In his testimony, Clinton denied that any such contact had taken place, and otherwise refused to discuss details. I admit, this makes “truthfully” the wrong word here; more like “without fear of proof arising to the contrary.” As far as the court, and anyone not in the room, knows, Lewinsky serviced Clinton without reciprocation – a scenario that, while perhaps less likely than Ms. Lewinksy’s, is hardly unprecedented.
Ken Starr was not given a mandate to investigate Clinton’s sex life. He fell into it by a message from Tripp. He should have thrown it in the garbage. Vitter got busted for going to whore houses and wearing diapers. He is still in office. If we tossed out every politician who did some sexual indiscretion
the seats would be practically empty.
Clinton lied, but he should never have been forced to endure the questioning. It had nothing to do with his job. It was a witch hunt of the Republican party.
They should have been ashamed.
With respect, I imagine that you have not studied macroeconomics. Most recoveries are built upon cuts in interest rates by the Federal Reserve, growth in the housing sector and growth in personal consumption. But the conventional monetary policy is maxed out: you can’t cut interest rates below zero (setting aside oddities). And the strength of unconventional policy is …untested. Understand me: the Fed has not cut rates to 1/4 of one percent since WWII: they have never run out of conventional ammunition before.
I fear a lost decade, like Japan experienced. And if the US is hit by a substantial adverse economic shock, I can’t rule out a depression, though admittedly 15% unemployment might shock even Republicans to embrace conventional economic theory, as practiced by paid professional business analysts and forecasters, among others. My views on political economy have changed a lot since 2006.
I don’t see any good times coming. if the Repubs get the house, they will toss a monkey wrench into all the potential progress. They will try to get even more money into the wealthy class. They will exacerbate the financial problems with tax cuts to corporations and the wealthy. It is a dangerous policy they have followed and I wish they could see it.
You are very perceptive. 
I appreciate your comments.
hajario: Let me summarize: if we weren’t in a liquidity trap, this wouldn’t matter so much and your take might be roughly accurate. This is actually the 2nd time the US found itself in a liquidity trap: but case #1 was during the Great Depression.
The irony is that big business supports these clowns. In early 2009 Martin Feldstein, head economist under Ronald Reagan, advocated placing additional military spending into the stimulus package. No problem I say. Spending money on anything stimulates the economy. Want to build an electronic wall on the Canadian border and stock the Rio Grande with laser-guided sharks? Great! The only tricky part is that you want to give money to those who will actually spend a big chunk of the funds. You can ground economically sound policies on conservative priorities and even conservative pork. You can build a coalition with know-nothings and throw them some raw meat every now and then. Just don’t put them in charge. It would be acceptable to me if reality-based conservatives dominated the GOP as they used to, instead of being thoroughly marginalized and dismissed as RINOs.
If you work at it hard enough, you can convince yourself that is good for you is, by lucky coinicidence or divine intervention, good for the country. That attitude has been a ruling class talking point for damn near forever. Al Capp’s plutocrat character General Bullmoose: “Whats good for General Bullmose is good for America” is but a parody of Calvin Coolidge’s “The business of America is business.” It is the source of the faith in trickle down economics, and the equally unfounded faith that tax cuts that favor the rich are good for employment.
They believe it because they want to, when half an hours research, if it did not convince them otherwise, would at least give them pause.
And it was quite successful, wasn’t it?
-
He hasn’t done anything impeachable. Yet.
-
That would put Biden in the White House. That’s going to suck just as bad, but in a different manner.
Sure. But a marginal tax rate of 36% rather than 39.6% will only get you so far. Stock markets perform better under Democratic than Republican administrations.
Rising unemployment and lost decades tend to crimp profits and executive pay packages. Or so I imagine. I miss the Robber Barons of the nineteenth century: their attitude was, “The public be damned”. Today’s milqtoast suits complain that a rather mildmannered Obama is being mean to them: they feel like pinatas! Frankly, they need to Man Up.
I suspect the GOP would feel more confident in their ability to beat Biden than Obama.
Actually, it’s a parody of a far more similar statement: “What’s good for General Motors is what’s good for America.” This may or may not have been as arrogant as it sounds, but it is what Capp was riffing off of.
one of the more interesting misquotes that I know:
What he said (which is close, but not as problematic, gutwise)
"Wilson’s actual reply, in full:
“I cannot conceive of one, because for years I thought what was good for our country was good for General Motors and vice versa. The difference did not exist. Our company is too big. It goes with the welfare of the country.”
He has, but you’d have to attack him from the left. For example, he’s bombed countries we’re not even at war with. Or the torture. Or clandestine operations that probably break every international law there is. It would be high comedy to see the Repubs go down that road, but alas.
It’s interesting to watch Dems switch tropes with Repubs. Refer to Repubs several years ago mourning over how Bush failed to convince the public of all those super secret terror plots he was preventing all the time. If only we knew how awesome he was!
…and everyone has a share!
Boehner already announced that he will have a series of investigations as soon as he gets power. The Dems keep doing government business instead of political business. They will never learn to play dirty enough. Repubs love that stuff.
There ya go, that’s the winner. To do otherwise would be politically stupid, and the GOP is far from politically stupid.
If anything does happen on an impeachment front, it’ll be investigations/subpoenas sporadically – if not consistently – cropping up over the next two years. It’d serve as a way to keep “Obama embattled” and “Obama corrupt” memes in front of the populace, a set of go-to talking points for those who rely on such, and potentially serve as a fund-raising line (especially leading up to the 2012 elections).
If, in 2012, Obama doesn’t get re-elected, it all gets dropped. If, OTOH, Obama wins a second term, the foundation is laid for moving forward.
Do we start the clock from now, or from when the new congresscritters are seated?
This past election cycle has plenty of examples of GOP political stupidity. Look at all the races where the conventional Republican would have won, but got primaried out by a Tea Partier who lost.
Jan, of course. The big real crazies don’t get seated until then.
I am taking March in the spread. 