| January 19, 1999 Those letters keep on coming. The wisdom of my audience is impressive. Dear Mr. Ranter and Raver: Ranter and Raver asks, "Do you think that Ronald Reagan ever cared what his "legacy" was going to be?" Absolutely, especially when he lied about the I-Contra affair. "George Bush is so uninterested about his "legacy" that he has no plans to write an autobiography." Do you think George Bush wasn't concerned about his legacy when he lied about the I-Contra when he ran in '88. The only reason he is not writing an autobiography, at this time, is because he wants to keep everything smooth for the his nephew or cousin who will probably be on the 2000 ticket for the Republican Party. More importantly, a President lying about affairs of the State, i.e. Contra affair, is significantly more serious than lying about matters in one's personal life. Politicing is not reality. It can't be about puritanism because it is run by humans who err. Even if we eradicated the whole of Congress of those who have never 'lied' and started all over, we would eventually end up right where we are. Some would even go as far to say that Clinton is a mere product of the environment of politics.....no, I wouldn't go there because I disagree with that theory. We must think on a macro level. When a country removes its head, it suffers serious ramifications. Both internally and internationally. The question before us is a matter of expediency. Do we really want Al Gore to be the steward of the country for the next two years? What is best for the country? Dear Reader: Thank you for your letter. Your allusion to President Reagan and Iran-Contra is important. A comparison between Reagan and Clinton is very informative. For those of you who do not remember, there was a very real chance in 1987 that Ronald Reagan would either be impeached or forced to resign. But he was not for two very specific reasons. First, when the scandal broke in the Fall of 1986, Reagan committed to full disclosure and cooperation. Everything material to the scandal was disclosed in early 1987 in the Tower Commission Report, which had been appointed by Reagan. Neither the Congressional committee that investigated the scandal nor Lawrence Walsh discovered anything materially new. Instead, Lawrence Walsh spent six years trying to figure out whether the undisputed facts gave rise to crimes. By the way, contrary to your statement, Walsh concluded that there was no evidence that Reagan committed a crime or lied. Comparatively, Clinton treated the Starr investigation as civil war, refused to cooperate and shut down the government for a year while he devoted his life to his defense. By doing so, he inflamed Republicans and divided the country. Second, and this was very significant at the time, Reagan went on national television after the Tower Report was issued and actually apologized. Contrary to Clinton's apology, Reagan did not blame anybody else. While Clinton's "apology" inflamed Republicans, Reagan's apology served to defuse public hostility. The point here is not that Clinton's conduct was worse than Reagan's conduct or visa versa. The point is that Reagan acted responsibly, did not coverup, treated the charges as serious, and worked with Congress to resolve the matter in a manner that would serve the nation. As a result, history will treat Iran-Contra as serious, but an exception to a generally successful Presidency and not a reflection of the character of Ronald Reagan. Comparatively, as a result of Clinton's very conscious decision to place his own interests ahead of the national interest with respect to his scandal, history will treat the Lewinsky scandal as emblematic of the Clinton Presidency -- tawdry, embarrassing and corrupt. Finally, you ask what is best for the country. I believe that a bipartisan vote to remove Bill Clinton would be the absolutely best thing that could happen to this country. A bipartisan statement that a President cannot act as Bill Clinton has acted would be very "cleansing" and beneficial. Unfortunately, the Democratic Senators do not have the cojones to do what is right in the face of polls that show opposition to impeachment. A partisan vote, on the other hand, will have no beneficial consequences to the country as a whole and we will be governed by an impeached President who the majority of Americans believe is a felon. The next two years are going to be surreal. Dear Mr. Ranter and Raver: Wow!!! Nice job of venting. Here's my simplistic view on the subject: Bill Clinton is the best person we could possibly have as president at this time in America. By keeping the Congress and the media busy analyzing and discussing this bullshit, Clinton has prevented them from screwing up the country. I agree that we have not seen any major initiatives from anyone for the past year; who cares. As a conservative, I'm certain you would agree that we have too much government intrusion in our daily lives. For crying out loud, I wouldn't let 95% of these politicians park my car, why would I want them to intrude on my future. The only thing this whole escapade has shown is how irrelevant big government is. So I say - Hail, Hail to Clinton!!! Long Live the King!!! P.S. - If this is going to be forwarded to those who do not know me, I am a social liberal and a lifelong Democrat. Try to explain that! Dear Reader: Thank you for your comments. I agree with much of what you say, up to a point. I have absolutely no political animosity toward the President. He is by no means a conservative, as I tend to be, but he is a pragmatist, and through either luck or intention, he has been fairly hands off toward the economy. In a sense, he personally benefitted from having a Republican Congress, because the fact that any grand plans would have caused bloody political warfare, which this President has no interest in, allowed him to focus on symbolic measures which enhance his personal popularity. Has there ever been a President who has looked forward more to a natural disaster? At the first sign of a flood, tornado, etc., a federal disaster area is declared, the Prez tours in a helicopter, the federal aid flows, and we all feel better about ourselves. All of this is fine with me. Woody Allen once said that 90% of life is simply showing up. And the fact is that Clinton has been the President during an incredible economic expansion that has resulted in budget surpluses. Whether or not he was the "cause," he deserves the resulting popularity that goes with presiding over the expansion. Fair is fair. However, man does not live on bread alone. Man is not simply an economic animal. I disagree with the bumbersticker that says "Whoever has the most toys when they die wins." Man is also political, sexual, social, moral, religious, athletic, etc. And here is where the Prez fails miserably. In many ways, he is simply a terrible human being who could care less about how corrosive he is to the social fabric, which has to be part of the calculus. Look, the S&P 500 went up close to 30% last year. I think we would have been better off if the index had gone up only 20%, but Bob Dole was President. And I don't even really like Bob Dole. Keep those letters coming and thank you for listening. DS |