In a message dated 6/21/01 10:00:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< The GOP had to know that the Democrats in the Senate were partisans, and
would therefore never go along with voting to convict Clinton, and would
instead pander to public opinion on this matter.
>>
See, John here is the problem. This statement is precisely not what Patrick
said. He simply pointed out that democrats might be against impeachment
because they believed that Clinton had not commited an impeachable offense.
As to pandering to the public; well in what way did voting against
impeachment pander to the public. The public wanted no part of this and made
that clear in the November election. They could have chosen to vote in a
large number of republicans thus insuring impeachment but they did not.
Instead the make-up of the congress reflected the will of the people. Many
people were elected who had stated that they would not vote for impeachment.
But there was no public uprising in favor of Clinton. For the democrats,
there was no political advantage in Clinton's troubles. They would have been
most happy not to have to deal with this issue. It was from the beginning
pushed by conservative republicans, pushed beyond rationale levels by a
personal annimous that had nothing to do with government. Hatred that clouded
their judgement. I can only speak for myself about Clinton. I did not trust
or like him. I am basically a liberal but I voted for Dole precisely because
of what I saw as his superiorty as a human being. The electorate did not
agree. It voted for Clinton with full knowledge of his flaws. I think you do
not give people enough credit. They knew and didn't care. That is their
right. But the democrats could not really exploit the republican actions in
any way. They could not pander to the public. How would they do that. They
could not and did not approve of Clinton's actions. All they could say was
that the actions of the republicans were interfering with the business of
government. One can't argue with that. The scandal paralyzed the country for
years. You would argue I guess that the republicans had a moral
responsibility to pursue Clinton. And yet none showed a particular interest
in pursuing the moral responsibility of getting rid Gingrich who was having
an affair while all of this was going on, or Livingston who was apparently
rather consistently unfaithful.
