In a message dated Tue, 19 Jun 2001 9:06:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time, "John D.
Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
<<I'm sorry Pat, but your case to prove that the advocates of impeachment were acting
towards partisan goals, in contradiction of the professed efforts to
be working on behalf of principle, simply does not hold water.>>
I'm shocked -- shocked! -- to discover that John doesn't agree with me that he is
incorrect. :)
I think the reasons I presented are viable. You think they are not. I believe our
respective positions on this are clear and I don't see a way for either of us to prove
our case because in both instances, we are comparing what did happen to what _didn't_
happen.
I.e., how can I possibly prove that the GOP received more donations because of
impeachment than it would have otherwise, when the "otherwise" didn't happen?
Likewise, you cannot prove they would have received just as much money without
impeachment because, well, there _was_ an impeachment.
As for the blot on Clinton's record ... I take it you missed the endless crowing at
the time by Republican operatives and conservative commentators on how impeachment
would forever tar his presidency in history?
Patrick Sweeney
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
