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: Rick Slemmer who wrote (6739)	9/22/1998 10:05:00 PM
From: 91fxrs	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

Come on Rick, I vote for a constitutional amendment titled "National Forgiveness day". We can all confess our transgressions and purge our souls of any wrong doing. With this in mind, all prisoners should be set free, because after all, they are sorry.

To: Rick Slemmer who wrote (6739)	9/23/1998 12:10:00 AM
From: jbe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

Rick, It seems to me that most of the objections to Clinton you have listed fall into the category of policy, rather than into the category of morals and/or ethics. Let us take health care, for example. You criticize the health care plan drawn up under the aegis of Mrs. Clinton as "socialistically inspired." Now, I personally thought Clinton was right to make health care reform a priority. Although my own health care plan was fine, I was concerned about all the people out there who were not covered through their place of employment, and for whom medical coverage could be prohibitively expensive (especially if they had pre-existing conditions). Well, the plan Hillary & co. came up with flopped. And instead of going back to the drawing board, the Clinton Administration dropped health care reform as a priority. So, I too fault Clinton for his stand (or rather, his present lack of one)on health care reform. But my reasons for doing so seem to be very different from yours. Reasonable people can disagree about policy matters. This is a democracy, after all. I did not think much of Ronald Reagan's policies, but I did not think he should be impeached for them. Lying about the Iran-Contra affair, however, was something else altogether: here, if we had cared to pursue the matter, we might have had an impeachable offense. I repeat that my problem here is that too many people in the Impeach Clinton camp do not distinguish between his domestic and foreign policy approaches (which in themselves are not impeachable, however much you may dislike them),on the one hand, and possibly impeachable behavior, on the other. I will go even further, and say that many of the President's enemies give the impression that it is primarily Clinton's policies that they object to, and that they have seized on his "misbehavior" only as a pretext. Now, this clearly riles people who support all or at least some of the President's policies, and who voted for him for that very reason. (I did not vote for him, incidentally.) Consequently, they will never go along with a Dump Clinton movement, as long as, or insofar as, they feel it is motivated primarily by a desire to effect a radical change in this country's political course. I am not trying to be confrontational here. I am only trying to explain why you may find it hard to convince anyone who is pro-Clinton or sitting on the fence right now that the President should be impeached. Many people do not trust the motives of the "organized opposition." Let me add that the constant jeering at "Clinton groupies," "liberals," "fags," "feminists," "welfare bums," etc., etc., doesn't help the cause of impeachment either. You can't persuade people by insulting them. {That is a generic you; I do not mean you personally :-).) jbe