Can we, PLEASE, at least keep the politics off this list. We must have
some places where it is not necessary to deal with it. Thank you.
At 12:16 AM 9/15/98 -0400, you wrote:
>Excuse me for publishing the political note below, but, after reading the
>entire Starr Report and Clinton's rebuttal on the net, I decided that
>something very important is at stake here, and we all have a civic duty to
>take a stand here.
>
>Clinton ought to be impeached. If things start moving that way
>strongly enough, people will abandon him like rats from a sinking
>ship, and he'll resign.
>
>His lawyers are saying that his infraction isn't nearly severe
>enough to warrant an impeachment, but the office of president is
>won by a popularity contest, and the substance-poor, ultra
>poll-conscious Clinton administration is especially a facade that
>is held up by public support. (The Starr report stated that Clinton
>and Dick Morris decided to perpetuate the lie after taking a one-day poll
>that
>showed that not a high enough percentage of people
>would forgive him. His decision to "sin" was a statistical
>calculation.)
>
>The American voters will want to reserve the prerogative of setting
>the standards of trust and dignity for their highest political
>office, and impeachment, I believe, is not an "inappropriate" means
>of enforcing those standards. The office of presidency, far more
>important than the Clinton Administration, belongs to the citizens,
>and it will for a long time to come, unless it is allowed to decay,
>which is what the threat of impeachment will serve to prevent.
>
>I also liked what the Times editorial said. Clinton called in his
>staff and assured them that the Lewinsky rumors were completely
>false. He blatantly lied to them. They left their meeting with
>confidence in their boss and our president, and they ardently
>defended him based on his word. Of course, they were betrayed and
>were fully justified in being livid.
>
>In attempting to cover up his indiscretion, he was willing to
>blatantly lie to everybody, and apparently didn't care if the
>consequences damaged the reputations of his staff, White House
>personnel, and his party.
>
>My professional career is limited, and I don't know if the acting
>profession is representative, but it was both a spoken and unspoken
>rule that you check your ego in the dressing room, and never do
>anything that will make a fellow actor look bad. If in trying to
>cover up a personal mistake, I deliberately risked leaving fellow
>actors in a disrespectful situation, I would be fired, and I ought
>to be.
>
>Instead of admitting to his personal digression, Clinton calculated
>his chances of evading capture, and deliberately jeopardized the
>reputations of the people who trusted him, and the party that
>nominated him.
>
>It seems completely reasonable for Americans to decide that a man
>who behaves in this manner is an "inappropriate" commander and
>chief, his moral authority being a job requirement. Conversely, if
>we decide that such a man is appropriate, what does that say about
>us and our standards? And what does it say about the moral legacy
>that we want to pass on to future generations?
>
>
>At least Clinton is consistent. Early on, his "health care reforms"
>attempted to socialize the costs of a person's illness and
>recklessness onto the healthy and provident. Now, we see the extent
>to which he was personally willing to do just that.
>
>Peter Seymour
>
>
>
>
>VICUG-L ARCHIVES http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/vicug-l.html
>
>
VICUG-L ARCHIVES http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/vicug-l.html
|