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: Who, me? who wrote (6965)	9/25/1998 5:53:00 PM
From: Ann Corrigan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

Take your medicine immediately, Who, me? I'll respond later this weekend, when more time is available. Ann

To: Who, me? who wrote (6965)	9/25/1998 5:55:00 PM
From: alan w	Respond to of 13994

It was also Armey and Co. who tried to balance the budget, pushed welfare reform, etc...remember the flat tax talk. Clinton stole their ideas and claimed them as his own. He's not only a liar, he's also a thief. Oh yeah Ann, I'm a liberal democrat, but I just can't stomach Clinton. alan w

To: Who, me? who wrote (6965)	9/25/1998 6:39:00 PM
From: jbe	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13994

Let us not use the word "liberal" as a cuss word. Some dictionary definitions of "liberal": 1) Having, expressing, or following social or political views that favor non-revolutionary progress or reform; 2) Having, expressing, or following views or policies that favor the freedom of individuals to act or express themselves in a manner of their own choosing. What's so bad about that? Going back historically, the term "liberal" was originally applied to those who stood for as little government regulation as possible. Over time, in popular usage, it has come to be used to designate those who allegedly want a maximum of government control. Similarly, the term "conservative" was applied to those who wanted to preserve, or conserve, the status quo. It is now applied, more frequently, to those who want to change the status quo, or to change it back to what it supposedly once was (i.e., to "reactionaries"). I propose we get rid of both terms, which generate more heat than light. jbe

To: Who, me? who wrote (6965)	9/25/1998 6:57:00 PM
From: cool	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13994

, Sept 25 (AFP) - President Bill Clinton, buoyed by polls showing growing support for his remaining in office, traveled Friday to the American heartland to promote his policies and raise funds ahead of key congressional elections. Clinton arrived in this important Midwest hub two weeks after the release of independent prosecutor Kenneth Starr explicit report on the president's affair with a White House intern. Yet the Clinton presidency, seemingly on the verge of implosion when the report was released, has been recharged by a series of favorable opinion polls. A New York Times/CBS News poll released Friday showed that 53 percent of US adults would be satisfied if no action were taken against the president for his role in the sexual liaison with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Sixty-four percent said they believe Starr's investigation is partisan and 65 percent felt Republican lawmakers were unfairly trying to weaken Clinton and the Democrats, according to the survey of 960 adults conducted September 22-23. A USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll also published Friday showed that those favoring impeachment dropped from 35 percent to 29 percent between Sunday, the day before the Republicans made public a videotape of Clinton's grand jury testimony about Lewinsky, and Wednesday, when the two-day survey began. And 53 percent of the people Time magazine surveyed in another poll said they want their member of Congress to vote against starting impeachment hearings. Although the White House takes heart in the steady support for Clinton, a White House spokesman acknowledged that the Republican-controlled Congress is liable to take its own course, despite the will of the people. "We're just, practically speaking, facing the reality of what the numbers are in the House of Representatives," White House spokesman Michael McCurry told a press briefing Thursday. "It doesn't mean that we like it. It doesn't mean we agree with it. But ... there is not much that we're going to be able to do with it, other than to sort of see if public opinion has some sway as the House deals with the matter." During the past week, Clinton and his aides have sought to turn the political battle to the president's advantage by reproaching Republicans for forgetting the real needs of US citizens in partisan efforts to topple him. On Friday, Clinton, whose domestic travels will also take him to California and Texas for fund-raising events, again went on the attack against Republicans. Speaking at an elementary school in a poor area of Chicago where innovative reforms have reduced illiteracy, he urged Congress to approve his education agenda, presented at the beginning of the year. "There are a few days left in the congressional session," he said. "It's not too late for Congress to put aside the lure of election year ... and to pass that education agenda so that every child has a chance to be part of the miracle of his or her own learning." At a press briefing before leaving for Chicago, Clinton challenged Republican lawmakers on the federal budget, saying they had failed to sign the necessary appropriations bills to keep the government running at the start of the fiscal year. "By failing to meet its most basic governing responsibility, the Republican majority in Congress has its priorities wrong -- partisanship over progress; politics over people," Clinton said. Clinton announced he signed "stop-gap" legislation to keep government going until the bills are signed. Noting that Congress is months behind the deadline for passing a budget resolution, Clinton accused lawmakers of seeking to undermine education and health programs by denying them funding or delaying passage of the relevant legislation. In Chicago, White House spokesman Barry Toiv continued on the theme. "It's not the president who is five months behind in enacting a budget, it's not the president who has failed to approve education spending," he said. "The president is focused on getting the work done that needs to be done," Toiv said. "He will continue to press very hard for the Congress to act on these issues." But Senate majority leader Trent Lott countered that it was "not a good time (for the White House) to be taking a gratuitous slap at us." "The president comes up, at a time when he needs cooperation ... with the Congress and takes a gratuitous slap at us and then jumps on the plane and runs off for three days of fund raisers," Lott said angrily. "We need a president who is engaged, and he is not," Lott said. phd/mvl/sb * end of story *