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: Dwight E. Karlsen who wrote (13340)	11/5/1998 9:57:00 PM
From: Bearcatbob	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

What really gets me is that a true democracy provides no protection to the people slick claims to care about the most - those he uses for his own benefit. Anyway, a Republic provides laws the guarantee people rights against the wishes of a majority. A perfect example of a failed Republic is OJ. Law did not matter - only spin! The danger of the loss of the rule of law is obvious. bob

To: Dwight E. Karlsen who wrote (13340)	11/5/1998 10:22:00 PM
From: dougjn	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 67261

And what were the voters saying a month ago, when over 400 U.S. Congressmen and women voted for Impeachment Proceedings? How do you explain why they voted the way they did, when actually even at the time, polls showed 60% wanted the whole thing to go away? I think it went like this. Washington insiders (press, politicians, high level federal bureaucrats, and political lawyers and lobbyists) in general were all telling themselves that they were right and that the public was, well, a little slow, and would come increasingly to see the horror of Clinton's sex lies. Republicans were convinced, and Democrats tended to believe also, that while the polls said one thing, the Demos would in fact be far less motivated to vote than those rabid Religious Right types. Given the rabidity of the press on the issue and insiders generally, the RR in the hinterlands could be imagined rabid indeed. Demo House members said to themselves: self, you may not want Clinton to ultimately fall on this one, and your constituency may not, but consider the optics. If you don't vote for at least the go fast version of investigate Clinton, you are way out there without cover. If you do vote for that, you are in no way committed to voting for impeachment, you have registered some discomfort with what he did, and you're sitting pretty. Meanwhile the Democratic base was really getting energized. Not so much by a messianic zeal to save Clinton, though he is increasing viewed as a good President. Rather the increasing stridency of the Republicans seeking air time on the issue, and the apparently increasing influence of the Religious Right on the Republican party, given their single minded fixation on the impeachment issue for the last nine months, really turned off the Democratic base. Culture wars. So: 1) you are way over reading the Democratic vote in the House to hold hearings. It was the only prudent thing to do. 2) Both parties, but especially Republicans did misread the public mood and especially its future trending. Instead of moving in the impeach direction it moved further and further away. 3) Both parties, but especially the Republicans, underestimated the energizing of the Demo base the RR attack line of the Repubs on impeachment would inspire. The exit poles were somewhat misleading I believe. That is because the Demo base who was energized to vote did not, for the most part, think of themselves as voting FOR Clinton. They saw themselves as voting against the RR inspired impeachment attack dog agenda of the Republicans, and FOR the Demo issues which Clinton skillfully made the democratic campaign mantra in the election. Education, saving social security, health care bill of rights. Really it wasn't so much those issues themselves, although they are a good group for the current mood, but rather the public Insistence that Washington get back to dealing with issues. So it was a backlash, but conceived of by the public as a backlash against scandal mongering by Republicans, and in favor of returning to issues. Doug