At 09:31 PM 6/19/01 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>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.
But in some contexts, I am not interested in what *did* happen. I am
interested in what were the reasonable expectations of the advocates of
impeachment at the start of 1998.
For example:
>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.
The case isn't how much money *was* received, so much as how much
*additional* donations could a partisan expect to receive as opposed to
what they would receive anyways without impeachment. I think a reasonable
partisan would not expect all that much in *marginal* donations,
specifically by pursuing 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?
No kidding! After all, it *is* a blot on Clinton's record - and I think
that we'd all expect partisans to crow about such a thing.
The question, however, is how much *additional* blot is it on Clinton's
record because of impeachment, vs. the blot that would have remained with
simply the Starr Report. More importantly, it must be considered that a
partisan's sole purpose for existance is to win elections. Thus, we must
consider how much a partisan would value this *additional* blot on
Clinton's record, vs. how much the partisan would assess the cost of
running against an incumbent in 2000, and quite possibly again in 2004.
I don't think that this point is as intractable as you paint it, Patrick.
Let's consider this issue like scientists:
We have an observation - that of the actions of the advocates of
impeachment for the past several years.
Occam's Razor suggests that we take the simplest explanation for this
observation - the simplest explanation being that those people acted on
principle, just as they have argued for three years now.
You, however, have an alternative hypothesis. This alternative
hypothesis, however, raises a number of predictions about what observations
should exist. No matter what you may think about the viability of your
hypothesis, I don't see how even you could argue that there are
observations to back it up - as I argued in my last post.
__________________________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - ICQ #3527685
We are products of the same history, reaching from Jerusalem and
Athens to Warsaw and Washington. We share more than an alliance.
We share a civilization. - George W. Bush, Warsaw, 06/15/01
