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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (167890)	8/6/2001 2:25:05 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

And this has nothing to do with the previous. But it is something I'm curious about. I saw Patricia Ireland, head of NOW, try to field this once. She came off rather poorly. her answer boiled to "I don't care if what we're doing flies in the face of every position we've taken till now; we support Slick anyway." I'm glad you realize it's a different subject -- I was talking about the last damage done to the Presidency by Clinton's enemies in their eagerness to get at him (Aside to all RWEs: Clinton is no longer President. You can stop obsessing about him now.) How CAN you support someone with Slick's history? First of all, which history? The one he actually has or the one augmented by rumors published as fact? It's clear that Clinton is a rather promiscuous womanizer, or at least was one for much of his life. Clinton is brilliant and charming and could talk his way out of a wolf trap, and he took advantage of his assets. The same qualities that make a man a good leader make him attractive to women. You keep expecting me to be outraged by this, but I'm not. I must lack the Republican puritanical streak. I think Clinton contained himself as President until he fell off the wagon with Monica, which he knew was suicidal even as he did it. But the unrestrained effort by Linda Tripp, Ken Starr and company to turn Clinton's sex life into bribery & high treason, to set a perjury trap and impeach him based on it, was such an overreach that it drove all exasperated Democrats to circle the wagons. If the Republicans had restrained themselves to moralizing and disapproving, they would have gained from the incident; as it was, I think they just further polarized the country without gaining themselves support. Americans could tell that the vast majority of Republican outrage was politically motivated. After all, outrage against womanizing has hardly been a Republican platform plank up until now.