The following exchange is from Dialogue Group 5, Thread 39.

13. Weaken it?
Fri, Jan 1, 1999 - 2:50 AM/EST
Bruce

Could *somebody* explain to me, in clear, concise, simple, easy to understand terms just exactly how this can weaken the presidency? Please? I've heard this idea bandied around so much in general terms that I'm afraid I've lost sight of how this can happen.

14. Presidency In Danager Because
Sat, Jan 2, 1999 - 6:42 PM/EST
ladeyj

Bruce, I see this situation as one that can weaken the presidency because respect is lost, distrust arises, we just won't/can't put the confidence we once had in our government and I think it could take years to recover. We, or at least I, had a great deal of confidence in our system of government, now I am angry, mistrustful, have little to no respect for ALL officials, etc. A similar thing happened with the Andrew Johnson impeachment thing; I have heard it took years for the presidency to recover. We just plain lose our faith. Not good. ladeyj

15. distrust
Sun, Jan 3, 1999 - 7:29 PM/EST
sndy

I personally have distrusted the government since the VietNam War days of my childhood. Then I recovered, to have the distrust surface again over the contra actions of the US government in Nicaragua. I was in college at the time and the FBI/CIA or some such agents used to visit/ enroll in my political science classes to listen for subversives. This, a professor explained, was a left over from the radical days of the 60's. I could never understand why, in 1983, they were still looking for radicals. I had always believed in free speech in the US, but this made us all a bit paranoid, though all we were doing is taking a class called "The Instruments of Empire".

So, the end result is, I never 100% believe everything I hear, so I am not really shocked or disappointed when I find out a politician has lied to us. I kind of expect it. Campaign promises are like advertising jingles, just catch phrases of an ad campaign.

I do think President Clinton has accomplished a lot of good in his time in office and this particular presidency has been weakened by Mr Starr and the impeachment procedings. And many good men/women in the future will not run for office for fear of having themselves and their lives invaded in this horrible, intrusive way.

16. Weakening the Presidency
Mon, Jan 4, 1999 - 10:01 PM/EST
Jb

Bill Clinton may be guilty of a lot of things. He may have been a swindler, he may have participated in wrongful campaign finance etc. He may, as some on the Left say, be guilty of crimes against humanity for bombing Baghdad. He may be impeachable under all kinds of other scenarios, I don't know.

What I do know is that some very powerful, influential people have gone on a little fishing expedition and have gotten a little fish. The fish really wasn't worth keeping, but since they had to prove there were fish in the stream they showed this one off. The whole process has been political from top to bottom. If the President had been treated like a normal citizen this question of perjury would have never arisen regardless of what his answer had been to the question.

Because of this 1) fewer bright, talented and other-wise qualified people will never seek public office for fear of what scandal mongering they might be subjected to. (So many of the "facts" that were so heavily exploited by the media turned out to be either "non-facts" or of very little significance when actually revealed to the light of day).

2) any time a President (of either party) legally elected falls "out of favor" with the House of Representatives the impeachment flag will be waved and a legal election could be over-turned against the will of a majority of the people (coup).

3) these men have prosecuted someone for something almost every one of them is guilty of in one way or another (either he's been unfaithful and lied, or lied under oath about something else, taken or paid bribes and obstructed justice).

We have seen the impeachment hearing of the President of the United States in which the sole witness called was the prosecuting attorney.

That's not American justice. That's American politics.

17. But isn't this impeachment a "good" thing?
Tue, Jan 5, 1999 - /EST
Bruce

Actually, I sometimes wonder if, in an odd, negative sort of way, this whole process is actually a good thing. Why? Well, it points out 1. that when people get behind somebody and support them, such as WJC's supporters have done, don't try to get fast and loose with "witchhunts," because it might just turn around and bite you,.

2. there just might be something to this whole issue of character after all, considering how many people throughout the country are actually concerned about it and voicing their opinions. If the truth became more commonly known about the fact that highly placed officials were doing stuff like this, we might take pause to wonder about *anybody* running for office, and give due consideration to that when they came to us and asked for our votes. We pay them all that money to represent us, thinking that they deserve it because the job is quite time-consuming, and if we find that they've been fooling around while on "our" payroll, we'd have every right to be somewhat outraged. As an owner of several businesses in my time, I'd personally take offense if I found one of my employees goofing off while I'm paying him for that time. Should the president, who is paid by us, be any different? I say no. And I think that this whole impeachment issue can make that point to anybody in the future who seeks an office. They need to know that they're answerable to us, the tax payers who pay their salaries.

19. sndy, Ladeyj, jb, et al
Wed, Jan 6, 1999 - 4:02 AM/EST
Steve41

You are blaming the Republicans, Judge Starr and Congress and Monica and God knows who else for the fiasco in the White House.

Who unzipped his pants, who lied about it to everyone, including you and I? Why did he get caught? Because he lied about what he did with another woman, Paula. The man is a sexual preditor who blames everyone else for his problems.

Who has discredited the presidency? Those who discovered the president's propensity for affairs with women other than his wife. Those who, when questioning him in court, discovered that he lies? Why are we excoriating the messengers and not the criminal?

Do the "good" things you claim Clinton has done out weigh the crimes he committed? Because you think he has done good things for the country, should we excuse the bad things he does? Can I get out of my speeding ticket by explaining that I am hurrying down to the Good Will to donate?

Shall we revisit all our sexual harassment laws, shall we review the sentences of those now imprisoned for actions similar to Clinton's? Where will law and order stand if we allow Clinton to go unpunished? Are we establishing a monarchy with different rules and laws for the leaders and the subjects?

Clinton and Clinton alone is responsible for the shame and degradation of our presidency. Clinton is a liar and cannot be trusted to lead our country.