjob.

[Swifty_Johnson]

Unlike our current President who has taken more vacation days then any President in history, and is known for his afternoon naps.

Does the President really ever go on vacation? Do you think it really matters of the President signs a bill in Crawford Texas vs the Oval office? When the President takes a vacation these days he's still in constant communications with the rest of the country, he's never out of touch. I'd prefer a well rested and attentive President vs an overworked and over-stressed one any day.

None of his critics say he didn't work hard, they all concede he is very hardworking, putting in loooong hours day after day.

That's because Clinton was a lousy President and Leader. Clinton would have made a better King. A Leader picks a good team and oversees their work. Clinton on the other hand over-streached himself and tried to do everything. While you critize Bush for being rested, at least he never lost the Nuclear Launch codes like Clinton did.

Swifty

[Noleader]

That's because Clinton was a lousy President and Leader. Clinton would have made a better King. A Leader picks a good team and oversees their work. Clinton on the other hand over-streached himself and tried to do everything. While you critize Bush for being rested, at least he never lost the Nuclear Launch codes like Clinton did.

It is not the Presidents job to know were the nuke codes are. It is the lacky with the football that needs to know were the codes and the president is.

'Leader picks a good team and oversees their work'

A good leader picks good advisers to advise him. A lazy leader has their team do all the work.

I never liked Clinton though. Guy was a dumb ass and Gore was no better. The one thing no one can take away from that man is the fact that he was one of the best domestic presidents the US has had in the last 40 or so years.

[Swifty_Johnson]

It is not the Presidents job to know were the nuke codes are. It is the lacky with the football that needs to know were the codes and the president is.

See the book Dereliction of Duty for details.

A good leader picks good advisers to advise him. A lazy leader has their team do all the work.

That works for a small department, not a country. The President needs the team to run the country according to his instructions, no one man can do it.

I never liked Clinton though. Guy was a dumb ass and Gore was no better.

Clinton was actually extreamly intelligent. Little Willie and his ego kept getting in the way.

Swifty

[Rooster]

I wish these boards had an automagic spell checker. :p

[Allison]

See the book Dereliction of Duty for details.

I thought you said you didn't use biased sources? ;) *snicker* :rolly:

[kwilma]

maybe there is a need to keep the names out of it. we dont know the intent of whose involved. masses form opinions or are fed them. so whoever is there could have changed or the 1st impression was wrong. listing names could sack a plan before it even comes into thought. maybe not giving names is better, then it will be read and considered.

[Noleader]

maybe there is a need to keep the names out of it. we dont know the intent of whose involved. masses form opinions or are fed them. so whoever is there could have changed or the 1st impression was wrong. listing names could sack a plan before it even comes into thought. maybe not giving names is better, then it will be read and considered.Names or not I read and consider all points that people make. Leaving names and items like that out of the posts tends to create confusion and cause mass flamings...

On this board it is better to be clear in your thoughts and not beat around the bush (no pun intended).

[Noleader]

I wish these boards had an automagic spell checker. :p
cuz we aint remberd wat wes lernd in skool

:p

[kwilma]

Names or not I read and consider all points that people make. Leaving names and items like that out of the posts tends to create confusion and cause mass flamings...

On this board it is better to be clear in your thoughts and not beat around the bush (no pun intended).i wasnt leaving names out. i was giving my opinion to why i thought cheney wanted names left out of the energy commission. maybe when people know whos in it, they will try and stop it. thats what i meant. i know i've read things and liked it, then found out who wrote it and was surprised or totally dimissed the whole thing based on what i thought of them. i have also not even looked at stuff based on that same thing. a 1st impressioin is hard to shake.

sry i wasnt clear about that, still new to posting on boards.

[Allison]

Kwilma, that's an excellent point. My only concern is that the names be made public at some point. While I'm a firm believer in the notion that the message should always be judged apart from the source, (which is what I think you're saying) in situations where we may not be qualified to judge the message, it helps to know and trust the source.

In the case of the energy commision, let's say that a policy is developed, and we're told that, based on the input from experts in the field, that this new energy policy is the best thing for our nation. Most of us aren't experts in the field, so it's difficult for us to judge whether or not it actually is the best policy, or if someone is just pulling our collective leg. What if these "experts" were all oil-industry CEOs? Or, on the other side of the coin, what if they were all extremist environmentalists? Without the benefit of advanced degrees in several fields, the average citizen won't be able to form a valid opinion about the policy without at least knowing the credentials of those who formed it.

[Kegg OBeer]

I never liked Clinton though. Guy was a dumb ass and Gore was no better. The one thing no one can take away from that man is the fact that he was one of the best domestic presidents the US has had in the last 40 or so years.

While I agree that Clinton and Gore were both dumbasses I have to disagree on saying he was even a good domestic president, much less the best we ever had...

Just ask all the people I'm sure you all know that are unemployed now.

The biggest reason for the bad economy we're going through is because Clinton practically forced american businesses to go overseas for their labor. (It's also no coincidence the majority of it went to China who was one of his largest campaign funders...) When industry has to pick up and move like that it affects everything else like a domino effect. But of course, in his defense, he upgraded the welfare programs etc to compensate for the lack of jobs...

[kwilma]

that is what i was saying.

i do agree that at some point all info should be put to the people.

[]LoL[Harm]

The biggest reason for the bad economy we're going through is because Clinton practically forced american businesses to go overseas for their labor. (It's also no coincidence the majority of it went to China who was one of his largest campaign funders...) When industry has to pick up and move like that it affects everything else like a domino effect. But of course, in his defense, he upgraded the welfare programs etc to compensate for the lack of jobs...
Global Economy has little to do with the president and more to do with the big businesses, who mostly contribute to the Republican party might I add. Also before you get your panties in a knot, the Global Economy is not a bad thing. I wouldn't start pointing fingers at the Democrats for the Global Economy's downsides and then fail to include the upsides. There's a reason why you can afford all the electronics you purchase and use to post here at this website. It's because the majority of them are produced by cheap labor in countries VERY far from our shores. Global Economies make living cheaper, because the products we purchase are cheaper. However our government isn't doing enough to compensate the loss of low wage, manufacturing jobs that are being sent overseas. They aren't imposing proper trade regulations that are already in place. They are not utilizing the WTO. Bascially there isn't enough efficient administration/oversight going on.

I for one am against the Global Economy, mostly due to the disparity in currency, worker rights and standards of living in countries producing the goods sold in the US. We cannot regulate another countries laws and therefore cannot insure that their workers are treated like ours. Thats why so many things you buy are literally made by underaged, underpaid workers that can rarely afford the items they are producing.

[Rooster]

Hell, I work on networks and PC's I can't afford, that doesn't mean a thing. I doubt most Ferarri mechanics can afford a Ferarri either.

But, your other points have merit, even if I don't agree with you.

[Noleader]

Reason why I say Clinton was a great domestic president was for one thing he did well. He made people feel secure (not taking DoD stuff). More people spent more money during his years in office. That is the sole reason we did not go into a resession back then.

[Rooster]

No, the .com bubble was during his time. It was all false prosperity. What we experienced afterwards was a market correction. :(

[Noleader]

The bubble popped 2 years into clintons second term... As much as I hated him as president he kept the american public feeling good.

[spyder913]

Hell, I work on networks and PC's I can't afford, that doesn't mean a thing. I doubt most Ferarri mechanics can afford a Ferarri either.
Most of hte network stuff you work with are not consumer goods. That's what he's talking about. The Ferrari example is more accurate, but it's also an extreme example. People who work at the Saturn plant can afford to buy a Saturn.