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 : Clinton's Scandals: Is this corruption the worst ever? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Doughboy who wrote (5987)	9/16/1998 2:45:00 PM
From: DMaA	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

there is no way to get a 2/3rds vote of the Senate to impeach. Pretty strong indictment of the party. Not one single honest Democrat in the Senate? Think you're wrong there.

To: Doughboy who wrote (5987)	9/16/1998 3:19:00 PM
From: Scrapps	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

Doughboy posted: "(CBS NYTimes poll says 58% don't believe there should be an impeachment hearing.) " I was asked the same question and answered with the majority, so I agree with that poll you can say. Clinton should spare us the impeachment hearing by resigning first.

To: Doughboy who wrote (5987)	9/16/1998 4:05:00 PM
From: cody andre	Respond to of 13994

Democratic Senators will defect in order to save the Party (whatever will be left) and their own face and conscience.

To: Doughboy who wrote (5987)	9/16/1998 7:34:00 PM
From: Jim S	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13994

Ahh, Doughboy. Once again, you have eloquently misstated the facts, from the beginning of your post to the end. First, my compliment was not at all backhanded; if you took it as such, you misinterpreted. It was straightforeward and sincere. Although I disagree with virtually everything you say, I do respect your ability to communicate your thoughts (such as they are <G>). Now, OTOH, Michelle could complain about backhanded compliments. Now, as to the substance of your post. It is pretty clear that it is the Dems who want to be shed of Clinton. They well know that even if they could keep him from being impeached, he would be a drain and a strain on their hopes to regain congressional majorities. Their ideal position will be his resignation "for the good of the party and the country." That will allow a bit of face saving, and they can sanctimoniously cite his sacrifice. If that doesn't happen (and we agree that it is unlikely), the Dems will have little choice but to demonstrate their "bipartisan" (the really sanctimonious will be "NONpartisan") ability to "do what's right for the country." What I think we will see is that, unlike the Government shutdown, where Clinton was able to portray the Repubs as the bad guys, this showdown will be different. Why? Because the news media will not blindly believe the trash that the White House excretes like they did during the budget battle. Even the major network media will know that they are dealing with a president who is a liar, a lame duck, and very likely a man who has committed criminal acts (not even considering that he is a pervert). No, in a public approval showdown, the socialistic media will not blindly support Clinton like they did in the budget battle. From a practical point of view, it would be best for the Repubs, IMO, for this sleezebag to remain in office until his term expires. But, and this may be difficult for you Dems to comprehend, the Repubs will do what they collectively feel is best for the country, not the Repub party. I realize this is a completely foreign concept to liberals, this "ethics" thing, but it really is a big deal to us conservatives. I know that liberals don't understand the concept because there hasn't been a single resignation in protest of the slimebag's actions. Even our Repub bad guy, Nixon, had a staff and Cabinet that held "Duty, Honor, and Country" above petty loyality to the president. No such honor among the Dems. Over, jim