Do You Agree With Ford's Call For Congress To "Rebuke" Clinton?

[journalist3072]

On October 4, 1998 the New York Times published an op/ed by Former President Gerald Ford, titled "The Path Back to Dignity."

This "path back to dignity" included his call for the Congress to "rebuke" Clinton for his role in the Monica Lewinsky matter.

From Ford's op/ed:

Each year it is customary for a President to journey down Pennsylvania Avenue and appear before a joint session of Congress to deliver his State of the Union address. One of the binding rituals of our democracy, it takes on added grandeur from its surroundings -- there, in that chamber where so much of the American story has been written, and where the ghosts of Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower call succeeding generations to account.

Imagine a very different kind of Presidential appearance in the closing days of this year, not at the rostrum familiar to viewers from moments of triumph, but in the well of the House. Imagine a President receiving not an ovation from the people's representatives, but a harshly worded rebuke as rendered by members of both parties. I emphasize: this would be a rebuke, not a rebuttal by the President.

On the contrary, by his appearance the President would accept full responsibility for his actions, as well as for his subsequent efforts to delay or impede the investigation of them. No spinning, no semantics, no evasiveness or blaming others for his plight.

(Source: http://partners.nytimes.com/library/politics/100498oped-ford.html)

NOTE: After voting in the poll, pls take time to leave a post and explain how you voted. I'm curious as to how everyone feels on this and why. I'm inclined to disagree with Ford's call for a "rebuke." I don't think Clinton should have been impeached OR rebuked for his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. It was really none of the public's business.

Moreover, is there anything in the Constitution which gives Congress the authority to "rebuke" a President? Is that within their purview?

[wyldwolf]

1. Should congress have rebuked Ford for pardoning Nixon?

IMO, Ford did something a tad worse.

[KansDem]

9. I agree...

At the time, worthy thinkers asked, "How can you pardon a man who hasn't been convicted of a crime (yet)?" But Ford found a way...

[Devlzown]

2. "We rebuke thee and thine harlot."

Something like that? How many congressmen are in a position to be rebuking anyone for their sexual morals?

[madrchsod]

3. rebuke yes

it is our business since he is a servant of the people and should be held to a higher standard. to accept anything less cheapens the office. i will admit that getting a blow job in the oval office while talking to arafat takes more balls than any president than we have ever had and that certainly pales to the perversion of the presidency we have today.

[BobRossi]

4. Fuck Ford.

He was and embarassing asshole that was hand picked to keep Dick out of prison.

[Hamlette]

5. this is for the affair and not for the lying under oath?

I know, they went after him for the affair (and anything else they could) but he really should have told the truth under oath.

Yes, I know, he was parsing.

Move-on got its start by calling for censuring Clinton and moving on (not impeaching him). A rebuke has a nasty tone and even now, censure seems too harsh, but those were different times.

[WI_DEM]

6. He was actually being a moderate on the issue and opposed impeachment

[karynnj]

7. The rebuke would have been for lying under oath

not the sex. The President has an obligation to tell the truth under oath. This was offered INSTEAD of impeachment. I think Ford offered this because lying under oath about sex didn't raise to the (undefined) high crimes and misdemeanors level and the country didn't want Clinton impeached. But, it offered a way out that would end it. But, Clinton had done something wrong and this recognized it and would have let everyone move on from it.

[LWolf]

8. Yes.

First of all, a rebuke was more appropriate than an impeachment. Obviously. :eyes:

Secondly, the actions of the President of the U.S., public or private, reflects on the U.S..

Cheating is dishonorable, and a poor reflection. That dishonor deserved a rebuke.

[journalist3072]

15. We really don't hire Presidents to be good husbands, do we?

I thought we hired Presidents to run the affairs of state, not be what we deem good husbands (or hopefully someday, wives), etc.

Think about it. There were rumors that Eisenhower had his extracurricular activities. Everyone knew about JFK's and Johnson's extracurricular activities, and there were rumors of Bush 41's. No one raised a stink about those.

Let's face it. We would not even know about Monica Lewinsky had it not been for Paula Jones and the American Spectator magazine.

[LWolf]

17. We don't hire presidents to be good husbands.

I have found, though, that issues of character are not so neatly packaged as "trustworthy" in one area of life and "not trustworthy" in another.

A cheater, a liar, a thief, a bully... they have a problem with integrity that will cross over into other areas. In my experience. I don't want a president with integrity issues, and I don't excuse lapses of integrity just because a president has a "D" next to his/her name.

I'm not saying a president can't be human. I'm saying a president should have honor; should be the best that humans can be while representing our nation.

[Critters2]

23. I was just talking with a colleague about this.

Search committees in my judicatory are now being encouraged to ask candidates for SSNs so they can do background checks. Candidates are told their work records and credit reports will be looked at. A colleague (apparently with bad credit) is quite upset by this. I told him that one could explain a late payment or two easily enough--who hasn't had this happen? But a pattern of irresponsibility should make a committee sit up and take notice, should raise concerns about how one manages one's professional life as well.

Asking people to meet their obligations, professionally and personally, isn't unreasonable.

Critters
a little nervous about her credit reports, too

[cali]

18. What about lying under oath is so difficult to grasp?

Clinton could have saved us all the impeachment bullshit if he hadn't been so stupid as to lie his butt off under oath. Fuck yeah, he deserved a rebuke. Unless you think lying under oath is no problem.

[tnlefty]

10. "The Path Back to Dignity" from the man who pardoned Nixon? Hahaha

This morning I saw part of an interview that he did with Brian Williams (I think it was a couple of years old). He narrowed his eyes and stated that the US and Great Britain were absolutely justified to have invaded Iraq and then blathered some other bull. Same republican cover up bullshit.

Rebuke Clinton, but pardon Nixon and overlook the lies and crimes of Idiot in Chief? This is just too rich.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

11. Consentual sex between two adults

is not a matter of state. The only one who had the right to rebuke Bill was Hillary.

[Alamom]

14. CORRECT. ...much ado about nothing. n/t

[cali]

19. Correct about the sex, but Clinton lied under oath, and

sorry, I don't care that it was only about sex.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

25. Oh, I agree about the lying

Perhaps I read the choices wrong, but I thought one was talking just about the sex and not the lying, which is why I wrote what I did. Clinton would have done much better if he had said, "Yes, I had an affair with that woman. I'm not proud of it, and I've stopped it--but really it is a matter between myself and my family." By lying, he drug the whole thing out--after all, cheating on your wife isn't a legal crime. I'm sure that the family was hurt more by the whole sordid procedure than if he'd 'fessed up.

[Critters2]

24. Lying under oath is a matter of state.

I like my presidents the way I like my men--honest.

[niyad]

12. let's see, did ford ever say ANYTHING about the murderous liar and thug who is currently

squatting in the oval office?

[Warren DeMontague]

13. Both answers are true. A rebuke would have been MORE appropriate

but the bottom line is, it wasn't any of the congress's god-damn business.

[damntexdem]

16. No, but Congress should have rebuked Ford ...

for pardoning Nixon.

[talk hard]

20. I think Clinton should rebuke the Iran-Contra crooks

what goes around comes around

[renie408]

21. Clinton handled the whole thing stupidly.

I am not savvy enough to know technically what the appropriate action should have been, but Clinton bald faced lied under oath and then gave a bunch of half-assed rationalizations for why it wasn't REALLY lying. God, I remember how PISSED off I was at him for being so stupid. Clinton seems to have a lot invested in being perceived a certain way and in his efforts to maintain that image, he screwed up. Possibly he did deserve to be rebuked. Not for the relationship, which only effected him, Monica and Hillary, but for the way he handled it after it became public.

[elehhhhna]

22. REPUBS: All Politics--No Governance

That's all she wrote