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: Neocon who wrote (41757)	4/7/1999 8:21:00 AM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

We had the chance to draw the line and we failed! JLA

To: Neocon who wrote (41757)	4/7/1999 11:07:00 AM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

Yes. I should have been clearer. Not only do I think the presidency has been harmed, I think it has been harmed irreparably. Clinton, the Senate and the American people have confirmed that the United States can be led by a Bill Clinton. This precedent has been chiseled in stone, and the only way to remove it is to sandblast it away starting with Bill Clinton. Should we begin with anyone after Bill Clinton, we will be forced into hypocrisy. >The question is whether this episode reveals such a deep flaw in the country that we should effectively despair, or harms the Presidency beyond repair.< How do you suggest repairing the presidency without directly and nationally repudiating Bill Clinton's presidency? We certainly cannot do it by constructing false dichotomies, and we cannot do it by merely overlooking Clinton and then “moving on.” Should we ever try applying a standard to anyone else that is higher than what we have applied to Bill Clinton, we will be forced into hypocrisy. >As conservatives, we already knew that the country needed some degree of moral reform. Why should we act shocked if something that would have been inconceivable a mere three decades ago, namely a President surviving a scandal like this in office, has come to pass?< We should act shocked because thirty years ago all this was inconceivable and because since too few of us are shocked today, we shudder to think what will be permissible thirty years from now. >That merely makes it all the more important to make sure that someone like this doesn't slip into the Presidency again …< With 42% of the country twice electing rubbish to lead them, and with perhaps 70% of the country continually embracing rubbish to lead them, I hardly think my strategic vote will “make sure that someone like this doesn't slip into the Presidency again.” I voted for Bob Dole in '92 – a thing I rue to this day. >…which is why I find talk of eschewing "lesser evilism" or withdrawing from politics altogether irresponsible.< To whom or to what am I being irresponsible? My friend, I have to be responsible to my values because I sure as hell cannot depend upon Republicans and Americans to be responsible to them. A large part of those values includes being true to me. Trent Lott and his ilk are not true to themselves, and neither are Americans. So I sincerely doubt any of them will be true to me. They twist and corrupt their integrity without pause, this, simply in order to stay in power or to maintain the façade of keeping a few bucks in their wallets. Never again will I vote for a candidate I do not sincerely support. If this means we will get another Bill Clinton or worse, then this is what it means. At least I will have stood precisely for what I think is good and true, instead of holding my nose in silence and voting for Bob Dole just to get a Bill Clinton anyway.