SI
SI
discoversearch

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: greenspirit who wrote (15411)11/20/1998 2:23:00 PM
From: Borzou Daragahi  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 67261
 
All Judge Starr has done is document behavior.

Starr's ethics adviser resigned this morning over this very issue. The adviser thought Starr should take a more hands-off approach to the impeachment inquiry and not appear to be pushing impeachment. Even Starr himself said that he saw his role not so much as a mere chronicler of facts, but as an interpreter of the facts and an advocate for impeachment. This is different from the traditional role of the Independent Counsel. In retrospect, I think Starr's appearing before the cameras yesterday was good for him but bad for the impeachment process. It helped make him look like a pretty decent guy. But by aligning himself too closely with the GOP, he may have done a lot to bolster the appearance of his investigation as a partisan assault.

He should be impeached because he has broken faith with the American people, committed perjury, obstruction of justice and dishonored the office of the Presidency.

I respect your opinion.

Trust and trustworthiness are forever gone.

I strongly disagree. I think the moral of this parable is the bad things that can happen to you when you play fancy and free with the truth. IMO, it has also inspired a very healthy national ethics debate.



To: greenspirit who wrote (15411)11/20/1998 3:02:00 PM
From: jbe  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 67261
 
On partisanship, the FBI files, & impeachment

Michael, I am not "uncomfortable when people speak in partisan or non-partisan ways". In fact, I am not even quite sure what you mean.

What I am uncomfortable with, as indicated in my post to you, is the habit many posters here(including, but not limited to, yourself) have of attributing views to other people that the latter do not necessarily hold. In the Borzou case, you assumed he was speaking for the Democrats, although he has specifically said, many times, that he is not a Democrat, and never even voted for Clinton.

Now, I am a registered Democrat. So I have no problem answering the following question (although I must point out that, once again, you persist in lumping me together with the non-Democrat Borzou):

Or is it that by speaking in my partisan way, the points I make cause some discomfort to the assumptions you have regarding your party and leader? Clearly, although you and Bourzou write eloquently you have been unable to defend the indefensible. And have instead focused on speaking for ALL Americans or discussing the style of communication by others.

1) As I have said many times before, I am a registered Democrat, not a party activist. Independents have to accept the candidates the Republicans and Democrats come up with. So by registering in a party, I can select candidates by participating in party primaries. I registered Democratic rather than Republican partly, I'll confess, because of family tradition, and partly because I find the over-all orientation of the Democratic Party more congenial than the over-all orientation of the Republican Party. That does not mean that I support a)every position the Democratic Party takes at any given point in time on every issue, or b) every Democratic politician. When one registers in a party, one is not joining a church. For that matter, there is a wide range of opinion even among Democratic politicians themselves, partially because they represent a wide range of constituencies. (The same, of course, is true of the Republicans.)

2) As I have said before, although I did vote for Clinton in 1992 (with some reluctance), I cast a protest vote against him in 1996. Why do you insist on calling him my leader? He is mine only in the sense that he is yours too; he is President of the United States.

3) You will have to look hard to find any post from me in which I either try to "defend the indefensible", or "speak for all Americans". Because I have not done either the one or the other. Again, you are projecting upon me views that you think I, as a Democrat, should hold, not those that I have specifically expressed.

4) I'll admit to "discussing the style of communication by others". Guilty as charged. In doing so, my hope was that people here would actually start communicating with one another, rather than with the straw men of their imaginations.

Now, on to substance -- the FBI files. True, I personally have not addressed that issue. Actually, I'm not that much up to speed on the specifics. However, I HAVE expressed concern with the Administration's OPEN attempts to expand FBI surveillance in general, and have welcomed Republican opposition to them. A couple of posts from me that touch on that point:

Message 6002230
Message 6060802

In general, Clinton's Presidency has not been good for civil liberties.

On Impeachment. I can see the argument for impeaching Clinton. I can also see the argument for not impeaching him. I did not start participating in this thread in order to defend one position or the other, but to find out just what people on various sides of the various fences think about the issue. Up to that point, I had paid little attention to the whole Clinton scandal, and I came to learn.

If you find that wishy-washy, so be it. I am generally speaking a wishy-washy person. :-) In other words, I do not feel I have to have a ready-made opinion on everything. It takes time, and a lot of research, and a lot of thought, to develop an informed opinion on any issue. And I refuse to borrow a ready-made -- and thus uninformed -- opinion, from any person or any group, including the Democratic Party.

jbe