|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
On Sun, Nov 05, 2000 at 09:41:04AM -0500, Jeff Dean wrote:
> At 10:42 PM 11/4/00 -0500, you wrote:
>
> >What do people on this list feel about the recent "revelation" regarding
> >Bush? Does anybody really care? I know I don't. It happened 24 years ago.
> >And, the man hasn't had a drink in 14 years.
>
> So Clinton lies about a little backroom sex and he's impeached, but Bush
> lies about DUI and he's to be congratulated and elected? What happened to
> all of the talk about character? It's a double standard. Bush is
> ethically no better than Clinton and his candidacy should go down in flames
> as a result.
The issue is completely different. Clinton's "backroom" was the Oral
Office, while GW was not even constitutionally qualified for President at
the time. Also, GW noted early in his campaign that he had made some
indescretions early on, but did not go into details to protect his family,
since he had not yet told his daughters about those instances (as is
recommended by MADD among other groups). Clinton retained that he had done
nothing wrong.
He also noted that he hasn't had anything to drink in n years.
>
> That's right. Poor GW. It's in the past, right? So what happens if he's
> drunk at a presidential function? What if the DUI had happened recently
> and he'd been convicted and jailed?
His drinking is obviously behind him.
> Who cares how or when it was revealed? It does appear to be convenient
> timing, but it's a fact nonetheless. Fortunately for Bush it was at a time
> when society gave him a pat on the behind and a wink as he walked out the
> door. But if he was caught once, how many other times was he drinking and
> driving? How many moms/kids/students did he nearly hit while driving
> drunk? Why should we not care? This event shows an immense lapse in
> judgement on Bush's part, and it's a showstopper. Perhaps he should be
> impeached in Texas now as a liar and admitted drunk driver...
Maybe Kennebunkport, ME should make some traffic lights. They don't have a
single one yet. (Although Kennebunk, the next town over, put in its first a
few years ago). They tend to be a tad more successful at getting attention
than yield signs on rainy nights. He never lied. He never bent the truth.
He said that he had done some stuff to this effect earlier, just never went
into specifics for obvious reasons. When confronted with it, he immediately
admitted to it (which other candidates and presidents have not been able to
do recently *coughdemocratscough*). Maybe Gore should be impeached as a
liar since he has outright done that in front of millions of people. Or,
then again, maybe not.
> None of us will ever know if Gore or Gore's campaign had anything to do
> with it. But it's still moot because the DUI is a fact. Timing is
> irrelevant.
Well, I trust Eddie Rendell, and he said this morning that the party and
campaign had nothing to do with it. He said that they know who the claims
came from, and that it was a person acting on their own, not on behalf of
the party or campaign. He also said that it wasn't a big deal and tried to
drop the issue. Too bad he has that Columbo look and sound to him or he'd
make a great candidate. As of now, he's just plain shady :P
> Have you forgotten the Whitewater nonsense, campaign finance
> investigations, and the whole impeachment proceeding? Current politics is
> a dirty mess, and we can't pin it on anyone individually or even either
> party. They're all playing the same game.
>
> So, vote Bush if:
> - You don't care for an articulate, intellectually engaged president
Though you can't say the same thing about the Executive Branch under GW Bush
as a whole.
> - You want the Republican machine to proceed unchecked in judiciary (via
> appointments), legislative, and executive branches (this amounts to
> eliminating many of the constitutional checks and balances we're dependent
> on to avoid a moderate and representative government)
The Democrats should have the Senate after this election.
> - You agree that Clinton's character lapses are irrelevant, that the
> Republican congress acted irresponsibly by moving to impeach, and you don't
> mind continuing with another liar/deceiver as president
see above. You're just making empty claims.
> Vote Nader if:
> - You want to waste your vote, or you want to vote for Bush and pretend you
> didn't. Say all you want about voting your conscience, but Nader's
> credible candidacy is simply a distraction to a two-party reality. A vote
> for Nader, however much you want to stand for his ideals and those of the
> Green party, is a vote for Bush. Gore is far closer to Nader than a Bush
> on issues that matter. Check www.nadersraidersforgore.com on this one.
How about if you want to vote for your long term future by getting Nader
matching funds? Four years under a true politician like Gore or Bush will
not change the nation. In twelve years, though, we'll hopefully have strong
Green and Libertarian parties which can work on the same level as the
one-dimensional Asses and Elephants. Right now, it's about Nader getting 5%
and Browne getting 1,000,000 votes. When that happens, maybe some real
issues will be addressed and the 17% of Americans who are Libertarians will
be represented in their government.
--
M. Jackson Wilkinson <jackw@jounce.net> | Voicemail: 877-832-9021
President: JounceNET Internet Services | Cell: 215-919-1513
President: CASA of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania YACDA, Bucks Co. YPA
______________________________________________________________________
Philadelphia Linux Users Group - http://www.phillylinux.org
Announcements-http://lists.phillylinux.org/mail/listinfo/plug-announce
General Discussion - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mail/listinfo/plug
|
|