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: Zoltan! who wrote (25398)	12/31/1998 11:03:00 AM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 67261

The "right" thing, indeed. The editorial page of the WSJ is about as objective on this matter as Drudge or the Washington Times, Zoltan!. But go ahead. I hope the Republicans keep sucking up to the red meat crowd. Do the party good.

To: Zoltan! who wrote (25398)	12/31/1998 1:25:00 PM
From: sea_biscuit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Two weeks before the House impeachment vote, everyone said the moderates would vote against; within a week that trend turned and by the voting hour was a torrent for impeaching. One would-be Speaker's head rolled. The fact that the GOP voted against the grain of the opinion polls must rank as the most shocking phenomenon of them all. After that alone, anything is possible, and anything, like so much else that was unthinkable in 1998, may include the Senate slowly finding its way to 67 votes. There is no comparison between the House vote and the Senate trial. First, there is no equivalent of Tom DeLay in the Senate, and even if there is, strong-arm tactics wouldn't work, and even if it can work, it has to work on Democratic Senators, and not on Republican wimps like those in the House, some of whom later came out, asking for censure in the Senate. Second, it requires a 2/3 vote in the Senate to convict and that would require at least 12 Democrats to defect, assuming that the Republicans can keep all their 55 votes intact (which is not a "given" in itself). Therefore, the hope that the Senate will "slowly find its way to 67 votes" is mere wishful thinking. The "slowly" part implies that the Republicans intend to drag this on for another year if necessary. And if that happens, they would have shot themselves in both the feet as well as in the a** :-)