BlogHer - Should the President and Vice President resign? - Comments

Listen but take with grain of salt

techwizard — Sun, 08 Jul 2007 05:10:48 -0500

I listen to Rush, Hannity, Colmes, Malkin, O'Reily, the list goes on. I take everything with a grain of salt and don't let it go to my head, that's the key.

Sure, everyone can listen to whatever talk radio, tv station, etc they want however the information the information they get out of it and the information they obtain is important.

One of the biggest situations we have now is there are too many persons who want to be the "fix it now" type and not in for the long haul. What most don't think about is what every president has been like in their last year. It is a lame duck session which means nothing will get done. NOTHING. Consider how it was when Clinton was in office on his last year. It was just as bad because he did not accomplish the passing of bills during his lame duck session as Republicans would not let him. Of course, there were other matters happening in the WH at the time and he was looking at impeachment due to Monica among other things.

At any rate, it's up to Congress and the Senate to ensure the safety of the US and fix the problem. And it's up to citizens to ensure senator and state representative do their job because they are being paid by our tax dollars.

Sorry if it sounded like a rant, it wasn't meant to be and didn't mean for this to be so long but that's my opinion. *shrug*

Kim, I didn't think that you

Terri987 — Sat, 07 Jul 2007 22:12:39 -0500

Kim,
I didn't think that you would delete a comment simply for disagreeing, I just hadn't seen that happen before.

Lisa,
Thanks for explaining the *mysterious, disappearing comment.* :-)

Wheat Among Tares

Thanks for explaining, Terri

Kim Pearson — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 00:45:48 -0500

The comment must have been posted and deleted before I saw it. I figured someone must have said something about Olberman that set folks off.

Kim

BlogHer Contributing Editor|Professor Kim|Contributing Writer, Online Journalism Review

Two silver linings then

Lisa Stone — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 00:14:21 -0500

Hee! Well, I'm glad you haven't disappeared your comments, even in the cause of staunch disagreement. There are so few places where women have have a strong disagreement in public. And your voice is valued here.

As for the thread now not making sense, weeeeellll, I'm not that worried about it. You referred to Jshott's comment, so did Erin. And we got to talk about what's fair and right in comment deletion.

This is why it's so important to stick to a thread once you start one I suppose...

Lisa Stone
BlogHer Co-founder
Surfette

Very rare for us community managers to delete a comment

Lisa Stone — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 00:10:09 -0500

Hi Terri,

Thanks for asking, but I can assure you that it is very rare for us to delete a comment. Since Member JShott is no longer in our database, I can only surmise that Kim's guess is right: This user deleted the comment and their own profile.

Our community guidelines are very focused on preserving free speech AND creating an environment of civil disagreement. That's why I was surprised to see you ask if the comment was deleted because the commenter/person disagreed with the original post-- absolutely not! Deleting a comment for that reason would be against our guidelines. (And, believez-moi, Professor Kim would be the first person in line to lecture me if she thought we were censoring comments without answering to our users.)

Here's how we use the guidelines: If someone posts hate speech, libel, violates someone's copyright or otherwise transgresses our guidelines, we typically suspend the comment and have a conversation with the commenter. Most of the time it ends up a helpful conversation. Other times we part ways and then we say why, e.g., "Editor's note: This comment has been deleted because it violates BlogHer's community guidelines."

Hope this helps - definitely don't enjoy it when comments are "disappeared" myself, so am happy to weigh in on the topic.

Lisa Stone
BlogHer Co-founder
Surfette

Hi Kim My very first comment

Terri987 — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 23:55:12 -0500

Hi Kim

My very first comment on this thread was in response to Jshott. He had basically dissed Keith Olbermann, upsetting some other commenters in the process.

If you look at my first comment here, you'll see that it doesn't make any sense in relation to everything else, because it was made to the now-missing comment.

I guess maybe we can delete our own comments.? If so, I wish I would have known that before! :-) I could have done a disappearing act in threads that eventually got too heated.

Wheat Among Tares

If a comment got deleted, I didn't do it

Kim Pearson — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 23:22:50 -0500

Hi Terri --
I'm not sure what comment you're referring to. If I had the power, I would not delete a comment because I disagreed. Yes, you can delete your own comment. I did it once when I posted something by mistake. Perhaps that happened here.
Thanks,
Kim

BlogHer Contributing Editor|Professor Kim|Contributing Writer, Online Journalism Review

Interesting

Erin Kotecki Vest — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 21:50:24 -0500

Huh. I just noticed that too.

No idea. I wonder if you can delete your own? Going to see if I can do it...just to try.

Politics & News Contributing Editor
Queen of Spain

I have a question!???

Terri987 — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 20:26:32 -0500

It seems as if the comment that What's-His-Name wrote has been deleted from this thread..

May I ask why?

I don't recall him saying anything obscene or particularly abusive. Was it deleted simply because he disagreed?

Commenters are not permitted to delete their own comments, at least as far as I can tell. Does that mean an administrator deleted it? If so, why?

Wheat Among Tares

I think Bush has a personality disorder

Morra Aarons Mele — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 06:37:21 -0500

The way he explained his commuting of Libby's sentence with a simple, "I did what I thought was right." I cannot imagine that our leaders have so little regard for their citizens, constituents, and the wellbeing of human kind.

But to me, Libby isn't a big deal. Clinton pardoned Marc Rich as he was living office; it was sleazy. The Libby situation is emblematic of a much larger problem with Bush and Cheney, which is that the people have no control over our leaders. They are two crazy men on a mission and no one else seems to be able to weigh in. Libby did, but we know what happened to him...

These men DO NOT listen to us. It is the most frustrating thing in the world, because yes, they do work for us, but they don't care.

Thanks Erin...

Catherine Morgan — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 17:25:54 -0500

Thanks for pointing out the toxicity of the "Fox News Kool-Aid", and for laying out the facts about Olbermann. I was able to catch the repeat of the show last night, and I was impressed with both what he said and how he said it.

Contributing Editor Catherine Morgan
also at Women 4 Hope and CatherineBlogs.com

Merci!

nelle2nelle — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 17:16:43 -0500

I debated replying, but methinks your words are sufficient, so... what you said!

nelle

Hopefully, sensible people

Terri987 — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 17:15:30 -0500

Hopefully, sensible people don't listen to O'Reilly or Limbaugh either.

I think the point is that it's a lot of rhetoric. Where are the people moving forward with impeachment and resignation cries? It's like the Will Rogers' quote (or maybe Mark Twain?) "Everybody's always talking about the weather, but nobody ever does anything about it."

What is the actual effect of such a statement other than to get people to say, "Yeah...they should resign!"

It makes for good TV, but will congress be saying the same thing on the floor of the Houses of Representatives?

Wheat Among Tares

Someone has been drinking the Fox News Kool-Aid

Erin Kotecki Vest — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 16:56:50 -0500

Alright, I need to jump in here.

I worked closely with Keith Olbermann during 9-11 and after as we were live on KFWB, so I feel as a professional colleague it would be remiss if I did not speak up.

Jshott writes above,
"Olberman is pretty much a nobody in the arena of political commentary, and his opinion is roundly ignored by most sensible people. He could issue an opinion that there were little green men invading planet Earth and nobody would care, just like nobody cares about this foolish suggestion."

Calling Olbermann "pretty much a nobody" in the arena of political commnentary couldn't be further from the truth.

From Wikipedia-

"Olbermann's show, Countdown, posted the largest gain, 76%, in total viewers (52% in viewers aged 25 to 54) for the first quarter of 2007 over the first quarter of 2006 in the 8pm timeslot, while O'Reilly's gains during that period were 5%, Nancy Grace's 12%, and Paula Zahn's suffered a loss of 10%.

While Bill O'Reilly still commands more viewers, Olbermann's numbers are steadily rising and he is taken seriously in various political circles-but obviously not in the ones JShott runs in.

I would love to claim the O'Reilly's and Limbaughs mean nothing in the world of political commentary, but I'm a realist-As I think you should be when you claim Olbermann has no pull.

I think you should also note Olbermann did not call for these resignations on the Libby incident alone-in fact it seems to be a footnote in his commentary. We are all well aware of history, and I look forward to the day this current administration is judged in history. It won't be pretty.

Politics & News Contributing Editor
Queen of Spain

there were little green men

Terri987 — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 15:01:50 -0500

there were little green men invading planet Earth and nobody would care, just like nobody cares about this foolish suggestion.

hehehe..that's funny and so true.

Wheat Among Tares

Should the President and Vice President resign?

Kim Pearson — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 21:46:06 -0500

MSNBC's Keith Olberman, never one to shrink from controversy, tonight called upon Pres. Bush and Vice President Cheney to resign in wake of the President's decision to commute the prison sentence for I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. Olberman said the resignations would spare the nation the pain of impeachment proceedings. Calling the commutation "a pardon in all but name," Olberman said Bush "stabbed the nation in the back," adding:

I accuse you, Mr. Bush, of lying this country into war.
I accuse you of fabricating in the minds of your own people, a false implied link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11.
I accuse you of firing the generals who told you that the plans for Iraq were disastrously insufficient.
I accuse you of causing in Iraq the needless deaths of 3,586 of our brothers and sons, and sisters and daughters, and friends and neighbors.
I accuse you of subverting the Constitution, not in some misguided but sincerely-motivated struggle to combat terrorists, but to stifle dissent.
I accuse you of fomenting fear among your own people, of creating the very terror you claim to have fought.
I accuse you of exploiting that unreasoning fear, the natural fear of your own people who just want to live their lives in peace, as a political tool to slander your critics and libel your opponents.
I accuse you of handing part of this Republic over to a Vice President who is without conscience, and letting him run roughshod over it.
And I accuse you now, Mr. Bush, of giving, through that Vice President, carte blanche to Mr. Libby, to help defame Ambassador Joseph Wilson by any means necessary, to lie to Grand Juries and Special Counsel and before a court, in order to protect the mechanisms and particulars of that defamation, with your guarantee that Libby would never see prison, and, in so doing, as Ambassador Wilson himself phrased it here last night, of becoming an accessoryâ€¦ to the obstruction of justice.

Olberman offered no evidence that Bush had given Libby such assurances, but he is not alone in his thinking that it must have happened. For example, Marcy Wheeler argued that the commutation is an obstruction of justice designed to keep us from knowing exactly what the President and Vice President's roles were in the affair. Whether those who share Olberman's view are willing to through their support behind a resign-or-be-impeached movement is another matter.

However, what is equally clear is that Libby and Bush have their supporters as well. The depth of the division in this case speaks volumes about the challenge of achieving e pluribus unum on the eve of the 231st anniversary of the US declaration of its independence from tyranny.

From the blogosphere:

At Firedoglake, PhoenixWoman says that Bush commuted Libby's sentence
instead of pardoning him to keep Libby from being forced to testify against his old bosses:

[A] full pardon strips away Scooterâ€™s ability to hide behind the Fifth Amendment when asked to testify under oath about Bushâ€™s and Cheneyâ€™s involvement in outing Valerie Plame.

Diane Silver says the President's decision to accept the verdict, but nullify part of the sentence, is a "farce:"

If the judicial system failed so decisively in this case, then Libby should have been pardoned completely. If the system did not fail, then there is no rationale for a president to step in and override only part of a judge's sentence.

There appear to be two systems of justice in this nation. One for the president's friends and one for the rest of us. Heaven help those of us who fall down on the wrong side of that partition.

But Ann Althouse points to David Brooks' defense of the decision in the New York Times. Brooks also sees a farce, but of a different kind:

His decision to commute Libbyâ€™s sentence but not erase his conviction was exactly right. It punishes him for his perjury, but not for the phantasmagorical political farce that grew to surround him. It takes away his career, but not his family.

Meanwhile, Tom Maguire at Just One Minute calls the decision, "a slick straddle."

What say you? The responses to Erin's post make it clear that a number of BlogHers are upset about the President's action. But do you agree with Olberman that the President has forfeited the right to govern the United States?