Hypocrite Henry Hyde... Leave it to Shrub to cheapen this medal on (someone) like Hyde.

Henry Hyde is a wonderful man who deserves this Presidential Award. Hyde was a devoted Congressman who believed life started at conception and he did much for the pro-life movement.Hyde had the tenacity to head the impeachment inquiry and he accomplished his task.
I had the privilege of sitting next to him at an Economic Club of Chicago luncheon where W was the principal speaker in January 2006.
God Bless Henry hope you recover soon. Jerry White, Springfield, IL

REFLECTIONS ON HENRY HYDE AS IMPEACHMENT MANAGER

With his swept-back white hair, eyebrows arched and head bent slightly down to peak over wire-rimmed glasses, he is almost the very picture of a senior legislator. The voice is a bit nasally, flat, and slightly whiney as he becomes emotional. But then there is that sense of solidity, a little like Edward Arnold as Daniel Webster, but a little, too, like President John Adams whose stout pomposity inspired his colleagues to dub him "His Rotundity."

Mr. Hyde, a conservative legislator, looks and sounds appropriately old-fashioned, but he has shown us also how contemporary he can be. He has embraced this generation's most cherished tenet of faith, the belief that every American is a victim.

Mr. Hyde complained of patronizing editorials, public insults, disapproval of some colleagues, and other ugly things heaped on the heads of House Managers. He never considered that this treatment might just reflect his committee's poor job of preparing the case. Nor did he consider that it might reflect his Manager-colleagues' uninspired presentation, one that too often resembled schoolyard squeals of "I told you so!" rather than pleas before so high a court. And he took no account of the public's judgment that he had overreached himself, nor of its frustration at tiresome efforts to portray what they perfectly understood was shoddy behavior by the President as a threat to the Republic's foundations.

No, Mr. Hyde and the boys were not political gamblers who had lost a great sum on an embarrassingly bad bet. They were, momentarily, a band of sturdy crusaders scarred but unbowed in their brave efforts to beat down the infidel (Mr. Hyde being seemingly unaware that much of the crusaders' work was plunder and murder under papal dispensation). But romantic reverie faded into reluctant acceptance that ours is not an age of chivalry. Mr. Hyde, the politician, quickly re-entered the contemporary mainstream of American consciousness.

The Managers were victims, victims of a public cynicism that accepted "All politicians are...corrupt and venal." Mr. Hyde dismissed with Burkean majesty the place of polls in great matters of state, never explaining how he came by his certain knowledge of public attitudes.

One wonders whether Mr. Hyde has reported to work with his eyes open in recent years. The main organ of political cynicism in America is Congress. As well, he seems unaware that gridlock, unproductive partisanship, the anti-government rhetoric of members of his own party who keep running for the very offices they disparage, and a disgraceful refusal to deal with our corrupt campaign financing might well justify public cynicism.

Few people anywhere would expect to find much support for a double standard in applying the law. But Mr. Hyde must have believed he detected tendencies along those lines in the Senate, requiring his admonition, "Nothing begets cynicism like the double standard...." Mr. Hyde ignored here the most basic distinction: Impeachment of a President has nothing to do with criminal law, and it can set no precedents for courts to follow. As for the future removal of officials, impeachment always has reflected changing political standards through time. After all, Thomas Jefferson wanted to impeach federal judges for what today is regarded as their basic duty.

But more convoluted in Mr. Hyde's successive statements on public cynicism is the odd conclusion that it would be strengthened by the Senate's declining to convict - this, in a case where the public consistently believed there should be no conviction.

In any event, it is clear Mr. Hyde somehow holds the public responsible for his embarrassing position. He's been proclaiming the end of the world from the mountaintops, and nothing quite so remarkable has happened.

There is notable paternalism revealed in Mr. Hyde's remarks: He seems to say, "The public just doesn't know any better, but I know better, and you Senators should know better." And is not paternalism yet another cause of public cynicism? Mr. Hyde seems very distant from that other Illinois boy, the first Republican to become President. Mr. Lincoln put his faith in the people, standing to election during the Civil War's dark days of 1864 when he looked sure to lose.

Mr. Hyde decries the treatment of Ms. Paula Jones' civil rights. The public has made its judgment, too, on that suit, a judgment which seems to give more weight to partisanship than injustice. Here again, Mr. Hyde questions the public's judgment, by casting the matter in terms of civil rights - this from a legislator whose voice has never been a force for civil rights. And as regards women's rights, it might even have been noticed that Mr. Hyde identifies with fundamentalists who hope to impose an American form of Mullahism in matters of divorce and reproduction. It is easy to see here yet another cause of public cynicism.

Of course, we later found that Mr Hyde had previously conducted an affair with a married woman, behavior which destroyed a marriage. That would have been his private business had he not stood out as such a massive hypocrite about Clinton.

Hyde Jr. commented that his dad started during Iran-Contra and that a lot has changed.

Really?

I reside in a largely Republican District of which Mr. Henry Hyde, once, represented. In matter of fact, I grew up remembering only Mr. Hyde as my Congressman. My opinion is that Mr. Hyde was one of the best Congressman. He took real good care of his District. He listened and was always prompt in responding to anyone who was in his District.

Although, I've not always agreed with some of his viewpoints and votes, I did ocassionaly voted for him while he was running. When I thought he was way wrong, I did punish him by not voting for him. But, I also, recognized he was one of the best Congressman. Since, I'm neither Liberal or Conservative, I rarely vote Republican. But, I do prefer a Congressman with common sense like Mr. Hyde. I, simply, don't like people who are just follower but believe what is right for us.

I'm sure there will be people who critize him for his impeachment role. But, criticism is just part of the job since it is a Political Position. You are serving the Public and they have to the right to voice their opinions; whether favorable or unfavorable.

Don't listen to Jerry White. He is clearly a Republican. He'll march to any tune without questioning. He is simply a foot soldier who takes order.

weinerdog43, Bush already cheapened the Medal when he awarded it to Paul Bremer, George Tenent, and Gen Tommy Franks of Mission Accomplished fame. Hank Hyde? Well you gotta award a self-righteous Republican once in a while.

Henry Hyde is a wonderful man as long as you don't count those "Youthful Indiscretions".

We've had all kinds of liberals on this site but, now we hear from a Canadian liberal. The public did want to impeach Bill Clinton-- the Senate RINO Republicans wouldn't even look at the evidence that Hyde assembled of Clinton's misdeeds prefering to see no evil, hear no evil like little monkeys trying to blindfold themselves.Henry Hyde had courage and yes Chuckman he did have interest in abortion and don't give me the Catholic Church is bad because of the crusades so that's what's worked up the radical Islamic Jihadists. They are worked up period and hide behind children and women in Mosques, schools and hospitals to blow up innocents and yes they blow up their own women and children so great is their hatred.
I have friends from college at Loyola in Chicago who live in Canada. I just don't like liberals in Canada or here.
Henry hyde deserves more praise than Bill Clinton does ever. He is a principled man with a fine mind and core moral values missing in a secularist humanist society. Jerry White, Springfield,IL

Mr. Chuckman and the rest if the Loony Lefters: Clinton was not impeached for having sex. He was impeached because he lied under oath and he obstructed justice. It's also why he lost his law license for five years.
Perjury and obstruction of justice are serious crimes, as you folks kept telling us in regard to Scooter Libby.

But let's look at the sex. Here you had a man in his 50s, the president of the United States having sex with an intern. If this happened in Corporate America, the CEO would have been fired and you Lefties would be calling for the CEO's ouster. Clinton also opened himself up to blackmail because of his indiscretions. He took advantage of a younger woman, young enough to be his daughter.
Comprehend?

"The public did want to impeach Bill Clinton-"
Posted by: Jerry White | November 5, 2007 10:59 AM

As usual, perpetually clueless "Jerry White" (that's the one from Springfield for those who are keeping score) never lets facts get in the way of a good story:

IMPEACHMENT: THE POLLS; Public Support for the President, and for Closure, Emerges Unshaken
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B00E2D8123CF932A15751C1A96E958260
By ADAM NAGOURNEY WITH MICHAEL R. KAGAY
Published: December 21, 1998
A solid majority of Americans want the Senate to resolve President Clinton's impeachment case without a trial and without removing him from office, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll.

A majority of the respondents disapprove of the House's decision to impeach Mr. Clinton but, now that it has done so, believe he should be punished no further, the poll showed.

The poll, which began right after the House voted the first article of impeachment on Saturday, and continued into this evening, found that the more than 12 hours of debate about the perjury and obstruction of justice charges had no effect on the public's opinion of the President or the case against him. Mr. Clinton's popularity remains as high as it has been at any point of the six years of his Presidency, while the public view of the Republican Party continues to plummet.

Two out of three Americans now oppose Mr. Clinton's removal from office, as they did in the weeks before the hearings. Nine out of 10 respondents said they had heard nothing during the two days of televised hearings -- in which Republicans painstakingly offered their case against Mr. Clinton -- that had shifted their view of the case.

The Times/CBS News poll suggests that almost a year after the initial reports of Mr. Clinton's relationship with Monica S. Lewinsky, the public continues to be almost completely at odds with much of Washington's political establishment over the import and significance of Mr. Clinton's affair, and attempts by an independent counsel and Republicans in Congress to prove he tried to cover it up.

And it provided one more piece of evidence of the startling political resilience of Mr. Clinton: one day after he became the second President in the nation's history to be impeached, 72 percent of respondents said they approved of how he was handling his job. Mr. Clinton's job approval rating actually increased since last week, when it was 66 percent.

The telephone poll involved 1,215 adults nationwide and had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points. All respondents had been previously interviewed last week, as a way of measuring changes in public perception by the House impeachment hearings.

The Times/CBS News poll comes as the case against Mr. Clinton moves from the House, which voted two impeachment counts against him on Saturday, to the Senate for a trial next year."

And of course to add insult to Republican injury, Mr. Clinton still left office with a higher approval rating than even their hero Ronald Reagan. http://uspolitics.about.com/od/polls/l/bl_historical_approval.htm

So what little johnny is saying is that it is sinful for the adult Prez to have an affair with a single adult woman,but OK for Hyde to have an affair with a married woman with 3 children. HUH????

Praise the Lord little johnny!!!!!

Johnny D.,
Clinton was 49 and Lewinsky 22 (a 27 year difference) when he had his little dalience.

Meanwhile, Newt, who was leading the cry for Clinton's head, was having a fling with Calista Bisek, more then 20 years his Junior. Another "family values guy", I guess.

And granpa Fred Thompson is 24 years older than his wife (old enough to be her father?). Thompsons first wife was 17 when he married her.