Replies

What a shame; I think we were all holding out some hope for Sullivan, but it just goes to show that you can NEVER trust these people.

No, no, no. You don't understand.

Sullivan is half-right here. Some of our people were nuts. The entire Trixie-Tripp-Monica triumvirate was tailor-made for people like Blumenthal to exploit. But Sullivan's disparagement of Starr is misplaced.; Kenneth Starr was attempting to follow the law to its logical conclusion-something Democrats find amusing and contemptible. If Starr looked at the Constitution as his lodestar, then his actions make sense: he saw in Clinton a man trying to break the law, and he was relentless in his prosecution. But he was gunning for a President who sat on top of a Tulip bubble economy.

People never run Presidents out of town during good times. But it is the great saving grace of conservatism that we recognize when our people go overboard, and most conservatives recognize that we were outwitted manfully.

But if Ken Starr saw the law as his lodestar, then what Sullivan's critique reaffirms is that Clinton and the Democrats looked at the Constitution the way a German looks at a speed limit on the Autobahn. Understand something here: I'm in agreement with Sullivan, but for different reasons.

I'm glad Ken Starr failed in his quest. Had he succeeded, Clinton would have resigned. Al Gore would have become President sometime in 1999, giving him enough time to "unify the country" and assemble his campaign team with all the powers of the Presidency at his disposal. Gore's entire approach to domestic policy would have been just as partisan as Clinton's, and would have divided the country even more than it is today.

Gore's approach to foreign policy would have had baleful consequences. It is instructive that Clinton/Gore made only fitful, half-hearted attempts to attack Al Qaeda. Bin Laden rightly never took Bill Clinton seriously. It is doubtful that Gore would have done anything to commend him to bin Laden's patheon of People to Be Respected.

I do not believe that Gore would have responded as ruthlessly and as singlemindedly as Bush and his team has. Saddam would still be in Baghdad. And God knows what might have been done to us now, in addition to the attacks on New York and Washington.

No, it is best that history took the course that it did. After all, did not Bush speak in his First Inaugural about an "Angel in the Whirlwind" that directs our affairs? We cannot know God's direction, but we can know that it His will is there.

As to Blumenthal? The imagery of the torchlight parade is condemnation enough, and Sullivan rightly makes the comparison. Given Blumenthal's fanaticism, no comparison save this one is more apt...

Those who forget the lessons of History are doomed to repeat their mistakes.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

But he was gunning for a President who sat on top of a Tulip bubble economy. Great analogy! Such are the reason I read every post you make that I find! [BTW, didn't Floriad arise from the Tulip Bulb bull market'?]

I'm with you, Gore's ascension would have doomed this nation. Personally, I don't believe the Jones lawsuit should have been allowed to go forward during a sitting predient's term in office ... civil cases should be put off until the term ends. Now a criminal case (which is what the Jones case turned into, after the morass was allowed to proceed), well, that's a different worm to turn. SinkEmperor was impeached for something that surfaced during an ill-advised lawsuit, when he should have been impeached and hanged for the treachery he and his criminal enterprise perpetrated during their rule over America. There's a certain culpability for the Pubbies in that, somewhere.

No, no, no. You don't understand. Sullivan is half-right here. Some of our people were nuts... People never run Presidents out of town during good times. But it is the great saving grace of conservatism that we recognize when our people go overboard, and most conservatives recognize that we were outwitted manfully... I'm glad Ken Starr failed in his quest. Had he succeeded, Clinton would have resigned. Al Gore would have become President sometime in 1999, giving him enough time to "unify the country" and assemble his campaign team with all the powers of the Presidency at his disposal... No, it is best that history took the course that it did.

Equality before the law is the founding and guiding principle of the Republican Party. It's why we came into being, why we fought the Civil War, why we altered the constitution [No state shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws], and, of all of our qualities, it is the one most quintessentially antithetical to democrats [and their "democracy," also known as the rule of the mob].

W. J. Blythe-Clinton perjured himself before a federal district court judge, then perjured himself before another federal judge, and her grand jury. As we speak, he should be in jail [although, in all honesty, perjury should still be a capital offense, and he should have been hanged]. Equality before the law was dealt a terrible, perhaps mortal blow when Blythe-Clinton was allowed to skate.

Your Machiavellian-Clausewitzian realpolitik is, quite frankly, Clintonian in nature.

Another well written article. However, as well written as it is, I think it is based on a false premise.

I'm glad Ken Starr failed in his quest. Had he succeeded, Clinton would have resigned. Al Gore would have become President sometime in 1999,.....

Clinton would never have resigned. He is without shame, is amoral, and you could not have beat him with a big enough stick to make him give up power, Air Force One, and center stage. However, had Starr succeeded, that implies that he would have been removed from office by the Senate so the point is moot.

I don't think it is certain that Gore would have succeeded either. As close as that crooked election was (whew) and with all the advantages of an incumbent, I think Gore would have lost convincingly, or maybe he wouldn't have even run, having been shamed (?) out of office before that or impeached also.

Remember, the thing that sidetracked Starr's investigation was his strict adherence to his charter as an independent investigator. He was mandated to bring charges as soon as he uncovered an impeachable offense. As David Schippers said, the most damning evidence was the INS scandal of which Gore was in charge. Had the investigation continued there is likely to have been much more uncovered such as the campaign scandal involving Communist China, etc. Gore was up to his eyeballs in all of that.

Unfortunately, because of Lucy Anne Goldgerg's and Linda Tripp's decisions, and their timing, it became obvious that Clinton had committed perjury in a federal court - an impeachable offense. Therefore, Starr had to present it and the sensationalism of that overshadowed everything else. It also gave the Dems, and Specter, the guy from Scotland, a way out. That is why they absolutely refused to go to the evidence room and look at anything else before they voted.

In summary, had Starr succeeded, the Speaker of the House (can't remember who it was at that particular time as they were being outed so fast) may have been president. We still have all that ammo when Hillary of Gore raise their heads again.