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: Charles Hughes who wrote (27628)	1/13/1999 12:00:00 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 67261

<<The right are trying to throw the guy out of office because they hate the left and they can't control their emotions, and so became the victims of their own hubris.>> Lets say there is merit to this. Let me add that, at least one citizen in the country wants him thrown out because of breech of trust.

To: Charles Hughes who wrote (27628)	1/13/1999 12:20:00 PM
From: DMaA	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

If nothing else this past year has outed Clinton as a liberal. We can put to rest the "New Democrat" BS for good.

To: Charles Hughes who wrote (27628)	1/13/1999 12:44:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Respond to of 67261

After this, the financial conservatives will be fleeing from the religious right. Chaz, on that one, here's a little excerpt from Andrew Sullivan's NYT Magazine article of Oct. 11, "The Scolds". On the scolding thing, we've certainly heard enough around here. The Kristol referred to is Bill, of course. Kristol's version of Reaganism, in other words, is an oddly displaced one. It transfers concepts - like containment - to a historic context in which they no longer make sense and a sensibility - moralism in a way that inverts its original spirit. Reagan's heirs of the 1990's have turned the man into an ism, his sense of right into orthodoxy, his smile into a scowl. And they have done so with a vehemence and activism that can only be called characterologically leftist. Of course, because so many of the neoconservatives once hailed from the left, this imprint is unsurprising. It manifests itself in the structures of old-left activity: magazines and journals dedicated to the correct line; the messianic faith in the capacity of politics to transform the world; the infighting, and the incessant definition and redefinition of ideology. One of the best descriptions of this evolution actually occurred in The Standard, expressed by a conservative writer with a bent for subtlety, David Brooks. It is from an article on 'Rich Republicans," a group despised by the troops of the far right and treated with thinly veiled disdain by the magazine. But Brooks put his finger on a critical shift in conservatism in a rare moment of Standard self-awareness: "It used to be liberals who railed against the complacency of the American electorate, but now it's conservatives who long to see a little more mass outrage. It used to be liberals who based their politics on abstract notions more than concrete realities, but now it's conservatives who like to emphasize that ideas have consequences. It used to be liberal intellectuals who longed for the drama and turmoil that put them center stage, hot now the habits of the New Class, both good and bad, have migrated rightward." That is putting it mildly. Of course, maybe this will all be forgotten in a month. Who can say?