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: greenspirit who wrote (8325)	10/15/1998 5:30:00 PM
From: Borzou Daragahi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

If Ronald Reagan had been caught getting blow jobs in the Oval office from an intern, I have no doubt the same people who are claiming tolerance, would be screaming for his head! I would have merely snickered, and not at all because of the blow job at all, but because of his espousing Christian right family values while getting it on with an intern. In any case such a scenario would be unlikely because they didn't have viagra back during the Reagan era. :-) Why were the Democrats the first ones to scream bloody murder for the heads of Clarence Thomas and Bob Packwood, yet so accepting here? Re: Packwood. His own constituents wanted him out. Re: Thomas. He got his job, didn't he? The charges were aired, he responded, the statute of limitations was way over anyway, and he got to sit on the Supreme Court in his full Uncle Tom splendor. Besides the Democrats--like the Republicans--are political opportunists. To paraphrase you, why was Trent Lott so accepting of Nixon but among the first to scream bloody murder for the head of Bill Clinton? Come on Michael, don't play naive. You're obviously much more intelligent than that. Why were they after anyone and everyone remotely associated with the tailhook party? Puh---lease! No one has remotely accused the President of sexual assault.

To: greenspirit who wrote (8325)	10/15/1998 5:56:00 PM
From: jbe	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13994

Michael, thanks for your response. But it, too, may be a bit "off base" (your term). :-) That is to say, you are raising new issues, rather than the issues I originally raised. 1) I was not talking about Clinton "supporters", i.e, Clinton partisans. More than that: one of the points I was trying to make was that expressing doubt about the impeachability of the Monicagate does not automatically make one a "Clinton supporter." By that standard, for example, 68% of the population "support" Clinton (if the polls are accurate). 2) You do seem to be assuming that anyone who actually does support Clinton on one issue or another supports him on everything. As I was implying (okay, maybe I didn't spell it out), "support" is usually more nuanced. 3) I am sure there are people who show almost a blind faith in Clinton, and defend him, as you say, simply because he is a Democrat and a liberal. You mention some professional politicians and well-known activists specifically. But I was talking about the population at large, and my impression is that such folks are definitely in a small minority. Besides, there are also people who defend everything that Republicans do to the death -- are they, too, acting in "blind faith"? :-) 4) Democrats and Republicans. I did not bring up party affiliation at all. For one thing, posters to SI do not seem to line up along strictly party lines on such issues as the possibility of impeachment, the relevance of personal morality to performance in office, etc. As a matter of fact, of those people who have been branded as "Clintonistas," and have felt it necessary to declare their party affiliation, more than half have described themselves as registered Republicans. And some who can't abide Clinton say they are Democrats. (I keep track of things like that. -G-) In other words, although this may be a partisan issue on the Congressional level, it does not appear to me to be as partisan on the grass roots level. 5) What I was focussing on was the tendency of "certain circles" (love that conspiracy theory terminology!) to pin the "moral and intellectual idiot" label on just about anyone who disagrees with them about the Clinton issue on any point. You don't do that, as you point out. Good. But do you think I am imagining that others do, or do you think I have a point? Do you agree that may be one thing that is poisoning these SI "debates"? 6) Do I think some Democratic/liberal circles have raised/would raise a hullaballoo if some Republican were found out in some unsavory activity or other? Yes. Is it, or would it be, hypocritical? Yes. Neither party has a monopoly on hypocrisy. jbe (Joan, not Jim.) :-)