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: jbe who wrote (7589)	10/6/1998 5:50:00 PM
From: j_b	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

<<Can you alleviate my concerns on this score?>> Of course!! I'll just ask one of the God Squad here to put in a good word with the Big Guy for you <vbg>. <<I do not think it is possible to treat the "issues" in the abstract, apart from the context in which they arose, as desirable as that might appear to be>> Although we can't, Congress must at least try. One of the issues you raised is "must" for consideration, even though I gave it short shrift in my last posting to you. Al Gore. There is a scale here with the crime on one side and the effect on the nation of the impeachment process on the other. Assuming that Al Gore is a gift from God, squeaky clean, no problems, etc., the Clinton matters should be looked at strictly on their merit. However, if there is a reasonable chance that Gore will be impeached as well, the effect of removing Clinton becomes far more serious - more weight on that side of the scale. In other words, I feel your pain. <<What I was saying is that, yes, I AM worried about the motives of the vociferous organized anti-Clinton "movement." That is a psychological reality, not an argument.>> You should be worried - hopefully you will take that worry with you to the polls and vote accordingly (this time go for someone with a little more class <g>) whether you are Republican, Democrat or other. However, your Congressperson should strive to achieve that state where motive doesn't matter. We have to differentiate between our feelings and the process. Notice I argue both sides here - I'm torn on the issue too. Once again, for the actual impeachment process, the motives of the attackers should be irrelevant - only the issues matter. The problem is that we can't seem to agree on what the issues are.

To: jbe who wrote (7589)	10/7/1998 3:02:00 AM
From: Daniel Schuh	Respond to of 67261

Beyond that, I am truly concerned about whether the organized anti-Clinton crowd is going to go after Gore, if they succeed in getting rid of Clinton. I raised this concern in another, now moribund thread, pointing out who was next in line. I was assured by mrknowitall that Gore's choice as VP would be speedily confirmed, since Gore has all these friends on the hill. Had to chuckle at that one, given how many Clinton nominations of much lesser import have been bottled up in the Senate, by impartial guys like Jesse Helms. If William Weld, a pretty well liked, Libertarian-leaning Republican, couldn't make it as ambassador to Mexico, who might be acceptable as a Gore VP? Somehow, the "unknowable" line mrknowitall gave to my proposal that all congressional candidates make known their views on the Starr report and its merits as impeachable offenses didn't seem to apply in this other context. Funny, that. Cheers, Dan.