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: mrknowitall who wrote (3500)	9/18/1998 9:47:00 AM
From: jbn3	Respond to of 67261

mr knowitall, your names says most of it for me. Let me clarify something. I don't like Clinton, didn't vote for him, and think he has made some excruciatingly bad mistakes on the personal level. But I believe that his mistakes pale into insignificance when compared with the damage done to this nation by his enemies. Clinton certainly had no reason to suspect that he would be held to a different sexual moral standard than his predecessors in the chief executive's office: Garfield, Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Kennedy, or Johnson, to name a few. So, when you say "1) Was so blatantly ignorant of the possible consequences of his sexual misdeeds ...", why would he think that he would be treated any differently than they. Or, when you say, "2) Was so besotted with his own libidinous interests that the repute of the office of the President and this great nation were of only secondary importance to the gratification he received...", you are either unaware of a long sheet of historical precedence, or you choose to ignore it. If we apply the same rules to Presidential sexual behavior as we do to legal precedence, you have no case. And, "3) He somehow believes he cannot be caught and therefore, can exercise his Presidential authority to prevent having consequences visited upon him for his supposed mistake...", has nothing to do with "being caught", but rather with the manner we (the people and press) have traditionally dealt with "being caught" in sexual indiscretions. Congress is beginning to realize what it has done to itself in that regard, and is scared witless. I believe you miss the point of my argument: The Presidential sex scandal is no longer (if it ever was) about Clinton. It is partisan politics at it's most glorious, regardless of cost. Even if Clinton were to resign, what leads you to believe that his successor(s) will be treated any differently? We have needlessly recklessly, and deliberately damaged the office of the president, the image of Congress, the reputation of our judicial system, and the prestige of the US. Do you think that kind of damage is warranted by the severity of his transgressions? I do not. Where are we going to find qualified candidates willing to subject themselves and their families to this type of treatment of their private lives? Clinton resign? Ordinarily I'd agree, but the hounds are already slavering over the chance to do the same to the next President... and the next... Isn't this fun? last post. jbn3