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: Borzou Daragahi who wrote (10197)	10/20/1998 11:41:00 AM
From: DMaA	Respond to of 67261

Castro seemed to have a popular mandate because he fraudulently hid his communist beliefs until he was firmly ensconced. Classic bait and switch.

To: Borzou Daragahi who wrote (10197)	10/20/1998 11:46:00 AM
From: Zoltan!	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

>> I don't see through black/white, left/right lenses. I think a despot is a despot. Castro's authoritarian rule over Cuba is no better than Pinochet's over Chile or the Commuist Party's over China. Better clean your fogged lenses. Castro was and is a totalitarian. For the distinction, see Hannah Arendt. >>Your insistence in referring to China as Clinton's backers is also hilarious and amazingly hypocritical, since the entire U.S. business establishment and the Republican Party has long been pushing for free trade with the butchers of Beijing Not either. Clinton was paid off for policy changes, by business and the totalitarians. The Reps had controls on such technology which displeased business, but Clinton changed policy for no reason other than money. >>The problem is--and if you would think about this for a second, I think you will understand why those who aren't Clinton haters despise this whole thing so much--the barrage of darts is the very essence of a witch hunt. The problem is that you don't think, so you disregard inconvenient issues. Then you regard people who actually do think as "haters", revealing from where the true hate comes.

To: Borzou Daragahi who wrote (10197)	10/20/1998 11:52:00 AM
From: Zoltan!	Respond to of 67261

>>It's a gloriously sunny day in Chicagoland. Crystal-blue skies ovehead. I hope your Magyar self also has a nice day! I'm busy working (deadline!!!), so I likely won't be able to respond to your response until this evening Now this is glorious: October 20, 1998 Democrats' doomsday approaches Thanks to Clinton, the GOP is poised to make major gains on November 3 By DAVID FRUM Sun Media Fourteen days and counting before Bill Clinton inflicts yet another catastrophe on the Democratic party. Two Tuesdays from now, Americans go to the polls to elect the 106th Congress. All indications are that the Republicans are on the verge of scoring yet another big victory, their third since 1994. You have to look beneath the surface of American politics to understand what an amazing achievement this string of Republican victories has been. From 1930 until 1994, Democrats dominated U.S. politics. Oh, the Republicans might win the presidency if they nominated a war hero like Dwight Eisenhower or a great natural leader like Ronald Reagan. But year in, year out, where it counted, in Congress, in the governors' mansions, in the state houses, it was the Democrats who ran America. One stark example: Between 1930 and 1993, the Democrats won 30 elections out of 32 for control of the U.S. House of Representatives. So it's no wonder that when Bill Clinton was elected president in 1992, he convinced himself he could ignore his poor showing in the popular vote (he took only 43% - less than Michael Dukakis had got in 1988) and do whatever he pleased: hike taxes, subject the entire health care industry to government control, perjure himself before grand juries, anything. In 1993, Democrats held the U.S. Senate 56-44, and the House by a mighty margin of 258-176 (plus one independent who almost always voted with the Democrats). Thirty of the nation's 50 governors were Democrats, and among state legislators, Democrats outnumbered Republicans by almost 2 to 1. Democrats could tell themselves that the unfortunate Reagan episode was over: the party of Franklin Delano Roosevelt was back on top! Whoops. In 1994 and 1996, the Democrats suffered the two worst down-the-ticket defeats suffered by any party since the Republican disasters of 1930 and 1932. Although Bill Clinton held onto the presidency in 1996 (although with less than 50% of the vote, making him the first two-term minority president since Woodrow Wilson), at every other level of government the Democrats have been crushed. Republicans now control the Senate and the House. They hold 32 of the nation's governorships, including the governorships of nine of the 10 biggest states. Since 1993, more than 500 Democratic state legislators have lost their seats. AT LEAST 14 SEATS This November the Republicans will almost certainly score further large gains: at least 4 more Senate seats, at least 10 seats more in the House, and probably one additional governorship. What is Bill Clinton's contribution to this stunning turnabout? Three things. 1. Clinton edged the Democrats away from the political left and closer to the centre. That was clever tactics, but bad strategy. Democrats used to warn that Republicans wanted to abolish welfare - in 1995, Clinton went and abolished it himself. That decision may have helped him in 1996, but it prevents Democrats from accusing the Republicans of being the hardhearted party of the rich in 1998. By mimicking Republican policies, Clinton made those policies less controversial. 2. Clinton cannibalized his party to win his own elections. The investigation of his illegal fund-raising practises has thus far cost the Democrats $11 million in legal fees - money that would otherwise have been available for campaigning. 3. Clinton sullied the Democrats' post-Watergate identity as the party of political integrity. Six years of Clinton scandals - four of Clinton's cabinet officers are under criminal investigation, a record worse than Nixon's - have indelibly stained the image of Clinton's party. Clinton is said to wonder how history will judge him. I think we can guess. It will judge him as a dishonest man, a weak leader and as the president who stands second only to Herbert Hoover as a wrecker of his own party. canoe.ca

To: Borzou Daragahi who wrote (10197)	10/20/1998 12:03:00 PM
From: Bill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

<<The problem is--and if you would think about this for a second, I think you will understand why those who aren't Clinton haters despise this whole thing so much--the barrage of darts is the very essence of a witch hunt.>> I think people are now accustomed to the so-called darts and don't "despise" it at all. Apathy is a more appropriate descriptor. Or if you want to segment the attitude, one-third dislike Clinton intensely on all fronts, one-third are apathetic giving him high marks for the job and low marks for morals, and one-third still love him despite his troubles.