"John D. Giorgis" wrote:
> I entered this discussion to disprove a proposition made by
> Kristin Ruhle that:
> "Look at the Republicans who impeached Clinton; it was so
> absurdly partisan that obviously the biggest reason for
> the impeachement was not the adultery or the lying .... but
> the fact he was a Democrat and they just didn't like him.
> But that wasn't what they *said*."
<SNIP>
> I think that I have firmly established, however, that only
> an irrational partisan could calculate a partisan advantage
> from impeaching Bill Clinton. After all, by definition, the
> sole reason d'etre for a partisan is to win elections - and
> the marginal risk of losing elections is much greater after
> impechment than before, as perceived at the start of the
> impeachment process.
I think you and Kristin are using completely different definitions
of "partisan." By your definition, partisans are people who try to
gain advantage for their party, and don't do anything that might
decrease their party's power. By Kristin's definition, partisans
are people who like their party, and don't like the other party,
so they'll do whatever they can to *get* the guy from the other
party, even if the end results aren't good for their own side.
______________________________________________________________________
Steve Sloan ......... Huntsville, Alabama =========> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Startide: Steve Sloan's Pages ================> http://www.sloan3d.com
Brin-L list pages ........................... Chmeee's POV-Ray Objects
3D and Drawing Galleries ....................... Science fiction scans
Science Fiction, Science, and Computer Links ................ Software
