Skip to main content

View Diary: Daily Kos Elections Morning Digest: Joe Sestak announces Senate run—for 2016 (90 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Disagree (0+ / 0-)

    There's only one precedent and as I pointed out the circumstances were quite different.  Gore would have had a rallying around effect, which Ford actually had for a month before the pardon.  A pardon would not have been an issue because Clinton's trangressions weren't serious enough to even contemplate criminal prosecution.  Finally, as a sitting president untouched by the scandal or its aftermath, Gore would have disposed of Bradley even easier than he did.  And that's assuming that Bradley even ran.

    Keep the TVA public.

    by Paleo on Wed May 15, 2013 at 06:14:32 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Perjury and Obstruction? (0+ / 0-)

      If it's bad enough for Clinton to resign, then why wouldn't criminal charges be a possibility? The House did charge him with Obstruction of Justice and Perjury (lying under oath basically) and it's not like the Republicans would have said "oh, he resigned, well in that case, let's just drop the whole thing!" They would have pushed for further investigations and for criminal charges, and Gore would have, at bare minimum, make a decision about whether to prosecute Clinton (and if he didn't would have to explain himself). So Gore would not escape the scandal untouched, if anything he'd have no choice but to be part of it.

      I don't get this nonchalant attitude about Presidential resignation, it's a huge deal, and it would, rightly, dominate the next presidential election.

      Politics and more Formerly DGM on SSP. NM-01, 26 (chairman of the Atheist Caucus)

      by NMLib on Thu May 16, 2013 at 05:08:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Charges (0+ / 0-)

        Perjury and obstruction to cover up a sexual affair.  Not perjury and obstruction to cover up a criminal act and abuse of power.  It's not Gore's decision to prosecute; the Justice Department never would have brought charges against Clinton.  He was disbarred and would have resigned from office.

        With only one precedent, I don't get this assumption that the successor would have been fatally tarred and doomed for election.  Had some 25,000 votes changed hands in Ohio and Mississippi, Ford would have won in 1976.  And that's after the pardon of Nixon, who left office with a 23% approval rating, and an economy nowhere near as healthy as 2000.

        Keep the TVA public.

        by Paleo on Thu May 16, 2013 at 07:23:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  People wouldn't distinguish... (0+ / 0-)

          Between the Justice Department (appointed by Clinton incidentally) and the Gore administration. But there's still a decent chance that criminal charges happen anyways because the presumption that this isn't a big deal would have disappeared with Clinton's resignation.

          I think that's the key that you're missing, politically speaking, you can't argue that something that has a criminal element to it is not a big deal immediately after the president resigned from office because of it.

          As for Ford, I'd argue that the closeness of the election had alot more to  with Carter's weakness as a candidate than anything and that Carter needed the scandal in order to win.

          Politics and more Formerly DGM on SSP. NM-01, 26 (chairman of the Atheist Caucus)

          by NMLib on Thu May 16, 2013 at 05:13:22 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site