|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Brooke
Interestingly you don't quote the editors of that same newspaper, the
bastion of liberalism in America, the New York Times, when they are calling
for the President to resign. In fact, if you do a little more homework you
will find that it's the liberal media leading the charge for resignation.
Currently the count is 78 major newspapers calling for his resignation.
Personally I'm very uncomfortable with this whole affair, and as my brother
says, we could even admire the guy and his sex life in the Oval Office if he
wasn't the President.
What concerns me is the pattern of obfuscation that I see. The lying,
coordination of witnesses, the cover-up, etc. It's this pattern that
bothers me the most. The resurrection of Hillary's billing records in their
private quarters in the White House, just as the Thompson Committee is due
to wind down. The claim of ignorance when asked who hired that turkey
Livingston, or whatever his name was who requested all of those FBI files.
The use of the FBI, the IRS and the prosecutor's office to cover up the
travelgate affair.
In addition to the pattern of cover-up and lying, you really have to
question the man's mental capacity. What could he possibly be thinking,
knowing everybody was looking at his life under a microscope, when he
allowed himself to enter this relationship with Lewinski??? You'll notice
that I'm not blaming him, other than for a lapse of judgment. But if he is
this reckless and uncaring, then I really question his ability to lead. And
that brings me to my final point. He has lost the ability to lead this
nation. He didn't start with a majority to begin with, but without
respect, he's in deep do do.
His poll numbers about how do you like Clinton's governing reflect the great
economy as opposed to his ability to govern. Look at his personal approval
ratings, etc.
I don't blame Bill Clinton or even Congress here (even though it was a
Democratic Congress that put this Special Prosecutor bill through and Bill
signed it into law over the objections of the Republicans). I blame the
steady decline in moral values of the American people. Our education system
that's taught people that they really don't have to learn anything to get a
social promotion into the next grade. A system where the teacher's unions
would have us believe that we can solve these problems by throwing more
money at the system, even though the Catholic school system provides a
better education, overall, for half the cost (and no, I'm not Catholic <g>).
We need to start rebuilding our own society, otherwise we're all in trouble
here.
When I was in college I took an advertising course. At one point we were
studying bill boards and the professor said that you needed a line to get
their attention (the public's) and then a line to keep it. His famous line
was; "Hey you!" and the next line was "Yeah you, stupid!". That was the way
he thought of when referring to the American people. I hate to admit it,
but I've developed the same approach. Hey, you! Yeah you, stupid! We get
what we deserve, and we've got Clinton, warts and all. Now I've got to
worry about whether or not we can afford to impeach him. That moves us
closer to a parliamentary type of system which I'm not in favor of....
By the way, you might want to go back and reread the Federalist Papers.
You'll find a better quote in there about what the framers of the
Constitution had in mind regarding impeachment. I think it was also by
Hamilton, but it might have been Madison (I'm old and senile so can be
excused my memory lapses).
Regards
Guy
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Brookemail@xxxxxxx
> Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 1998 10:19 AM
> To: rtestes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: "The Seduction of a President" by Kenneth Starr
>
>
> I have the greatest respect for your opinion, Richard. You're not only
> knowledgeable on many subjects -- you're wise. You're absolutely
> right that
> the Metastock list is the wrong forum for political debate -- or
> mud-slinging.
> However, after reading all the notes attacking Clinton on the
> basis of Starr's
> lurid examination of his sex life, I felt compelled to speak out.
>
> I'm deeply troubled by the division in this country right now --
> and by the
> Republicans' efforts to bring down a freely and fairly elected president.
>
> In a recent article in the New York Times, sociologist Orlando
> Patterson says
> it well:
>
> "To the nonlawyer's mind, which holds the highest principle of
> justice to be
> fariness, Mr. Starr's expedient pursuit of the Lewinsky sex
> matter after three
> years in which he failed to find any wrongdoing by the President in the
> Whitewater episode smacks of precisely the kind of prosecutorial
> zealotry that
> Hamilton most feared. If the personal life of the most powerful man in the
> nation can be violated so wantonly by a Government-appointed
> prosecutor, then
> we are all at risk. ... Americans have traditionally trusted the courts to
> stand as the last barricade against intrusions of this kind. But now it
> appears that any determined opponent can use the legal system to
> invade our
> most intimate lives and that our prosecutors have almost
> limitless powers to
> entrap us and to violate the most fundamental element of our freedom."
>
> And: "The public's correct understanding of democracy parallels
> its concern
> with the preservation of individual liberty. This explains why
> most Americans
> still side with Mr. Clinton and against Mr. Starr. By objecting
> to publication
> of details of the President's sex life, Americans have
> acknowledged that his
> right to privacy justifies his attempt to conceal actions they
> consider to be
> his business and no one else's. The disingenuousness of the President's
> legalistic definition of sex is justificed by the equally transparent
> disingenuousness of Mr. Starr's tactic of using Mr. Clinton's relationship
> with Monica Lewinsky as a way of trapping him in a falsehood."
>
> Now Rep. Henry J. Hyde, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, says
> any efforts
> to expose members of Congress to the same scrutiny applied to Clinton's
> private life could lead to federal charges and imprisonment.
>
> This whole affair reminds one not of Watergate, but of McCarthyism.
>
> Brooke
>
|