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 : Clinton Survey "Resign" Yes or NO -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: del clark who wrote (645)	2/6/1999 11:35:00 PM
From: jimpit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 697

<"I voted for Reagan twice. I have always voted for Slate Gordan (R)and would have again the next election if it hadn't been for this Sham of Trial. I will never vote for any Republican again. Never..."> Suit yourself, Del. However, I'll never understand how you can stand the stench coming from the Dems. The Dishonest Dems are tampering with the Constitution and the Rule of Law. This nation's very foundation is in jeopardy because of the sleazy, selfish, lying, sick son of a slut felon in the white house. --------------------------- The American Spectator Online Monday Thoughts: It's Never Over -- the Democrats know it. by Wlady Pleszczynski What do the Super Bowl and the Senate Clinton trial have in common? Nothing at all, it would seem, other than each generates an excess of meaningless predictions. On Super Bowl Sunday's "Meet the Press" the eminent Clinton apologista George Mitchell executed some fancy spin moves on behalf of his anti-Republican team -- and then he really put his awesome credibility on the line. He predicted Atlanta would win rather easily. If he was out to space projecting confidence on behalf of the Falcons, can he really be sure his man Clinton is home free, as he and all of Democratic Washington have been pretending? Read the so-called mainstream press, or listen to your standard-issue GOP nervous nellies, and you'll come away convinced the Republicans are in deep trouble for going after a president who brazenly lied under oath as well as to his cabinet and aides, sundry congressmen, not to mention the American people and anyone else who happened to be watching. So reviled are the GOP's managers it's a wonder no one is proposing their immediate arrest the moment Clinton is cleared on both impeachment counts. Or better yet, public lynchings at a town hall meeting where the reckless representative has turned himself in, unable to explain his pro-impeachment behavior to infuriated constituents. And yet - It's a pity that Republicans feel themselves so under fire that they can't look up to get a clearer picture of the battlefield. Many (if not most) of the Democrats who are automatically dismissive and contemptuous of them aren't exactly rushing to grant Clinton a good housekeeping seal of approval, either. The point was driven home on a Sunday show last January 24 by a grumpy Sen. Fritz Hollings of South Carolina. In one breath he was trashing the GOP and Kenneth Starr for wasting five years and $50 million investigating Whitewater, Travelgate, Filegate etc. -- and in the next saying, now wait a minute, this president can't get off scot-free, he'll have to be censured. One could argue it's the Democrats' unwillingness to give Clinton a free whitewash that has kept this case going. In the House near unanimous Democratic insistence on censure was all Republicans needed to hear before ramming through the more serious form of censure known as impeachment. In the Senate it took Democrats a little longer to get their censure legs in gear, but with the exception of their creepier, Torricelli-like members, by January 31 most Democratic senators speaking out were making it clear that Clinton was going to have to be hit by some strongly worded sanctions. Even the sainted Mitchell used tough -- one might say, undiplomatic -- language to describe his boss's shortcomings. The Democrats are starting to tie themselves up in knots. They all contend Clinton will not be removed, in part because that's what the country supposedly wants, in part because they can't ever accept a GOP initiative emerging victorious. Some know he lied, but try to find cover in the argument that technically the lying wasn't perjury -- a crude, anti-populist reminder that if you hire the right rich lawyer he can clear you on anything you need. Let's see how they'll explain that in the 2000 campaign. Then, too, the Democrats are increasingly uncomfortable defending Clinton on the grounds that it's okay to keep him in office because he can always be prosecuted after he leaves the White House. What if it dawns on voters that Democrats are saying it's fine for a probable felon to serve as president? No wonder Larry Flynt feels so at home in the Democratic Party. Ever cautious, but sensing an opening, many Senate Republicans now want to separate the vote on the impeachment articles from the vote to evict. The Democrats' only response to that is essentially to argue on keeping Clinton in office should be resolved first and only then can a finding on his undisputed guilt (nonlegal, of course) be issued. Chief Justice Rehnquist appears to favor the Republican approach, which could allow the GOP to prevail much as it did in the House -- assuming Trent Lott and Co. can reach deep (very deep) down to find a bit of Henry Hyde in themselves. In the suffocating politesse of Washington, much remains unstated, which is the final reason for the Democrats' unease. Bit by bit by bit, what really happened to Kathleen Willey is being pieced together by the likes of ABC and the Washington Post. NBC has reportedly deep-sixed an interview with Juanita Broaddrick, but it was conducted by Lisa Myers, a mainstream pro with no known ideological axes of any sort. Sooner or later, one way or another, its contents will become known. The behavior of NBC's brass in this case recalls what honchos at the Los Angeles Times did in trying to kill their reporters' story about Clinton and the Arkansas state troopers who pimped for him. Another reporter working on the story for The American Spectator was thus freed to run with it first, and it became known as Troopergate. The L.A. Times confirmed its essentials by publishing its version a few days later. Back then, liberal denial and anti-conservative outrage saved Clinton. This time around the same crowd will be too spent to defend him against new evidence of congenital sleaze. George Mitchell's Super Bowl may have been over before it was over. But the Senate trial, like the House impeachment hearings, won't be over till it's over. And even then, who will be certain it's really over? Wlady Pleszczynski is executive editor of The American Spectator. ---------------------------------------- spectator.org