To: Ish who wrote (28032 ) 1/14/1999 8:07:00 PM From: Daniel Schuh Respond to of 67261
You get into this layering issue here, Ish. Who started the moralizing? Here's one take, posted previously in Message 7268609 : To be sure, Bill Clinton goaded the independent counsel into some of this detail by the hairsplitting of his legal defense. But not all of it. And to be sure, Bill Clinton, by his failure to settle, and then to apologize, and then to tell the truth, was responsible in the first place for the nine months of trauma. But again, not entirely. For Bill Clinton was responsible for none of the prurient, lip-pursing moralism of the report, nor for the subsequent, egregious outspilling of grand-jury testimony. Proof of perjury or obstruction of justice required none of this, as most Americans immediately understood. This moral obsessiveness was the creation of Kenneth Starr and something far larger than Kenneth Starr. It was the creation of a conservatism become puritanism, a conservatism that has long lost sight of the principles of privacy and restraint, modesty and constitutionalism, which used to be its hallmarks. Most of us non-Clinton-haters around here don't profess to be moral paragons or good Christians. We may or may not be particularly moral people, I don't recall making any such claims myself. I have challenged certain professed Christians on those New Testament verses, and gotten some curious responses. Mostly, I think Clinton's just this guy, a fairly sleazy politician, not the best, not the worst. The morality play / political theater of the absurd playing itself out now is entertaining enough, but what good it's supposed to accomplish is beyond me. Payback for Watergate? The Lord had something to say on that matter too.