Archive of UserLand's first discussion group, started October 5, 1998.
Re: People With Minds
Author: W. Ian Blanton Posted: 12/22/1998; 8:04:46 PM Topic: DaveNet comments Msg #: 1685 (In response to 1607) Prev/Next: 1684 / 1686
Dave, you called, and I answer. :)I don't know if my thoughts on this qualify me as having a "mind" but hey, here goes:
I too, listened to much of the debate via NPR here in Boston. It did something which is always a good sign for a political process: It changed my mind.
I do not remember the member who was speaking, other than that he was Republican. I myself am, unfortunately, a Republican. I say "unfortunately" because I'm not sure who many of the people are who are currently in office calling themselves republican, as they don't seem to believe in the core concepts of what I see republicanism standing for.
He spoke on the dangers of censure, and I, who am opposed to impeachment, found that I agree with him. The greatest danger in this whole process is not that it will make lying under oath more prevalent, or that it will make impeachment more a political tool, though I think that the latter is a greater danger than the former.
A vote for censure he stated, could do that with the latter, and I found that I agree with him, where I hadn't before.
There's plenty of fault to go around on this, to Starr for basically engaging in a witch hunt when the job he was handed was completed over a year ago. (Whitewater, anyone remember that? The thing that he cleared Clinton of in October last year, but didn't bother to tell anyone?) To Clinton for being this boneheaded in the first place.
Unfortunately, our HoR and Congress have been given recommendations that possible criminal offenses took place and they actually ARE required to investigate. I think that they would be lax in their duties NOT to do so. I think it's sad that it's turned into such a partisan cock-fight. (This coming from a Republican who constantly votes Dem.)
Cock-fight notes:
Dems have said consistantly that Clinton did _not_ bomb Iraq to distract attention from his crisis in the House. I believe this. If this _is_ true, however, then it is very dishonest to use the bombings as an excuse to decry and delay the proceedings, which I heard constantly during the debate.
Repubs have said consistantly that it's not about sex. Yet, the new Speaker is stepping down, not because of an infidelity (happened a while back, no?), but because he's been caught. What's more, he's stepping down, so will be gone in 6 months. Maybe Clinton could offer to resign, but it wouldn't take effect until Nov. 2000?
Hypocricy all over the place on both sides.
What I see as likely to happen, is that Congress will either cut a deal, or make a failed impeachment vote. Either works for me. If they actually impeach him...I think that this is going to be a Bad Thing, if that happens.
Another note on a (slightly) different topic:
I was semi-bothered by Woz's (Steve Wozniak) assertion that he has voted (approximately) twice. There's a discussion going on about this after two political cartoons, one espousing NOT voting as not taking part in a corrupt system and the other decrying not voting as a form of cheap, fake political "protest". It's an interesting question, to my mind. And why not discuss it here?
Tom Tomorrow: <http://www.salonmagazine.com/comics/tomo/1998/11/09tomo.html/>
Ted Rall: <http://www.uexpress.com/ups/opinion/cartoon/tr/rallcom/1998/11/tr981112.html>
This page was archived on 6/13/2001; 4:46:57 PM.
© Copyright 1998-2001 UserLand Software, Inc.