Paula Jones sues Thursday
William Glover
harrassment suit. This Thursday at a news conference they will
announce the action.
Clinton has hired power house lawyer Bob Bennett to represent him
in get this "CRIMINAL CHARGES CASES" involving WhiteWater and with
Paula Jones if she files the suit. This is heavy stuff, to go out
an hire a criminal case laywer. BTW Bennett is representing Rosty
Rostenkowski in the case being heard by the grand jury regarding
potential wrongdoing.
Ought to be an interesting week.
Bill
--
Bill Glover ... kk6pw
bgl...@netcom.com Weimar Software San Jose, CA
Scott S. Kerstetter
> seems as though our Philanderer in Chief is in a heap load of trouble. too
>bad that his luck had to run out just now, hopefully more fun is on the way.
>
> this lying sack of shit is gonna get his payback now. maybe he'll take the
>honorable way out ala Foster.
> what'll really be fascinating is seeing how the media is going to play this
>issue. they've been saving his ass left and right but it seems that
>they'll finally run out of excuses. they're in the indefensible
>position of having to defend an abuser of womankind of which many have
>been sacrificed on the altar of Feminism. speaking of which , where are the
>Feminists ? not a peep to be heard, they're all hiding under their rocks !
>--
> jak...@netcom.com
Doesn't that just make you sick? Where are the great defenders of
womankind now? What a bunch of total hypocrits!
*******************************************************************************
Scott S. Kerstetter " ...Over the gulfs of dream, flew a tremendous bird."
further and further away, into a moonless black
Deep in the brain, far back."
Roethke Night Crow.
Computer Sciences Corporation o
<[ ]>
|
My thoughts are my own...what was I saying? _^_
********************************************************************************
mike wright
>Just heard on the radio that Paula Jones is filing her sexual
>harrassment suit. This Thursday at a news conference they will
>announce the action.
>
>Clinton has hired power house lawyer Bob Bennett to represent him
>in get this "CRIMINAL CHARGES CASES" involving WhiteWater and with
>Paula Jones if she files the suit. This is heavy stuff, to go out
>an hire a criminal case laywer. BTW Bennett is representing Rosty
>Rostenkowski in the case being heard by the grand jury regarding
>potential wrongdoing.
From what I have heard so far, Paula Jones has more corroboration for
her allegations than Anita Hill ever had for hers.
-----------------------+ My opinions, not my employer's.
Mike Wright |---------------------------------------------------
wri...@lds.loral.com | "The Constitution shall never be construed ... to
-----------------------+ prevent the people of the United States who are
The 2nd Amendment: | peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ..."
void where prohibited. | -- Alexander Hamilton
-----------------------+---------------------------------------------------
Ken Zuroski
I'm curious about this. How is she going to prove her case? Are there
witnesses? Will it be just her word against that of the President?
Can someone provide more info on this?
---
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ken Zuroski
Carnegie Mellon University
Pittsburgh, PA 15213 USA
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ken Zuroski
>
>
>
> what'll really be fascinating is seeing how the media is going to play this
>issue. they've been saving his ass left and right but it seems that
>they'll finally run out of excuses. they're in the indefensible
>position of having to defend an abuser of womankind of which many have
>been sacrificed on the altar of Feminism. speaking of which , where are the
>Feminists ? not a peep to be heard, they're all hiding under their rocks !
I think Clinton has already been accused of so much womanizing and has
managed to walk away relatively unscathed that this will be just
another drop in the bucket. Whether he's guilty or not, the general
public is pretty much saturated with Clinton scandal; any more of it
isn't going to do much to sway many more peoples' opinions one way or
the other. People are pretty much polarized when it comes to judging
Clinton.
>--
> jak...@netcom.com
Robert Sheaffer
henry jakala <jak...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
> what'll really be fascinating is seeing how the media is going to play this
>issue. they've been saving his ass left and right but it seems that
>they'll finally run out of excuses. they're in the indefensible
>position of having to defend an abuser of womankind of which many have
>been sacrificed on the altar of Feminism. speaking of which , where are the
>Feminists ? not a peep to be heard, they're all hiding under their rocks !
Not true! I heard a chorus plainly exclaim, "We believe you, Anita... but
not YOU, Paula!"
--
Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - shea...@netcom.com
Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!
"in the 1980s, a lot of behavior that was counterproductive
and antisocial took place in the boardrooms and the highest
political offices of America."
- Hillary Rodham Clinton,
interviewed in _Parade_ magazine (April 11, 1993)
Nicholas J Stowfis
>More political slop for the hogs, you mean. When did hiring a
>lawyer become evidence or even an indication of wrongdoing?
I think the operative point was that he's a *criminal* lawyer - when was the
last time *criminal* charges were brought up against an incumbent president
by a private citizen? If you're gonna take the prez to court, you'd better
have a pretty damn strong case, wouldn't you say?
>I just hope Paula Jones is getting her money upfront from these
>professional Clinton-haters for whom she's performing the political
>equivalent of the same service that Bill allegedly tried to get her to do.
Uh-huh. So who's jumping to conclusions now?
____________________________________________________________________________
| Nicholas J. Stowfis | "I think I've lost re-election in 1996 |
| nsto...@gradient.cis.upenn.edu | already" -- Bill Clinton, 4/4/94 |
| University of Pennsylvania |Ghea ba gur IPE - ur'f gryyva' gur gehgu!|
henry jakala
seems as though our Philanderer in Chief is in a heap load of trouble. too
bad that his luck had to run out just now, hopefully more fun is on the way.
this lying sack of shit is gonna get his payback now. maybe he'll take the
honorable way out ala Foster.
what'll really be fascinating is seeing how the media is going to play this
issue. they've been saving his ass left and right but it seems that
they'll finally run out of excuses. they're in the indefensible
position of having to defend an abuser of womankind of which many have
been sacrificed on the altar of Feminism. speaking of which , where are the
Feminists ? not a peep to be heard, they're all hiding under their rocks !
Tom Ryan,
says:
>
>Just heard on the radio that Paula Jones is filing her sexual
>harrassment suit. This Thursday at a news conference they will
>announce the action.
>
>Clinton has hired power house lawyer Bob Bennett to represent him
>in get this "CRIMINAL CHARGES CASES" involving WhiteWater and with
>Paula Jones if she files the suit. This is heavy stuff, to go out
>an hire a criminal case laywer. BTW Bennett is representing Rosty
>Rostenkowski in the case being heard by the grand jury regarding
>potential wrongdoing.
>
>Ought to be an interesting week.
>
lawyer become evidence or even an indication of wrongdoing?
during Iran-Contra; do you believe he did wrong? I believe
Ollie North hired Bennett's partner; did he do wrong?
I just hope Paula Jones is getting her money upfront from these
professional Clinton-haters for whom she's performing the political
equivalent of the same service that Bill allegedly tried to get her to do.
AIM, Cliff Jackson, et al, just get their erections in different
ways. Bennett is right -- she's being used.
Tom
Jon Giorgini
>I'm curious about this. How is she going to prove her case? Are there
>witnesses? Will it be just her word against that of the President?
The event took place in 1991 while Jones was a $6.5 an hour state
employee and Clinton was Governor of Arkansas. While at some function, Clinton
saw her and had state troopers escort her to a hotel room. Once in the room,
Clinton approached her sexually and asked her to perform specific sex acts.
She refused.
I am a little confused off the top of my head here, because there is
another case from a few years earlier. I am not sure which case has Clinton exposing himself to the woman and asking her to "kiss it".
Anyway, in the Paula Jones case it developed this way:
The state trooper who escorted Jones to the meeting with Clinton told
the story. Other troopers confirmed.
Paula Jones was consulted and confirmed she was escorted by a state
trooper to Clinton's hotel room.
The DAY IT HAPPENED (1991), Jones told at least six of her friends.
Last I heard, three of them had signed statements under oath as to what she told
them the day it happened; her concern about reporting to police (because she
was escorted there BY the police), concern over losing job since Clinton was
her boss, exact details of what Clinton said and did, etc.
Apparently, there has been a massive effort by Clinton people to dig up
dirt on Jones and her friends to discredit them, but nothing has been found. Clinton's worst nightmare -- decent people do exist.
I will have to centralize my data on this. With this administration,
there is so much bizarre Twilight-Zone stuff going on, it overwhelms my meager
news article clipping ability...and it's not as if it was a Republican
administration and the press was printing it front page banner headlines each
day so you could keep track of it.
This stuff is being buried in the mainstream U.S. press or covered in
the foreign press. So far.
George Katele
> Clinton has hired power house lawyer Bob Bennett to represent him
> in get this "CRIMINAL CHARGES CASES" involving WhiteWater and with
> Paula Jones if she files the suit. This is heavy stuff, to go out
> an hire a criminal case laywer. BTW Bennett is representing Rosty
> Rostenkowski in the case being heard by the grand jury regarding
> potential wrongdoing.
The interesting thing is that the lawyer that's going to represent our
president (isn't _THAT_ a sad commnentary in itself!) is the brother of
former cabinet member William Bennet, a best selling author and fan of Rush
Limbaugh.
--
==========================================================================
internet: gka...@interaccess.com | "Sooner or later, you'll need a
aol:g_ka...@aol.com | general....."
compuserve:71652,20...@compuserve.com |
==========================================================================
Brad Kepley
>Just heard on the radio that Paula Jones is filing her sexual
>harrassment suit. This Thursday at a news conference they will
>announce the action.
There was a hint of what was to come in the latest issue of Newsweek which
has a story on Clinton's Paula Jones problem. One of the more amazing
statements in the story though was something along the lines of, "if it
were a normal world the press would ignore Paula Jones in the same way
it ignored Anita Hill". Not those exact words. I wonder if anyone noticed
Newsweek counciling people to ignore Anita Hill?
--
--
| "The natural progress of things is for government |
| to gain ground and for liberty to yield" |
| Thomas Jefferson |
| Brad Kepley kep...@photon.phys.unca.edu |
Alan Bomberger
|> In article <94124.124...@uicvm.uic.edu> Tom Ryan, <U54...@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
|>
|> >More political slop for the hogs, you mean. When did hiring a
|> >lawyer become evidence or even an indication of wrongdoing?
|>
|> I think the operative point was that he's a *criminal* lawyer - when was the
|> last time *criminal* charges were brought up against an incumbent president
|> by a private citizen? If you're gonna take the prez to court, you'd better
|> have a pretty damn strong case, wouldn't you say?
|>
|> >I just hope Paula Jones is getting her money upfront from these
|> >professional Clinton-haters for whom she's performing the political
|> >equivalent of the same service that Bill allegedly tried to get her to do.
|>
|> Uh-huh. So who's jumping to conclusions now?
Yes it is amusing to watch. When Anita Hill came forward we heard
the same things. What was she paid? Etc. Now we have Paula Jones
and what do we hear? What was she paid? Is there a difference?
Well, I don't know! If Paula is just a shill, she planned it early.
The one thing she has that Anita didn't is "contempory witnesses".
She alleges to have told friends right after the event and they
back her up. So, at least she planned it better.
Also, she is going to undergo the test of a jury trial (or at least
the lead up) and not the informality of the Senate hearings where
witnesses were allowed to alter testimony under coaching.
Another trouble is that Bill has already admitted on TV that
he has open fly syndrome so he cannot claim "no history" as
did Thomas.
Should be an interesting confrontation. Maybe it will stop the
Health Care steamroller and the legislature will deliberate instead
of saying "Yes Bill!"
Peace
--
Alan Bomberger | (408)-992-2748 | al...@oes.amdahl.com
Amdahl Corporation | Opinions are free, worth it, and not Amdahl's
It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. - David Hume
Brad Kepley
>I'm curious about this. How is she going to prove her case? Are there
>witnesses? Will it be just her word against that of the President?
>
>Can someone provide more info on this?
If I remember right she has affidavits from two friends that things happened
as she described them up to the point where she actually went up to meet
Clinton. After that it certainly is just her word against his. Isn't
that usually (or at least often) the case with sexual harassment charges?
I don't think it's enough to convict Clinton but it might very well
be enough to get a hearing.
Jon Giorgini
Nice try, it won't work.
Historical revisionism won't wash; the Anita Hill case was too recent.
The overwhelming mainstream reaction to Anita Hill was "how terrible for her,
how COURAGEOUS she is to come forward. We need to know the truth about someone
who could influence public policy so much..." Most people can still
remember that.
Biggest differences in the cases:
1. Hill had no evidence, no witnesses that didn't perjure themselves.
Jones has multiple sworn statements from people on the scene before and after
2. Hill followed her guy around for 10 years after he so "hurt" her
Jones fled the room and immediately told her friends.
3. Clarence Thomas had no other history of accusations. Just the opposite.
Bill Clinton has dozens of women, law enforcement officers and citizens
who accuse him of sexual predation against women ... and of using
government resources to further that end.
4. Hill accused her guy of SAYING things (no one else heard).
Jones indicates Clinton (her boss) exposed himself, fondled her, and had
state troopers repeatedly attempt to arrange sexual liasons after she
rejected his advances. Troopers confirm the parts they were involved with.
5. Don't hold your breath waiting for the press or women's groups to call
Paula Jones "courageous" for presenting evidence the President of the
United States, while Governor, has engaged in criminal abuses of power directed against women ....
Mark O. Wilson
|I think Clinton has already been accused of so much womanizing and has
|managed to walk away relatively unscathed that this will be just
|another drop in the bucket. Whether he's guilty or not, the general
|public is pretty much saturated with Clinton scandal; any more of it
|isn't going to do much to sway many more peoples' opinions one way or
|the other. People are pretty much polarized when it comes to judging
|Clinton.
I think that if some solid evidence were to come out, that would sway
some people. I don't know how many, but, some.
--
Mob rule isn't any prettier merely because the mob calls itself a government
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Wilson's theory of relativity: If you go back far enough, we're all related.
Mark.O...@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Tom Ryan,
>
>I think the operative point was that he's a *criminal* lawyer - when was the
>last time *criminal* charges were brought up against an incumbent president
>by a private citizen? If you're gonna take the prez to court, you'd better
>have a pretty damn strong case, wouldn't you say?
>
Paula wants to sign a criminal complaint, then that's another subject. But
that's not what's happening.
>>I just hope Paula Jones is getting her money upfront from these
>>professional Clinton-haters for whom she's performing the political
>>equivalent of the same service that Bill allegedly tried to get her to do.
>
>Uh-huh. So who's jumping to conclusions now?
>
No conclusions, just opinion. Jones is, I believe, being used as a pawn,
and I at least hope she's getting her 30 pieces of silver upfront.
That's all.
Tom
Nicholas J Stowfis
>No conclusions, just opinion. Jones is, I believe, being used as a pawn,
>and I at least hope she's getting her 30 pieces of silver upfront.
>That's all. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
*Please* tell me you're not comparing Clinton to Jesus. I think anyone who
does that should have their head examined.
Robert Lewis Glendenning
I don't know if her lawyer is any good, but assume that he (she
would be better) is on contingency and thus has economic incentive and
is also real smart. If so, one tactic would be to establish a pattern
of sexual promiscuity and crude behavior. The troopers
and others in the Clinton entourage, possibly including
Roger Clinton, will be called to testify. Under oath,
these guys will be forced to corroborate some elements
of Paula Jones' (? can't remember the name) story,
and then a good cross-examination person can unravel
lots of examples.
Further, there have been a lot of women who have been
"hushed up" in one way or another. Getting one of them
under loath might be appropriate.
Combined with the contemporary witnesses of Paula's "meetings",
and the troopers' rendition of bringing her to him, Clinton
might be convicted.
However, the clear threat to Clinton is entirely political:
he can't have testimony under oath to his sexual harassment and
possible drug taking. The first will probably lose him
so much credibility he won't ever get another law passed,
as well as losing the election. The second will force him
from office.
Lew
--
Lew Glendenning rlgl...@netcom.com
"Perspective is worth 80 IQ points." Niels Bohr (or somebody like that).
Allen R Sparks
> In article <94125.133...@uicvm.uic.edu> Tom Ryan, <U54...@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>
> >No conclusions, just opinion. Jones is, I believe, being used as a pawn,
> >and I at least hope she's getting her 30 pieces of silver upfront.
> >That's all. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> *Please* tell me you're not comparing Clinton to Jesus. I think anyone who
> does that should have their head examined.
Besides, Mary Magdeline wasn't involved with the 30 pieces of silver.
Yet supposedly, she was involved in transactions....
But wait Mary Magdaline wasn't a politician, and Clinton's not a wh....
well maybe he is....
So I'm not comparing Paula Jones to Mary Magdaline, I'm comparing
Bill Clinton to Mary Magdaline. How did I end up doing that?
I'm confused.
=== Al
Tom Ryan,
(Nicholas J Stowfis) says:
>>and I at least hope she's getting her 30 pieces of silver upfront.
>>That's all. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>*Please* tell me you're not comparing Clinton to Jesus. I think anyone who
>does that should have their head examined.
>
Tom
Jon Giorgini
>Jones is, I believe, being used as a pawn, and I at least hope she's getting >her 30 pieces of silver upfront.
Why is the truth of the situation so unimportant as to be dismissed?
Nicholas J Stowfis
Oh, gee, is *that* what that was? I guess I was confused, since figures of
speech are generally only used when they're *relevant*. FYI, Paula Jones
has stated that any money she is awarded beyond the cost of her legal fees
will be given to charity, so unless you can prove that someone else is
paying her to sue, shut up.
Jon Giorgini
>> Why is the truth of the situation so unimportant as to be dismissed?
>None of us knows the truth of the situation. All I'm saying is that Jones
>is carrying water for some real low-lifes and I hope she's getting
>fair compensation for it.
I don't get your point. The charges are specific. The events either
happened or they didn't happen. If they did happen, how could she be "carrying
water for some real low-lifes"?
Are you saying being cornered by your boss and the state Governor, under
state police escort, is unimportant and that pressing the issue is a scummy
thing to do, that only low-lifes would be involved in pressing such an issue?
Mark O. Wilson
No this is both your opinion and your conclusion.
You have concluded that nothing happened and that Jones is lying.
Chris Holt
>>When Anita Hill came forward we heard the same things.
>>What was she paid? Etc. >Now we have Paula Jones and what
>>do we hear? What was she paid? Is there a difference?
> Nice try, it won't work.
> Historical revisionism won't wash; the Anita Hill case was too recent.
Well, it was fairly recent, yes.
>The overwhelming mainstream reaction to Anita Hill was "how terrible for her,
>how COURAGEOUS she is to come forward. We need to know the truth about someone
>who could influence public policy so much..." Most people can still
>remember that.
Apparently you have a selective memory. The overwhelming reaction
wasn't overwhelming, it was split into at least two separate camps.
On the one hand, there were people who said "This is pretty trivial
stuff and there's no evidence; what's all the fuss about?" These
people tended to be men. On the other hand, there were people who
said "I believe her, because I've seen almost exactly the same
kind of things happening where I work." These people tended to
be women. The press started out in the first camp, but reported
the amazing (to them) groundswell of support among the second
camp. Naturally, politicians opposed to Thomas took this on
board, and politicians in favour of Thomas dismissed it.
Since, as we all know, whenever it's one person's word against
another and you're dealing with innuendos, it's impossible to
find out what was actually going on (and the people involved
probably had different interpretations of the same events),
there wasn't enough evidence to do anything, and Thomas'
histrionics and playing the victim were enough to see him
through. But to suggest that he really won against a lying
bitch is to misrepresent what happened.
> Biggest differences in the cases:
>
>1. Hill had no evidence, no witnesses that didn't perjure themselves.
> Jones has multiple sworn statements from people on the scene
> before and after
And their statements are inconsistent. That's all right; we know
that memory isn't always very good.
>2. Hill followed her guy around for 10 years after he so "hurt" her
> Jones fled the room and immediately told her friends.
Followed him around for 10 years? If it's a choice between a job
and no job, you take the job. Jones didn't resign her job on the
spot, did she.
>3. Clarence Thomas had no other history of accusations. Just the opposite.
> Bill Clinton has dozens of women, law enforcement officers and citizens
> who accuse him of sexual predation against women ... and of using
> government resources to further that end.
And all their stories have inconsistencies. Not that he probably
didn't do something, but none of the accusations so far have been
made credible except in the eyes of those who thought he should
have been impeached before he actually took office.
>4. Hill accused her guy of SAYING things (no one else heard).
> Jones indicates Clinton (her boss) exposed himself, fondled her, and had
> state troopers repeatedly attempt to arrange sexual liasons after she
> rejected his advances. Troopers confirm the parts they were involved
> with.
Though the times are different, apparently. But let's assume they
correspond roughly. Is it an impeachable offense?
>5. Don't hold your breath waiting for the press or women's groups to call
> Paula Jones "courageous" for presenting evidence the President of the
> United States, while Governor, has engaged in criminal abuses of power directed against women ....
Why not? If it turns out that there really is good evidence, I
don't see why they should lose general credibility by failing
to say anything. Of course, if you're sure that it's a Great
Conspiracy, I can see why you think all these Damned Liberals
would support each other.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris...@newcastle.ac.uk ftp://tuda.ncl.ac.uk/pub/local/ncmh1/nameplate.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A hypertext is a mirror walking along the information highway...
Tom Ryan,
says:
None of us knows the truth of the situation. All I'm saying is that Jones
is carrying water for some real low-lifes and I hope she's getting
fair compensation for it.
Tom
Nicholas J Stowfis
I still fail to see how the hell you can possibly know that. It *may* be
your opinion, but you are saying it as if you were stating fact, which you
are obviously not. It may be my opinion that Bill Clinton had Vince Foster
killed, but I can't claim to *know* it to be true, and therefore I refrain
from making such blanket statements. Just *how* do you *know* that Paula
Jones is just doing this for the money, or for someone else's political
motives? If the incident actually happened, isn't it conceivable that
she's doing it for her own reasons? And shouldn't you wait until
everything comes out before passing judgement?
Dave Yuhas
: Just heard on the radio that Paula Jones is filing her sexual
: harrassment suit. This Thursday at a news conference they will
: announce the action.
Let's assume everything she alleges is true. So what? Since when is a
single pass, a crude one at that, sexual harassment?
The right wing just doesn't get it: unless Clinton can be found guilty of
raping a nun when he was governor of Arkansas these charges won't stick.
Clinton's no saint; his marriage is probably a sham by now. But if his
critics don't agree with him and his policies they should argue the
issues. Not his sexual pecadillos 10 years ago.
--
Dave Yuhas |Democracy: The worship of jackals by the
Pacifica, CA |jackasses. (Mencken)
da...@crl.com
Nicholas J Stowfis
>William Glover (bgl...@netcom.com) wrote:
>: Just heard on the radio that Paula Jones is filing her sexual
>: harrassment suit. This Thursday at a news conference they will
>: announce the action.
>
>Let's assume everything she alleges is true. So what? Since when is a
>single pass, a crude one at that, sexual harassment?
It is if, as she claims, she was repeatedly bothered afterwards by the same
trooper, trying to arrange more meetings, and later denied promotion for
dubious reasons (supposedly because she blew Clinton off - remember, she
was a state worker). If there is *any* truth to any of this, then it *was*
sexual harrassment. Guess we'll have to wait and see...
Suh Jung-Yul {John}
>Let's assume everything she alleges is true. So what? Since when is a
>single pass, a crude one at that, sexual harassment?
>The right wing just doesn't get it: unless Clinton can be found guilty of
>raping a nun when he was governor of Arkansas these charges won't stick.
>Clinton's no saint; his marriage is probably a sham by now. But if his
>critics don't agree with him and his policies they should argue the
>issues. Not his sexual pecadillos 10 years ago.
By the same token, liberals should have not dig up Clarence Thomas's
"alleged" pecadillos at his confirmation hearing. But they did not.
Liberals have quite a selective mind. Is that an indication that
liberals are intelligent as they frequently claim ? I guess not.
>--
>Dave Yuhas |Democracy: The worship of jackals by the
>Pacifica, CA |jackasses. (Mencken)
>da...@crl.com
John Suh
Duncan Idaho
You say that not recognizing that Anita Hill has made plenty off her
"deal." E.g., she gets more than 5k$ per speech. And, you don't mention
the partisan low-lifes that launched her first press conference, etc.
And, I'm sorry, but there's a double standard here. I can't believe that
no harrassment lawsuit has a compensation behind it, or that lawyers would
not try to negotiate these suits from getting to court. (90% of suits away
never get decided by the judge anyway.)
If a President wasn't involved, the money aspect wouldn't be questioned.
In particular, this President who's been accused numberous times of
philandering, include that a recording of him and Genifer Flowers is in
the Congressional record.
There's no reason to believe that Thomas was ever systematic in his
behavior, except to remain professional. No one can say that of either
Clinton.
- D
Duncan Idaho
Chris Holt <Chris...@newcastle.ac.uk> wrote:
>j...@zeus.jpl.nasa.gov (Jon Giorgini) writes:
>Since, as we all know, whenever it's one person's word against
>another and you're dealing with innuendos, it's impossible to
>find out what was actually going on (and the people involved
Jones' witness can be summoned to testify, and Jones (reportedly) can
identify CLinton ala the Michael Jackson school of positive ids.
>probably had different interpretations of the same events),
>there wasn't enough evidence to do anything, and Thomas'
>histrionics and playing the victim were enough to see him
>through. But to suggest that he really won against a lying
>bitch is to misrepresent what happened.
I think that Clinton will fight tooth and nail to prevent anyone to get on
the witness stand in this case. Watch, and see, becauase if Clinton has
nothing to hide, then he would welcome an opportunity to have witnesses
clear this up.
- D
Duncan Idaho
>William Glover (bgl...@netcom.com) wrote:
>: Just heard on the radio that Paula Jones is filing her sexual
>: harrassment suit. This Thursday at a news conference they will
>: announce the action.
>
>Let's assume everything she alleges is true. So what? Since when is a
>single pass, a crude one at that, sexual harassment?
Uuuh. Have you been paying attention. This story matches the 12/93
American Spectator that Clinton abused power systematically to make these
advances to numerous women.
>
>The right wing just doesn't get it: unless Clinton can be found guilty of
>raping a nun when he was governor of Arkansas these charges won't stick.
The liberals don't understand that character does count, and that abuses
of power do matter.
>
>Clinton's no saint; his marriage is probably a sham by now. But if his
>critics don't agree with him and his policies they should argue the
>issues. Not his sexual pecadillos 10 years ago.
First, this happened just before Clinton's presidential campaign. Not ten
years ago.
Secondly, Clintons' say "trust us" on health care, crime, family values,
welfare reform. HRC actually all but cried this week about "taking care of
the children." Sorry, this *is* tied to the issues, esp. when the President
is banking on the trust of the American people to get these polciies into
law.
Even HRC recognized this during her recent press conference.
- D
roger smith
Jon Giorgini <j...@zeus.jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>Tom Ryan, <U54...@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>
>>> Why is the truth of the situation so unimportant as to be dismissed?
>
>>None of us knows the truth of the situation. All I'm saying is that Jones
>>is carrying water for some real low-lifes and I hope she's getting
>>fair compensation for it.
>
none of knows the truth of the situation. All I'm saying is that hill
was carrying water for some real low-lifes and now she's getting
fair compensation for it.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\ The above does not represent OIT, UNC-CH, laUNChpad, or its other users. /
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin W. Hammond
Mark O. Wilson <mwi...@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> wrote:
>
>I think that if some solid evidence were to come out, that would sway
>some people. I don't know how many, but, some.
>
Agreed. If he is finally found guilty in any number charges, that adds a
whole lot of fuel to the conservative fire. Untill it happens, it all just
"looks real bad". It'll really poke those who continue to stand by this
man and insist that he is good for the country. Nothing like a good
"I told you so!"
--kevin
--
Kevin W. Hammond
ham...@image.ctt.com
Kevin W. Hammond
Robert Sheaffer <shea...@netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <jakalaCp...@netcom.com>,
>henry jakala <jak...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>been sacrificed on the altar of Feminism. speaking of which , where are the
>>Feminists ? not a peep to be heard, they're all hiding under their rocks !
>
>Not true! I heard a chorus plainly exclaim, "We believe you, Anita... but
>not YOU, Paula!"
>
Well, we now know it's how you're packaged. Paula is a conservative tool.
Anita? Hey, why would liberals want to slander a conservative?
Kevin W. Hammond
>is carrying water for some real low-lifes and I hope she's getting
>fair compensation for it.
>
Do you read what you write before you actually send your postings?
How can you say "none of us knows the truth of the situation" and then,
in the same paragraph, tell us for a fact that "Jones is carrying water
for some real low-lifes" ?
Kevin W. Hammond
Tom Ryan, <U54...@uicvm.uic.edu> wrote:
>In article <bgloverC...@netcom.com>, bgl...@netcom.com (William Glover)
>says:
>>
>>Just heard on the radio that Paula Jones is filing her sexual
>>harrassment suit. This Thursday at a news conference they will
>>announce the action.
>>
>>in get this "CRIMINAL CHARGES CASES" involving WhiteWater and with
>>Paula Jones if she files the suit. This is heavy stuff, to go out
>>an hire a criminal case laywer. BTW Bennett is representing Rosty
>>Rostenkowski in the case being heard by the grand jury regarding
>>potential wrongdoing.
>>
>>Ought to be an interesting week.
>>
>More political slop for the hogs, you mean. When did hiring a
>lawyer become evidence or even an indication of wrongdoing?
>By the way, he's the same lawyer Caspar Weinberger hired during
>during Iran-Contra; do you believe he did wrong? I believe
>Ollie North hired Bennett's partner; did he do wrong?
>
>I just hope Paula Jones is getting her money upfront from these
>professional Clinton-haters for whom she's performing the political
>equivalent of the same service that Bill allegedly tried to get her to do.
>ways. Bennett is right -- she's being used.
>
>Tom
>
Why don't you wait and see if he's guilty or not, then play judge and
pass judgement on Paula. Do you think Anita Hill had valid charges,
or was she too "getting her money upfront from these professional
'Thomas'-haters."
Brad Kepley
Kevin W. Hammond
>: Just heard on the radio that Paula Jones is filing her sexual
>: harrassment suit. This Thursday at a news conference they will
>: announce the action.
>
>Let's assume everything she alleges is true. So what? Since when is a
>single pass, a crude one at that, sexual harassment?
>
>The right wing just doesn't get it: unless Clinton can be found guilty of
>raping a nun when he was governor of Arkansas these charges won't stick.
>
>Clinton's no saint; his marriage is probably a sham by now. But if his
>critics don't agree with him and his policies they should argue the
>issues. Not his sexual pecadillos 10 years ago.
>
The point that is trying to be made, and I think you are over-looking it,
is that there is an air of suspicion around everything that Clinton does.
If you were going to hire a house-keeper or a baby-sitter to watch over
your home and take care of your children, would trust that hired help
based on that individual's word, or would you look at that individual's
work and/or ethic record? If you were to find out from previous employer's
that this individual had stolen from them and/or ruined their home, you
would probably not hire this individual, regardless if the individual says
that he/she did not do or will not do it again?
With President Clinton, you have an individual who is creating domestic
policy and wanting to take over large portions of the U.S. economy, all
based upon what he says he will do or what his policies will do for you.
If any of the charges against President Clinton are found to be true,
that puts a very serious question out into the open ... should you trust,
based upon this man's word, that what he says he is going to do for
really will be done?
Brad Kepley
>critics don't agree with him and his policies they should argue the
>issues. Not his sexual pecadillos 10 years ago.
Three years ago I'm afraid.
Michael DeLong
>>
>> I'm curious about this. How is she going to prove her case? Are there
>> witnesses? Will it be just her word against that of the President?
>>
>> Can someone provide more info on this?
Apparently there are people who claim that Jones told them about
the alleged event back in 1991, soon after it was alleged to have
happened. That would make her case stronger, provided that they
are willing to testify, of course.
What would make it even stronger would be if the state troopers in
question would surface.
It will be interesting to see what parallels there are between this
case and the Clarence Thomas fiasco.
Mike.
Alex Grissom
>bad that his luck had to run out just now, hopefully more fun is on the way.
>
> this lying sack of shit is gonna get his payback now. maybe he'll take the
>honorable way out ala Foster.
>
> what'll really be fascinating is seeing how the media is going to play this
>issue. they've been saving his ass left and right but it seems that
>they'll finally run out of excuses. they're in the indefensible
>position of having to defend an abuser of womankind of which many have
>Feminists ? not a peep to be heard, they're all hiding under their rocks !
I have been reading this dumbass newsgroup to try to get some concrete
info on what is happening with whitewater. All I get is inuendo and
lies based on what some people hope will happen. To wish that Clinton
commits suicide is going a little far. It really doesn't concern me
what you think of him personaly or if you personaly wish him dead but
what would happen to the country and the us's place in the world if
this actually happened. Why don't you go get a gun and put us out of
your misery....
---------------------------------Later---------------------------------
Alex Grissom ** Thank Me, I voted for Clinton!! **
Caroline Animal Hospital
Milford, Va.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Grissom
>>issue. they've been saving his ass left and right but it seems that
>>they'll finally run out of excuses. they're in the indefensible
>>position of having to defend an abuser of womankind of which many have
>>been sacrificed on the altar of Feminism. speaking of which , where are the
>>Feminists ? not a peep to be heard, they're all hiding under their rocks !
>
>not YOU, Paula!"
There is a difference in the motives for the two. Maybe the so called
feminists are waiting until the information is brought out in court to
judge him and not do it based on some trumped up unsubstantiated (?) charges.
Alex Grissom
>>witnesses? Will it be just her word against that of the President?
>
>employee and Clinton was Governor of Arkansas. While at some function,
>Clinton saw her and had state troopers escort her to a hotel room. Once in
>the room, Clinton approached her sexually and asked her to perform specific
>sex acts. She refused.
>>
> The DAY IT HAPPENED (1991), Jones told at least six of her friends.
>Last I heard, three of them had signed statements under oath as to what she
>told them the day it happened; her concern about reporting to police
>(because she was escorted there BY the police), concern over losing job
>since Clinton was her boss, exact details of what Clinton said and did, etc.
Why is she coming forth now? Who's paying for her lawyers? Why is she
not concerned about the president taking her $6.50/hr temp job away
from her when she was concerned about the govenor?
Kevin W. Hammond
Alex Grissom <p00...@psilink.com> wrote:
>>In article <jakalaCp...@netcom.com>,
>>henry jakala <jak...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>Not true! I heard a chorus plainly exclaim, "We believe you, Anita... but
>>not YOU, Paula!"
>
>There is a difference in the motives for the two. Maybe the so called
>feminists are waiting until the information is brought out in court to
>judge him and not do it based on some trumped up unsubstantiated (?) charges.
Would you kindly explain to us what you see as the difference in motives?
Duncan Idaho
Kevin W. Hammond <ham...@ctt.com> wrote:
>In article <94124.124...@uicvm.uic.edu>,
>Tom Ryan, <U54...@uicvm.uic.edu> wrote:
>>More political slop for the hogs, you mean. When did hiring a
>>lawyer become evidence or even an indication of wrongdoing?
>>By the way, he's the same lawyer Caspar Weinberger hired during
>>during Iran-Contra; do you believe he did wrong? I believe
>>Ollie North hired Bennett's partner; did he do wrong?
Uuuh. At the time, these folks were indited, so in liberal-think they were
already guilty. So I guess you're right, they did do something wrong.
Then again, Paula Jones can't afford 475$/hour, or haven't you figured
that out yet.
- D
Duncan Idaho
>>henry jakala <jak...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> what'll really be fascinating is seeing how the media is going to play this
>>>issue. they've been saving his ass left and right but it seems that
>>>they'll finally run out of excuses. they're in the indefensible
>>>position of having to defend an abuser of womankind of which many have
>>>been sacrificed on the altar of Feminism. speaking of which , where are the
>>>Feminists ? not a peep to be heard, they're all hiding under their rocks !
>>
>>Not true! I heard a chorus plainly exclaim, "We believe you, Anita... but
>>not YOU, Paula!"
>
>There is a difference in the motives for the two. Maybe the so called
>feminists are waiting until the information is brought out in court to
>judge him and not do it based on some trumped up unsubstantiated (?) charges.
What a !@#$%'n joke! Since when did *ANY* of Anita's charges *EVER* become
substantiated? Certainly, not in time for the Senate confirmation hearing,
and certainly not since Borck's book all but proves that Hill lied her ass
off. Get a life, bud!
- D
Duncan Idaho
Alex Grissom <p00...@psilink.com> wrote:
[snip]
>> The DAY IT HAPPENED (1991), Jones told at least six of her friends.
>>Last I heard, three of them had signed statements under oath as to what she
>>told them the day it happened; her concern about reporting to police
>>(because she was escorted there BY the police), concern over losing job
>>since Clinton was her boss, exact details of what Clinton said and did, etc.
>
>Why is she coming forth now? Who's paying for her lawyers? Why is she
>not concerned about the president taking her $6.50/hr temp job away
>from her when she was concerned about the govenor?
At the time, I think she was *working* for the state of AR., bud!
And she did come "forward" to tell her friends right away. As per their
affadavits.
- D
Tom Ryan,
>
>How can you say "none of us knows the truth of the situation" and then,
>in the same paragraph, tell us for a fact that "Jones is carrying water
>for some real low-lifes" ?
>
whom I consider to be real low-lifes, Cliff Jackson in particular.
Meanwhile, I'm eagerly awaiting David Brock's "The Real Paula Jones."
Tom
Tom Ryan,
(Nicholas J Stowfis) says:
>>>
>>>*Please* tell me you're not comparing Clinton to Jesus. I think anyone who
>>>does that should have their head examined.
>>>
>>So should people who don't know a figure of speech when they see one.
>
>Oh, gee, is *that* what that was? I guess I was confused, since figures of
>speech are generally only used when they're *relevant*.
In the immortal words of Ralph Malph, good comeback, Potz.
>FYI, Paula Jones has stated that any money she is awarded beyond the cost of
>her legal fees will be given to charity
Please. If she does make anything off this suit, it'll pale in comparison to
the amount she'll rake in on TV appearances, book and made-for-TV deals,
etc. That's where the real money is. And who's paying her attorneys,
anyway? And who hired them? Why won't they say?
>so unless you can prove that someone else is paying her to sue, shut up.
>
Slam dunk! I'm vanquished. Why is it you intolerant right-wingers are
the only ones who are entitled to voice an opinion? And why the
energetic defense of Paula? What'd she ever do for you?
Tom
Nicholas J Stowfis
>In article <2qesq6$k...@netnews.upenn.edu>, nsto...@gradient.cis.upenn.edu
>(Nicholas J Stowfis) says:
>>>>
>>>>*Please* tell me you're not comparing Clinton to Jesus. I think anyone who
>>>>does that should have their head examined.
>>>>
>>>So should people who don't know a figure of speech when they see one.
>>
>>Oh, gee, is *that* what that was? I guess I was confused, since figures of
>>speech are generally only used when they're *relevant*.
>
>In the immortal words of Ralph Malph, good comeback, Potz.
In the immortal words of Richie Cunningham... "Sit on it." I still say
your "figure of speech" is misplaced and irrelevant - Clinton's no saint.
>>so unless you can prove that someone else is paying her to sue, shut up.
>
>Slam dunk! I'm vanquished. Why is it you intolerant right-wingers are
>the only ones who are entitled to voice an opinion?
Oh, I dunno... probably for the same reason you whiny left-wingers have to
resort to insults and personal attacks when the facts aren't on your side.
Conrad
> William Glover (bgl...@netcom.com) wrote:
> : Just heard on the radio that Paula Jones is filing her sexual
> : harrassment suit. This Thursday at a news conference they will
> : announce the action.
>
> Let's assume everything she alleges is true. So what? Since when is a
> single pass, a crude one at that, sexual harassment?
>
> The right wing just doesn't get it: unless Clinton can be found guilty of
> raping a nun when he was governor of Arkansas these charges won't stick.
>
> Clinton's no saint; his marriage is probably a sham by now. But if his
> critics don't agree with him and his policies they should argue the
> issues. Not his sexual pecadillos 10 years ago.
>
This does not have anything to do with what happened 10 years ago. She
alleges that it happened in 1991.
mike wright
>>In article <jakalaCp...@netcom.com>,
>>henry jakala <jak...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> what'll really be fascinating is seeing how the media is going to play this
>>>issue. they've been saving his ass left and right but it seems that
>>>they'll finally run out of excuses. they're in the indefensible
>>>position of having to defend an abuser of womankind of which many have
>>>been sacrificed on the altar of Feminism. speaking of which , where are the
>>>Feminists ? not a peep to be heard, they're all hiding under their rocks !
>>
>>Not true! I heard a chorus plainly exclaim, "We believe you, Anita... but
>>not YOU, Paula!"
>
>There is a difference in the motives for the two. Maybe the so called
>feminists are waiting until the information is brought out in court to
>judge him and not do it based on some trumped up unsubstantiated (?) charges.
You mean like they did with Anita Hill? What evidence did AH have? Like
none?
The "Feminism" we usually see on the national level has very little
do with gender, and everything to do with political ideology. "Feminism"
is just another liberal pressure group. What infuriated the Left about
Clarence Thomas was the idea that a black could be a Conservative. This
was anathema to the Left and had to be stopped at all costs. Now that the
shoe is on the other foot, it is interesting to see the "women's groups"
fall silent. Again, it's ideology, not gender. Did the standard Feminist
groups (like NOW, etc.) support Kaye Bailey-Hutchinson in Texas? No, because
she's a Conservative, something else that's just not to be permitted. In
fact, she was called "a female impersonator", because as we all know,
all women politicians _must_ be liberal. The hypocracy is in plain view
for all who would see it.
-----------------------+ My opinions, not my employer's.
Mike Wright |---------------------------------------------------
wri...@lds.loral.com | "The Constitution shall never be construed ... to
-----------------------+ prevent the people of the United States who are
The 2nd Amendment: | peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ..."
void where prohibited. | -- Alexander Hamilton
-----------------------+---------------------------------------------------
mike wright
>>>I'm curious about this. How is she going to prove her case? Are there
>>>witnesses? Will it be just her word against that of the President?
>>
>> The event took place in 1991 while Jones was a $6.5 an hour state
>>employee and Clinton was Governor of Arkansas. While at some function,
>>Clinton saw her and had state troopers escort her to a hotel room. Once in
>>the room, Clinton approached her sexually and asked her to perform specific
>>sex acts. She refused.
>>>
>> The DAY IT HAPPENED (1991), Jones told at least six of her friends.
>>Last I heard, three of them had signed statements under oath as to what she
>>told them the day it happened; her concern about reporting to police
>>(because she was escorted there BY the police), concern over losing job
>>since Clinton was her boss, exact details of what Clinton said and did, etc.
>
>Why is she coming forth now?
Do you mean that she should wait 7 more years like Anita Hill did?
>Who's paying for her lawyers?
If she wins, the President is!
>Why is she not concerned about the president taking her $6.50/hr temp job away
>from her when she was concerned about the govenor?
Because:
A. She doesn't work for the President now, unlike when she _did_
work for the Governor.
B. The President is being held publically accountible now, unlike
when he ran that backwater place called Arkansas.
Red Herring
$47.50/hour, maybe, for Traylor is a run-of-the-mill real-estate
lawyer whom Jones first hired while closing a house:).
So much for a well-financed right-wing konspiracy...
Allen R Sparks
> Slam dunk! I'm vanquished. Why is it you intolerant right-wingers are
> the only ones who are entitled to voice an opinion? And why the
> energetic defense of Paula? What'd she ever do for you?
>
> Tom
I'm not for Paula Jones, and the people who are advancing her cause.
However, after the problems with the Clarence Thomas hearings, it kind
of puts things in perspective for the rabid dogs that were out to get
him. I don't think either of the incidents should have happened.
=== Al
Frank W. Brownlow
embarassed by being named as one of Clinton's girls by one of the
troopers. That sounded like a good reason to me. Then the press gave her
the cold shoulder, the women's groups averted their eyes, and the whole
case snowballed as these things do when people pretend they're not there.
There are two serious issues, first, sexual harassment, i.e., in this
case, using a position of authority to try to procure sexual favors, then
after failing, to try to silence the victim. The second is using state
employees on state time to procure the women. BTW, the current _American
Spectator_ has a fascinating article on the troopers' modus operandi on
Governor Clinton's behalf.
I don't much care about Clinton one way or the other, and I'm certainly
not interested in his private habits, but I do care about the fact that
our country is choking on corruption at every level of government; and
these stories about Clinton's behavior as governor, which now seem to be
well-corroborated, are what we mean by corruption.
Nicolas Tamburri
> Historical revisionism won't wash; the Anita Hill case was too recent.
> The overwhelming mainstream reaction to Anita Hill was "how terrible for her,
> how COURAGEOUS she is to come forward. We need to know the truth about someone
> who could influence public policy so much..." Most people can still
> remember that.
Actually, this is also revisionist. At the time of the CT confirmation
hearings, the majority of people thought she was lying; I remember the
number being in the 60 to 65% range. Interstingly enough, the number
among African-American women was even higher. If you listened to C-SPAN's
call in programs, the majority seemed overwhelming against Hill, but
that is not a scientific sample, of course.
Since then, the "mainstream" media has worked to revise these facts
by insinuating that Hill had majority support. However, you never see
any of these article publish poll numbers supporting their assertions,
unless the poll is for a narrow portion of the population, usually
but not always, feminist groups. Unfortunately, these tactics work,
since even though the event was relatively recent, you, along with
too many others believe the opposite of what really happened.
Another case of "if you repeat a lie enough times, it eventually becomes
the truth."
/nt
(Of course, this has nothing to do with Whitewater. Please note
follow-up, (which is about as close as I can come to a relevant group.))
William Merrill
more will it take? What is going to be the last straw? (With the
Nixon presidency the last straw for me was when he fired Elliott
Richardson.) Will you really stick it out with Clinton to the
bitter end, even even to the point Mrs. Jones subpoenaing
pictures of his body? The Thomas/Hill hearings were bad enough.
Do you want the president and the country to go through an ordeal
that will be an agony worse by far?
The thought is disgusting.
W. Merrill
Nicolas Tamburri
> not concerned about the president taking her $6.50/hr temp job away
> from her when she was concerned about the govenor?
Would you have preferred that she came out with it in Sept. '96?
If she did, would she be more credible then, or now?
She says she wouldn't be doing this if she hadn't seen her name
mentioned in the American Spectator. It's either that, or she saw
her name and realized she can capitalize on it. This is one matter
where speculation is really unfounded simply due to lack of facts.
I think this one is for the courts to decide, and I don't look
forward to the hearings. It is one thing to oppose a President's
policies, but a publicly embarrased and ineffectual president is
just bad for the country. (Which is not to minimize the offense.)
/nt
Mark O. Wilson
|>In article <jakalaCp...@netcom.com>,
|>henry jakala <jak...@netcom.com> wrote:
|>>
|>> what'll really be fascinating is seeing how the media is going to play this
|>>issue. they've been saving his ass left and right but it seems that
|>>they'll finally run out of excuses. they're in the indefensible
|>>position of having to defend an abuser of womankind of which many have
|>>been sacrificed on the altar of Feminism. speaking of which , where are the
|>>Feminists ? not a peep to be heard, they're all hiding under their rocks !
|>
|>Not true! I heard a chorus plainly exclaim, "We believe you, Anita... but
|>not YOU, Paula!"
|There is a difference in the motives for the two. Maybe the so called
|feminists are waiting until the information is brought out in court to
|judge him and not do it based on some trumped up unsubstantiated (?) charges.
This sounds more like Anita's testimony than what we have heard to date about
Paula's.
--
Mob rule isn't any prettier merely because the mob calls itself a government
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Wilson's theory of relativity: If you go back far enough, we're all related.
Mark.O...@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Mark O. Wilson
|>>I'm curious about this. How is she going to prove her case? Are there
|>>witnesses? Will it be just her word against that of the President?
|>
|> The event took place in 1991 while Jones was a $6.5 an hour state
|>employee and Clinton was Governor of Arkansas. While at some function,
|>Clinton saw her and had state troopers escort her to a hotel room. Once in
|>the room, Clinton approached her sexually and asked her to perform specific
|>sex acts. She refused.
|>>
|> The DAY IT HAPPENED (1991), Jones told at least six of her friends.
|>Last I heard, three of them had signed statements under oath as to what she
|>told them the day it happened; her concern about reporting to police
|>(because she was escorted there BY the police), concern over losing job
|>since Clinton was her boss, exact details of what Clinton said and did, etc.
|Why is she coming forth now? Who's paying for her lawyers? Why is she
|not concerned about the president taking her $6.50/hr temp job away
|from her when she was concerned about the govenor?
Clinton does not have the direct authority over her now, that he did then.
Alex Grissom
>>>In article <jakalaCp...@netcom.com>,
>>>henry jakala <jak...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Not true! I heard a chorus plainly exclaim, "We believe you, Anita... but
>>>not YOU, Paula!"
>>
>>There is a difference in the motives for the two. Maybe the so called
>>feminists are waiting until the information is brought out in court to
>>judge him and not do it based on some trumped up unsubstantiated (?) charges.
>
>Would you kindly explain to us what you see as the difference in motives?
Anita hill did not come out with her charges (publically) voluntarily
and was trying to stop a man she thought was unqualified for the job
from getting on the supreme court. If P. Jones had the same motives
(and not financial gain) why didn't she file the suit when clinton was
running for president?
Brad Kepley
>Anita hill did not come out with her charges (publically) voluntarily
true.
>and was trying to stop a man she thought was unqualified for the job
>from getting on the supreme court.
Because she was assured that her name would be kept quiet, she could slander
Thomas without fear of being revealed. Whatever her motivations, they
weren't honorable.
Ken Zuroski
You're confusing the magnitude of the problems the two Presidents had.
For Nixon, not only was there political innuendo and accusation, there
were very real legal problems such as being named as an unindicted
co-conspirator to a felony by (I think) the Supreme Court, among other
things. When Clinton is shown to have broken laws such as this, then
I'll be the first to say he ought to go.
Otherwise all the other stuff to have come down on Clinton COULD be
mere smearing and political innuendo--perhaps the stuff that any
president, Republican or Democrat, will have to experience from now
on, in these increasingly bitter political waters.
So yes, let's have Whitewater hearings--let's see what comes out of
them. But we're nowhere near the "last straw" yet.
---
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ken Zuroski
Carnegie Mellon University
Pittsburgh, PA 15213 USA
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
David Miller
: In message <2qo917$2...@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>,
: >A question for all you Clinton Apologists out there. How much
: >more will it take? What is going to be the last straw?
: >Do you want the president and the country to go through an ordeal
: >that will be an agony worse by far?
: >The thought is disgusting.
: You're confusing the magnitude of the problems the two Presidents had.
: For Nixon, not only was there political innuendo and accusation, there
: were very real legal problems such as being named as an unindicted
: co-conspirator to a felony by (I think) the Supreme Court, among other
I appreciate that you want your Clinton to look as good as possible, but I
*really* *doubt* that the Supreme Court had anything to do with Watergate.
: things. When Clinton is shown to have broken laws such as this, then
: I'll be the first to say he ought to go.
[snip]
: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
: Ken Zuroski
: Carnegie Mellon University
: Pittsburgh, PA 15213 USA
: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--
David Miller Usual disclaimers apply
Maine State Government
Tom Ryan,
isd...@gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us (David Miller) says:
>
>: You're confusing the magnitude of the problems the two Presidents had.
>: For Nixon, not only was there political innuendo and accusation, there
>: were very real legal problems such as being named as an unindicted
>: co-conspirator to a felony by (I think) the Supreme Court, among other
>
>I appreciate that you want your Clinton to look as good as possible, but I
>*really* *doubt* that the Supreme Court had anything to do with Watergate.
Well, it was the Supremes' decision in US v Nixon that ultimately forced
him to give up the smoking gun tape that led to his resignation a
few weeks later.
Tom
Alex Grissom
>|not concerned about the president taking her $6.50/hr temp job away
>|from her when she was concerned about the govenor?
>
>Clinton does not have the direct authority over her now, that he did then.
>--
state government. He has far more at his disposal to go after her now
than before. Besides he hasn't been govenor for a year and a half.
Ed Cannon
[...]
>She says she wouldn't be doing this if she hadn't seen her name
>mentioned in the American Spectator. It's either that, or she saw
>her name and realized she can capitalize on it.
If Bill Clinton did what she says he did, any other motivation
Paula Jones may or may not have is irrelevant.
>This is one matter
>where speculation is really unfounded simply due to lack of facts.
It was even moreso in the case of Anita Hill versus Clarence Thomas.
>I think this one is for the courts to decide,
Which means what, considering numerous recently notorious trials:
Menendezes, Bobbitts, Rodney King & LAPD officers, etc.? I'm am
very sorry to say that many of our courts no longer deal with
justice.... And Bill & Hillary Clinton & Co. are currently
the people who will be selecting a large number of federal judges
(after already replacing all the U.S. attorneys).
>and I don't look
>forward to the hearings. It is one thing to oppose a President's
>policies, but a publicly embarrased and ineffectual president is
>just bad for the country.
If he is a bad president with bad policies, perhaps the BEST we
can hope for is that he be embarrassed and ineffectual -- a
virtual lame duck -- until we can elect a qualified successor.
>(Which is not to minimize the offense.)
If he did it and gets away with it, the offense will have been
minimized, and that would be very bad for the country.
I wish I could even hope he didn't do it, but his moral corruption
has been fairly obvious since before the election.
I really do hope we have worthy candidates in 1996....
Ed Cannon
"Lathe biosas."
Ken Zuroski
You're kidding. Who do you think Nixon fought all those battles with about the
tapes with? The court case was U.S. vs. Nixon. The judiciary branch of the
government was coming down on him on one side with a possible indictment,
the legislative on the other with impeachment.
A really good book on Watergate is Kutler's "The Wars of Watergate."
---
Ken Zuroski
>
>If he is a bad president with bad policies, perhaps the BEST we
>can hope for is that he be embarrassed and ineffectual -- a
>virtual lame duck -- until we can elect a qualified successor.
Although some of us think that while he is perhaps not the very ideal
president one could wish for, he is at least enacting policies that
are doing something to better the country at large--to some extent, at
least. From my perspective, during the Bush years, unemployment was
up, people were getting desperate, and none of the Republican
candidates were addressing the issues that concerned middle
America--and, in fact, some of them were downright scarey with their
demogoguery. Clinton was among the most conservative of the Democrats
running. Now unemployment is down, the economy is up, and we have a
strange condition of the White House disagreeing with the Federal
Reserve's decision to raise interest rates--a rather conservative
stance to take by a President. So I think my answer to the question:
"Are we better off than two years ago?" would be, yes, in many ways.
When Bush was in office, I could never remember ever hearing any sort
of message coming out of the White House. I'm in education, and there
was a couple of years there in the midst of the recession when our
graduating students just weren't finding jobs--companies just weren't
hiring. I used to listen to the radio pretty carefully to hear what
Bush was going to do about it, but he never really took a stance--all
he ever said were things like "people should buy more cars and
houses." In contrast, Clinton's been proposing all sorts of policy
changes. Like them or hate them--and I don't agree with all of them
myself, i.e., the assault gun ban--at least someone's trying to do
something. This is better than what we had.
I guess it's the Republican's right to try to demolish Clinton's
credibility while he's in office. Maybe it's even their
responsibility, acting as a watchdog. But in my eyes the better way to
beat Clinton in '96 would simply be to find a better leader to put up
for election. I'd be the first to vote for a Republican with a
coherent agenda, with focused, specific ideas, who is ready to put forth
programs to deal with all the mess that's cropping up in the country.
>
>
>I wish I could even hope he didn't do it, but his moral corruption
>has been fairly obvious since before the election.
You know, I've been thinking a lot about presidents' moral corruption,
since a lot of people are using that term in conjunction with
Clinton's name recently. I daresay that there is some truth in what
people say about Clinton being a little oily perhaps. Still, I wish
people in search of the "truth" would try to balance the issue a
little. I think for example of Bush who basically killed 200,000
Iraqis in the Gulf War for . . . I'm not sure what for. I never could
figure out what that war was about. I guess to ensure our supply of
oil? I never felt too comfortable about that, especially since we
never went after Hussein in the end, let some loose strings lie there,
this after making him out as being some kind of neophyte Hitler that
had to be destroyed at any cost. But people have short memories.
You may disagree with me about the moral rectitude of that war, but I
just want to point out that there are all sorts of degrees and kinds
of presidential morality that one can point to and shake a finger at.
And not all of these lie with Clinton.
>
>I really do hope we have worthy candidates in 1996....
So do I. That would be best for all the people.
Jerry Heyman
>
> Although some of us think that while he is perhaps not the very ideal
> president one could wish for, he is at least enacting policies that
> are doing something to better the country at large--to some extent, at
> least.
Somewhat debatable. His budget (now in effect for 7 months) has more spending
in it then previous budgets - and also includes the largest tax increase in
this nations history.
> From my perspective, during the Bush years, unemployment was
> up, people were getting desperate,
In the first half of the Bush years - that wasn't the case. Things didn't
really start slowing down until after the 1990 budget deal. And the recovery
that you're pointing out to started in August 1991 according to economists of
both parties.
> and none of the Republican
> candidates were addressing the issues that concerned middle
> America--and, in fact, some of them were downright scarey with their
> demogoguery.
I'll agree with this
> Clinton was among the most conservative of the Democrats
> running. Now unemployment is down, the economy is up, and we have a
> strange condition of the White House disagreeing with the Federal
> Reserve's decision to raise interest rates--a rather conservative
> stance to take by a President. So I think my answer to the question:
> "Are we better off than two years ago?" would be, yes, in many ways.
Depends on your perspective. Are you looking to buy a house? With the
Fed raising interest rates, mortgages are now higher than they were when
Mr. Clinton was elected - as are short/long term interest rates. Remember
that the budget deficit projections are all based on low interest rates.
Do I have more money? No. My taxes have gone up faster than my salary.
Since Mr. Clinton is in office, I don't believe that I'm better off.
> When Bush was in office, I could never remember ever hearing any sort
> of message coming out of the White House. I'm in education, and there
> was a couple of years there in the midst of the recession when our
> graduating students just weren't finding jobs--companies just weren't
> hiring. I used to listen to the radio pretty carefully to hear what
> Bush was going to do about it, but he never really took a stance--all
> he ever said were things like "people should buy more cars and
> houses."
Is it the responsibility of the WH (or the government) to make sure that
everyone has a job? This might sound rather cold, but the only way to
guarantee something like this is to either hire them (making more gov't
workers - hence raising taxes to pay for them), or providing business
incentives to companies to hire more people. One of the best incentives
is to reduce the taxes that they have to pay. They'll have more money then
to invest and hire more workers. Sorry, but the wonderful 1990 budget
deal (reproduced again in 1994) raised taxes.
> In contrast, Clinton's been proposing all sorts of policy
> changes. Like them or hate them--and I don't agree with all of them
> myself, i.e., the assault gun ban--at least someone's trying to do
> something. This is better than what we had.
Okay, let me see if I understand this. Find a problem (in this case murder),
outlaw a specific type of gun that is used in < 1% of the cases, and now
we've done something about the problem (murder). Assuming that the ban
is 100% effective that means we've reduced the problem by 1% - sounds like
style over substance to me. When was the last time a gov't ban was successful?
Prohibition? Drugs?
Now before you jump all over me for being a rabid Republican, I consider
myself a fiscal conservative and libertarian on other issues. I didn't vote
for either Bush or Clinton because I thought they were cut from the same cloth
- they just showed whichever edge was necessary when the voters asked a
question.
jerry
--
Jerry Heyman e-mail : je...@austin.ibm.com
AIX Performance Tools MS 9632 "Software is the difference between
IBM RISC System/6000 Division hardware and reality"
Austin, TX 78758 *** All opinions are MY opinions and NOT IBM's
Allen R Sparks
> If he is a bad president with bad policies, perhaps the BEST we
> can hope for is that he be embarrassed and ineffectual -- a
> virtual lame duck -- until we can elect a qualified successor.
If we had a parliamentary form of government, we could get rid of the
Prime Minister without waiting for the next election, without having
to impeach, and without a constitutional crisis. === Al
Allen R Sparks
> >: You're confusing the magnitude of the problems the two Presidents had.
> >: For Nixon, not only was there political innuendo and accusation, there
> >: were very real legal problems such as being named as an unindicted
> >: co-conspirator to a felony by (I think) the Supreme Court, among other
> >
> >I appreciate that you want your Clinton to look as good as possible, but I
> >*really* *doubt* that the Supreme Court had anything to do with Watergate.
>
> You're kidding. Who do you think Nixon fought all those battles with about the
> tapes with? The court case was U.S. vs. Nixon. The judiciary branch of the
> government was coming down on him on one side with a possible indictment,
> the legislative on the other with impeachment.
Lots of clarification needed here. The Supreme Court did order Nixon
to turn over the tapes. It was a unanimous (8-0, with one justice
recusing himself) decision. However, the Supreme Court was not
involved in any indictments. Grand Juries (including the one that
named Nixon an unindicted co-conspirator) are convened by District
Courts in the Federal Government.
=== Al
Tom Ryan,
Why stop there? If we had a monarchy, we wouldn't be able to
do anything at all. If we lived in Singapore, many of us would
be caned, at least, for saying things that get said, for example, in these
newsgroups. If we had a military dictatorship, many of us would
be taken out and shot. People around the world die every day for
the right to publicly call their leaders lying, whoremongering, immoral
sacks of shit, with no reprisals whatsoever. Let's be happy with
what we've got, eh?
Tom
Rick Ryan
>and was trying to stop a man she thought was unqualified for the job
>from getting on the supreme court. If P. Jones had the same motives
>(and not financial gain) why didn't she file the suit when clinton was
>running for president?
Alex,
You don't seriously contend that this is the issue do you? Even if,
in argument, your anaylsis of the motives of the alleged victims is
correct, since when in our system of jurisprudence has the victim's
motives after the act been an issue in determining if the offender
violated the law? Perhaps it has something to do with public opinion,
but not with justice.
If the man committed criminal or civil wrongs against the victim, the
law allows and he deserves IMHO punishment..
RhR | If a nation expects to be ignorant and
| free...it expects what never was and
rhr...@delphi.com | never will be. Thomas Jefferson (1816)
====================================================================
Ken Zuroski
>
>>
>> Although some of us think that while he is perhaps not the very ideal
>> president one could wish for, he is at least enacting policies that
>> are doing something to better the country at large--to some extent, at
>> least.
>
>Somewhat debatable. His budget (now in effect for 7 months) has more spending
>in it then previous budgets - and also includes the largest tax increase in
>this nations history.
But generalizing from specific data points is always difficult to do.
His administration has also cut the fat out of many portions of
government spending. He's advocating welfare reform and many other
policy overhauls that most rational people agree are things that need
to be fixed.
>
>
>> Clinton was among the most conservative of the Democrats
>> running. Now unemployment is down, the economy is up, and we have a
>> strange condition of the White House disagreeing with the Federal
>> Reserve's decision to raise interest rates--a rather conservative
>> stance to take by a President. So I think my answer to the question:
>> "Are we better off than two years ago?" would be, yes, in many ways.
>
>Depends on your perspective. Are you looking to buy a house? With the
>Fed raising interest rates, mortgages are now higher than they were when
>Mr. Clinton was elected - as are short/long term interest rates. Remember
>that the budget deficit projections are all based on low interest rates.
Well, yes, in fact I just bought a house. The financing rate was very
attractive.
>
>Do I have more money? No. My taxes have gone up faster than my salary.
>Since Mr. Clinton is in office, I don't believe that I'm better off.
Well, as you say, it depends on your perspective. I see more of my
students finding employment than during the Bush years.
>
>> When Bush was in office, I could never remember ever hearing any sort
>> of message coming out of the White House. I'm in education, and there
>> was a couple of years there in the midst of the recession when our
>> graduating students just weren't finding jobs--companies just weren't
>> hiring. I used to listen to the radio pretty carefully to hear what
>> Bush was going to do about it, but he never really took a stance--all
>> he ever said were things like "people should buy more cars and
>> houses."
>
>Is it the responsibility of the WH (or the government) to make sure that
>everyone has a job? This might sound rather cold, but the only way to
>guarantee something like this is to either hire them (making more gov't
>workers - hence raising taxes to pay for them), or providing business
>incentives to companies to hire more people. One of the best incentives
>is to reduce the taxes that they have to pay. They'll have more money then
>to invest and hire more workers. Sorry, but the wonderful 1990 budget
>deal (reproduced again in 1994) raised taxes.
I'm all for free enterprise and for having as little government
interdiction as possible, but history shows that when some critical
mass of people find themselves at their wits' end in trying to put food
on the table, they get desperate. Not that we were near the point of
revolution at the time of the last election, but high unemployment is a
major engine driving social discontent; and it's something that can't
be ignored if we want to maintain a stable social condition and keep
the majority of people happy.
All I'm saying is while this may be a factor that can be ignored from
an economic standpoint, or rather, argued away, from a social and
polical standpoint these things become very important, for those who
want to acknowledgement the complexity of societal workings. Again,
I'm not arguing the economics--I'm just saying that if you're
President and you want to stay in office, you've got to make sure the
majority of the voters are above some threshold of feeling secure.
>
>> In contrast, Clinton's been proposing all sorts of policy
>> changes. Like them or hate them--and I don't agree with all of them
>> myself, i.e., the assault gun ban--at least someone's trying to do
>> something. This is better than what we had.
>
>Okay, let me see if I understand this. Find a problem (in this case murder),
>outlaw a specific type of gun that is used in < 1% of the cases, and now
>we've done something about the problem (murder). Assuming that the ban
>is 100% effective that means we've reduced the problem by 1% - sounds like
>style over substance to me. When was the last time a gov't ban was successful?
>Prohibition? Drugs?
Like I said, I don't necessarily agree with certain policy decisions
he's made. But to again emphasize what got cut off from my original
post: when the Republicans put up a better candidate, I'll be the
first to vote for him, and I mean that sincerely. I'm no Clinton
apologist. If there's someone with a more coherent vision, a better
plan, with greater intelligence, who can explain things to me in ways
I can understand and trust--put him (or her) up for election. I'll be
glad to vote for him.
>
>Now before you jump all over me for being a rabid Republican, I consider
>myself a fiscal conservative and libertarian on other issues. I didn't vote
>for either Bush or Clinton because I thought they were cut from the same cloth
>- they just showed whichever edge was necessary when the voters asked a
>question.
And the only difference, then, between you and me, in terms of how we
cast our vote, at least, is that I voted for whom I thought was the
better man for the job, from the small selection I was given to choose
from. And I think he was still the better choice in the long run,
despite the various problems that have spotted his career. And all I'm
saying is that I get tired of hearing people slamming Clinton at every
opportunity. Not that he doesn't maybe deserve it; but it's so
unproductive and monotonous after a time. I can't remember the last
time I turned on a radio talk show and heard "issues" being discussed,
but rather who is accusing who of sleeping with who and who's dropping
his pants and marks on the penis and whatever. I see this kind of
attack politics as going nowhere and ultimately helping no one; and I
don't see it helping raise the social and political consciousness of
the country; it's getting depressing to me, a bit, and I'm starting to
tune it out. So all I'm saying is that instead of my attemping to
expend so much energy trying to filter out the lies and the truths to
the stuff that consumes the media nowadays, I just encourage the
GOP to put up a decent alternative and I'll consider him. That seems
like the solution that would satisfy all moderates, Democrats and
Republicans alike.
Alex Grissom
>>single pass, a crude one at that, sexual harassment?
>
>It is if, as she claims, she was repeatedly bothered afterwards by the same
>trooper, trying to arrange more meetings, and later denied promotion for
>dubious reasons (supposedly because she blew Clinton off - remember, she
>was a state worker). If there is *any* truth to any of this, then it *was*
>sexual harrassment. Guess we'll have to wait and see...
I just read in the paper that she was given at least 4 raises after the
incident and that at least one was a "merit" raise. What does she
alledge clinton did to her career (sp)? I know she got those raises to
cover up the incident in the hotel room... That clinton sure is tricky...
---------------------------------Later---------------------------------
Alex Grissom ** Go in peace, serve the Lord
Caroline Animal Hospital Thanks be to God **
Milford, Va.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
mike wright
>
>Anita hill did not come out with her charges (publically) voluntarily
>and was trying to stop a man she thought was unqualified for the job
>from getting on the supreme court. If P. Jones had the same motives
>(and not financial gain) why didn't she file the suit when clinton was
>running for president?
I must have forgotten; what corroborating evidence did Anita Hill have
for her allegations? And what was her explanation for her following
Clarence Thomas to his new job _after_ the alleged incidents took place?
Ken Zuroski
ma...@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU (Michael DeLong) writes:
>In article <ecannon.51...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu>, eca...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu (Ed Cannon) writes:
>>>
>Right now, despite all the trouble he's having, I can't help but
>believe Clinton is a shooin for the Democratic nomination.
>And who do the Republicans have to offer?
>
>Quayle, Buchanan, Kemp, Bennett, and Dole.
>
>And they really only have one of {Kemp, Bennett}, since the two of
>them are likely to decide between them who's going to get the
>support of Empower America.
And I heard Dole has cancer, though I don't know if that's true or
not.
>
>Any comments?
>
>Mike.
>
>--
>del...@virginia.edu.
Don Holzworth
|> > was a couple of years there in the midst of the recession when our
|> > graduating students just weren't finding jobs--companies just weren't
|> > hiring. I used to listen to the radio pretty carefully to hear what
|> > Bush was going to do about it, but he never really took a stance--all
|> > he ever said were things like "people should buy more cars and
|> > houses."
I realize it's bad form to flame someone for grammatical errors
on posts. However, since this person claims to be "in education",
maybe we can see why "there was" years when graduating students
couldn't find jobs. They didn't have the educational qualifications
to land them due to these educators!
Regards,
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
do...@travis.csd.harris.com | Don Holzworth
All opinions are mine alone. | (305) 977-5563
|
"Efficiency is doing things right. Effectiveness is doing the right thing."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brad Kepley
>>And who do the Republicans have to offer?
>>
>>Quayle, Buchanan, Kemp, Bennett, and Dole.
> VP President
>
I guess then we really would have murder in the White House cuz Dole
would probably murder Kemp. :)
Mike Schwartz
|> In article <ecannon.51...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu>, eca...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu (Ed Cannon) writes:
|> >>
|> >>
|>
|> get the candidates they deserve", and if we as voters really
|> deserved Bush, Clinton, and Perot, can we really hope for better in
|> 1996?
|>
|> Right now, despite all the trouble he's having, I can't help but
|> believe Clinton is a shooin for the Democratic nomination.
|>
|> Quayle, Buchanan, Kemp, Bennett, and Dole.
|>
|> them are likely to decide between them who's going to get the
|> support of Empower America.
|>
|>
Colin Powell consistently defeats Clinton in public opinion polls.
"If the election were held today between Clinton and Powell, who
would you vote for?"
It isn't clear that Powell wants to run, or run as a Republican.
|> Mike.
|>
|> --
|> del...@virginia.edu.
|>
Michael DeLong
>>
Now that's a good one. The standard line on this is "The voters
get the candidates they deserve", and if we as voters really
deserved Bush, Clinton, and Perot, can we really hope for better in
1996?
Right now, despite all the trouble he's having, I can't help but
believe Clinton is a shooin for the Democratic nomination.
And who do the Republicans have to offer?
Quayle, Buchanan, Kemp, Bennett, and Dole.
And they really only have one of {Kemp, Bennett}, since the two of
them are likely to decide between them who's going to get the
support of Empower America.
Any comments?
Mike.
Keith Braunwalder
: In article <CpquK...@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> ma...@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU writes:
: >In article <ecannon.51...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu>, eca...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu (Ed Cannon) writes:
: >>>
: >>> I really do hope we have worthy candidates in 1996....
: >And who do the Republicans have to offer?
: >
: >Quayle, Buchanan, Kemp, Bennett, and Dole.
: VP President
: Quayle should return to the Senate.
: Buchanan should run for some elected office besides President.
: Ditto for Bennett.
Quayle is probably the best Republican in your list. Kemp can't complete
a sentence. Dole is a bitter old man who doesn't stand a chance of bringing
anyone together. Bennett is the same dolt who trashed our school system and
brought new gusto the the miserably failed WOsD. Buchanan is history. I
would love to see a viable ticket for the Republicans, but I don't beleive
it rests with these folk. Gingrich seems viable, any Republicans have input
on Newt ?
: -Jeff
Keith
David Strom
credentials, a decent conservative domestic record, and is one of the
architects of the most one-sided war in history--a record which might be
necessary if Clinton screws up in foreign policy at the same rate as he
has so far.
Cheney-Powell ticket? Kemp-Powell? Powell-Kemp?
Bennet is good, but too acerbic to be President. Dole is the consummate
legislator, but doesn't have what it takes to be a good president. Oops! I
better "stop lying about his record!"
We need candidates who represent a new breed of Republican. Break new ground,
but remain conservative in outlook. But we need to break the race barrier
(African Americans tend to be culturally conservative, and could be brought
into the party in good numbers, but certainly not as a block). Kemp could
help do this.
Powell could do it better! But what are his domestic politics? I'm more
comfortable with him as vice-president because he's and unknown quantity.
We need a message of hope--something beyond "less of teh same things that
the democrats propose." As long as the dems are seen as caring, republicans
as smart, republicans will lose too often, especially in congress. We need to
offer new hope, a new "vision thing." Kemp has a good start here, but never
seems to take off in primaries. But Empower America has a good start on a
message.
Buchanon is a liability. He seems to be a nut to many people, andseems to base
his politics too much on "us vs. them." We need a message which brings people
together, even when culturally conservative. We need to expand the base of
the party more than we need to solidify the faithful. And some of those
faithful are a political liability in general elections.
We can win in '96 IF we don't commit fratricide. 60-40 against is my guess.
If we don't have a good message, we have to count on Clinton to commit
political suicide. 50-50 is my guess. But if we want to make major strides
in the long-term, we have to do it by being appealing, not just better than
the alternative of the moment.
my $.02
David
Jeff Bytof (jby...@astro.umd.edu) wrote:
: In article <CpquK...@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> ma...@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU writes:
: >In article <ecannon.51...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu>, eca...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu (Ed Cannon) writes:
: >>>
: >>> I really do hope we have worthy candidates in 1996....
: >>>
: >And who do the Republicans have to offer?
: >
: >Quayle, Buchanan, Kemp, Bennett, and Dole.
: ^^^^ ^^^^
: VP President
: Quayle should return to the Senate.
: Buchanan should run for some elected office besides President.
: Ditto for Bennett.
: -Jeff
--
<dst...@acpub.duke.edu>---->really it is <dst...@carleton.edu>
To know me is to love me. (Except in cases where this rule doesn't apply.)
Deborah Sherry
: >Anita hill did not come out with her charges (publically) voluntarily
Mark O. Wilson
|It isn't clear that Powell wants to run, or run as a Republican.
To the best of my knowledge, Powell has never stated his party preferences.
Though to date, when discussing possible political matchups, I have seen
maybe half a dozen pundits put him in the republican camp, and none put him
in the democratic camp. Though to be fair, the vast majority don't include
him at all since he hasn't made his desires know.
--
Mob rule isn't any prettier merely because the mob calls itself a government
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Wilson's theory of relativity: If you go back far enough, we're all related.
Mark.O...@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
mike wright
>
>Colin Powell consistently defeats Clinton in public opinion polls.
>"If the election were held today between Clinton and Powell, who
>would you vote for?"
This is deceptive, because Powell has no political "negatives" to combat,
while Clinton has plenty.
Ted Kennedy used to score quite high in the national polls until he would
actually start running. Then his numbers would fall like a stone.
Don Holzworth
Gingrich? Boy, distance must change perspective! Or maybe it's all that
distilled potato(e) extract you drink up in Boise. If you think that
Dole is "bitter" then Newt is extract of bitter. BTW, I don't agree
with your characterization of Dole. He is very sharp, very witty, and
very partisan. However, if you saw him at the Citadel commencement on
CSPAN, you saw that wit used on himself and Sen. Thurmond as well. For
someone who lost the use of their right arm in WWII, and was told they
would never walk again, Dole is quite the opposite of bitter. He enjoys
life and loves a good fight. Newt is the same way, but just begining
to come into his own. Kemp is a strong candidate with good grass roots
support among both traditional Republicans and such groups as moderate
Democrats and Blacks. Bennett is forever on my most favorite list for his
remark to a reporter who at a press conference he was holding about
the distribution of condoms in the DC area schools told Bennett, "Abstinence
is a fraud." Bennett replied, "It's worked every time it's been tried."
I've always admired the way Quayle kept his composure and in 4 years didn't
let the constant insults get under his skin. In only a few months on the
job, Clinton showed more rancor at both reporters and subordinates than
Quayle ever did in 4 years. I think that Buchanan has gotten a typically
stereotyped image from the left and their willing compatriots in the
media. But then, so did Goldwater in 1964. I was in 9th grade and I still
remember that election and the Johnson nuclear explosion ads.
In any event, all the people you've trashed are good men and able
people who would be good presidents, IMHO. I suspect that Kemp would
be more able to build the support needed for a successful campaign
because he's seen as less antigonistic than the others.
Regards,
Don Holzworth
Al Sparks
> I realize it's bad form to flame someone for grammatical errors
> on posts. However, since this person claims to be "in education",
> maybe we can see why "there was" years when graduating students
> couldn't find jobs. They didn't have the educational qualifications
> to land them due to these educators!
Grammer is really a form of ettiquete (sic). You don't have to follow
it, but it's considered polite. So since you are going to harp on a
form of ettiquate (sic), I'll harp on your violation of it.
You don't have to quote a whole newsitem to make your point.
=== Al
Mark S. Hathaway
> ma...@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU (Michael DeLong) writes:
IMHO ( In Mark Hathaway's Opinion :-) )
We only get the candidates who want to try and have a lot of money or
can get their hands on it. That limits us to most professional politicians
and mostly rich ones. Once in a while you'll have someone like Perot who
isn't a pro, but still wants to play. Did anyone think he was ideal before
he decided to "maybe run if enough people pleaded and begged him to"?
Is there a forum for people who want to discuss their ideas and from which we
can perhaps select a candidate? How can we know what candidates believe if
we only hear them and about them for a short time during a well planned and
totally fake campaign?
The key issues are money and press coverage. If you haven't got the money
forget it. There are candidates who may have good ideas, but never get heard.
The press recognizes that they (the poor candidates) will never make it and
they don't cover them. Jerry Brown said he didn't get much coverage in the
early-going of the Democratic primary because the tv stations said there were
6 candidates and they (the tv stations could only send out 3 camera crews).
Sounds hokey to me.
How will we ever get a chance to decide about a candidate if we never hear
them through the media?
Money - the love of money - the need and the greed...
Has any candidate in the past 30 years not been beholden to those who provide
the moolah? How can we continue with a government of, for and by the rich?
There are several senators and congressmen who are retiring at the end of
their current terms because they say (if you believe them) it takes way too
much time to raise sufficient money to ensure re-election. They should know.
That's not healthy for our system.
Would the press ever cover a candidate who didn't have a lot of money or
access to a lot of money?
Mark S. Hathaway hath...@muvms6.mu.wvnet.edu
Norman Purves
>Any comments?
>Mike.
The talk nowdays is that the donkey-party is terrified of Colin Powell. He's
in about the same position as Ike was ca. 1950: i.e. in the catbird seat.
Wailing and gnashing of teeth, donkeys? Too bad you don't have anyone the
caliber of Adlai Stevenson to oppose him!
Aloha
Norman
Robert Lewis Glendenning
Mark S. Hathaway <hath...@muvms6.wvnet.edu> wrote:
< liberal deletions by Lew - thank me 8*) >
>
>
>How will we ever get a chance to decide about a candidate if we never hear
>them through the media?
>
>
>Would the press ever cover a candidate who didn't have a lot of money or
>access to a lot of money?
>
This net will ultimately make the media obsolete: we don't need
reporters standing between us and the events/personages any more
than we need priests between us and God. (Great analogy, no? )
So, another reason to watch your words: some of us have net-images
much worse than any of the media images of Clinton, Buchanan, etc.
When the net has video, it will be worse, until we have a new
generation of image-makers, whereupon we will need reporters
again to show (and certify) that the personage with C. Reeve's
looks and Kissenger's brain is, in real life, a human with the
reverse characteristics and a hell of an AI.
Next generation conservatives will argue for the pre-eminance
of humans, the impossibility of wisdom in AIs, ...
Probably, the next generation of politicians will be faulted for
the net equivalent of today's scandals.
Some of the sci-fi has covered some of these aspects, but there
are some wonderful novels yet to be written. A week ago I
commented that we were suffering from bleed-over from
surrealism to reality. One of the major historical events
of our lifetimes will be the overtaking of science fiction
by reality.
Lew
--
Lew Glendenning rlgl...@netcom.com
"Perspective is worth 80 IQ points." Niels Bohr (or somebody like that).
Mike Schwartz
|> In <2r3fs4$5...@news1.svc.portal.com> my...@shell.portal.com (Mike Schwartz) writes:
|>
|> |It isn't clear that Powell wants to run, or run as a Republican.
|>
|> To the best of my knowledge, Powell has never stated his party preferences.
|>
|> Though to date, when discussing possible political matchups, I have seen
|> maybe half a dozen pundits put him in the republican camp, and none put him
|> in the democratic camp. Though to be fair, the vast majority don't include
|> him at all since he hasn't made his desires know.
It was rumored during the 1992 campaign that Perot would choose Powell
as his VP candidate. I would not be surprised if Powell is the Perot
party candidate for Pres. next time...
George E. Turner
>Right now, despite all the trouble he's having, I can't help but
>believe Clinton is a shooin for the Democratic nomination.
>And who do the Republicans have to offer?
>Quayle, Buchanan, Kemp, Bennett, and Dole.
I would like to mention William Weld, the governor of Massachusetts. He's
pro-choice and he has been doing at great job as governor. Dukakis left
the state in horrible financial condition and left Weld the task of
cutting programs and reducing spending. There has been some whining,
especially from state workers, but nothing serious. Weld has zero foreign
policy experience, but at least he is honest.
--
getu...@aer.com (a man with a porpoise)
Michael DeLong
>>
>> The talk nowdays is that the donkey-party is terrified of Colin
>> Powell. He's in about the same position as Ike was ca. 1950:
>> i.e. in the catbird seat. Wailing and gnashing of teeth,
>> donkeys? Too bad you don't have anyone the caliber of Adlai
>> Stevenson to oppose him!
I don't get this. What is there about Powell that makes him
1) Republican?
2) anything like Eisenhower?
Eisenhower was a really big deal because of WWII. What has Powell
done that's anything like that? Granted, he's impressive, an
imposing persona, and he's a household name, but he has come along
during a time when the military doesn't have the stature in the
public eye that it did after WWII, and being JCS doesn't make him
anything like a war hero.
I'm under the impression that Powell has made no political noises
at all. If he's such a strong Republican, why don't I hear
anything about him from other Republicans?
Granted, he's everything Clarence Thomas was and more - he's black,
allegedly conservative, and obviously very intelligent. I've never
heard anyone challenge his qualifications to be JCS.
If the Republicans really need to bring in someone from outside the
party to make their ticket viable, it is indeed a dark day for the
GOP.
Mike.