The "Raw" Deal

r... Bill Clinton gets it in the neck.
How do we dispute this? ... Let me count the ways...

The best place to start is with the cause of his election (specifically the second term). Here we have the clear preference of the "people" for Clinton over Dole. What is the difference and why the preference?

I say that the average American voter recognized Dole as a politician with an agenda (the "A" word) and rejected him for this alone. It was not that the voters wanted Clinton so much as that they did not want to install another political savior. These tend to rock the boat and distort present "perceived reality".

I have described Dole's agenda elsewhere as "Gothic" (he brings to my mind the image of a gargoyle looking down from the heights of virtuous Notre Dame). By this I mean that his focus is on a ... "suffering American ..." what? ... anything at all ... as long as its general state is similar to his own. If you have had the privilege of seeing Dole's crying jags about his ages old war injuries/experiences, you understand what the word pitiful really means. How can someone generate tears, publicly, 50 years after the event? Even Auschwitz butchered Jews can't wring their hankies that much this far after the fact. You're right ... they're crocodile tears designed to get voter simpathy.

It didn't work this time around.

On with the show ...

What does Bill Clinton have that Bob Dole lacks?
He has the "power" to vacillate with infinite flexibility ... to go whichever way the political wind is blowing ... because he doesn't have an agenda ... he just wants to be thought of as an important person without having to do the work necessary to do important things. He is a slacker (of the highest level). You can depend on him to do whatever opinion polls indicate.

This is what the people want.

They know they can't get any better than him within the context of the American system of government. And it's OK by me too. I expect nothing of a president because, as I have alluded to elsewhere, they are incapable of the intellectual feat of "induction". They can never generate a new idea of their own.

The cause of this condition is elegantly simple.

To get elected one must ... "give up one's soul" ... to whatever interests are necessary ... to get the backing ... just to get on the ballot. But one's "soul" is the tool by which one does induction (the standard of right/wrong - good/evil ... see Nature of Man - Conceptual Standards of Reference).

Bill Clinton has most certainly "given up his soul" but it is also apparent that he once had one (he learned to play the saxaphone ... which ability requires, to some appreciable extent, ... "induction"). Mr. Dole has no acquired skill. He cannot perform induction and is therefore politically restricted to repeating what he has seen before with very slight modifications based on the random, mistaken, interpretive method (animal-like free induction) rather than true, human (forced) inductive thinking.

As a truly flexible "biobot" (biological robot ... my term), the American people have the best weapon possible in late 20th century politics. A concerted attempt to "save America" cannot coalesce. Rather, politics is unfocused and rendered impotent (relatively) to destroy the economy and our other freedoms.

This is the "good" part about Mr. Clinton.

To complain about his womanizing is like complaining about a Marine grunt's foul language and conduct at the local tavern. It goes with the territory. If the people want (read - can't get anything else) a vacillating president, i.e. one who is unsure of himself, they can't complain that this trait "carries over" into his sexual life. It is inevitable.

The combination of testeronic authority and estrogenic etiquette is a psychological impossibility. Hence, the American people forgive him for his transgressions ... it's expected and therefore not important.

What the press and politicos want ...

These unfocussed political boobs and 4th estate nincompoops are trying to butt-sniff themselves into social-political prominence. By pushing the president into the silly position of having to lie about his sex life (which any man would do given the circumstance) in a public forum, for the legal record ... they get him cornered.

What would you do?
Lie and get impeached or tell the truth and get impaled (by your wife).

Damned if he does ... damned if he don't.

He'll get out of it though (like a greased pig ... you can corner him all you want ... but ... just try 'n touch him).

The prosecutor (what's his name ... Stark?) ... he smiles for the cameras and thinks he's a movie star. That's as serious as it gets.

"He lied to the American people" ... who didn't?

"He obstructed justice" ... what justice? and what other president didn't?

To get impeached something actually serious is required like uh ... killing people ( wait ... no ... Kennedy did that) ... uh ... letting the Nazis kill an extra few million Jews (no wait ... Roosevelt did that) ... uh ... shaking hands with the most prolific mass murderer of all time (no wait ... Nixon did that) ... hmmmmm ... conscripting men to serve in the army without their consent (no wait ... Abe Lincoln did that) ... ooooh ... ahhh ... allowing ex post facto laws (no wait ... supreme court is guilty of that and much more) ... oh for cripe sakes ! .......

... Help me out on this
... what's impeachable?

Next Page