Thanks, George. I read the paper this morning and realized something else.
Let's take a look at the facts so far. We have, it appears, the country divided into two groups. No big surprise, since the media can't exist without creating disharmony and conflict. One side says, "OK, Bill screwed up. Don't make a bigger deal out of it than you have to. He is still the president. He should not be impeached." This group is made up of several factions. One faction looks on the impeachment proceeding as stemming from a non-event. One says Bill was tricked and set up by his political enemies. One says he did wrong, but has taken responsibility for it, and "we need to move on."
The arguments from the "non-event" faction were expressed by one of the greatest musicians of the 20th century recently. Winton Marsalis said the president was "just acting like a man". Purething gives the "tricked by his enemies" argument. Several Democratic Representatives have expressed the "we need to move on" argument. This argument is also all over the liberal newspapers, and is being touted as the opinion of "the American People".
On the other side, we have the "he has sinned and needs to go to political hell" group, the "He's a corrupt liberal, he was a bad guy from the start and this proves it" group, and the "this is not about politics, it's about the rule of law" group.
Let's take these one at a time. In all honesty, I can't sit here and say that if I were Bill, I would not have done the same thing when the little tart flashed her thing at me. That's assuming I were Bill. Tricked by his political enemies? Maybe. Bill's got some lawyers too. Obviously, they must have screwed up. We need to move on? Well, the House of Representatives voted to conduct these proceedings. The proceedings are being conducted. We are getting what we asked for.
Billy has sinned? I need more information. I know what I think, but I don't know much yet on the actual facts. Bill has failed to fill me in on his side of the story. Slimy liberal? This is the Rush Limbaugh slant. With Rush, everything is politics. I don't think this is really a political issue. What is this "rule of law" thing anyway?
The press and the media want me to be whipped into a frenzy. The polls are asking me if I think Billy should be impeached. If somebody asked me that in a poll, I'd say, "Tell me Bill's side of the story! Ask Bill what he did. I want to know all about it. I want to know every single detail of every single thing he has ever done that was against the law. He's on TV coming out of church with his wife in one hand and the Bible in the other, and 3 hours later, he is getting a hummer from one of his employees? That's illegal, isn't it? It certainly suggests he is less than genuine. Is there anyone in the United States that is currently serving a prison term for lying to a Federal Grand Jury or lying to a Judge? Is adultery against the law in Arkansas or Washington? What is Bill's side of the story? Stop your whining about it, and tell me what he did. What does Ken Starr have that I have not seen? How should I know if he should be impeached if I don't know what he did?"
Here are a couple of other arguments I've seen recently:
"Henry Hyde is an adulterer. Who is he to judge?" This is a good one. The House, including the Democrats, votes to pursue the matter, and somebody puts this one up. The implication is that if Henry Hyde committed adultery, he is somehow not qualified to do his job. Well, if he isn't qualified, then is Bill?
"Bill's doing a good job. Let him get on with it." This is an opinion. Misses the point.
What is the point? The point is this: something is very wrong with Bill Clinton. If you can't see that, then something is wrong with you. You can't have it both ways. There are laws. Break the law, you might have to pay the price. If you get caught, be ready to pay the price. Go ahead and assume that everyone is a criminal. That's not true, but if that's your thing, that's fine.
The law is a simple place to draw the line in the sand. Actually, that's what the laws are for. If everyone agreed on what is right and wrong, we would need no laws. But the is the United States. Freedom of choice.
Assuming I were a member of the House, is there a condition where I would see factual evidence of felonies, and still vote to not impeach?
Yes, there is.
Bill has the right, under the 25th amendment, to remove himself temporarily from office and get cleaned up. Then he can put himself back in office. If he honestly and completely cleaned himself up with his family, his alleged victims, and me, then I would know he had taken responsibility for his deeds. Then he would have to make up for the damage he caused; pay a fine or whatever. He would have to poll the "American People" and see if they felt he was OK now.
If 51% voted yes, and he had convinced me he was clean, I'd say, "Great, let's put it behind us, and you can rest assured I'll never mention it again."
But for that to happen, Bill would have to get straight. I hope he's big enough to do it. If he isn't he'll be gone by January 1.
|
