2nd termers

[skybridge]

As George W. Bush begins his second term, one may want to look at history in hope of finding parallels. Upon examining the last three 2-term presidents, we find they are Clinton, Reagan and Nixon. While they were all fairly succesful at pushing their political agendas in their first terms, their second terms were each marked by scandal: Clinton--the 2nd president in history--faced impeachment charges and was nearly removed out of office, in spite of an impressive record. Reagan's popularity never quite left him, though the Iran-Contra scandal largely defined his second term. Nixon, after having won one of the largest landslides ever, was forced to resign shortly after over the Watergate scandal.

Now, with someone with as much potential for scandal as George W. Bush, do you think history will repeat itself?

[Richard]

Both Iran-Contra and Watergate was overhyped by the liberal press.

[Akno21]

Both Iran-Contra and Watergate was overhyped by the liberal press.

And they under-hyped Clinton's Impeachment?

[Richard]

Both Iran-Contra and Watergate was overhyped by the liberal press.

And they under-hyped Clinton's Impeachment?

He lied under oath.  BAD.

[skybridge]

Overhyped, underhyped. The point is that something scandalous dogged most contemporary second termers. Nixon resigned, whether it was overhyped or not. Conspiracy aside, Iran-Contra was BAD. Underhyped or not, Clinton was the second president to be impeached (or the first in 130 years)! And all this happened during these presidents' SECOND term, although they quite successfully lead the country down their path in their first terms. So, given Dubya's potential, is history likely to repeat itself?

For the record: Clinton's affair wasn't any more immoral than the exploitation of his private life. Of course you wouldn't be happy if it happened in your family, but you'd want the rest of the world to stay out of it, wouldn't you?

[A18]

Clinton did not even come close to being removed from office. The Senate never even came up with 50 of the 67 votes it'd take to convict him.

Most people don't even know what Iran-Contra is.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Both Iran-Contra and Watergate was overhyped by the liberal press.

And they under-hyped Clinton's Impeachment?

He lied under oath.  BAD.

and the laws that Iran-Contra and Watergate violated weren't bad? I think lying and breaking laws that involve national security or severe political corruption are much worse than lying about a blowjob.

[muon2]

In looking at scandals and their impact on the presidency there are two important factors: does the scandal trace to the president, and is it an issue that has impact as a campaign issue in the next election. For Watergate, the answer is unquestionably yes. For Monica-gate, the answer is also pretty clearly yes.

Iran-Contra appears to answer the questions with a no, especially at the time of the scandal. The operation seemed to be completely under the control of CIA Director Casey, NSA Poindexter, and Oliver North. Neither the hearings nor pundits such as in Jane Mayer and Doyle McManus' book (Landslide: The Unmaking of the President) were able to find a link to Reagan. As a result Dukakis never pushed the issue in his campaign, and it had little impact in the 1988 election.

[skybridge]

Both Iran-Contra and Watergate was overhyped by the liberal press.

And they under-hyped Clinton's Impeachment?

He lied under oath.  BAD.

and the laws that Iran-Contra and Watergate violated weren't bad? I think lying and breaking laws that involve national security or severe political corruption are much worse than lying about a blowjob.

They're going to say something like, it's really a constitutional matter since the president should be subject to same laws and jurisdiction as all citizens, or that he lied under oath, or something contradictory in defense of the other two. However, I think you're right.

[Wakie]

Hmmm ... Nixon gets caught sending agents to break into DNC HQ and then illegally uses the powers of the Presidency to try to cover it up.  Oh yeah ... not that bad ... sure.

Reagan ... illegally violates US policy set in place by Congress and funnels aid to the terrorist state of Iran.  That's not bad or anything ... sure.  Oh wait, let us not forget Reagan lying to the nation ... claiming he had no knowledge of these dealings, only to have it come out that he DID in fact (that info was acquired from his personal diaries).  Reagan went on tv and had to apologize!

Clinton ... was the subject of years of investigations all of which came up with nothing.  The GOP pushes out the original investigator to bring in an investigator who had publicly attacked Clinton and had even offered to support his political opponents.  Then Ken Starr illegally expands the jurisdiction of his investigations to include a sex scandal.  The perjury charge comes from him lying about an extramarital affair that began AFTER the Starr investigations had already begun.  ENTRAPMENT anyone?

[J. J.]

Reagan ... illegally violates US policy set in place by Congress and funnels aid to the terrorist state of Iran.  That's not bad or anything ... sure.  Oh wait, let us not forget Reagan lying to the nation ... claiming he had no knowledge of these dealings, only to have it come out that he DID in fact (that info was acquired from his personal diaries).  Reagan went on tv and had to apologize!

Wait a moment, as President could, under the law, make the determination if arms should be sold to Iran.  Now, you can disagree with that decision (and I did/do), but there was nothing illegal in it.  The problem, and the scandel, came from what happened from the profits of those sales.  There is a record, and an admission at the time, that Reagan did authorize those sales, but that wasn't illegal.  Extremely bad, yes, but not illegal.

No entrapment; I would have been supportive of Clinton had he revealed the affair, when asked under oath.

[skybridge]

Could you please answer the original question? I just brought up the Nixon/Reagan/Clinton factors to heighten the probability. This was actually supposed to be about W. Bush.

[Wakie]

Wait a moment, as President could, under the law, make the determination if arms should be sold to Iran.  Now, you can disagree with that decision (and I did/do), but there was nothing illegal in it.  The problem, and the scandel, came from what happened from the profits of those sales.  There is a record, and an admission at the time, that Reagan did authorize those sales, but that wasn't illegal.  Extremely bad, yes, but not illegal.

The POTUS is bound by the foreign policy mandates passed by Congress.  Violating them are an illegal act.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

From merriam webster's website,

Main Entry: en·trap·ment
Pronunciation: -m&nt
Function: noun
1 a : the action or process of entrapping b : the condition of being entrapped
2 : the action of luring an individual into committing a crime in order to prosecute the person for it


And this is absolutely entrapment.  The scope of the investigation by the OIC was to investigate Whitewater.  The original investigator, Robert Fiske, was about to wrap up his investigation in '94 when the GOP threw a hissy fit and insisted on appointing Ken Starr.  Starr ILLEGALLY expanded the scope of his investigation to include a sex scandal which began AFTER Starr came in.  So if there is no investigation there is no perjury.  If Robert Fiske is allowed to finish his work, there is no perjury and no waste of MILLIONS of dollars. 

[skybridge]

Sigh...
If you open a remotely reliable history book about Nixon's presidency, somewhere the term Watergate SCANDAL should come up. If you read a remotely reliable history book about Reagan's presidency, somewhere the words Iran-Contra SCANDAL should come up. If you pick up a remotely reliable history book about Clinton, somewhere you should find Monical Lewinsky SCANDAL. So, all the most recently re-elected presidents faced some scandal in their second term. Now, we have yet another re-elected president. Will history repeat itself and will Bush's 2nd term be complicated by scandal?

[Platypus]

I KNEW IT!