SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Neocon who wrote (41849)4/8/1999 1:16:00 AM
From: Johannes Pilch  Read Replies (1) of 67261
 
I did not find Bush very much objectionable, and I thought Americans were lunatics for voting against him because of his breaking the tax pledge. I remember Bush in a presidential debate trying to explain his actions. Bush explained what happened in his awkward way, and then in a flash of sincerity said to the American people almost mournfully “I did it for you.”

That little moment flashed by very quickly. In a matter of seconds it was gone. But it had a certain ring of truth to it. I understood that Bush had found himself in a position where he felt he had to compromise himself for the sake of the country. For him it likely seemed a matter of keeping his promise and hurting the country, or breaking it and putting the country through turmoil. I would have done things differently, but I can certainly understand Bush's position. His breaking his promise simply was not the typical “lie to them to get elected” situation. It certainly was not lying in the same manner Clinton lied concerning tax cuts.

Regarding Dole, there was very little about the man that motivated me to vote for him. Politically he appeared something of a "Clinton lite." I did not vote for Dole, I voted against Clinton. But my voting against Clinton required my doing something in which I did not believe. (At the time I was seriously wrestling with the moral and civic implications of not voting.) I find no principle in that. I completely overlooked a man who believed almost precisely as I do about the issues that matter most to me. I did this simply because I thought Dole most “viable.” Of course Dole would be most viable with people like me.

In the next election I will act as precisely in accordance with my convictions as possible. Rather than voting against a candidate, I will vote for one or not at all. I cannot concern myself with saving the country. I must concern myself with supporting what I think is right.

>As for the other-- I agree that anything short of a specific repudiation of Bubba will constitute hypocrisy, but sometimes hypocrisy is tolerable.... Just as we don't mention Uncle Harry's drinking problem....<

Really now. Not mentioning Uncle Harry's drinking problem is certainly not hypocritical. But were Uncle Bob in the same circumstances as Uncle Harry and then because you for some reason did not like Uncle Bob you began mentioning his drinking problem, then you would be hypocritical. This is the issue. Your failure to mention uncle Harry forces your silence when faced with Uncle Bob. Because you lowered the standard for Harry, you must lower it for Bob. If Americans do not nationally repudiate Bill Clinton, then they cannot honestly repudiate anyone else unless the person somehow sinks lower than Bill Clinton. If they should ever repudiate a president for equal or lesser infractions, then they would be acting precisely like those hypocritical whores of the “womyn's movement.”
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News