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: Jim Roof who wrote (1490)	9/3/1998 9:21:00 AM
From: Zoltan!	Respond to of 67261

NYT Lead Editorial September 3, 1998 Bill Clinton's Shaken Friends In an elegant turn of phrase, Michael Wines of The Times's Moscow bureau described the Clinton-Yeltsin summit meeting as an event teetering "on the slippery brink of self-parody." The same could be said of President Clinton's claim at a Moscow press conference that he had adequately apologized for the Monica Lewinsky affair. That view is not widely held among Democrats in Congress or even within the White House staff, and Clinton's comments are a troubling sign that he is still relying on outdated reflexes in dealing with the Lewinsky crisis. He has always been good at rallying himself and his followers against powerful external enemies, be they health-care profiteers, talkative mistresses or right-wing conspirators. By conjuring such plotters, Clinton was always able to assume the mantle of aggrievement and slip into his favorite campaign persona, that of the resurgent victim. This personal archetype had a name, the Comeback Kid. But when Clinton invokes that image these days, as he did in his universally panned semi-confession, he skids toward self-parody. That is because he is seen these days as the victim of his own bad judgment and indiscipline, rather than as the victim of his rhetorical rogues' gallery. As he resumes his White House schedule, the President has a problem more serious than the condemnation of Trent Lott and the defection of Richard Gephardt. He is a politician whose most loyal supporters have fallen silent. He is the leader of a party whose high-risk Congressional candidates often decline to defend him in public and then bash him in off-the-record conversations. This President's first problem is not winning over his enemies. It is winning back his friends. Recent pieces by George Stephanopoulos in Newsweek and Dee Dee Myers in Time have traced disaffection among loyalists. It may be the stronger and more pervasive because his followers placed such low demands on Clinton. The glue that bound his supporters to him was the same as that which seemed to bind his marriage: a belief in common values and policy goals. Under the terms of their pragmatic contract, past lapses were forgiven and mendacity about them excused as a political necessity. All that was required of Clinton was that he not gamble with the common policy enterprise through compulsive adventurism. He not only broke the contract with his staff and supporters. By then attempting to blame Kenneth Starr for his troubles, Clinton parodied his trademark blame game. Starr did not clear Monica Lewinsky into the White House on 37 occasions. Neither did Starr close the door to the Oval Office study. Those were the acts of a President out of control and in the betrayal mode when it came to the work and dreams that his supporters had entrusted to him. While Clinton has conducted his exercise in diplomacy-on-autopilot, here at home disappointment has taken deep root among his followers. There is, as always, a gap between grass-roots and elite opinion here. The public is tired of the Lewinsky story. The Democratic professionals are tired of Clinton and jumpy about what will be in Starr's report to Congress. So as he turns to the task of winning back his own party, Clinton faces a problem common to all caught liars. The words that availed in prior crises are no longer believable. A speech in the voice of the resurgent victim will flop into overt self-parody as quickly as if written by Jay Leno's staff. Clinton's best hope is to throw away the blame script and switch to contrition. But can he? It is a problem contemplated by a distinguished citizen of Clinton's home region. William Faulkner believed that the most riveting of human dramas was "the human heart in conflict with itself." As this vacation ends and the nation turns to the work that September always brings, what was true in Yoknapatawpha County will be true at the White House as well. nytimes.com

To: Jim Roof who wrote (1490)	9/3/1998 1:17:00 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

The basic reason for this is that Conservatives are more aware of the fact that without due exercise of personal responsibility the freedoms that they espouse are weakened AHAHAHA another excuse for their rediculous morality stance. Conservatives are afraid of people with differing values thats what the real problem is. There is no way in which morality can be divorced from public policy. While not promoting a particular religion's spiritual content it is not only possible, but necessary to promote the end result of the dogma. Conservative lawmakers are aware of this fine line (but not always) and are not afraid to adopt such outlooks as 'traditional family values'. Oh right. Like that stupid family values platform was a part of some grand scheme that only conservatives understand? Promoting a particular religions spiritual content is necessary??? They say that in the Koran dont they? I find it amusing how the 'tolerant' crowd has no room at all for the 'intolerant' in their discussions. Untrue.

To: Jim Roof who wrote (1490)	9/3/1998 9:24:00 PM
From: Earl Risch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Conservatives are often labeled as the 'morality police' or at least in some manner are portrayed as wishing to intrude upon personal behavior. The basic reason for this is that Conservatives are more aware of the fact that without due exercise of personal responsibility the freedoms that they espouse are weakened and in some cases stand to be lost altogether. Jim, Are you agreeing that the labels are accurate? It appears to me that you are agreeing and stating why you need to be "moral police". Why do you think that freedom necessarily means "free personal expression of numerous vices"? The wise are aware of the necessity for personal responsibility and a code of ethics, whether they are religious or not. The freedoms that you espouse would not be weakened or lost if we would return to a government based on the constitution. You could live your life style and I could live mine, with minimal coercion by the government. It's this creeping socialism that is the threat to all our freedoms. Many argue against the idea of 'morality' having a place in public policy and to prove their point they dredge up the crusades or the Spanish Inquisition on which to construct their argument. An honest answer to this is to bring up the likes of Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot and a host of atheists whose societies made a go at 'non-religious' morality. Does bringing up the likes of Stalin, Hitler et al make the crusades and the Spanish Inquisition go away? Your simply illustrating that man, whether religious or not, is capable of atrocities, and we need laws to protect us from each other. My philosophy is basically libertarian with a small l. Unfortunately, many think that means I believe in anarchy, license ... Under libertarianism there certainly would be nothing to stop people from living the life style of their choice as long as it didn't interfere with the freedom of others to do the same. The attitude expressed by most conservatives makes me think of the Puritans who came to this country to gain religious freedom, only to set up another state religion that took this freedom away. JMHO ER