Ok, you've tied Clinton into it. I have to apologize in advance, but I find it hard to address this issue without being obviously cynical.
Do you also take seriously Trent Lott leading the Senate while dissembling about his White Supremacist ties? Or William Rehnquist presiding over the trial without shame, after his little episode on the semantics of "I"? I'll leave out the leading House manager for the moment, since his particular views on "truth" and perjury don't have an obvious racial tie in, but Barr has the same problem as Lott, in addition to others on the honesty front.
Then, there's my personal problem of taking perjury in the Paula Jones case seriously, given its genesis. That, and the convoluted perjury about not confessing perjury to Starr article. Personally, I think it'd be nice if politicians showed a sense of shame about lying, but again, how you get to wield the honesty issue as a partisan club is something I can't quite fathom. Sort of like Newt and his "professional, non-partisan" handling of the original Starr report and Clinton videotape dump.
Since you haven't brought in religion, I will forgo the obvious chapter and verse. On strictly political terms, though, "making an example" of Clinton seems a little overly righteous.
Cheers, Dan. |
