-=> Quoting Roland Balke to Walter Luffman <=-
 RB> The most DAMNING thing about Bubba is and isn't about him and his
 RB> partnerette le criminale (that's partner in crime in French, for those
 RB> of you in Rio Linda) is the fact that the Peepul elected him not once,
 RB> but TWICE! to the prime  office in the country. DOes this lying
That's a fact.  You and I can complain about Clinton all we want,
but he had the support of a plurality of voters twice.  He's a
scoundrel, but an appealing scoundrel...the sort some people will
cheer on, even though they are themselves law-abiding.
 RB> criminal in Presidental pants (well,  perhaps not in them as often as
 RB> he should be) REALLY reflect the country that  elevated him? WIll
 RB> Rogers said that we get the government we deserve...felons  like Bubba
 RB> indicate we are on a Roman decline with Bubba in the role of the
 RB> Emporer Tiberius... or perhaps Caligula?  
He may embody traits of several Roman emperors, as well as other
less-than-savory historical figures.  
In all fairness, Clinton has some good qualities.  He can
mesmerize some audiences, now that he's learned to hold his
speeches down to an hour or less.  He's well-groomed in public.
I believe he really loved his mama.  He had some part (although
cetainly much less than he'd like people to think) to do with
peace talks in both the Middle East and Northern Ireland.  He's
boosted employment by employing lots of of spin-doctors, private
investigators and lawyers.  And his very existence improves the
relative stature of every President before him, and perhaps some
Congresscritters as well.
 RB> Don't get me wrong; I did not IMO waste my votes on him. I rather
 RB> think that  there is still good in this country. For history.. honest
 RB> history will brand this man the criminal of office in this century only
 RB> after two: Hitler and  Stalin.
Most ordinary people are basically good, basically honest,
basically well-meaning.  Clinton happened because many of those
ordinary people failed to vote at all; and of those who did,
the largest single block put their trust in a man who can't be
trusted.  (It didn't hurt his chances that the only opposition
party with the resources to mount a strong campaign failed to
produce candidates who were his equal as campaigners.  Bush in
1992 lost primarily because he broke a campaign promise, as if
that had never been done by any candidate before.  Dole in 1996
lost primarily because he was perceived as too old for the job,
even by senior citizens.)
Now that they (as a group) have lowered their standards by
electing Clinton twice, the voters have a hard decision to make
in 2000: Do they insist that both major parties improve the
quality and integrity of their candidates, or do they just stop
expecting their elected officials to be better than the average
person?  I _want_ to put my faith in the American people, but
I'm not putting money either way until I see who's running in
the 2000 primaries.
Walter, wluffman@usit.net    CompuServe: 74721,3464
... "Reason is hard, but stupidity is fatal." - Goethe
___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/Wildcat5! v2.0
---------------