Observations, by Sandy
I, personally, know people who have had affairs. Some of the marriages survived intact, others failed right away. The ones that failed were due to lies told directly to the spouse that the offending spouse made saying it was a set up, a lie, it never happened, whatever. Proof came to light and that was it. The marriages that survived were due to confrontation and subsequent admittance and a lot of work from there on out.
I, personally, don't know a single person who has committed perjury but there are currently 115 people in jail because they did. Of those 115 people, two are women who lied in civil cases about sex, nonetheless. They even testified during the judiciary hearings.
As far as I know, the charges against Clinton are NOT about sex, but about the fact that he committed acts of perjury, obstructing justice, and abuse of power. (There are some football players undergoing judicial processing regarding perjury regarding gambling right now, too. Should they get off because it was only about gambling?)
David wrote: What has he done that we find so hard to let go of, when many much more close to us are easily forgiven? Understand that I speak as much metaphorically, as specifically here.
Well, for one thing, even though it was "only about sex" that he perjured himself, truth while under oath is one of the cornerstones of our judicial system. When you take the stand or give a deposition (especially in front of a judge), you promise to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. You don't promise to tell whatever truth suits your case and stretch it in every which way for the rest. Misleading, outright lying, purposeful obfuscation by a lawyer is not keeping to the oath he took to tell the truth, let alone the higher oath he took to "uphold the law of the land."
Tell me, why has he appologized so many times for not having had a sexual relationship with that woman, Ms Lewinsky? Why has he appealed so desperately to the House for censureship instead of impeachment? (Andrew Jackson was censured by the senate and 3 years later the record was expunged from his files and his face went on to grace our $20 bill. Some long lasting meaning the tsk, tsk of censureship, wouldn't you say?)
David wrote: Zippergate and it's consequences illustrates the NUMBER ONE reason why the President of the United States, or for that matter, any leader in our modern instant news environment, absolutely MUST maintain an absolutely spotless personal and ethical lifestyle.
And tell me what is wrong about the American public to expect that the man or woman they elect to office will keep there pants zipped or their legs and mouths closed when protocol calls for it??? I am a red blooded, healthy American woman with a normal sexual appetite that has never interferred with my job, my life, nor taken precedence over important matters in my life, i.e., children and all things surrounding them, integrity, dignity, friends, family. Clinton is 50 years old. He should be able to put his libido and fantasies on hold for his job for 8 years. There isn't any excuse there that I can fathom, especially when thinking about the times he kept people waiting because the blow job was more important, or the fact that he wanted the blow job during a working call.
David wrote: Look at what's happened to our political process. Look at what has happened to our collective psyche. This has brought the worst out in most of our representatives, and many of us as well. Unfortunate, but all too true. Clinton, from what I can tell, is the first President to be so inflicted with such public and Official Congressional scorn for personal actions outside the scope of his official duties.
Have you read any history leading up to this? Clinton's history is documented in many places and really starts in bulk about 1974. As far as collective psyche, I think a lot may be just that...(what did we call it when I was in school? - Mob Psychology!)!! I think that the vast majority of the polls reflect the opinions of people who are going with what they've heard the general sway is. I don't think most of those polled know that a vote of impeachment is much like a grand jury's vote of indictment, and it is NOT a removal from office. I don't think most of those polled have read in depth, nor researched the basics regarding the case, let alone the specifics (basic given - Ken Starr was appointed by Janet Reno. He wanted to quit halfway through and take an easy, nice professor position at some prestigious school starting with 'P' that slips my mind now, but was thwarted and badgered to carry on. Given two - if there weren't so damned many scandals surrounding both Clintons that cropped up like dandelions here and there without letup and without necessary connection to the previous scandal, the 4 year investigation (and continuing ongoing investigation) would never have led to this. When people smell smoke, they figure there must be a fire someplace. When the okay is given by a presidential appointee from his own party to persue investigations into the cause of the fire/smoke, there has to be damned good reason behind it.)
David wrote: given no reason to have faith. That is to our shame. We, in a word, *suck* as moral judges. So it remains to the public figure in question to avoid giving us any soap operatic fodder for our empty heads and hearts to munch on.
So it's best to stick with the logic and not the circumstances leading to it: perjury, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power.
David wrote: I'm sure that not all will agree with me on these things, and that's okay. I'm not here to argue, but merely to express my disappointment in us as a whole.
I, too am disappointed. I think that the population is either sated and not interested in anything that will rock their boat job-wise, stock-wise, or lifestyle-wise, just going with popular opinion without really reading or knowing anything, and/or they are so innoculated against or uneducated about our government system that they see this only as a matter of sex that the president was caught lying about - no big deal - we all lie about sex anytime we're caught doing it when we shouldn't be doing it. The sad thing is, where the lies occurred and the fact that they occurred while he was UNDER OATH have been completely ignored and dismissed. I, for one, as a woman, am scared about what will happen to our judicial system and the status of woman if nothing comes of this. It will open the gates for sexual harrassment to become a common place occurrance for the several years it will take to reign in and revamp the law again. That is my fear, and that is why I don't want to see a "tsk, tsk" given in the form of a censure, but rather want to see the law, as it stands today, carried out - perjury is a crime and deserves impeachment. (I won't even start on my opinons of the obstruction of justice and abuse of power articles).
© copyright, 1998, Sandy De Quesada