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: j_b who wrote (7505)	10/7/1998 12:27:00 AM
From: jbe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Do the people that support Clinton support him because they feel he has done nothing wrong, or because they agree with his policies or positions? Moving on...Once again, I have to quibble: what do you mean by "supporting Clinton"? Is a reluctance to see him impeached the same thing as "support"? Don't think so. People can have, and do have, all sorts of reasons to be reluctant. I would assume that most of them indeed believe Clinton hasn't done anything impeachable--although few would say he has done nothing wrong. Their feeling may (or may not be) reinforced by the fact that they agree with his policies and positions. There will be some who will support him, no matter what, because of those policies and positions. Still others will be reluctant to see him impeached because they fear the consequences for the country. Others will stand up for him, even if they don't like him very much, because they like the "right wing conspirators" they think are after him even less. And so forth and so on. Remember also that most people simply do not have the time to spend on following and analyzing everything that comes out on the Clinton matter. That would take 24 hours a day 7 days a week. I know that in the course of the past few weeks I have neglected my own work dreadfully just in order to inform myself a little bit. Folks are not lazy, j_b. But they are busy. So I would guess that most of them reach their opinions on the Clinton business by relying on their common sense, their gut feelings, and perhaps also on the media pundits they trust. It seems to me that most of the "supporters", or the "reluctants" (I prefer that term), feel that 1) Clinton has been a reasonably good President; 2) his misdeeds, if any, have not affected the way he handles his job; and 3) the scandal is, generally speaking, a "tempest in a teapot." As more information comes out, their attitude may change, of course. But here again,I predict most people will continue to focus on what they see as the bare essentials, rather than on all the fancy details they don't have time to absorb. (And maybe they will be right! There is such a thing as not being able to see the forest for the trees.) By the way, I am still puzzled as to what human rights organizations you are referring to that "support Clinton." Human rights organizations generally do not endorse any political leaders. Do you mean civil rights organizations? NOW? The NAACP? I should point out that civil liberties organizations, like the ACLU, have been highly critical of Clinton for his record in this area. Anthony Lewis pretty much reflected their view when he said some time ago that Clinton's civil liberties record was the worst of any President of the past 60 years. The ACLU was particularly active lobbying against certain provisions of Clinton's anti-terrorism law (drawn up in the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing). I quote: We strongly object to proposals to increase the government's authority to investigate domestic political groups in the absence of suspicion of criminal activity. The FBI already has sufficient authority to infiltrate and wiretap groups it believes may be planning to engage in criminal conduct. Expanding that authority will not make us safer but will result in surveillance of groups with unpopular viewpoints. The government has a long history of infringing on political liberties in the name of national security and urged that we not make it easier to repeat that mistake. The Act would also empower the President to designate any foreign group or its American branch as "terrorist" without meaningful review by the courts and would allow for the use of secret evidence in deportation hearings. Most recently, the ACLU issued a report attacking what it calls "Clinton scare tactics" on encryption, in a push "to acquire vast new powers to spy on all Americans." And so forth and so on. I agree entirely with the ACLU in these matters -- which may cause me to be crucified on this thread. <gg> jbe