Huh? I'm confused on this debate tactics issue, this sure looks like an ad hominem attack to me. Or is this supposed to be humorous, or ironic, or something? To go back, sadly, one more time to my original "honest Republican" post, what I said, with reasonable context, was:
It's hard to defend Clinton, he's an embarrassment. But this has been a partisan witchhunt from the start. From the moment Jesse Helms and Lauch Faircloth went to see the judge they had gotten appointed and told him who they wanted for special prosecutor. If somebody gives me some indication of politicians of any stripe taking this "I swear to tell the truth" business seriously, I'll start taking this particular instance of "perjury" seriously. If this is a high crime, we may as well abolish the office. I'd say Bill Clinton was justified in considering the whole thing political, and acting accordingly. You find me an honest voice on the other side, I'll reconsider.
To which you responded with your selective quote and initial little lecture:
Dan, "You find me an honest voice on the other side, I'll reconsider."
You smear too much with that broad a brush - I personally resent the generalization you're making that all of the opposition is cut of the same cloth as Mr. Clinton.
To me, that's as fundamentally repugnant as saying all Germans were Nazis or that all white people are racists.
It is a weak point from which to engage in a substantive debate.
Now, I've found my honest Republican, no thanks to the local "substantive debate" crowd. He chooses to remain anonymous, unfortunately but probably wisely on his part. What in the world is the point of your little selective quote and response above and your long diatribe in the message I'm responding to? If there's something "substantive" there, it's beyond me. I made a fairly broad, cynical statement about politicians in general. You chose to pull a remark about Republicans out of context and go off on this Nazi "offensive smear" thing with it.
At this point, after Starr's shot his wad, so to speak, I'd say the process is more clearly political than ever. Starr's "facts" are on the table, but those "facts" are a prosecutor's brief, not a judicial finding. Right? Clinton's indicated he's not going to go down gently. So, we have impeachment proceedings, a trial of sorts. Personally, I find the broader set of "facts", involving where Starr came from, his earlier involvement in the Paula Jones suit, and the right-wing "Arkansas Project" dirt digging expedition it grew out of relevant. You don't. Fine. I'd guess, offhand, in a closely analogous non-political proceeding, an attorney involved in bringing a civil case would not normally be allowed to prosecute perjury in the same case as a D.A. because of confict of interest, but I'm not a lawyer. Lawrence Walsh is, though.
Want to know my personal solution? Everybody running for Congress this Nov. ought to state how they would vote on impeachment, given the "facts" known so far. Put it to a vote. Somehow, given the way the polls are running, I doubt this will be a generally acceptable solution, but I'd find it an honest one. Would you have a problem with that? Or would you prefer to engage in more "substantive debate" on the matter?
Cheers, Dan.
P.S. What's the deal with Dan Burton? Did I miss something? |
