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: Dwight E. Karlsen who wrote (36216)	2/28/1999 10:41:00 PM
From: JBL	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

Arkansas Democrat-Gazette Sunday, February 28, 1999 Meredith Oakley Every one of us has secrets, some thing or things we'd rather not be confronted with on the evening news or in the morning newspaper. For some of us, a lifetime isn't too long to keep them to ourselves, so what's two decades? And yet some folks want to dismiss out of hand the 21-year-old secret claimed by Juanita Broaddrick, until recently known only to those who follow these things as Jane Doe No. 5, simply because she chose not to publicize it until now. That's their position and they're sticking to it. I don't buy it. Maybe it's a woman thing, but I cannot dismiss Broaddrick's claim that she was sexually assaulted by an ambitious young politician in a hotel room in the spring of 1978 just because she waited so long to tell us about it. Furthermore, I don't think the naysayers would do that either if the alleged perpetrator were anyone but Bill Clinton, then attorney general, soon to be governor and later, much later, president of the United States. Odd that they can accept and forgive every other sexual antic of which he's been accused, some of which he's been forced to admit, albeit after the longest time and with the greatest reluctance, but reject the most chilling allegation of them all without so much as a moment's consideration of possibilities. No, what we get from true-believing Clintonites is resolute disbelief coupled with snide remarks about Broaddrick's credibility and motivation. They conveniently forget how Clinton tried to excuse his previous lies, some repeated over many, many years, about past affairs by saying he lied because he didn't want to hurt his family and friends. Is not a public refusal to admit the truth over the course of many years--I'm thinking primarily of his dalliance with Gennifer Flowers--very much like refusing to volunteer the truth over the course of many years? Sorry, gang, but that old double standard doesn't work as well as it used to. I'd be the first to concede that this story has no legs had others not beat me to it. Indeed, when asked by an MSNBC producer for my reaction to the Broaddrick story, I replied along the lines of "What's the relevance? What does it matter? Where does it go from here?" Later, a friend of many years made a similar inquiry. How did I feel about Broaddrick's story? Was I surprised (that such a vicious act could be alleged)? Was I embarrassed (for the president, for my state)? Did I feel betrayed? (Fat chance. I didn't vote for the guy.) During the first few days after the story hit the mainstream press last week, I felt nothing save perhaps resignation. I wasn't particularly surprised that it had come to this, and I wasn't particularly upset by any facet of the story or its potential ramifications. Not until I saw Broaddrick's interview with NBC's Lisa Myers for the third time did I feel anything at all, and I cannot begin to tell you how distressed I became. Suddenly, I saw her tears and listened to her pained voice, and I was overcome by emotions too numerous and too sudden to count. I've held and tried to comfort a weeping friend whose pain and anger and grief and humiliation and fear and countless other emotions swirled long after the blood from a sexual assault had been washed away. That was almost 30 years ago. To my knowledge, she has not spoken of it since. Maybe she's even forgotten. I believe that's possible. We do what we must to get on with life. But I haven't forgotten. I could cite a couple of other examples, but that's betrayal enough in the name of making a point, which is this: Don't tell me that what my friend told me and what I saw lack credibility because the event happened so long ago, there was no police report and it was never again mentioned until this day. To borrow from NOW's Pat Ireland before she does another about-face, I genuinely believe Broaddrick didn't want to come forward, and I understand why she wouldn't, 21 years ago, 10 years ago, one year ago, want to bring this story forward, why she would deny it and even lie about it until others had taken control of the story and started spinning it every which a way. That's perfectly understandable. The harder task is going to be coming to terms with how I feel now that I have accepted that she very well may be telling the truth.

To: Dwight E. Karlsen who wrote (36216)	2/28/1999 11:01:00 PM
From: Johnathan C. Doe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Most of the people that go to your average church don't seem to be on board a lot of this stuff, and so they really aren't part of the religious right from a political sense, although they are heavily Republican and don't like Clinton. What I'm finding is that most of them don't vote and they are for candidates that don't have a chance when they do. Not that I fully grasp these people in the church I go to. It is mostly of the old school thought that politics isn't the focus. I've been to other Fundamentalist churches where it is; but this particular I go to isn't. I'm probably more into politics than anyone else I talk to. I tell people I'm a Democrat and some are initially surprised and usually somebody jumps in and says, "Well, we have Christian's who are Democrats in our church", and all is ok. I get more concerned when they get in to a discussion as to who is and who isn't a Christian. Even with that type of discussion; at least I'm starting to understand their point. I would prefer they don't own the name Christian to make their point. Essentially; what they are saying is that there are people that live Christianity everyday and make a point of having a relationship with God through Christ on a daily basis as opposed to people that rely only on showing up once a week or on outer things. What they need to do is say that they are committed to living Christianity on a daily basis and see that as real whereas people that only give it lip service really aren't practicing Christianity. I don't think this makes them not Christian's; it just means that they aren't as ardent as others. If you get what you need out of what you do, it isn't going to be easy to convince people they need more. I think the people that practice it more ardently do in fact have a tougher time and need it more in their lives.