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: jimpit who wrote (27165)	1/12/1999 8:27:00 AM
From: JBL	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

January 12, 1999 Jerome M. Zeifman As a classical liberal Democrat I have been a daily reader of The New York Times for more than half a century. On Jan. 9, 1999, I read with sadness an article by James Reston Jr. titled "Failing the 1868 Test." James Jr. is the son of my friend, the late James "Scotty" Reston. Failing to aspire to the high standards of James Sr. (one of this century's greatest journalists) "Junior" has descended to muckraking and mud slinging. The young Reston, a staunch defender of Clinton, is apparently a "new" Democrat of the slick-tongued likes of Alan Dershowitz, Alec Baldwin and James Carville. He suggests frivolously, if not rancidly, that House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde is a racist -- who according to James Jr. does not even "aspire ... to the stature of Thaddeus Stevens, who as leader of the Radical Republicans pushed the hardest for the impeachment of President Andrew Johnson (and) was a champion of abolition and an advocate for black suffrage." I believe that if "Scotty" were alive he would agree: Racism is despicable -- and a false accusation of racism is equally despicable. Sadly, descending even deeper into diatribe, James Jr. now describes Mr. Hyde and all Republicans who voted for impeachment as "Radical" -- the very word that Senator Joe McCarthy used to denounce "Scotty" and the New York Times. After reading James Jr's article of Jan. 9, I wrote promptly to the editors of the New York Times, commending them "for giving James Reston Jr. a right to speak freely -- and for affording (their) readers the chance to compare him with his father." Ironically, the very next day (Jan. 10) the Sunday Times ran a front-page story titled "How Henry Hyde's Resolve Was Shaped Against Clinton. " Written by Melinda Henneberger (another "new" Democrat even slicker than James Reston Jr.) her "spin" story attributed the normally "genteel" Hyde's resolve in part to his being "a devout Roman Catholic." The same story also reprinted the following text of a recent TV attack on Mr. Hyde by a Clinton defender, the actor Alec Baldwin: "If we were in other countries, we would all right now, all of us together would go down to Washington and we would stone Henry Hyde to death and we'd go to the homes (of impeachment advocates) and we'd kill their wives and children." For the amusement of her "new" Democrat readers Ms. Hennenberger then quoted Republican F. James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin: "Mr. Hyde, who has received death threats and travels with four security guards, has been worried about his family's safety ever since." To further amuse what I call the new "unreasoning" left. Ms. Hennenberger then quotes two Judiciary Committee Democrats: Jerrold Nadler of New York and Barney Frank of Massachusetts. Although she did not shy from identifying Mr. Hyde as a Roman Catholic who had confessed to adultery, she did not identify Mr. Nadler and Mr. Frank as Jewish (as am I). Nor does she or other reporters of the New York Times ever remind their readers that Mr. Frank first came out from his gay closet when he was censured by the House for fixing parking tickets for his male prostitute live-in lover. As reported by Ms. Hennenberger, Mr. Frank now mocks Mr. Hyde, stating: "(I see) signs of the 'Bridge Over the River Kwai syndrome.' After a while pride of craft takes over and you just want to build the bridge." When it comes to mocking Mr. Hyde there no member of the New York congressional delegation who is more of a tragic comedian than Mr. Nadler -- whom Ms. Hennenberger describes as "happy to acknowledge getting under Chairman Henry Hyde's skin." As further described in the same article Nadler said laughing: "Henry is a very determined guy and I think he was exasperated at Democrats not going along. ... We're not going to make his job any easier." I now sadly suspect that the "new" New York Times will unflinchingly support Mr. Nailer's re-election next year. On the morning of Jan. 11 I am now writing the conclusion of this article, which I began last night. Today, a happy New York Times reporter describes; Thousands of New York Democrats assembled at Lincoln Center Sunday to whoop and cheer as Charles E. Schumer was sworn in -- for a second time -- as New York State's new junior Senator. And Schumer, speaking to an audience that clearly was unhappy with events in Washington -- Rep. Jerrold Nadler, among President Clinton's most public defenders on the House Judiciary Committee, received a standing ovation as he walked into the room -- warned against what he described as a "corrosive partisanship" that he said was making young voters cynical. "What began 25 years ago with Watergate as a solemn and necessary endeavor to restore the public trust has now grown beyond our control," Schumer said. "We are in danger of ... using scandal and innuendo to win at the gavel what we can not settle at the ballot box. Instead of great debates about the future of our Republic we have new politics of fear and smear. " I would ask my former friend Chuck Schumer to look at himself in a mirror. Having just taken an oath to be impartial he will see a broadly smiling face that thoroughly enjoys the new unreasoning efforts to smear Henry Hyde with false accusations of racism and religious intolerance. If "Chuck" looks more closely he will see a shy tragi-comic face that does not even dare to speak out against the smear tactics of Larry Flynt and Terry Lenzner. As some of the older readers of the New York Times may recall, at the time of the Rodino Committee's Nixon impeachment inquiry I served as the Committee's chief counsel. As such I had daily dealings with both Republican and Democratic committee members. At that time Trent Lott, the current Senate Majority Leader, was a freshman Committee member who was among President Nixon's staunchest defenders. Yet, neither in public nor in private have I ever heard Mr. Lott (with whom I still disagree on many ideological and political matters) utter an uncivil word to Mr. Rodino, to me, or any other Democratic advocate of the impeachment of President Nixon. Nor have I ever heard Mr. Lott denounce the New York Times as "left-wing radical." However, despite its current opposition to the removal from office of President Clinton, I intend to go on reading the New York Times daily. I enjoy the wit of Maureen Dowd and Bill Safire. Also, appreciate the wisdom of Abe Rosenthal -- whom after the recent retirement of Russell Baker I now see as the only "Scotty" Reston-type Democrat left on the Times. I agree with Ms. Dowd's recent column describing the "the clowns" at the White House Christmas party -- and citing the roles of Clinton defenders Gloria Steinem, Betty Friedan and Geraldine Ferraro as heralding "the death of feminism." I also commend the new New York Times for publishing two of Mr. Rosenthal's recent articles in particular. In one, he has called on President Clinton to resign. In another he has criticized the Clinton failure to speak out strongly against the persecution of Christians by the governments of China and other countries in which Christians are a minority. Now facing my own declining years I take comfort from being an old line "New Deal" Democrat -- who looks back on the war against Nazism as our finest hours. Yet I have also learned of the new advantages of computers and the internet -- and have changed my traditional ways in at least two respects. In the old days I enjoyed reading the on-paper edition of the New York Times with my breakfast. These days I avoid reading anything in the morning that will diminish my appetite. I now first read the New York Times after breakfast -- and on the Internet. To remove the bad taste of the new Democrats who dominate the New York Times I then call up WorldNetDaily.com. WorldNetDaily ----------------------------------------------------------------------

To: jimpit who wrote (27165)	1/12/1999 9:11:00 AM
From: one_less	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 67261

<<By his continued lies, the president demonstrates he has no respect for the Senate. The question for the Senate is whether that dignified body will allow Mr. Clinton to act with such affrontery.>> Facts: 1) The President has no respect for the Senate. 2) The Senate has no respect for Justice as can be seen by the partison positioning on both sides. 3) The Constitution has no way to check the problem of partisanship vs judgement of the rule of law. 4) We are not witnessing lady justice in action. 5) We are witnessing a gathering of senators in a mock trial to demonstrate their ability to cast partisan votes. Opinion: I commonly interact with multi-international foriegners. They always try to make sure that in decision making processes there is an American in the mix. It has been my experience in the past that they believe, Americans have to go by the rules where as they and their counterparts are too easily corrupted. They are now rethinking that perspective. Bill clinton is a maggot feeding on the puss of a festoring and oozing hemoroid on that pig Flynts butt hole.