Bill Clinton was never impeached
By DougJ, Head of Infidelity January 20th, 2011
Long before there was an Obamacare debate or the “don’t ask, don’t tell” repeal, Lieberman played an important role in saving Bill Clinton from impeachment. As momentum for impeachment was growing, Lieberman gave a crucial speech on the Senate floor that scolded Clinton for his behavior but resolutely opposed removing him from office.
This is Bobo today. In fact, impeachment is the (EDIT) process of bringing the case to a trial that takes place in the Senate. Clinton was impeached but he was not convicted following his impeachment.
This is not that complicated.
Can’t they hire fact-checkers?
Maybe Bobo meant ‘unimpeachable’, just as he views his own opinions about the shit he makes up.
January 20th, 2011 at 10:50 pm
Man, that is some epic flub.
January 20th, 2011 at 10:51 pm
Good grief, I remember that being drilled into me repeatedly in a ninth grade civics class. With the specific warning that people misuse it all the time, so we should know what it meant. And that teacher was far from a rocket surgeon. But I bet he probably also knew that Applebee’s doesn’t have a salad bar, and still hasn’t given a seminar at Aspen.
January 20th, 2011 at 10:55 pm
This is so money.
January 20th, 2011 at 10:56 pm
I seem to recall that when Kristol had his epic fail column for the Times, he had a deal in his contract which didn’t subject him to fact checkers. Or maybe that’s just urban legend and the fact-checkers they had working his columns were non-English speaking aliens from the planet Zantor 6. Either way, the track record for NY Times fact-checkers on their columnists is abysmal.
January 20th, 2011 at 10:56 pm
This is the most vomit-inducing part of the article for me. Ethic of responsibility my ***. More like ethic of visibility. What will produce the most attention for Holy Joe.
January 20th, 2011 at 10:57 pm
we are really keyed up on symantics today aren’t we! i mean, seriously, fuck bobo but does anybody have ISSUES to discuss today?
January 20th, 2011 at 10:58 pm
Beyond the stupidity, is BoBo now pretending that Lieberman saved Clinton (and the country) from the crackpot Republicans? I don’t remember where BoBo stood on conviction, but I know more Beltway talking heads supported impeachment than Republican Senators (Trent Lott after the articles were voted: “You’re not dumping this shit in my lap, Henry”)
January 20th, 2011 at 10:58 pm
Bobo smelled the primal scent of Lieberman in his leather jacket and his internal factiness sensor failed.
January 20th, 2011 at 10:59 pm
Oh, you slay me with the humor, you…
January 20th, 2011 at 11:00 pm
What a sack of horseshit, in so many ways.
January 20th, 2011 at 11:01 pm
The first of many tongue baths Bobo will give him as the long goodbye proceeds. Don’t need no fact checkin’ for that shit!
January 20th, 2011 at 11:02 pm
@John W.:
The difference being, if you spread Bobo on the fields you’ll wait a mighty long time to see any green shoots.
January 20th, 2011 at 11:03 pm
Bill Clinton was impeached. HCR was NOT repealed. Jesus Tittyfucking Christ, how hard is it to acknowledge facts that fly in the face of the narrative you’re trying to construct? One might start by, oh I don’t know, READING DA CONSTITUTION? If not that, then at least the 3 minute grade school civics lesson that is School House Rock?
January 20th, 2011 at 11:03 pm
It’s a pity the NYT has already said they don’t care about the truth in opinion pieces. Of course after Judith Aspen Turning, they can’t really say they care about truth in news stories either.
January 20th, 2011 at 11:03 pm
I like this part:
Only in a Bobo’s mind (and I have it on good authority that Bobos aren’t like humans!) can being ‘detached from any evident intellectual moorings’ be linked causally with ‘a courageous independence’.
Damn I need a drink.
January 20th, 2011 at 11:04 pm
Not quite right, Doug. Only the House impeaches. The Senate then votes on whether or not to convict; it tries the impeachment.
January 20th, 2011 at 11:04 pm
@morzer:
Stop it. Stop it nao.
@shortstop:
Well kiss my grits, aren’t you just the picture of BJ’s very own little fact-chacker?
January 20th, 2011 at 11:04 pm
Take Bobo on for the stupid stuff dressed in pseudo-erudite clothing he’s saying about contemporary issues that has at least some small real chance of misleading someone, not any semantic drivel about events of a dozen years ago or attempts by Bobo to repair Lieberman’s image that will have absolutely zero effect on changing anyone’s mind about Lieberman, one way or another.
Focus on the stuff that really counts, not simply the trivial stuff that understandably irritates you, but is trivial nonetheless. Eyes on the Prize.
January 20th, 2011 at 11:06 pm
Fixed.
January 20th, 2011 at 11:06 pm
@nevsky42: Yes, but DougJ’s not being very civil.
January 20th, 2011 at 11:06 pm
Bobo = the washington generals of punditry.
January 20th, 2011 at 11:06 pm
@freelancer:
Cudlip!
January 20th, 2011 at 11:07 pm
@shortstop:
Impeachment is the proceedings themselves, yes. What are you saying that’s different than what I’m saying? (I want to make sure I didn’t say something wrong here since I’m making a correction.)
January 20th, 2011 at 11:07 pm
New Poll
If election were held today:
Obama 59% | Palin 34% | Undecided 7%
But no, Kos and Cheney are right, Obama is a one term president.
January 20th, 2011 at 11:08 pm
Then there is the fact that Lieberman wasn’t merely hawkish in intention, but epically, demonstrably shown to be wrong in his judgment on war. If we’re talking about the “ethic of responsibility” (I wonder how long it took BoBo’s intern to dig that up in the Weber Wikipedia article…but I digress) then how about the responsibility for claims of belief shown to be empirically not just false but disastrous?
Lieberman was not wholly a disaster—Bobo’s right about his work on DADT, for example (and yes, it hurts to type “Bobo” and “right” in the same sentence). But he was not a clear eyed practical man of principle in DC. He was an opportunist, self-aggrandized legend in his own mind who did enormous harm and sought to sabotage a his own party in support of a genuine disaster-in-prospect in the form of a McCain/Palin administration.
While this is far from the worst of BoBo’s columns, it’s badness shows how far to the left his bell curve peaks on the crap-to-tolerable axis.
January 20th, 2011 at 11:09 pm
@Mike Kay: Errr…not Kos, or at least not his front page as of the last five minutes.
GOS is not FDL. Kos may often get exasperated at Obama, but then so do I. That isn’t the same as either (a) dreaming of his defeat or (b) ignoring the data as it comes in.
January 20th, 2011 at 11:11 pm
@thomas Levenson: here, here!
January 20th, 2011 at 11:13 pm
House impeaches. Senate tries.
ETA: Clenis ws impchd.
January 20th, 2011 at 11:14 pm
Bobo is surprisingly stupid, or maybe just lazy. And you’re right Doug, Clinton really was impeached.
January 20th, 2011 at 11:15 pm
@Stillwater:
That is right.
January 20th, 2011 at 11:16 pm
Doug, your affection for the literal definition of words and procedures is so quaint. Bless your heart…
January 20th, 2011 at 11:16 pm
Mobile cookie test.
January 20th, 2011 at 11:16 pm
@DougJ DougJson:
There are two parts of the proceedings. Impeachment (a power granted solely to the House) is the first; the trial (the power to convict or acquit, which belongs solely to the Senate) is the second. Maybe that’s what you meant, but I found the phrase “Impeachment is the trial that takes place in the Senate” confusing. Impeachment is a term reserved for the House portion of the festivities.
ETA: None of which reduces Bobo’s mistake in any way. Of course Clinton was impeached.
January 20th, 2011 at 11:18 pm
You need 2/3 vote in the Senate to remove from office. There’s no way they were going to get that, Lieberman or no Lieberman.
January 20th, 2011 at 11:18 pm
@thomas Levenson:
I’d like to apologize. The other night, I was skeptical of your claim that Bobo’s piece in The New Yorker was the worst science writing you ever read. Then I read it:
Which means the average man makes over 400 grand. I’d be very curious what study made that ridiculous claim.
January 20th, 2011 at 11:18 pm
mere factual reality is for little people and cudlips and those not apotheosized to punditry.
January 20th, 2011 at 11:19 pm
@DougJ DougJson:
Impeachment is just a fancy way of saying “brought to trial”. That’s why there are successful impeachments and failed impeachments (none of the former, two of the latter).
January 20th, 2011 at 11:20 pm
@shortstop:
You’re right.
January 20th, 2011 at 11:20 pm
@Mark S.:
I do hope that some day we shall hear Bobo’s estimate of the pecuniary value of every penile inch….
January 20th, 2011 at 11:21 pm
Thanks for the heads up on his point for tomorrow’s All Things Considered and PBS NewsHour. Who knows if D.J. or Mark will call him on it.
January 20th, 2011 at 11:22 pm
I see Lieberman much the same way I see Ralph Nader. Sure, they have both done some very valuable things in their careers, and they deserve credit for them. But, frankly, they’re both self-aggrandizing jerks who aren’t half as fascinating as they think they are.
January 20th, 2011 at 11:22 pm
@Omnes Omnibus:
Fling me a choc chip, would ya?
January 20th, 2011 at 11:22 pm
Bobo’s entry for the “50 Most Loathsome” of 2010 reads thus:
January 20th, 2011 at 11:24 pm
@morzer:
Okay I think I have it explained properly now.
January 20th, 2011 at 11:24 pm
@freelancer:
fact checkers:
We have several of them here. That’s one reason I usually have Google open in another window. :-)
January 20th, 2011 at 11:25 pm
You know who else has courageous independence of mind?
Sociopaths and egomaniacs.
January 20th, 2011 at 11:25 pm
As they say on Drag Race, Joe,
Sashay, Away!
January 20th, 2011 at 11:25 pm
Damn it, I’ve tried four times to post this. Doug: I see the trouble. Your source says this:
Impeachment is the process that enables a legislative body to remove a public official from office. It comprises two parts: (1) an accusation or indictment and (2) a trial.
But this is not the usual way of referring to things; rarely if ever is the Senate’s piece of the action referred to as impeachment.
The Constitution words it like this:
Article I, Section 2
Clause 5: The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
Article I, Section 3
Clause 6: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.
junebug, where the hell you been?
January 20th, 2011 at 11:28 pm
Also, it’s important to keep in mind that Brooks is a neoconservative. Neoconservatives (according to Bradley Thompson) believe that there is basically no such thing as truth, just Platonic “noble lies” to be fed to the filthy proles so that they feel like their lives are worthwhile. I guess you could have someone try to find the obvious errors in whatever Brooks comes up with, but that sort of misses the point from where I’m sitting.
January 20th, 2011 at 11:28 pm
Hey Doug: I could be wrong, but I think your characterization of impeachment is wrong. Impeachment is NOT the trial that takes place in the Senate. That trial doesn’t have a name.
Impeachment is what the House of Representatives does. Note that Article I Section 2 of the Constitution says “the House of Representatives… shall have the sole power of impeachment.” That’s pretty good evidence that the Senate trial is not called “impeachment” – contrary to your suggestion.
January 20th, 2011 at 11:29 pm
Joe Lieberman did get DADT repeal through, or helped. So for that, give him a gold watch and kick his ass to the curb, but with civility, please.
January 20th, 2011 at 11:29 pm
@freelancer: I dunno; am I? Pretty sure this is the first time I’ve made a post of this sort in the entire time I’ve posted at BJ.
January 20th, 2011 at 11:30 pm
Fact-checkers won’t help. These guys want to rewrite history entirely. Look at what they’re doing with FDR and the Great Depression (“FDR’s policies created the Great Depression!”)...
January 20th, 2011 at 11:31 pm
Maybe when Bobo was referring to Lieberman, he was actually talking about himself:
Yes. YES! I think I broke the Bobo code!
January 20th, 2011 at 11:32 pm
@Lev:
Ockham’s Razor suggests that we don’t need to attribute to ideology and malevolence what can be adequately explained by idleness and ignorance.
January 20th, 2011 at 11:32 pm
@shortstop: @shortstop:
True, but a fact is still a pretty big deal around here.
January 20th, 2011 at 11:33 pm
@Little Boots:
How about applying a golden boot to his posterior? That seems like sufficient respect combined with suitable contempt.
January 20th, 2011 at 11:34 pm
@Linda Featheringill:
Take it from Doug, you’re not a BJ fact checker until you have this tab open.
January 20th, 2011 at 11:35 pm
@morzer: I like your idea, especially as we can combine alacrity with civility.
January 20th, 2011 at 11:36 pm
@morzer:
I want to give him something. I think really DADT repeal was a pretty good legacy, everything else he should be cursed and kicked, but still, a gold watch is not entirely out of the question.
January 20th, 2011 at 11:37 pm
@morzer: I didn’t say Bobo’s stupidity was merely a function of his ideology. But to fact check him necessarily implies that there’s some deeper level of truth to Bobo that his surface mistakes somehow detract from. I assert that this is not the case.
Damn, the pundits these days are even more slippery than the politicians.
January 20th, 2011 at 11:37 pm
C’mon guys. Bobo just confused Bill Clinton with Jed Bartlet, who took the censure like a man. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._Con-172
January 20th, 2011 at 11:39 pm
@dm9871:
Isn’t that what Doug was saying? I’ve always thought of impeachment like an indictment. You can get indicted but you still have to have a trial to get convicted.
January 20th, 2011 at 11:40 pm
Was Nixon actually impeached? I have to know before they start talking about Nixonland. There might be a quiz.
January 20th, 2011 at 11:41 pm
Facts, schmacts. He has a column. What’s reality to him?
January 20th, 2011 at 11:41 pm
@dm9871:
Yeah, I explained better in an edit.
January 20th, 2011 at 11:42 pm
@Mark S.: No apology necessary. That piece truly beggars belief.
January 20th, 2011 at 11:43 pm
@Little Boots: IIRC, not officially, articles voted out of committee, and he resigned before the full House could vote, which would’ve counted as “impeached”
January 20th, 2011 at 11:43 pm
@shortstop:
Yes, you are right.
January 20th, 2011 at 11:43 pm
@Mark S.:
Doug was not sure. now, I believe, he is.
January 20th, 2011 at 11:44 pm
@Little Boots: Nixon was not impeached. They nailed his ass in committee and it was already clear that he would be both impeached when it went to the full House and convicted when it got to the Senate, so he got while the gettin’ was good.
(Waving my ass at freelancer.)
ETA: Plus, Jim, FL said it better.
January 20th, 2011 at 11:44 pm
thank you, shortstop, you really do know what you’re talking about. Do you do the Google, or something?
(but seriously, thank you.)
January 20th, 2011 at 11:45 pm
@Little Boots:
Articles of Impeachment were drawn up, but Nixon resigned before the House voted on them.
January 20th, 2011 at 11:45 pm
@Little Boots: He can grab one like the gold ring on a carousel as he flies by.
January 20th, 2011 at 11:46 pm
@DougJ DougJson: I figured you got that I was in slow-posting hell rather than still beating a dead horse. Honestly, I was just trying to save you from some winger blogs pouncing on your wording. Better to get it from a friendly face.
January 20th, 2011 at 11:46 pm
@shortstop:
I wasn’t mocking you, dude. I was being a bit obscure, but it got away from me. Chillax.
(Waves my ass back at shortstop)
This is the best damned website on the internet!
January 20th, 2011 at 11:47 pm
@Little Boots: No, I kind of like this stuff. But I’m still fun at parties, and men have still wanted to sleep with me, so I think it’s probably okay.
January 20th, 2011 at 11:47 pm
@freelancer: All righty, then. I’ll put my ass away, ‘cause the wind chill’s minus 20 here at the mo.
January 20th, 2011 at 11:48 pm
Somebody’s picking on shortstop? Shortstop is a treasure. Srrsly.
January 20th, 2011 at 11:49 pm
Look, dammit, during the course of a fascinating and freewheeling conversation about America, a cab driver told Bobo that Clinton wasn’t impeached. How could he know that such a credible source would be wrong?
January 20th, 2011 at 11:50 pm
What could possibly be worse than a Bobo column about Lieberman? Does this have something to do with the second sun the earth is going to get?
January 20th, 2011 at 11:51 pm
It would be uncivil of me to call Brooks a fucking idiot, wouldn’t it?
January 20th, 2011 at 11:51 pm
@Little Boots:
Don’t mess with shortstop… cause
Those Little Boots were made for walking
And that’s just what they’ll do….
January 20th, 2011 at 11:51 pm
@hueyplong: So credible, such honest goodness, such plainspoken wisdom.
Wait, I think my Bobo morphed into Palin.
@Little Boots: It’s all good. Thanks.
January 20th, 2011 at 11:52 pm
@morzer:
heh, indeed.
January 20th, 2011 at 11:53 pm
@shortstop:
I agree. Thanks.
January 20th, 2011 at 11:53 pm
@Loneoak:
A Michael Gerson column about a talk BoBo gave about Lieberman at The Aspen Institute? As part of a panel on bipartisanship moderated by David Broder, also featuring Richard Cohen and Cokie Roberts?
January 20th, 2011 at 11:54 pm
‘Cause Bobo was lyin’/when he should’ve been truthin’.
January 20th, 2011 at 11:54 pm
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: Needs more Friedman and/or Oprah.
January 20th, 2011 at 11:55 pm
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
With multiple moralizing quotes attributed to Chunky BoBo and Dinesh D’Souza thrown in for the flavor.
January 20th, 2011 at 11:56 pm
@handy: And fashions by Bryan Fischer!
January 20th, 2011 at 11:57 pm
@thomas Levenson: young man, Kos himself posted that view in the comment section of this very blog in December.
January 20th, 2011 at 11:58 pm
Since the Times is soon to start charging us $20 per month for the “privilege” of reading Bobo’s drivel, perhaps they will be able to afford fact checkers. That, or, more likely given how badly things went last time they tried this experiment, the paper will go bust when no one agrees to pay $20 per month. I hope they at least learned the lesson that they should give away the Bobo and charge for the news.
January 21st, 2011 at 12:00 am
Nobody sleeps til we hash this out.
Doug, are you with me?
January 21st, 2011 at 12:00 am
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
I think there’s something deviously elegant about just Bobo and Liberman. Although I suppose it would be worse as a conversation at Aspen.
January 21st, 2011 at 12:01 am
@shortstop:
That kind of weather will make anybody stop a little short. 8 Degrees here was enough to make me a little bitter. :)
January 21st, 2011 at 12:01 am
I think one of the reasons so many wingnuts loved the impeachment trial and all the circus was it allowed them to talk about and speculate about another mans penis in public.
One conservative friend of mine, as we were walking down the street and not talking about penises stated: “Did you know that Bill Clinton’s penis bends to the right?”
I said: “For an allegedly straight guy you seem to have another mans penis on your mind an awful lot.”
That quickly ended his line of inquiry.
January 21st, 2011 at 12:02 am
@morzer & @shortstop: From Blackpool for those wanting actual sound.
January 21st, 2011 at 12:08 am
apparently Doug is not with me. We must carry on without him. So … how did this whole impeachment thing start?
January 21st, 2011 at 12:16 am
@Little Boots:
The House voted to impeach Nixon but he was never tried and the proceedings never started in the senate. So technically, no, Nixon was not impeached. The House merely voted to begin impeachment proceedings, but before they could begin, he resigned. Tricky Dick to the end.
January 21st, 2011 at 12:23 am
Pooh – January 20, 2011 | 11:55 pm · Link
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: Needs more Friedman and/or Oprah.
There is NO need to insult Oprah like that.
January 21st, 2011 at 12:26 am
@mclaren:
thanks, mclaren.
January 21st, 2011 at 12:27 am
saladbar shrugged
January 21st, 2011 at 12:28 am
I’m +3 or something, so I’ll give Bobo a walk on this one. Imp
eachairment is so subjective.January 21st, 2011 at 12:32 am
What’s the use of fact-checkers when you make your own reality? It’s been proven by the Cato Institute that eliminating fact-checking streamlines an organization and maximizes profits. Besides, the fact-checkers union was getting greedy and demanding extravagant entitlements like weekends off and sick leave.
January 21st, 2011 at 12:40 am
@Another Bob:
Repeal the job-destroying fact-checkers!
January 21st, 2011 at 12:52 am
This needs some more BJ attention.
Zombie lie won’t die unless you help to kill it.
January 21st, 2011 at 12:53 am
NEVER EAT SPINACH WITH A STRANGER!
January 21st, 2011 at 1:02 am
@djesno:
You mean I have to turn down Angelina Jolie because of green, iron-bearing vegetable issues?
January 21st, 2011 at 1:04 am
@djesno:
Wouldn’t even eat it with a fork.
January 21st, 2011 at 1:15 am
Ok, I couldn’t help it, – below is the comment I left at the NY times – which, of course will not be published.
Hey, I think EVERYBODY should get in the pool – at least make the poor comments moderator read through 10 or 15 comments in a row, all pointing out the egregious error.
I wonder – if this gets picked up by Atrios and Digby and GOS and TPM and a few other of the usual suspects –
and EVERYBODY posts comments to the effect of “BoBo, You %#@&!! IDIOT!” –
would the Grey Lady even notice?
============
Um – Mr. Brooks? Times Fact-Checkers? Anyone?
President Clinton WAS impeached.
The GOP-controlled House of Representatives, in a lame-duck session, passed a Bill of Impeachment, forwarding the matter to the US Senate for trial.
He was ACQUITTED at the Senate trial – though whether that was because of Senator Lieberman’s sanctimonious speech, or because the GOP realized how unpopular the partisan witch-hunt was with the voters, is a matter certainly open to debate.
I don’t know which is more disheartening – Mr. Brooks’ evident unfamiliarity with the US Constitution, or his inability to accurately remember political events occurring not 10 years ago – events on which he was a ubiquitous, and equally sanctimonious, commenter.
To be fair, Mr. Lieberman and Mr. Brooks were not the only overly-sanctimonious commenters during the Clinton impeachment hearings.
Gov. Terry Sanford of South Carolina and Sen. John Ensign of Nevada, both congressmen at the time, also proudly trumpeted their commitment to marital fidelity while voting to impeach Clinton – as, of course, did Newt Gingrich.
So Senator Lieberman was not exactly taking a principled, lonely, unpopular stand when he pontificated on the Senate floor.
But regardless of Mr. Brooks inherent unreliability – this is up there with the notorious, non-existent Applebee’s salad bars – WHERE are the NY times editors and fact checkers? How did this egregious error make it in to the NY Times?
++++++++++++
(end coment)
January 21st, 2011 at 1:17 am
@Mike Kay:
New Poll
Palin 34% ??? Undecided 7% ?????
In a sane world we’d have:
Inanimate Carbon Rod 100% | Palin 0% | Undecided 0%
January 21st, 2011 at 1:17 am
@andy: well its either that or he has to pick and eat the nits out of his hair, kinda lose-lose if you ask me
January 21st, 2011 at 1:18 am
@Pooh:
Yes, it would. In addition, while we know that Brooks is an idiot, if you want to assert that he is a fucking idiot, you’d better have some evidence that he fucks or has fucked.
January 21st, 2011 at 1:20 am
@shortstop:
with surprise musical guests John Tesch and Kenny G !
January 21st, 2011 at 1:24 am
While we are on the subject of facts, here are a whole bunch of juicy ones. Even a graph!
http://theincidentaleconomist......achusetts/
January 21st, 2011 at 1:24 am
@reality-based:
Good, good, you use Mr throughout, as per the Times’ policy. But this
will probably be considered gratuitous insult. Honestly, I stopped commenting at NYT a long time ago. Doesn’t seem to be worth the effort. I doubt Bobo himself read the comments. Or Bill Keller for that matter. It’s just some poor low ranking sap on the editorial staff who is moderating the comments who has zero power in influencing the Times coverage.
January 21st, 2011 at 1:38 am
@GregB:
That made me laff.
January 21st, 2011 at 1:39 am
Not to worry, McCain highly recommends Joe to replace Gates as SecDef.
January 21st, 2011 at 1:40 am
Nixon was never impeached. While the Judiciary committee did vote several articles of impeachment for the consideration of the House, The House never got a chance to vote on them…Nixon resigned before that happened.
However, it was a certainly that not only would Nixon be impeached, but he’d be convicted. Barry Goldwater told him that in person. That’s what convinced Nixon to resign.
January 21st, 2011 at 1:46 am
@Nellcote:
Holy Joe would never take the job. He would have to kowtow to Obama as his boss. And you know he’d rather drink bleach than accept that.
January 21st, 2011 at 1:48 am
@junebug: Remedial help with the zombies, pls? What is the zombie lie involved here, who came up with it, why is it important?
January 21st, 2011 at 1:50 am
@JenJen:
If I wanted civil I wouldn’t be here. ;)
Rewriting history is a full time job and Bobo is giving this particular bit of it one hell of a hand job.
Bobo Brooks is the go-to guy for one hell of a verbal reacharound. It’s just who he is.
Bobo must have missed the positive news for the Senate in the first sentence and the dripping sarcasm in the second. Such is the problem of communicating via email.
January 21st, 2011 at 1:52 am
To further clarify, an impeachment is basically an indictment. Once the House votes to impeach, it acts (as we saw in the farce that was the Clinton impeachment) as the prosecutor, while the Senate sits in judgement as the jury, and votes to convict or not. Must be a supermajority vote to convict. The slime that brought the charges against Clinton couldn’t get a simple majority to vote to convict, and the vote was on party lines with a handful of GOP exceptions.
January 21st, 2011 at 1:56 am
@Odie Hugh Manatee:
Bobo doesn’t know what LOL means, does he?
January 21st, 2011 at 2:02 am
@ppcli:
Given the revelations of the prophet John Rogers, I think the results would be more like:
January 21st, 2011 at 2:05 am
@Nellcote:
of which country?
Seriously, maybe Joe can find work in the Iraqi parliament.
January 21st, 2011 at 2:08 am
This thread is very funny. But, I can’t believe no one thought to ask. Is Joe Lieberman THE senator? The one who fondled Brooks’ thigh? It would be irresponsible not to ask.
ETA: Anyone see MikeJ?
January 21st, 2011 at 2:37 am
@djesno:
Sure: Issue One, NYTimes has a columnist who apparently never took high school American Government, and who also apparently does not have an editor who did either.
January 21st, 2011 at 3:14 am
the nomination of my party for another term as your president.
January 21st, 2011 at 3:24 am
Just stopped by to see if you wanted to get a cup of coffee.
January 21st, 2011 at 3:31 am
@Omnes Omnibus: i want one. chocolate chip, please.
ETA: @Svensker beat me to it.
January 21st, 2011 at 4:24 am
@Ija: Not to mention that this excerpt shows he doesn’t know the difference between “criteria” and “criterion.” Really, this is seriously embarrassing for him. I wonder if anyone besides us will care.
@djesno: Because mere words are never an issue, right? Remind me of this again after all the speeches at the next Republican National Convention.
January 21st, 2011 at 6:24 am
That speech was a key step in Lieberman’s successful effort to use his sanctimonious, unctuous, phony, Orthodox piety to insinuate himself onto the 2000 ticket.
January 21st, 2011 at 7:12 am
I’m too old to matter in current society, I guess, but I remember as a kid having it drilled into me in history class that “Andrew Johnson was the only US President ever to be impeached, but he avoided being convicted in the Senate and removed from office by one vote, ” etc. etc. That, of course, was BC, “Before Clinton.”
Bobo is an idiot; “Pinch” Sulzberger is an idiot for keeping this boob on his editorial staff.
January 21st, 2011 at 7:20 am
DougJ @ Top:
They do. They’re called journalists.
When your journalists need fact-checkers, it’s a clue that something is wrong.
.
January 21st, 2011 at 7:24 am
@Ash Can:
I am ashamed to admit that I didn’t notice that until you pointed it out. But really, even if NYT does not fact-check the content, surely the copy editor checked the spelling and grammar. The copy editor is not me, he/she should notice correct use of singular and plural. Otherwise, NYT might as well hire me as the copy editor.
January 21st, 2011 at 7:38 am
@Ija: You don’t need to feel ashamed at all. As you rightly point out yourself, you’re not the one being paid to write or edit (assuming the NYT has any copy editors on staff at all). Nobody’s perfect, not even a supposedly world-class newspaper, and mistakes are going to slip through. But impeachment and criterion/criteria are obvious enough to make me think that Bobo doesn’t get edited, but that he really should, if for no other reason than to save him from himself.
January 21st, 2011 at 7:51 am
I figure I bring up that another “principle” Joe Lieberman has always had was to carry heavy water for Wall Street. In the Senate, he supported Phil Gramm’s and Robert Rubin’s deregulation agenda. His role in threatening to “defund” the SEC if they tried to impose honest accounting standards on corporations in the 1990s should not be forgotten. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/...../congress/
Since the votes of 67 senators would have needed to remove President Clinton from office, and the Senate had 45 Democratic Senators, the Lieberman’s speech, as was pointed out of the time, was an excercise in self-righteousness where Conservatives would applaud his Clinton bashing (hence Bobo’s fond remembrance of it), but that he would still be safely in the Democratic fold on the substance of the vote.
Given Bobo’s history cheerleading the Conservative’s ware on Clinton from the National Review and the Weekly Standard, you would think he would have some memory of the actual events and not need a “fact-checker.”
And of course, in interviews given yesterday, Lieberman is still all in on the Iraq war being a wonderful thing.
But living in D.C. and having to live with Fred Hiatt’s montrosity of an editorial page (Theissen, Rubin, Will, Cohen, Samuelson, and Krauthammer – being in the same zip code with these fools and devils should get me a few aeons off in Purgatory), Bobo is almost tolerably amusing.
As long as the Gray Lady keeps Paul Krugman on their editorial page, it will have a warm spot in my heart.
January 21st, 2011 at 8:03 am
@Ash Can:
The rap on Maureen Dowd was that when Howell Raines was the editorial page editor, Dowd was not edited because she and Raines had a thing going on. Inquiring minds want to know, is there something going on between David Brooks and Andrew Rosenthal? Is it irresponsible to speculate? I think it is irresponsible not to.
January 21st, 2011 at 8:05 am
impeachment is sorta like indictment; the house acts as the grand jury and determines whether or not there is sufficient evidence to take the case to trial, in the senate.
clinton’s case went nowhere in the senate. case closed.
January 21st, 2011 at 8:39 am
Hey, I like good snark as much as anyone, but I think you mean MARK Sanford, not Terry.
MARK Sanford is a sanctimonious, lying, dishonorable asshole; Terry Sanford, not so much. Plus, Terry died about 13 years ago, and (I think) was no longer in office when Clinton was impeached.
I still think Asexual Douthat is a clueless schmuck, but if you’re going to trash him for getting his facts wrong, it doesn’t help your cause when you make a mistake like that.
January 21st, 2011 at 9:41 am
Even if you read Brooks generously and assume that he meant “removal” when he wrote “impeachment”: far from any momentum, Joe or otherwise, there was never a scintilla of a chance that there were 67 votes in the Senate to remove. It came down to 50-50, with even a Republican defection or 2 iirc. So that take is even more full of Bobo fail than usual.
January 21st, 2011 at 1:49 pm
@Ija:
Editing most Dowd columns effectively would mean not running them at all.
January 21st, 2011 at 2:11 pm