Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (53694)	6/18/1999 6:33:00 PM
From: Les H	Respond to of 67261

THE FIRST LADY'S LITTLE PROBLEM By DICK MORRIS Hillary Clinton's lack of any connection with New York state, except her desire for us to send her to Washington, has been trivialized recently as "the carpetbagger issue." In fact, her decision to land in New York in order to be elected to the Senate is far more than a mere issue. It represents a fundamental assault on our most basic idea of representative democracy. Hillary would make a good senator. Just not from New York. Our entire legislative system is based on the idea of geographic constituencies. We do not follow the British system in which location and residence don't much matter. In England, it is customary for prominent national party figures to seek out friendly constituencies to represent in Parliament. They need not live there or have any geographic connection. The local Labor or Tory Party usually welcomes their candidacy as a way to maximize their area's influence in party circles. But the legislative branch in the United States is founded on a quite different set of assumptions. Because of our federal system of government, our tradition requiring a clear local nexus for a Congressional candidate is fundamental to our idea of democracy. Hillary's blatant disregard of this concept would set a precedent that is deeply unwise and dangerous for our system of government. Bobby Kennedy and Jim Buckley are often cited as examples of earlier senators who did not come from New York. But Kennedy grew up in New York state. His connection with us was as clear as is Hillary's with Illinois. Jim Buckley lived a few miles over the state line in Sharon, Connecticut. Indeed, his brother Bill was enough of a New Yorker to run for mayor. Hillary's pretensions to having loved New York all her life are just convenient fabrications. I have been one of the three or four New Yorkers who she has known best in her life. Never, never did she comment on the state or city to me, ask any questions about it, or show any interest in its people, culture or politics. Not once. Gail Collins, writing on The New York Times editorial page last week, mused that New Yorkers might forgive Hillary's recent arrival because they are so used to newcomers who settle here in mid-life. New Jersey Sen. Bob Torricelli characterized Hillary's decision to move to New York as her first adult act. Without blushing, this Hillary sycophant said that the First Lady had grown up in Chicago because her parents lived there. She moved to Arkansas because her husband lived there, and now she is coming to New York as the first state of her own choosing. Neither of these justifications hold water. New Yorkers indeed welcome immigrants. It is one of our most enlightened features. But Hillary does not want to join us. She will agree to live with us only if we send her to Washington. We are no more than a launching pad. Of Metternich, the Austrian premier, it was once said that he regarded Austria as a diplomatic term, not as a place to come from. Hillary sees New York in much the same vein. The very idiocy of the justifications for the outrage of a person presuming to run for senator from a state in which she has never lived shows how transparent a fraud it really is. Is there really any sensible or even sensate human in our borders who actually believes that the First Lady would grace us with her residence if there were no Senate vacancy? Is there a New Yorker gullible enough to believe that she had inclined toward or even vaguely considered moving here before Sen. Daniel P. Moynihan decided to hang it up? Will we be fooled? The more frequently Hillary visits our state, will we come to forget that she is not one of us? Some have even suggested that the estrangement between downstate and upstate New York makes any candidate, from either section, a bit of a carpetbagger in the other. Will Hillary seem not all that unusual? We won't be fooled. When Hillary poses in a Yankee hat, it turns our stomachs. Cosmopolitan Manhattanites who feel more connected to Zurich than to Brooklyn will wonder why the First Lady meets with a wall of rejection. But the chutzpah she shows in thinking she can put one over on us exposes why we must and will reject her. Do we need a senator who is one of us? The Masters of the Universe who work on Wall Street and seek seven-figure incomes don't. But those of us who live in Nassau and take the Long Island Rail Road every day would so much like our senator to know what the LIRR is. People who live in Rome, New York, would value a senator who did not think their town was located in Italy. The men and women who need a senator will want one we can call our own. The plain fact is that if Hillary can run and win in New York, anyone can run from anywhere. We might as well elect our senators and congressmen at-large and randomly assign them geographic turf to represent. The multi-millionaire will not only be able to buy a seat, but will be able to choose his state at will. The arrogance of wealth and power will have found its ultimate expression. Pick a state. Any state. And run. They'll never know the difference. They're too dumb.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (53694)	6/18/1999 6:35:00 PM
From: pezz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Missed it. But it must be a ploy to gain votes and discredit the supreme court which will surely strike it down. Pretty damn outrageous wonder what other religions must think about it. pez

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (53694)	6/18/1999 6:48:00 PM
From: Ish	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

<<I'm disgusted, the separation of church and state means nothing to anybody anymore >> Good point. Why should Clinton have a photo op coming out of church on Easter carrying a Bible when he was on his way to stick his pecker in Monica's mouth?