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.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: thames_sider who wrote (323)	3/1/2002 7:40:34 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21057

Circumstances vary. I would never presume to judge harshly someone who had been married for quite awhile and had a discreet affair that happened to come to light, not knowing the subtleties of the situation. I would, however, judge more harshly a compulsive womanizer, especially if he had a reputation for assaulting women. There are a wide range of circumstances that one might fine mitigating or aggravating as regards someone's sexual behavior. Preying on interns would be an aggravating factor; being single would be mitigating, for example. After that, there is the question of how my view of their sexual behavior bears on my willingness to support them. Normally, it would be a weak factor, tipping the scales when they were pretty close, but I cannot say that is always true. Newt had to step down, for example, because he was compromised to much under the circumstances. Under other circumstances, a public penance might have sufficed.......

To: thames_sider who wrote (323)	3/1/2002 6:02:10 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21057

But I don't buy the argument that pols should be judged on their sexual behaviour Why should a law against sexual harassment apply to me but not the President? It applies to lower gov't levels. An Admiral or 2nd lieutenant could expect a court-martial for Clinton's behaviour. There's a specific problem for most Presidents, too, at least these days. In the TV and sound-bite age especially, photogenic looks, charisma, charm, the ability to appeal, ambition, drive... all the characteristics that would be common in successful womanisers, and likely to go along with a high sex drive... That argument might pass, except that Clinton's predecessor and successor don't display this problem.