The following exchange is from Dialogue Group 2, Thread 23.
5. Waiting for Thursday
Mon, Nov 16, 1998 - 10:30 PM/EST
Mary Merth
I have never had a lot of respect for Henry Hyde, who seemed to be a blowhard more than anything else for a very long time. Then the impeachment deal got going, and pundunts (sp?) began saying that he was fair, wise, a good choice to head the committee. Really? The same Henry Hyde that I had tried to avoid listening to for so many years before that?
I don't like the way the material that Starr sent to the committee was released but also realize that not releasing it would just have caused leaks that were partially correct, anyway.
Rep. Hyde changed his tune after the election, which I also didn't like. He (read that as many in Congress) doesn't seem to have a clue as to where he's going. I would hope they could get some definitive guidelines and move on, if the impeachment hearings must be held at all.
I, too, voted for Clinton--one of about 13 people here in Utah. (Laughing at my own joke) I think I knew then that he had problems in telling people the straight story. However, I've been pleased with how hard he has tried to lower debt, work for children, and the elderly. However, I am fascinated that he could leave his core supporters (blacks, lesbians and gays, liberal and moderate Democrats) when he needed to make points with Republicans. Yet these same groups basically have backed him all the way.
Most of all, I'm saddened by the tragic waste of time that has occurred because of the investigation. Think what President Clinton could have done if there had been a quick investigation of his dealings in Arkansas and the FBI files. Think how much energy he could have put into the nation's problems. Think how much time the press could have invested on issues that really matter.
Clinton has blown it, with a lot of help from his enemies. What a shame.
9. Mary Merth
Tue, Nov 17, 1998 - 4:14 PM/EST
Shannon
I think you've said it all for me in your above
post. I'm curious about the actual workings of
the process and ruminate about them out loud.
But you capture my FEELINGS about all of it
perfectly. Thanks.
I do think however that you exaggerate wildy the
number of folks in Utah that voted for Clinton.
Thanks again,
Shannon
10. No, Shannon, I'm not exaggerating.
Wed, Nov 18, 1998 - 12:24 PM/EST
Mary Merth
Shannon,
I wish I were exaggerating. (sigh) Bill Clinton came in third place in the 1992 Presidential election in Utah, behind Ross Perot.
Since then, he has gained some support, with about half of the people as of last month still approving of his work in office. A majority, however, still do not approve of him and think he should resign. (Polls referred to were taken just before the elections.)
Utah's political landscape, although Republican, still has liberals, moderates, conservatives, and right-wingers. Most Utahns are moderate, but we have some liberals. (Whispering: Let's not talk about conservatives and right-wingers; Winston might hear us. (laughing at my own joke)
11. Henry Hyde The Righteous Man
Wed, Nov 18, 1998 - 4:58 PM/EST
WinstonSmith
There was a time that Hyde fought against
aid to underdeveloped nations if that aid
included birth control. He said it was an
afront to his religion. Hyde is a Roman
Catholic. Of course, his religion was not
an issue when he practiced adultery with a
married mother of three for six years. That
was a "youthful indescretion" (he was 46 at the time. Too bad Linda Tripp wasn't assigned to
"get" Hyde by her handlers.
Fascists never fight fair.
12. Righteousness has nothing to do with it.
Wed, Nov 18, 1998 - 5:44 PM/EST
Mary Merth
Winston,
Hyde's political positions have nothing to do with his position on the issues. This man is a political animal in the worst sense of the word. I suppose that's why I never wanted to listen to him and considered him a blowhard.
He moves with the wind--his positions can change as the storm fronts move in.
However, I think you're wrong to label him as a fascist. Why demonize someone who is bad enough as he is? Save the labels for when they're really needed.
Stereotyping has never helped us see issues more clearly. Don't you agree?
Mary
13. Mary Merth--Utah votes
Wed, Nov 18, 1998 - 7:28 PM/EST
Shannon
I meant there were fewer than you said. (G)
He heard you anyway. (g)
Seriously, I'd like to ask you questions about
how you came to be you re: the Morman faith, but I'm not sure how to phrase them. Maybe later. I'm
sure you could answer in a sentence or two. (G)
Take care,
Shannon
14. Hard to offend a Mormon
Wed, Nov 18, 1998 - 8:26 PM/EST
Mary S.
Shannon,
Fire away. You might wish sometime to do this by email, but I have no problem with public discussion on it. Don't worry about how to phrase questions like that. Mormons love to talk about their beliefs. (winking and smiling)
You joke about having so few Democrats within Utah. Sometimes it's not too funny. Even after church leaders urged the rank and file to become involved in the political party of their choice, it didn't help much. For like it or not, even those Mormons not active in politics were still Republicans. (not grinning) However, there is such a thing as a Mormon Democrat, although this species is somewhat endangered.
One more thing: As I understand it--and I'm no expert on this--the word *Mormon* was a derogatory term used in the 1800s. The nickname stuck, so most people call us Mormons. We call ourselves, LDS members (as in members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.) Either name works.
15. Mary S.--re: Mormon
Wed, Nov 18, 1998 - 8:50 PM/EST
Shannon
I looked "morman" up in the dictionary before I
posted--no warning signs there. Can that really
be true? What about the "Mormon" Tabernacle
Choir ? Maybe this is like the distinction
"scotsman" and "scotchman".
Anyway, no offense intended or anticipated. My
qualms about questions had more to do with the
appropriateness of such questions at all and
with their appropriateness on this site. There
does seem to be a feminist (small f) angle that would be appropiate here, but I understand you.
Again, maybe later. LDS it is.
Take care,
Shannon
16. To Mary S. re derogatory....
Wed, Nov 18, 1998 - 9:16 PM/EST
Shannon
I just found something that might be related to
this:
"The Reorganized [LDS] Church does not accept the appellation Mormon because of the association with
polygamy."
This is from the online Britannica Encyclopedia-
at maybe $10 a month - a great bargain.
Ain't the net grand!
Thanks
Shannon
17. poly...
Thu, Nov 19, 1998 - 11:20 AM/EST
andi
what's so wrong with polygamy or polyandry? if all the prospective partners agree to it, why shouldn't they be allowed to get legally married in three-, four- or fivesomes? some european countries are considering allowing homosexuals to get married. here in israel, while the religious right fights against any acceptance of "sexual deviation", the courts have decided that homosexual partners are to enjoy most of the legal rights heteros do.
true, the greater the number of partners involved the greater the possibility of there being problems. but then couples haven't been splendid examples of peaceful cohabitation.
if the relationship is freely entered into by consenting adults whatever their numbers, then i'm for it.
