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