Archive of UserLand's first discussion group, started October 5, 1998.

Re: the law?

Author:Paul L. Bruno
Posted:12/21/1998; 8:22:05 AM
Topic:Cardboard Cutout People
Msg #:1559 (In response to 1516)
Prev/Next:1558 / 1560

>This thing went along party lines. Since these two parties are essentially *the same*, except for a few MINOR ideological differences, this seems to show, in MY view, that it's a PERSONAL thing more than anything.<

It takes two to tango. A vote along partisan lines not only implies that the Republicans felt one way, but that the Democrats felt the other way.

It is possible that the personal thing, which you are also exhibiting, could be interpreted as follows: the Democrats, unwilling to accept the loss of their leader, will make any excuse and seek any recourse to prevent it.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. The enemy of my leader is my enemy -- even if my leader is wrong.

So while Gephardt et al cannot stand up for what Clinton did, they stand up against the Republicans and therefore for Clinton. You can see this in the language of the proposed censure, which would use words to punish the President but no other action would be taken, even though the words are harsh enough to seem to demand some form of action. The only reason they are holding back, in my opinion, is because the President is the leader of their party. And that is extremely divisive.

I do not feel that this is voiding the election. The man did plenty of good, which should not be voided. However, his removal from office, either voluntary or involuntary, would vindicate the rule of law.

This should be a lesson to the nation that even the President is not above the law, and that the Commander-in-Chief should be held to his word and honor in the same way as the soldiers he commands are held to theirs. That would be a good thing for this country.

There are responses to this message:

This page was archived on 6/13/2001; 4:46:50 PM.

© Copyright 1998-2001 UserLand Software, Inc.