Roger, it looks like the financial press is getting on your "Clinton effect on the markets" bandwagon. Looks like you weren't wrong so much as you were early. Much like with those Net stocks.
Anyway, I'm sure most of Congress, even the Republicans, would rather not have to go through with this, but what can they do? Clinton has forced them into this position.
Afterall, he is a politician. That statement demonstrates how there is no way for Congress to win here. If they impeach, they look like hypocrites as you imply. If they don't, though, they just reinforce the belief among the voters that politicians think it's okay to lie.
Just an observation, if we did have a mechanism for new elections a la Britain we would have been rid of Clinton right after nationalized health care went down.
Finally, I've noticed the press seems to be using the questions "Does this warrant removal from office?" and "Does this warrant impeachment?" interchangeably. I even heard Harvard law professors, defenders of Clinton, say that the House does not have the authority to remove the President (technically correct, but made to sound like an argument against impeachment).
I wonder how many of those pollees have been confused into not realizing there's a difference? |
