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: DMaA who wrote (15622)	11/23/1998 10:19:00 AM
From: MulhollandDrive	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

David, Truly a profound example of the "dumbing down" of America and why the politicians' sheepish following of the polls is dangerous to our republic. bp

To: DMaA who wrote (15622)	11/23/1998 10:21:00 AM
From: Daniel Schuh	Respond to of 67261

They don't understand? I think they understand just fine. The Republican leadership seems to understand well enough, also. Enough is enough, nobody particularly wants to devote months to a Senate trial, except certain diehards here. Politically, cooler heads are likely to prevail. It's time for the diehards to get on with their lives too. Andrew Johnson is a pretty ironic precedent to cite, that was about as politicized a procedure as it could possibly be. Talk about criminalizing policy differences. But keep flogging it, David, good for the party and all that. The Republicans shouldn't be so fearful of all those idiots who voted, should they? The people want more, not less of the whole affair in the news. Newt was just confused. Taking his share of the blame for his party's losses, the Georgia Republican said he had misjudged how the public would recoil from the Clinton scandal and how the scandal would drown out other Republican themes. "I mean I totally underestimated the degree to which people would just get sick of 24-hour-a-day talk television and talk radio and then the degree to which this whole scandal became just sort of disgusting by sheer repetition," Gingrich said. (from nytimes.com ). Newt was the victim of incorrect thought there, right, David? What the people want is more disgusting repetition, not less! Write to Livingston, see if you can convince him of that. Cheers, Dan.

To: DMaA who wrote (15622)	11/23/1998 11:10:00 AM
From: Daniel Schuh	Respond to of 67261

Hyde Presses On With Complex Inquiry nytimes.com "He has been given an extremely hot potato," said Thomas Mann, a senior congressional analyst at the Brookings Institution. "He faces an extremely difficult situation, both presiding over a highly polarized committee and facing a situation where the American public, and probably his new Republican leadership, doesn't want to hear or see anything more of the matter that has been put before his committee." But they just don't understand, right, David? It did not start that way, at least among his Republican colleagues. In September, Starr's report arrived amid palpable Republican exuberance. There was much talk of duty and gravity, but privately many members were throwing confetti in the Capitol's anterooms. It may have been private there, but it was plenty public here. Lots of people are still celebrating the matter, somewhat oddly I'd say. Hyde had to fight to keep the inquiry in his boisterous committee when House Speaker Newt Gingrich suggested creating a select panel of members to deal with impeachment. Heralded as one of the most fair, even-handed chairmen in Congress, Hyde faced the immediate challenge of having to live up to his image and the dusted-off luster of his most famous predecessor, Rep. Peter W. Rodino Jr., D-N.J., who presided over the impeachment hearings dealing with President Richard Nixon. But developments and decisions seemed to sting Hyde, and his leaders offered him little cover. The committee's decision to release the Starr report, accompanying documents and Clinton's videotaped grand jury testimony angered many people across the country, who viewed it as gratuitous. Of course, we know that Hyde was just being professional and non-partisan in that decision, right? Just like Newt. Thought they had Clinton nailed. "The chairman should not be given all of the burden of managing this," Mann said. "It's time for the leadership to step up and figure out how to extricate the Republicans from the House on this matter." Many Democrats share his view. Well, he asked for it. Newt's not around trying to horn in on it anymore, either. To a certain extent, though, Hyde feels duty bound, members and aides say, so he is forging ahead, scouting around for ways to bolster the case by piecing together a pattern of obstruction of justice, but with little time left to do it. Many Republicans on the panel want him to carry on, and they are rankled by what they view as a cavalier attitude on the part of their Republican colleagues. "Many of the people on the committee believe this is not politics," said Rep. Christopher Cannon, R-Utah, on the panel. "This is historic. It is about how we govern ourselves in America." It's historic enough, though I've been told plenty of times how absurd it is to put it in the historical context of past Presidential investigations. That's the "historical dodge", as opposed to what, the "historic imperative"? Anyway, isn't politics how we govern ourselves in America? I'm not wild about the current state of the political process, but I can't see how moving forward with impeachment will improve that. But maybe I'm wrong. Write your representatives if you want more impeachment, not less! Cheers, Dan.

To: DMaA who wrote (15622)	11/23/1998 12:46:00 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

>For all that has been written in recent months about impeachment, there remains the misperception that impeachment automatically means removal from office.< Yes. I have long argued that the impeachment process is that process whereby parity is established in case of alleged political crimes committed by those in high office. The process is designed to force the alleged wrong doer to confront the law. Should those who judge the alleged wrong doer judge him/her to be innocent of the charges, then parity will have been established since that alleged wrong doer will have filtered through our legal system just as would have any other American. The idea of "censuring" the President is nothing but an ad hoc nonsolution, as it has not a thing to do with retribution and the establishment of parity in light of our law. For the sake of our system and of those fortunate enough to be under its authority, wrong doers must be rehabilitated by being pressured into public acceptance and agreement with our law, and such a person must pay retribution to the law (even if it is to seek the mercy of our legal system) should he/she cause a legal breach. Should such rehabilitative efforts fail, the wrong doer must be removed from society. Censuring does nothing of the sort. It allows the President to abuse our system, claim he did not abuse the system and then pride himself on having escape retribution. Should he escape with a mere "censuring", all Americans will have logical recourse to demand the same treatment, should their crimes match those of the President's. I have nothing but contempt for my countrymen. They have not common decency enough even to respect their own law. They are animals. No. They are much worse. They are Europeans.