If Dennis is God, why'd he vote for impeachment??

Would someone like to explain this to me:

All but 31 of 206 Democrats, including Marion Berry and Vic Snyder of Arkansas, and the House's one independent, Bernard Sanders of Vermont, voted against the resolution. Here are the 31 Democrats who crossed party lines to vote yes:

...
Dennis Kucinich, Ohio
...
http://www.ardemgaz.com/prev/clinton/a_vote9.html


House votes for impeachment inquiry
The 258-176 roll call Thursday by which the House voted to launch an impeachment inquiry of President Clinton. Voting 'yes' were 31 Democrats and 227 Republicans. Voting 'no' were 175 Democrats, 0 Republicans and 1 independent .

...
OHIO

Democrat YES: Kucinich
...

http://www.glindy.freeservers.com/pechvote.html

Even TRAFICANT voted NO.

It's disturbing how many people in favor of this regardless of party.

Don't question his divinity! Anti-choice, pro-impeachment... but he's still a left-wing demi-God to many. I don't get it.

He CLAIMED that he did so in order to give Clinton a chance to defend himself. I find that reasoning specious, at best.

after the impeachment, when it went to the senate, you remember how they had some votes on various issues having to do with process ? russel feingold voted with republicans on one of those also. and he voted for ashcroft.and more recently he voted with the anti gun control side on some votes dealing with the issue.

but i still support feingold in his senate re-election. i'm not from wisconsin but i want him to win. i think he adds a lot to the senate but i sure wont go off accusing him of being a right winger or bush lite or other crap for voting with the gop on those issues i mentioned as some did and still do with some other democrats, especially one particular one. i still know there is a lot of difference between feingold and republicans.

but don't let facts get in the way of the smear.

Your reasoning is specious at best because you have yet to make a logical or truthful argument against DK.

the vast majority of his political career. He changed his position when he decided to run for President.

Now, as I've said many, many times, I like DK. I really do. I disagree with him on a number of very big issues, however, and that's why I wouldn't support him.

But I DO object to people to hold him up as an example of a principled leader who holds true to his beliefs, no matter how unpopular. His flip-flop on choice shows that he's just a politician.

on edit: And I've said precious little about DK here over the last year. Perhaps you have me confused with somebody else.

You're actually NOT talking out your ass for once. :thumbsup:

and supports laws to make burning the american flag a crime.

but he has a pretty good record even taking that into account. he is a good democrat, a good liberal. i'm glad he changed his view on abortion rights. i would like to see him be senator some day.

and people have been trashing Kerry by saying he's not as good as Kucinich, who voted to impeach Bill Clinton.

I don't get it.

And I've never said a bad word about Dennis - I literally only just found this out now by accident, and you can see I got a second source before I posted. I didn't believe it when I first saw his name.

i feel the same way you do. i like kucinich, i know he is a good person and a good democrat. but one can easily say about him some of the crap that is said about kerry when people compare him to the right wing and try to claim there is no difference.

Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) said, "Let the president make his case. Give him a chance to clear his name and get back to the job."

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/10/08/defect/

doesn't sit well with me.

see post #9

He did not vote to impeach Clinton.

Peace
DR

because you owe it to him.

because inquiry or not, 176 out of 206 thought better of voting for the impeachment 'inquiry' because they knew where it was going.

I'm sorry for calling it a vote for impeachment; I now realise that was inaccurate.

I'm not sorry for being a little miffed at the situation.

Whether he actually committed perjury or covered anything up is another matter.

Seems silly to me.

the reasoning is ridiculous. But DK has always had the air of a moralist about him - one of his least attractive qualities.

Bill Clinton was on the job through all the ugliness... Voting to impeach him would in no way way aid Bill Clinton to"getting back on his job".... He was on his job. No matter what the repukes did, Bill Clinton never took his eyes off of the ball. He was there on the job FOR US....Dennis is looking for an excuse....doesn"t wash

Clinton did not deserve to be impeached, Kucinich's reasoning is flawed.

Dennis voted to go ahead with the impeachment INQUIRY...this was in the beginning- it was a vote to inquire as to whether there was reason to impeach. DK felt that they would find no evidence to go forward with the impeachment process.

I think we never imagined the repubs would take it as far as they did.

For the actual impeachment...Kucinich voted NO.

If I have time ...will look for a link....or maybe someon else can find it. we've gone round with this one before....voting for the inquiry was not the same as voting to impeach- quite differebt as a matter of fact.

Peace
DR

Poster gets credit for 20% truthfullness, if that.

was about whether he lied under oath in the Paula Jones deposition, then guess what...Kucinich was right. Whether we like it or not, Clinton did lie under oath. So voting for the inquiry was reasonable. Dennis is wrong if he opposes abortion, but he was right on an inquiry.

he was not right. Even if Clinton DID commit perjury (which he did NOT), it was NOT an impeachable offense, and the congress should never have gotten involved.

I like the guy. I was the first one at DU with a "Kucinich for President" sig line, after his Prayer for America. I changed my mind about his suitability for president before he started running, though. He was still anti-choice and evading the question like a Republican at the time. He was also too quick with the religious iconography. I still like him, but choice is such a fundamental aspect of the way a person views equality and rights that I can never quite trust him.

And then he switched on abortion. After voting pro-life with Bob Barr for years, suddenly it was no longer murder, it was a woman's choice. His latest position is the right one, but I have trouble trusting his conviction on it, either way.

I didn't know he voted for an impeachment inquiry. Nothing the Republicans presented on Clinton was impeachable in any way. So again, DK shows me he's inconsistent, maybe too caught up in the moment.

Good man. When he learns more about who he is, he should run again. Meanwhile, he's an excellent Congressperson.

This Is The Legal Definiton of Perjury:
When a person, having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the U.S. authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true; 18 USC

In order for a person to be found guilty of perjury the government must prove: the person testified under oath before ; at least one particular statement was false; and the person knew at the time the testimony was false.

and he did not commit perjury.

He wasn't impeached for lying during the Paula Jones deposition, because of two reasons. One, no one was sure they could prove his intentions, do to the ridiculous complexity of the question. Two, the question was considered by many to be a perjury trap, which is forbidden in depositions.

He was impeached for lying before the grand jury when he said he hadn't lied during the Paula Jones trial (but not for lying during the Paula Jones trial-- figure that one out), and obstruction of justice in the investigation of the Paula Jones trial.

Whether he lied under oath or simply gave an evasive but technically accurate answer has never been tried. It was a badly written question for a perjury trap. Too many questions of intention that could never be proven.

As I understand it, Kucinich voted for proceedings to go forward so the president's record could be examined.

You'll note that he voted no from then on when faced with the question of "does Clinton deserve to be removed from office?"

Either way, this is a question that doesn't have a lot of bearing on the current race, making it a primarily academic question, I think. Either that or you're just trying to throw some shit.

-C

and I think people know that I've never thrown shit about any candidate, so you have nothing to worry about.

It just surprised the shit out of me.

how the current race is already academic? Seems like there's still fighting in the streets to me.

I'm going to bed, though. I hope it stays civil in here. But I will add this:

I don't think anybody knew that the Ralph Reed branch of the GOP were that crazy about impeachment. There's a saying I've heard around here, something to the effect of "Liberals are generally pleasant and happy because they assume everyone is pretty much like them. Conservatives are generally fearful and unhappy because they too assume everyone is pretty much like them." I suspect that Kucinich voting for impeachment inquiry is a manifestation of assuming that: the President will defend his record, this matter will be sorted out much more quickly, and that'll be that.
I wasn't politically aware when the impeachment proceedings were going on, admittedly, but from what I've read about the Ralph Reed and Newt Gingrich crew's aftermath, I get the impression that they're pretty much fucking crazy. I wouldn't hold it against Kucinich to not agree with me, though, as it's fine to assume that people, particularly elected representatives, are above stupid bullshit witch-hunts. Plus, hindsight is always 20/20 and stuff.
Flag-burning, on the other hand, I vehemently disagree with. But this is pretty much okay with me.

-C

that said, I didn't mean to inflame anything, and I did read the original article incorrectly - it did say 'impeachment inquiry' not 'impeachment'.

Still it does bother me a little.

When I say the current race is already academic, I'm referring to Kerry already mathematically having won the nomination. That's all.

Cheers.

Yeah, just throw some ancient false crap on the other candidate running...maybe take some of the spotlight off Kerry....

Peace
DR

I don't throw shit.

I think it's unreasonable to ask why Dennis voted the way he did. Only 30 other Democrats did.

He wanted to get the matter cleared out for good so Clinton could do his job....so he agreed to the inquiry to shut the repubs up once and for all. Who knew they would take it so far o rthat Clinton lied so well...
and for that you blame Dennis??

When the actual impeachment came up for a vote- he voted NO! So get your facts straight before you post ...you're post is misleading...why don't you repost or correct yourself?? iow- clean up your sh*t. :)

Peac
eDR

again, I've apologised for getting 'impeachment inquiry' mixed up with 'impeachment' - but there were a lot of other Democrats who saw the two as connected, knowing that one would lead to the other, or at least that voting for the 'inquiry' would lend CREDIBILITY to the issue of impeaching President Clinton in the first place.

Having trouble swallowing that.

I am attempting to clean up my shit. :)

If only I could change the title of the thread.

I question His judgement if he fell for the Repukes attack on Bill Clinton.... The best president of our time....

he voted for the proceedings, not the actual impeachement.

It's a half truth portrayed to slam a candidate that isn't even a threat to anyone....but lets keep the party divided George Bush will love that

"If you got caught screwing around on the job, you'd probably get fired, and so would I."

http://maddox.xmission.com/clinton.html

Reading Maddox relating Clinton to Castro is so odd. I've only been reading him for a year so most of what I've seen out of him is pretty much Anti-GOP/Bush.

Patriot act some of my more radical friends say billclinton should have been impeached for comitting war crimes in yugoslavia which i know DK was against maybe idont know and i really dont care

and I have a lot of respect for him because of that. I opposed it too.

DK:

I strongly objected to the attacks on the Kosovar Albanians. But I believed it was possible to be opposed to Milosevic and also opposed to the bombing. Yet all around me, I could feel the dense illogic of war beginning to grip Washington. It was becoming the Capital of Dichotomized Thinking, split consciousness. Republicans versus Democrats, left versus right thinking, which is the stuff of which wars are made. Of U.S. versus Them: Serbia; of NATO versus Yugoslavia, of NATO interests versus Russian interests. This type of thinking is what makes it possible to defend the human rights of some while depriving others of theirs.

The bombs continued to drop on Serbia and Kosovo, killing innocent civilians and ruining the infrastructure from which must arise a civil society--the only entity that can generate political change.

In those early days of April, as I watched news accounts of the bombing, the flight of refugees, the ongoing atrocities, I knew I had to speak out for peace--not just the absence of war, but peace through mediation, peace through negotiation, peace through thoughtful, reflective thinking

http://www.progressive.org/kuc899.htm

first the stupidity about Kerry re-instating the draft, now claiming Kucinich voted for impeachment. Is there a literacy problem or something?

Both are fine men, and I support both of them.

in today's political climate, any politician that actually proposes real solutions to real problems is a god worthy of rose petals and incense. since the people do not want to govern themselves, is it okay to have a politician who does not have his snout in the trough?

sounds like a good vote to me. kudos to DK for having the courage to vote the right way.

I don't recall anyone saying DK's "a God."

But, you have to like the guy's courage, his policies, his foresight and his principles.

Way to go Dennis Kucinich!

and why is Kucinich an issue right now?

I'd guess he made a deal and traded his vote for something.

Clinton was no paragon of progressivism himself, ya know.

I'm not happy that DK voted for impeachment, but it's only one piece of a very large puzzle. I like more of what he does, stands for, fights for and speaks for than any other candidate in a long, long time.

show in cleavland he didnt vote for impeachment but an inquiry and i rather have him vote with repugs on this than with repugs on iwr

:crazy:

read the posts....he didn't vote for IMPEACHMENT.....

pee-pee?? :eyes:

and btw, it wasn't DK's fault Clinton lied ...

Peace
DR

Whcih is it? I cannot tell.

he voted for an impeachment inquiry. And it was a very bad vote, in my opinion.

i guess he joins the ranks of all us not-gods. good for him. now, don't we need to have other ways to discriminate between us, other than the one thing--lack of divinity--we all have in common?

in other words, stop with the holy shit already. really. he doesn't have to be a god to be a better man than anyone left in the presidential contender ring.

:-)

Hell, I think Dennis would make a very good House Majority Leader. But I'll hang with John Kerry for President......just don't see Dennis exciting anyone but his most loyal supporters.

Back when he was anti-abortion, he said it was because of his Catholic faith ... but his Catholic faith didn't stand in the way of his two divorces. He then ditched his anti-abortion stance two months before he announced he was running for the presidency.

He's a social conservative (except for things that effect him directly, of course) so voting for the impeachment inquiry was no big surprise. It was another easy way for him to demonstrate his moral purity.