McCain was implicated in the S&L scandals of the late 1980s. He was a member of the Keating Five, although Glenn and McCain were exonerated from wrongdoing.
From a purely economic point of view that’s not a bad thing. Markets (with a few important regulations) will take care of themselves. But that doesn’t take into account the social aspects, in which the Republicans have traditionally been found wanting. It’s more a question of the role of government: do you want government to make you fat, dumb and happy, or do you want them to save you from yourself? As usual, the answer lies somewhere in the middle.
I wish that Clinton had resigned and Gore given the oppty to be president for a short period of time. He would have run as an incumbent and been able to show that he was competent.
I think Clinton should have resigned, not because what he did was impeachable, but because he looked us all in the eye and flat out lied to us when he said “I did not have sex with that woman”. I felt personally betrayed by that, just as I imagine many Bush supporters feel betrayed today.
I’m starting to think that the celebrity obsession of our culture is approaching the level of pathology when people believe they have some right to honest answers about the sex life of a complete stranger.
Seriously? I’m not being snarky, I’m honestly curious. I always assumed he’d had sex with that woman, and I was perfectly okay with him lying about it. Why *shouldn’t * he? It’s none of anyone’s business, let alone a matter of national security, and as far as I’m concerned, everyone has a perfect right to lie about their sex life to anyone they don’t happen to be married to who has the bad taste to ask.
seriously?
Now, maybe it’s the romantic in me, but from the getgo, I think we all KNEW he was screwing around (and we knew it before we elected him!), and we also KNEW he’d lie about it. Know why? Because that’s what you do when you’re having an affair.
The impeachment hearings were educational for me, if only because I was able to pick out the other politicos that were screwing around. Hint: it was every last one of those who were ‘outraged’ at Clinton’s affair. Normal men aren’t ‘outraged’ when other guys cheat. They do get outraged when other guys screw up badly enough to potentially mess up their own shit.
Anyway, I just thank my lucky stars that Clinton is still around. He’s the one thing, I believe, standing in the way of an amendment to extend Bush’s term.
Here we go again… this is the last I will say about this before this thread goes off into well-known and fruitless arguments.
The reason it was a big deal is because it came subsequent (or even parallel) to an accusation of sexual harassment, which is against the law. Therefore, his particular sexual behaviors did become relevant. This became even more of an issue when (in my opinion-note the qualifier) he lied about it outright. It then became a criminal issue, and while most people will tolerate lying and very poor decision making, those same people will not tolerate outright criminals, especially those whose crimes are sex crimes, and especially from a representative of a party that is regarded as the champion of women’s rights.
That is the absolute last word I will say on that. Not every thread on Bill Clinton needs to devolve into an argument about the blowjob. I’m simply answering your question and leaving it at that. Be prepared for this thread to go straight down the tubes now.
As much as I strive to keep discussions of this nature on the subject at hand, rather than on the Poster, I must make an exception here. For several years now, Doors, articulate and intelligent as you’re capable of being, I’ve found myself largely dismissing your input on any number of subjects. I thought of you as an *agenda-first/facts-later * kind of guy; the worst kind of Bush apologist (even worse because of your articulate intelligence).
This is a reminder, for me, that when I indulge my own prejudices about a poster, because of positions they’ve held in the past, I’m committing the same crime.
Thanks - that article provided significantly more info than I got at the time, let alone remembered!
The market takes care of itself when its consumers are all fully informed - not only as to the benefits and detriments (both immediate and long-term) of products, but as to the health and safety of working environments, the long-term impact of manufacture and/or product on the environment, etc. It also assumes an “enlightened self-interest” on the part of the consumer. These conditions were a myth when Adam Smith wrote, let alone now, when knowledge and technology have increased so greatly that no single individual can possibly have even a moderate understanding of all of this.
Please, understand, I am not saying that the market system is bad. I don’t even think of it as a system; it’s just a description of what humans do when otherwise unregulated. It will out, regardless of how people may try to suppress it, as was tried for decades in the USSR. Some cultures have a greater innate sense of community welfare (such as Japan - but note that that same culture barely considered non-Japanese as human until comparatively recent times), others less, but primarily people are motivated by a desire for comfort and status/power, for themselves and their loved ones, and this will always lead to a market system, since wealth will buy both.
One question is, how hard do we try to help those who, through no fault of their own (i.e. age, health, lack of education), are unable to compete? The harder we try, the more likely we are to include outright slackers in the bunch. Our justice system was based (at least I was taught) on the concept that better ten guilty people go unpunished than one innocent person be convicted. In this time and place of lavish plenty, do we want to apply a similar ratio, or less, or more? The natural impulse is to say “I and mine have ours; screw you!” But is that what we want to be as a society?
Another question is, how do we deal with the sheer size and complexity of both our nation and our technology? I’m a computer programmer. How do I have any idea what the long term affects of, say, drilling in the Arctic are, both on me, living here and now in NJ, and others separated from me by geography and/or time? If that were the only issue, I could possibly hope to educate myself sufficiently, but it’s only one of thousands, perhaps millions of things that may have an impact on me directly, and certainly are likely to have an impact on others, whether now or in future generations. I’m moderately bright, but not smart enough to learn all that!
But even if I were, we run into the Tragedy of the Commons time and time again. We also constantly run into other ways in which people will rationalize and bullshit themselves into believing that what they are doing isn’t really going to hurt anyone. We possess the enormous ability to live comfortably here in the US. We also possess the enormous ability to destroy the entire planet for all of us. For the time being, we seem to have passed the point where we will do that militarily, but the very strong possibility continues that we will do it ecologically. This is unlikely to affect anyone alive today, except for the basically localized affects of global warming we’ve probably already been seeing, such as increased winter storm activity in the US. But a hundred years hence? Hey, I’m not only childless, but have no nieces or nephews. It’s not my descendants who are going to suffer!
And yet the Republicans, who have, as a party, done everything they could to gut environmental protection laws, are supposedly the party of “family values.” And of Christian values, as well. And yet, I, an atheist and usually a Democrat, apparently care more about their descendants than they do. So I ask Jim, who strikes me as one of the kindest and most well-meaning people I’ve known, why do you self-identify as a Republican? What is it about the Democrats that you find unpalatable?
Nice post about the perils of laissez-faire capitalism, Oy!. The fact that it’s axiomatic for so many people that “free markets work the best” without qualifications or exceptions is indicative of how poorly most Americans understand economics, since even basic economics makes it very clear how the markets don’t and can’t work in the ways we want them to in many common situations.
Excalibre paid me a compliment! Honestly, with no sarcasm whatsoever, this is almost as good as when the Perfect Master responded to me in a thread! Thank you!
(You understand that most of my posts aren’t noticed at all.)
My conspiracy theory still predicts that Bush will have a go at repealing term limits. I say we all whole-heartedly agree to this re-reform, and then vote the little fuck out of office and give Billy-Jeff the crown. Ok…it’s an interesting idea.
As for Gore distancing himself from Bill, it was like this. Billy-Jeff (BJ to his friends) is a pretty tall guy, and he used to like to play that game where you nonchalontly point to your pecker in an attempt to get other people to look to where you’re pointing. Yeah, you know the game, “Meat Gazer” or some such. Well, Al was always falling for it and BJ would rib him mercilessly. Got to be too much for him.
1st: I am a republican because I belong to the Party of Lincoln, Teddy, Ike, Tricky ‘evil’ Dick but he had good policies and Reagan. Mainly I am still a hawk and physically repelled by Ted Kennedy. I am lean towards a fiscal conservative position.
2nd: McCain is a fiscal conservative, not supply side, just small government where possible. I like him, I still think he shows a lot of integrity for a major politician, The Carl Rove Smear job made him bigger in my eyes and he was completely cleared on the Keating 5 scandal, but that goes underreported. He is very pro a strong military but at the same time a smart and clean military.
3rd: Rudy rescued NYC, (IMHO), he reduced crime in every neighborhood, he brought business back to the city, he made it a tourist location again, he cleaned up the city, Quality of life improved, he got people off welfare, and he stood taller than any mayor has ever stood on 9/11. He was the one voice that spoke to America and said remain calm, we are finding a way to handle this and we will survive. Certain High ranking Federal officials have gotten a free ride, despite the cowardly way they hid that day and in addition to the fact, they are draft dodgers. Rudy went to scene of the disaster and did everything possible and much that was impossible to help the city, the survivors and the rescue crews. He could be a jerk, but damn it, he is my jerk.
As a prosecutor and Mayor he managed to get the Mafia removed from many aspects of NYC life, this was impressive in and of itself. He supported the NYPD & FDNY to a fault. Sometimes it was embarrassing, but it re-instilled an esprit de corps that was missing from these great institutions.
4th: As to Hillary, I have never liked or respected her, just her politics. In Arkansas her firm had, what 25% of the Governments work or some outrageous figure like that. She constantly says little things that irritate me. Someone compared Gates to Edison and she went off on a long tirade about how wonderful Edison was and how horrible Gates was. She showed a level of ignorance I did not like. She failed to realize that while a genius Edison was far more dirty that Gates. She moved to NY and claimed to be a Yankee fan, this was silly. I feel she lies easily. This is not what I look for or hope for in a politician. As I believe her policies would be similar to Bill’s, I would support her for President over most right wing politicians.
There is a difference between Fiscal and Social conservatives. Rudy is actually quite liberal socially and moderate fiscally. McCain is pro-life which I do not agree with, but he is not a religious nut or anti-gay. Both are very pro-education. The current ruling branch of the Republican Party is a bunch of Socially Right Wing nutters in my opinion, but the party of Nixon and Ike was very moderate by today’s standards. Nixon probably signed the most important environmental bills in our history or at least since Teddy. Thomas Kean and Christy Wittmann do not fall into the description you made above. They were moderates. I think Kean was our best governor and Christy was at least better than Florio or McGreevy. I am a moderate or Green Republican, I am a Hawk, I like the progressiveness of the Bull-Moose Party. A good moderate Republican should be very pro-small business. They should be for smaller government and no deficits; they should be for a strong military. They should be anti-welfare. Education is a side issue that everyone but the Religious right should be in favor of. I would hope that moderate Republican might adopt UHC, but I do not expect it. It is not really a Republican type of policy. I don’t have to be in 100% agreement with a party to belong to it.
Rudy and Hillary are both Moderates. I like Rudy better, but he has only a small chance of winning the nom, he is liberal and friends with gays (oh the horror). He is tougher than Hillary is and I respect him more. McCain is the appeasement to lull the Religious right into accepting someone who by the rights terrible standards is moderate and maverick. He can win the nom and get elected. Serve one term, retire, and leave Rudy in a very strong position to run and win and finally wrest back my party to the middle.
Jim {geez, sorry about that, it kind of spilled out}
Nah, it ain’t gonna happen. If it DID, it would be only proper to exclude him specifically from being third term eligible, just as Harry Truman was excluded from the two term limit amendment. But even Bush knows that he couldn’t pull this off.
