>
> Since it is absofuckinglutely impossible to turn on the news and NOT hear
> about sexgate, I have been watching alot of the interviews with the Man and
> Woman on the street. It seems most people end with a note of "who cares" and
> "the only one who should be concerned is Hilary." And, to tell the truth, I
> agree. In fact, other than a couple of really rabid right wing republicans, I
> think most of the right is very worried because even with sexgate, Clinton's
> approval is very high. ... AND, they fear that impeaching Clinton will
> backlash against the right wing in an election year.
Impeaching Clinton would be self-ratifying. The real
problem is trying to impeach and falling well short.
> Which brings me to my latest and favorite half-baked-idea-which-i-have-not-
> really-thought-through-in-the-academic-fullness-it-probably-deserves: That
Not so half-baked; more like three-quarters.
Others have mentioned it.
> this entire thing was hatched by Hillary (Bill doesn't have enough brains) to
> discredit Kenneth Starr. Just follow this little convoluted train of thought:
Starr has been shooting blanks and was heading for
a fall anyway. This thing has given him a new lease
on life for the time being.
> 1. This is the first thing Starr has gotten Reno to sign off on -- he
> couldn't get whitewatergate, or coffeegate, or fundraisinggate, so they gave
> him sex gate.
Local attorneys, including my wife, are calling
Reno and co. punks for giving Starr a green
light, but in the popular mind the issues are
procedural and therefore, I would argue,
not important. Non-lawyers are more
interested in innocence or guilt, if they
are interested at all. The latter is turning
out to be untrue. People are turning this
stuff off.
> 2. The first person to bring up the word impeach was an ex-clinton appointee,
> NOT the republicans or Starr.
> 3. Every time something with Lipinski is stated as fact, it turns out to be
> untrue (the semen stained dress does not exist, she is not such a young
> innocent but a woman (gasp) with a past of pursuing men sexually, who knows
> which is the truth her deposition on no sex or her statements to trip on
> having sex)
That's explicable as competition among the press.
I hope some progressive media critics are compiling
all this b.s. so there can be some kind of calling to
account later.
> 4. The pictures of Lipinski and the president are all in extremely public
> situations taken by white house camera people.
Lipinski? He's a Polish congressman from Chicago
(for real) and not quite Bill's type.
> 5. It was Clinton's people who both prevented and allowed access by Lipinski
> to the whitehouse, creating their own sequence of questionable events.
They would have to have put her up to blabbing to
Ms. Tripp. You have to believe young Ms. Lewinsky has a
steel-trap mind and iron fortitude to carry this off, and my
impression is that this is not quite (ahem) the case. I could be
wrong, and she might have a great future on Melrose Place.
> So what if they gave this to Starr to hang himself with? They had to know
> Tripp was powwowwing with Paula Jone's Lawyers, etc. They figured they would
> set up the scandal and then the loose cannons of Lipinski and Tripp would do
> the rest!
My guess is that some presidential diddling, perjury,
and subornation of perjury took place, but not as much
as has been intimated, and by current indications the
President can talk his way through it all.
It is true that if this doesn't pan out, Starr goes down
hard. Otherwise, this stuff is not on balance helpful,
in my view. The Administration's popularity was in
good shape to begin with, and his new initiatives, such
as they are, had the GOP on the defensive and still do.
He didn't need all this.
Don't forget that the GOP's chief political issue --
the awful Federal budget deficit -- is gone gone gone
in the latest numbers for the next fifteen years.
The GOP already "fixed" welfare (sic) and did their tax
cuts. They have no proposals. New tax cuts threaten
to blemish the gloriously balanced budget or else
prevent the use of surpluses to "Save Social Security
First."
In the reign of Clinton, the budget has been brought
into balance, taxes on the wealthy have been increased,
and the economy is perceived to be in near-ideal shape.
The constant refrain of 'liberalism' in application to
Clinton now works against the conservatives, in light
of present circumstances. Even with the sex stuff, the political
momentum is on the Democrats' side, though they clearly have
far to go.
MBS
===================================================
Max B. Sawicky Economic Policy Institute
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW
202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200
202-775-0819 (fax) Washington, DC 20036
http://tap.epn.org/sawicky
Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views
of anyone associated with the Economic Policy
Institute other than this writer.
===================================================
