-=> On 01-27-98  20:23, John Sampson did testify and affirm <=-
-=> to Tom Enright concerning Dufus' Waterloo? <=-
 
 TE> Sorry to delete the rest of your post, it was well written. 
 TE> What has surprised me is the depth of the media and public
 TE> reaction.  Why now?  Why this?  We all know that Clinton
 TE> has done as much or worse in the past.  Was this simply the
 TE> last straw or does the *perceived* vulnerability (youth) of
 TE> the girl have a bearing? 
 JS> Why now? Because as U.S. News and World Report said, the
 JS> American people in  effect said we had a deal. We would not
 JS> look at his past as long as he  behaved in the future. He
 JS> breached his end of the bargain.  This is no B.S.  This is
 JS> what was printed in the above publication. 
RC>I think that's an accurate point. The Dufus made an
RC>implicit promise in that 1992 Superbowl 60 Minutes
RC>appearance that all such activities were behind him. 
That was the thrust of the article in U.S. News and World Report. No "pun" 
intended .  Don Imus on CNBC made a very good point. The American people 
knowingly elected a philanderer and he was only keeping up his part of the 
bargain.
 JS> Also, the girl involved was 21 years old, not that much
 JS> older than Chelsea.  Ergo, it might have been akin to
 JS> incest.
RC>Let us also not ignore the ethical responsibilities
RC>inherent in the mentor-student or teacher-pupil
RC>relationship. Even in most liberal institutions, that
RC>relationship still remains sacrosanct. 
See the comments below re: Commander in Chief.
 JS> Furthermore, this was yet another girl that worked for him
 JS> as opposed to a woman he met outside the sphere of the
 JS> White House. 
RC>If all of those DI's must be court-martialed for their
RC>relationship - in many cases, consensual - with trainees,
RC>then how can their Commander-in-Chief not be held to the
RC>same standard? 
I agree with your statement above. Clinton is the Commander in Chief and as 
such should be equally responsible if not held to a higher standard, as 
those DI's. I wonder where the right Reverend Jesse Jackson is on this, or 
Al Sharpton, or Kweisi Mfume?
Have you noticed that the political allies of Dufus have been VERY silent? 
I mean the likes of Patricia Ireland, the rest of NOW, Jackson, Mfume, 
Sharpton, etc. 
When we were forced to sit through the Clarence Thomas "trial", all of the 
above were very vocal in their support of Anita Hill. Now, they label 
Gennifer Flowers and Paula Jones as "trailer park trash", which is quite 
frankly, to use a liberalism, a code word for "redneck" or "white trash". 
Gee, it sure is enlightening to see all of these wonderfully liberal and 
"enlightened" folks show THEIR prejudices. But does the media mention this? 
Of course not. 
Unfortunately they can't attack "poor Monica" since she's from a well to 
do, and by all implications, LIBERAL family. She's college educated and 
idealistic. So what some people are doing is begining to paint her with the 
"poor Monica she's obsessed" brush. Especially now that the e-mail messages 
have been made public.
And what REALLY frosts my jets is Ginsburg saying that "poor Monica" is 
angry because she's being put through this. Aw..... poor little girl. What 
does she expect? She says one thing under oath in a written statement and 
then does a 180 and says the diametrically opposite to Linda Tripp both by 
tape and by computer e-mail. She lied. It's that simple. She committed 
perjury. It doesn't get any more basic than that. And now she's complaining 
that she's being treated like a, oh my God, criminal! Yep. That's what she 
is allright.
So now that she's angry, what is she going to do? Refuse to testify when 
it's HER turn before the grand jury? I don't think so. Maybe she ought to 
direct her anger at the man who helped put her in this mess. William 
Jefferson Clinton. 
Whew! Boy do I feel better now. 
John , jnsampson@ibm.net 
 "To find reasonable doubt, one must first be capable of reason."
___
 * WR 1.33 [NR] * UNREGISTERED EVALUATION COPY
--- Maximus/2 3.01
---------------