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: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (12759)	11/4/1998 2:56:00 PM
From: dougjn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

I think it is still being underestimated how much this election has affected the impeachment situation. Just consider the politics of now pushing for impeachment. Sure, there are many Republicans, like Barr for example, who are in safe seats. But their party's ability to hold onto the majority in both houses, and its prospects for the Presidency in 2000 will be very negatively affected by a long drawn out impeachment process. Ok, virtually everyone now agrees with that. Republican hard liners still sputter about principle, but it has a hollow ring to it. Now consider the dynamics. The public thinks it has put impeachment behind it. It largely disappeared for the three weeks that Congress was adjourned before the elections. During that period, Clinton racked up some remarkable achievements, including the Mideast peace agreement, and the Kosovo accords with Milosevic, and as well, finally wresting his $18 billion for the IMF from the Republican Congress. The world has almost audibly sighed with relieve as impeachment over a sex scandal ceased to be Washington's central preoccupation. As Clinton's team seemed both to be paying greater attention to world economics, and as Clinton's likely survivability seemed to increase, stock markets around the world have strongly rallied, probably not entirely co-incidentally. Now, just what are the political rewards for the Republicans for taking back up their impeachment crusade??? It seems to me to be a nuclear waste dump. And…there is no really easy way out for them, that doesn't involve almost a total caving in to Clinton. Clinton has already said he had an inappropriate relationship with Lewinsky. Republicans and to some extent even moderately liberal editorial pages (e.g. the NY Times) have said that he has not admitted enough. The public emphatically disagrees. What Clinton may do further is to say he had a "relationship that was also of a sexual nature" with Ms. Lewinsky, but to continue to insist that he did not have what he, and his dictionary, means by "sexual relations" with her. (The first, preferred, definition of "sexual relations" in MS Bookshelf, for example, is sexual intercourse.) And Clinton will admit that he was intentionally misleading in his deposition. He will not admit he flat out lied. He will deny all the other charges, such as obstruction of justice and witness tampering with Ms. Lewinsky, Bettie Currie, his Cabinet, etc. Now, consider how extremely difficult it would be to prove Clinton wrong on these points. It simply cannot be done without months and months and months of hearings. How are the Republicans going to push for more than the above admissions? Politically it would be suicide. (I also think Clinton would largely win on the evidence, with the possible, but extremely distasteful, exception of the answer to the question: did he diddle her or didn't he? That is probably what the lying under oath case comes down to, leaving aside the issue of materiality, which Clinton wins on.) Clinton will insist he shouldn't have been forced to answer questions about his consensual relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, and that that is why at the time he felt entitled to intentionally mislead. He will express great and mournful sorrow for having mislead the American people for so long. Republicans will be forced to accept that. If they are smart they will do it early, very early, in return for an agreement by Clinton to accept censure. I'm actually not sure it is in Clinton's or the Democrat's interest to accept censure…there are so many ways in which the Republicans can hang themselves by continuing the impeachment process. Because that latter is the case, the Republicans have an extremely weak hand to play in any censure negotiations. Their right wing will be incensed by all this…but almost inevitably seriously further weakened, however it turns out. Either they'll lose power, because they will be seen to have lost the ability to control the outcome. They'll either lose power in an early whimper (if they grudging allow an early deal), or they will flame out horribly, to national condemnation if they succeed in blocking a deal and therefore inevitably dragging out impeachment hearings. Clinton MIGHT go so far as to agree to say that his intentionally misleading statements amounted to a sort of lying…but he will continue to insist that he was narrowly, technically, and legally accurate. And no one will be able to move him past that. Not even the NY Times. The dynamics are ALL on his side now. Doug

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (12759)	11/4/1998 3:01:00 PM
From: MulhollandDrive	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

See, Michelle, you're the poster child for what I'm saying to the Republican today. You've bought the "social values agenda" (whatever the hell that really is), exclusion of minorities spin and rhetoric, hook, line & sinker. Their (republican) real agenda (lower taxes, less government) won't become part of the political landscape in a policy sense until they put up candidates that are more impervious to the demonization tactics that are currently in use against them. That's exactly what the dems did to get Clinton elected, when you run, cloak yourself as a "new" whatever, when you get elected, legislate your real agenda. I'm an issue oriented voter and it's really tough for me to swallow this patronization of the American people, but apparently, that's what works, so Reps better get with the program. >>it doesn't make me happy because I dont want big government but Im not willing to go back to the 50s regardless of how many taxes I have to pay.<< Don't worry Michelle, that's not going to happen. In the 50's families could afford a home with one wage earner, keep up your voting pattern and I'm sure you won't ever have to worry about that proposition.....but hey, you live in CA, you're used to not being able to afford your own home? Right? bp