Mitt caught in a direct lie?

[Imran Siddiqui]

And as pointed out, the public turned strongly against the GOP after that - getting Gingrich to resign (something good did come out of it ).

[kentonio]

And as pointed out, the public turned strongly against the GOP after that - getting Gingrich to resign (something good did come out of it ).

My memories pretty rubbish, but wasn't that as much because of the government shutdown and ethics charges?

[Elok]

You don't think it could have something to do with the fact that the lies were under oath?

That was the official justification for the whole idiotic farce, yes. But since the lies were all about his penis and various similarly-shaped objects in his possession, it didn't matter since absolutely no harm was done by the lies in the first place. My tenth grade English teacher tried to use the events to draw parallels with Julius Caesar, which we were studying at the time.

EDIT: I should specify "no harm the American public need concern itself with." Hillary, Monica and the tabloid industry no doubt were greatly shaken by the whole thing.

[kentonio]

That was the official justification for the whole idiotic farce, yes.

Despite the obvious political game playing, there is an important element to it. It's really not ok for elected officials to lie under oath. I don't care if it's about blowjobs, corporate interests or anything else, as soon as you allow that kind of dishonesty to go unpunished you're starting an incredibly dangerous precedent.

[Imran Siddiqui]

My memories pretty rubbish, but wasn't that as much because of the government shutdown and ethics charges?

No.

It was due to the fact that in the 1998 election, an non Presidential election year, when the opposition party ALWAYS picks up seats, the Republicans didn't gain at all - mostly due to the public outrage over the impeachment of the President.

[kentonio]

No.

It was due to the fact that in the 1998 election, an non Presidential election year, when the opposition party ALWAYS picks up seats, the Republicans didn't gain at all - mostly due to the public outrage over the impeachment of the President.

Ah fair enough, to be fair I have enough trouble remembering what I did last week, so I was always going to be pretty hazy about 1998.

[Elok]

Despite the obvious political game playing, there is an important element to it. It's really not ok for elected officials to lie under oath. I don't care if it's about blowjobs, corporate interests or anything else, as soon as you allow that kind of dishonesty to go unpunished you're starting an incredibly dangerous precedent.

Slippery slope arguments are commonly considered fallacious, and for good reason. Enforcing the penalty sends the far worse message that devoting months of the Legislative Branch's time to hearing about the state of a hefty intern's hoo-ha for the sake of a transparent partisan witch-hunt (deep breath) is totally okay. Suppose the President claimed under oath that his wife's pumpkin pie was "delicious," only to be caught on tape telling a friend that it tastes like "twice-baked rat ass." Clearly, he lied under oath, and the lie would be no more irrelevant and stupid than the one he actually told. But the GOP wouldn't prosecute because of the absent titillation factor, would they? Nope, and that tells you what it was all about. Or, as the relevant portion of the Starr Report so helpfully informs us,

Mama's got a squeeze box
She wears on her chest
And when Daddy comes home
He never gets no rest

'Cause she's playing all night
And the music's all right
Mama's got a squeeze box
Daddy never sleeps at night

Well the kids don't eat
And the dog can't sleep
There's no escape from the music
In the whole damn street

....

She goes, squeeze me, come on and squeeze me
Come on and tease me like you do
I'm so in love with you
Mama's got a squeeze box
Daddy never sleeps at night

She goes in and out and in and out and in and out and in and out

'Cause she's playing all night
And the music's all right
Mama's got a squeeze box
Daddy never sleeps at night

[Elok]

Also, if they didn't go after him for the "no-sexual-relations" fib, I would not take away the message that perjury is now risk-free. I would read it as, "they won't waste time going after lies that don't have anything whatever to do with your faithful public service."

[The Mad Monk]

Despite the obvious political game playing, there is an important element to it. It's really not ok for elected officials to lie under oath. I don't care if it's about blowjobs, corporate interests or anything else, as soon as you allow that kind of dishonesty to go unpunished you're starting an incredibly dangerous precedent.

You are absolutely right.

So it's good that he didn't.

The Obama campaign, on the other hand, is desperately reaching for all the **** it can pack in an industrial fan.

[kentonio]

Slippery slope arguments are commonly considered fallacious, and for good reason. Enforcing the penalty sends the far worse message that devoting months of the Legislative Branch's time to hearing about the state of a hefty intern's hoo-ha for the sake of a transparent partisan witch-hunt (deep breath) is totally okay.

I'm not usually a fan of slippery slope arguments, but when it comes to lying under oath it's a different matter. If a Presidents oath means nothing to him, then why exactly should you trust him on more important matters?

[kentonio]

You are absolutely right.

So it's good that he didn't.

The Obama campaign, on the other hand, is desperately reaching for all the **** it can pack in an industrial fan.

If he didn't then it's nothing to worry about, but when we have testimony he gave that says one thing, and SEC filings that say something different, that makes the question a perfectly reasonable one.

[Elok]

I'm not usually a fan of slippery slope arguments, but when it comes to lying under oath it's a different matter. If a Presidents oath means nothing to him, then why exactly should you trust him on more important matters?

We don't know, in this case, that his oath "means nothing to him." We only know that he will not cleave to it when it comes to certain private matters we have no need to know about, and which we ask for no reason than to hunt for scandals.

[The Mad Monk]

If he didn't then it's nothing to worry about, but when we have testimony he gave that says one thing, and SEC filings that say something different, that makes the question a perfectly reasonable one.

...and we have what factcheck.org (that profoundly convervative site!) and just about everyone else here is saying. It is not a lie on the face of it. When I opened the thread, I was actually diappointed to find this.

[rah]

As one of the repugs here, even I thought the bj issue was a witch hunt. Yeah, he shouldn't have lied under oath but as far as I'm concerned he should never have been asked that question under oath.

[kentonio]

We don't know, in this case, that his oath "means nothing to him." We only know that he will not cleave to it when it comes to certain private matters we have no need to know about, and which we ask for no reason than to hunt for scandals.

In which case the honourable course is to refuse to answer questions you feel you have no duty to answer, not to swear to tell the truth and then lie!

...and we have what factcheck.org (that profoundly convervative site!) and just about everyone else here is saying. It is not a lie on the face of it. When I opened the thread, I was actually diappointed to find this.

It's a story that is breaking currently and it looks bad for Romney. If it turns out to be nonsense I'll be the first to accept that, but I don't see how you can draw that conclusion currently unless you're taking a 'we've always been at war with Eurasia' approach.