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: Doughboy who wrote (8657)	10/22/1998 2:57:00 PM
From: Zoltan!	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

>>wing state voters (Washington, NC, Kentucky, Ohio, California) are showing much more support for the President than the deep South. The backlash against House Republicans may bounce a few key races to the Dems: Jay Inslee and Linda Smith in Washington, Lauch Faircloth in NC, Bob Inglis in SC, John Ensign in Nevada. Actually, you have it backwards. Swing voters are joining the Republicans in competitive races. I expect all of the above the races you mentioned to go to the Republicans. This election is shaping up to be a reprise of 1994. Wouldn't it be just great if Tuttle beat Leahy in VT? That would be divine. btw, Inslee should never go on camera, he's a feckless speaker - when you can understand him, that is. HEY, REPUBLICANS: CHEER UP! By WILLIAM KRISTOL FRIENDS, Republicans, countrymen: Cheer up! (Especially Republicans.) The GOP will do well on Election Day, capping the best three elections cycles for a political party since the Democrats in the 1930s. Contrary to Democratic spin, media bias, and liberal wishful thinking, the Republicans do look strong for Nov. 3. In the past week, most polls have shown Republicans ahead among likely voters in the generic congressional ballot. And Republicans always do better on Election Day than mid-October polls suggest: They outspend the Democrats in the last two weeks, and their voters turn out in greater numbers than pre-election surveys usually foresee. There was a front-page Washington Post story last week that particularly depressed Republicans (who are all too easily depressed by unfavorable Post stories). It was a report on the Post's own poll that highlighted an alleged 9-point Democratic lead. As it happened, the lead among likely voters was only 4 points - and even that contrasts with Newsweek and New York Times polls showing Republican leads among likely voters of 4 to 8 points. Note, too, that the Washington Post in October 1996 had Democrats with an even larger lead over Republicans among registered voters - and the GOP nevertheless held both chambers of Congress. What's more, the dynamics this year are more favorable to Republicans than in 1996. We have a GOP Congress that has produced a tax cut and a budget surplus rather than a government shutdown; a president on the verge of impeachment rather than on the verge of re-election - and most telling of all, total hysteria among liberal columnists about the impending victory of Kenneth Starr and everything he represents: "sexual McCarthyism," the Salem witch trials, the rise of the GOP's "Taliban wing" and other frightening phenomena. It is a reliable rule of American politics: Hysteria on the op-ed page of the New York Times is a harbinger of good news for Republicans, glad tidings for conservatives. The GOP strategy for the remaining two weeks of the election campaign is pretty obvious: a soft, positive, moderately conservative message that reassures swing voters. Republicans don't have to raise the issue of Clinton and his coming impeachment; they can count on an undercurrent of disgust at Clinton and the party that props him up to drive GOP voters to the polls. And to win over less partisan, less anti-Clinton types - who may be wary of impeachment - Republicans can tout the reasonably good times that four years of a GOP Congress has brought. There are, it's true, big splits in the Republican Party. Those splits will lead to a fierce debate among presidential contenders for 2000. But for now, Republicans have a simple task: Get along with one another for two weeks, appear cheerful and unthreatening, and wind up after Nov. 3 in the best position they've had in 70 years. Then they can concentrate on their real mission - to drive New York Times contributors and other liberal muckety-mucks nuts. nypost.com

To: Doughboy who wrote (8657)	10/22/1998 7:00:00 PM
From: Les H	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

OFF TOPIC: NO ONE HERE READ THIS... Clinton Supporters Float 'Immunity' Deal Goal is to quicken impeachment process Francine Kiefer Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor WASHINGTON Clinton supporters are floating an idea that would fast-track the impeachment process, bringing to a quick resolution the charges hanging over the head of the president. Under such an agreement, President Clinton would admit his testimony has been "less than truthful" regarding his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, according to former White House counsel Lanny Davis. But in return, Congress would guarantee that the president's admission could not be used against him in any subsequent criminal or civil action - a move that would be tantamount to giving Clinton immunity. Mr. Clinton and his lawyers have been reluctant to follow Democratic lawmakers' admonition to "come clean" about the Lewinsky affair. Their concern centers around the possibility that such statements would weaken the president's position in the Paula Jones case, if it is reinstated, or in a criminal case that could be brought by independent counsel Kenneth Starr. Mr. Davis says he has been talking about the idea with people inside and outside the White House, and with Republicans and Democrats. 'Anything that would require us to formally grant immunity, I would be skeptical about. - Rep. Charles Canady (R) "This deal, if it can be worked out, is very doable for all sides," he said yesterday at a Monitor breakfast, a day when the president's lawyers met with members of the House Judiciary Committee to discuss ground rules for impeachment hearings. Why would Republicans agree? The attraction to Republicans, Davis explained, would be in the president's admission that he had not told the truth. The official White House position still is that Clinton was legally correct in his answers in the Paula Jones deposition and in his testimony before Mr. Starr's grand jury, even if he was misleading. The attraction to the Democrats would be a fairly quick hearings process. If the president agreed that he didn't tell the truth about his sexual relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, it wouldn't be necessary to delve into what would amount to a long and embarrassing discussion about the definition of sex. But this idea is not without risk. For Clinton, the danger lies in setting up the deal as something other than a formal immunity agreement. Congress has granted immunity before, such as to Oliver North in the Iran-contra scandal. But it's not clear whether lawmakers have the power to grant immunity to the nation's chief executive. Moreover, it's doubtful Republicans would agree to this, even if they could. "Anything that would require us to formally grant immunity, I would be skeptical about," says Rep. Charles Canady (R) of Florida, a member of the House Judiciary Committee. Never before tested Because an approach like the one Davis is suggesting has never before been tested, there's a chance that Starr, or Ms. Jones's lawyers, could challenge these protections in court. "There's only one person who can protect the president from prosecution, and that's the independent counsel," says Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University. Mr. Turley, who once filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of Starr in the Lewinsky investigation, says that Starr would probably grant the president a plea bargain or immunity if he would admit publicly to having lied. But both Turley and Davis acknowledge that Clinton would never go to Starr for a plea agreement because of the personal animosity between them.