Postscript. While I have
disagreed with most of the policies of President Obama, I believe that he has
served us well or, at least, to the best of his considerable talent. His inability to compromise lay not with him but with a cluster
of Republicans bent on undermining his Administration. President Obama did not
compromise often enough because he was not in a position to do so. Like the tango,
it takes two to compromise. Besides, he has faced an almost overt racism. Many of
my fellow Republicans disagree with me on this point, often vehemently.
Their argument is that nothing has been said overtly against the President that is racist. I agree. Yet, my criterion is simple, perhaps simplistic. When a Representative like Louie Ghomert says some of the things he does – and he is far, far from alone in doing this – to former Attorney General Holder or about President Obama, I ask myself, “Would (s)he likely say such things, with these words and in this tone, to an unpopular white man with similar views (e.g., President Carter)?”
Their argument is that nothing has been said overtly against the President that is racist. I agree. Yet, my criterion is simple, perhaps simplistic. When a Representative like Louie Ghomert says some of the things he does – and he is far, far from alone in doing this – to former Attorney General Holder or about President Obama, I ask myself, “Would (s)he likely say such things, with these words and in this tone, to an unpopular white man with similar views (e.g., President Carter)?”
Hillary’s ticking slime-balm. BLUF (Bottom-Line, Up-Front). The last human being I want to see anywhere near the White House is President Bill Clinton.
During the campaign, should Secretary / Senator Clinton get the nod, President Clinton will undoubtedly be cited as a President who knew how to compromise and his Administration will be held up as a golden era. Undoubtedly, there is merit to this view. Nevertheless, most of his ‘compromises’ were nothing of the sort; they were concessions of his principles, calculated – in the manner of Senator Cruz – primarily for personal political benefit.
During the campaign, should Secretary / Senator Clinton get the nod, President Clinton will undoubtedly be cited as a President who knew how to compromise and his Administration will be held up as a golden era. Undoubtedly, there is merit to this view. Nevertheless, most of his ‘compromises’ were nothing of the sort; they were concessions of his principles, calculated – in the manner of Senator Cruz – primarily for personal political benefit.
President Clinton
signed the D.O.M.A. bill, a brutally repressive law toward gays. Of course, I am not
proud of the Republican sponsorship of that bill and my uninformed acquiescence to it. The Supreme Court wisely swept that law into the great dust-bin of history. Had
President Clinton had a moral rudder inside his soul, he would have vetoed the
measure and made the Republicans explain themselves.
A Republican Congress,
with some momentum triggered by Mr Perot in 1992, forced President Clinton to
balance the budget. For those who believe the good old days will return with
the election of Secretary / Senator Clinton, please remember Juanita Broddrick and
several other women; Messrs Chung and Huang; a possible even likely betrayal, through permissiveness or outright complicity, of missile
technology to China; cash carrying Buddhist monks; Group Lippo; as well as, other transgressions.
In an aside, and to set the record straight on Monica Lewinsky, whom I judged as severely as anyone else -- considering her a trashy slut -- this Ted-Talk clears up just how brutal the treatment of her was. Beyond shaming, she was simply savaged (https://lnkd.in/dwzXtE2). For my part, I do not recall articulating my nasty and hasty judgement to others; at least, I hope I did not. After all, by then I detested President Clinton. Like him or hate him, the President had taken advantage of his power over a an intern.
While Ms Lewinsky's timely words from 2015 sweep aside the regrettable misjudgement that I and others had made, and the violent verbal abuse too many had puked out, the $19 trillion question still remains: ¿Do we want this kind of man running around the White House, yanking on the levers of power formally, as the Senator / Secretary suggests he will, or otherwise? Count me out.
Additionally, a friend of mine in the military intel trade throughout the 1990s, serving as a uniformed officer in the United States Navy during those years, confirmed in 2008 the transfer of technology secrets to China in the mid-1990s by the Clinton Administration, an action he and his colleagues viewed as a betrayal. He explained that, apparently, President Clinton’s rationale was to forestall another arms-race, this time between the U.S. and China.
If that is true, the rationale makes sense. A question, however, remains unanswered. Why was the President not transparent about this intention?
While Ms Lewinsky's timely words from 2015 sweep aside the regrettable misjudgement that I and others had made, and the violent verbal abuse too many had puked out, the $19 trillion question still remains: ¿Do we want this kind of man running around the White House, yanking on the levers of power formally, as the Senator / Secretary suggests he will, or otherwise? Count me out.
Additionally, a friend of mine in the military intel trade throughout the 1990s, serving as a uniformed officer in the United States Navy during those years, confirmed in 2008 the transfer of technology secrets to China in the mid-1990s by the Clinton Administration, an action he and his colleagues viewed as a betrayal. He explained that, apparently, President Clinton’s rationale was to forestall another arms-race, this time between the U.S. and China.
If that is true, the rationale makes sense. A question, however, remains unanswered. Why was the President not transparent about this intention?
Obviously, President
Clinton knew that the American people and Congress would not permit it. So, at
least to me, it now appears the President Clinton took an extraordinary action
in a manner that the politically paranoid (e.g., me) might view as treasonable. Now,
these various actions provide the elements of why I came to believe that
President Clinton’s impeachment was not “all about the sex” with "that woman...Miss Lewinsky".
Lying about fellatio
was the only piece of the puzzle that Kenneth Starr, working on five separately
appointed 'special-prosecutor' investigations at once, could prove. It was
obvious to me in early 1996, as I stated ad-nauseam at that time to my liberal (soon ex-)girl-friend and repeatedly to very patient friends, that President Clinton would be
impeached and removed from office in his second term. At the time, I was still a faithful Democrat. Think Al Capone and tax evasion.
As one more aside, Kenneth Starr was, and is, a fine public servant. Unfortunately, like so many others (e.g., Christopher Hitchens), the more familiar Mr Starr became with President Clinton, the more he detested him. That intense dislike of President Clinton over-rode his otherwise good judgement to induce him to post, on-line, the content of discussions with Ms Lewinsky and bits of previous telephone conversations, recorded without her knowledge. The intention was to hold the President accountable in a 'no-spin zone' of cyberspace; the consequence was the near destruction of Ms Lewinsky.
As one more aside, Kenneth Starr was, and is, a fine public servant. Unfortunately, like so many others (e.g., Christopher Hitchens), the more familiar Mr Starr became with President Clinton, the more he detested him. That intense dislike of President Clinton over-rode his otherwise good judgement to induce him to post, on-line, the content of discussions with Ms Lewinsky and bits of previous telephone conversations, recorded without her knowledge. The intention was to hold the President accountable in a 'no-spin zone' of cyberspace; the consequence was the near destruction of Ms Lewinsky.
IMPLICATIONS for Senator / Secretary Clinton. Of themselves, these
actions do not necessarily impugn Secretary / Senator Clinton’s candidacy or character.
Frankly, I suspect that, venal as she comes across, the Senator / Secretary has significantly more
integrity than does her husband. She was an effective Senator in New York, though some
of her stances were troubling; that, however, is par for the course for any particular candidate with any particular voter. Her record as Secretary of State is mixed but
not really the stuff of demonology.
An informal assurance (to me) of
the assertion of Mrs Clinton's higher level of integrity is based on how Chelsea Clinton has turned out. This young
woman has emerged into a decent person, despite what must have been a tortuously tortured time growing up. Many
complain about her making a boat-load of money. Yeah, I surely envy that, too.
But the last time I checked, being wealthy does not make a person wicked; a deeply flawed character does.
PARTING THOUGHT: hopefully super-delegates will do the right thing: over-ride dubious candidates -- if the e-mails turn out truly to be damning of Secretary / Senator Clinton -- in favor of others fit for the office of the presidency.
PARTING THOUGHT: hopefully super-delegates will do the right thing: over-ride dubious candidates -- if the e-mails turn out truly to be damning of Secretary / Senator Clinton -- in favor of others fit for the office of the presidency.
No comments:
Post a Comment