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 : Should Clinton resign? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mrknowitall who wrote (431)	9/18/1998 7:24:00 PM
From: Who, me?	Respond to of 567

Network Plans for Clinton Videotape By The Associated Press Coverage plans of television networks for Monday's scheduled release of President Clinton's taped testimony before the grand jury (all times EDT): ABC -- Upon release of tapes, Clinton's taped opening statement with analysis; additional excerpts throughout the day; one-hour edition of ''World News Tonight'' at 6:30 p.m.; one-hour edition of ''Nightline'' following late local news (35 minutes after end of Monday Night Football). CBS -- 9 a.m., report with taped testimony; one-hour edition of ''CBS Evening News'' at 6:30 p.m. NBC -- Air excerpts of testimony in special report, time uncertain. CNN -- 7 a.m., special on Clinton scandal; 9 a.m., air complete tape of testimony; 1-3 p.m., special on Clinton scandal; 11:30 p.m., rerun of testimony. Fox News Channel -- 9 a.m., air complete tape of testimony; 11 p.m., air edited version of testimony. MSNBC -- 9 a.m., air complete tape of testimony. C-SPAN -- 9 a.m., air complete tape of testimony; 8 p.m., rerun of testimony. AP-NY-09-18-98 1724EDT

To: mrknowitall who wrote (431)	9/18/1998 7:28:00 PM
From: dougjn	Respond to of 567

Interesting post. You make some telling points about some of the more legitimate reasons for hatred for or disgust with Clinton inside the beltway. I'm not happy with his behavior either, and don't secretly condone it or anything. On the other hand, the circumstances of the Jones suit, all of them, as I've outlined, seriously mitigate the severity of the perjury to my mind. And magnify the severity of the illegal leeks. Though unlike perjury in high places, it is absolute anathema for the media to do anything but go through empty and fleeting discussion of illegal leaks. It is their bread and butter, and they are all for it regardless of the circumstances and other issues involved. Today for example the NY Times reserved its harshest words for Delay's call that the FBI investigate THE PRESS to determine the true sources behind the Henry Hyde leaks. NOT THAT. And you may have noticed the press has absolutely let drop any investigation into the apparently voluminous illegal leaking of the Independent Counsel's office, and Paula Jones attorneys. In fact, when perfectly obvious sources of leaks are mentioned by one of their members during roundtables, others invariably quickly say, no, they don't know there could be a host of sources. Yeah, right. Doug

To: mrknowitall who wrote (431)	9/18/1998 8:32:00 PM
From: James A. Shankland	Respond to of 567

Long-standing American values and those that held them have been systematically trashed by the President and the people he surrounds himself with. Really? Which values are those (seriously)? I ask because you seem to assume that Clinton is much worse than other current and recent politicians of both parties, and I don't see it. Is it the sexual hanky-panky that's bothering you? That's hardly new. Is it the constant political spin? Surely not; Reagan was at least as good at it as Clinton. Is it lying to the American people? Well, I don't like that either, but Carter is the only president in my lifetime (back through Kennedy) that I can not recall lying, and he was hardly the most effective President we've had. I'm really serious. Note that I'm not asking you to explain how Clinton is not a moral paragon; that would be easy. I'm asking you to explain how he's much worse than his predecessors -- or how his political actions (not the personal ones) are worse than some of the cynical posturing we're currently seeing from the Republicans in Congress. It doesn't count to explain that you have policy differences with Clinton; we have a mechanism (elections) for resolving policy differences. If I'm personally at all representative of an American center -- and I just might be -- then the Republicans are badly overplaying their hand. I really don't like some of Clinton's obvious character flaws; but I don't think they've hurt the country that much (or wouldn't have, if determined political opponents hadn't gone after his personal life). On the contrary, he's steered the ship of state fairly competently these past six years. Granted, the waters have been pretty calm, but he's basically done all right. Whoever it was on this list who said that in Clinton's six years, the United States has gone from being a great nation to being the laughingstock of the world ... well, just sees the world pretty differently from most of us. On the other hand, I really get turned off by the zealotry coming from the right. There is an extremism of tone, and a mania for prosecution and inquisition, that really disturb me. I'm for family values; I have two young sons, and I'm doing everything I can to raise them right and be a good father. I look at the Clintons, who at least have kept their family together and seem genuinely close to each other, despite Bill's serious marital failings; then I look at Dan Burton, who calls Clinton a "scumbag", and then acknowledges that he has fathered a child out of wedlock, whom he doesn't see, and whom he refers to repeatedly in his press conference as "the child" (not "my son" or "my daughter"). I know who comes closer to my notion of family values. Ditto the unseemly haste to publish the Starr report, and now the grand jury videotape. These guys are on a crusade; and crusades are bad for democracy. I liked them a lot better when they had ideas. If they ever get some again, I'd consider voting for them; but not until then.

To: mrknowitall who wrote (431)	9/18/1998 8:49:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 567

O.K. Mr. K. Long-standing American values and those that held them have been systematically trashed by the President and the people he surrounds himself with. Oh, please. What values might those be? "Family Values", like those exemplified by Ronald Reagan, who shipped his kids off to boarding school at the earliest opportunity? Who didn't recognize adopted son Michael at his high school graduation? That is not illegal and is not impeachable - but resentment must be building even in those as honorable and stoic as someone like John McCain. Others, lacking heroic restraint, are responding in-kind to the smears of people like James Carville. And how, pray tell, can the smears of people like Carville compare to the smears of people like Ken Starr, and his "secret" grand jury proceedings? Not to mention Neutron Newt, one of the world champion smear artists. In one of the recent revelations, it came out that in Helen Chenoweth's last election, he came by to play up the alleged infidelities of her opponent. Think he's going to do a repeat performance on that one? Helen Chenoweth has to be one of the worst, aside from her own affair she's perpetually sucking up to the militia types. Plenty good for Newt, though. Politics has gotten to be quite the blood sport. To blame it on Clinton is fairly ridiculous, near as I can tell. Clinton wasn't around for Willy Horton, and Newt's been playing attack politics since the time of Jim Wright, at least. You want to blame it all on Carville, or Clinton, it looks like you have eyes for only one side of the aisle. Very similar to the ongoing campaign finances debate. Once again, you tell me who to look for in the next election, I'll reconsider. Right now, I don't see a lot of concern for the good of the country from anybody. Cheers, Dan.