1/23/99
There are three newspapers I read every day of my life, the
New York Times, the Portland Press Herald, and the Journal Trib,
which publishes my columns. I firmly believe that, in terms of
political content, at least two of them, the NYT and the PPH have
something in common. They are both, as a matter of fact, little
more than daily newsletters of the Democrat Party.
I read the NYT daily because it is the world's premier newspaper,
no question. The PPH comes into my home daily only because my
wife can't live without a morning paper, and there is no
alternative, at least where I live, to the PPH.
Several years I tried to get the York County Republicans to
approve a boycott of the PPH, but this effort, like so many
others of mine, failed. But when any conservative sends his check
to the PPH, no question they aid and abet a mortal enemy, but
that's a "whole 'nother story."
Anyway, both papers have now editorially conceded that Bill
Clinton is, without a doubt, guilty of both charges leveled by
the House of Representatives as their basis for impeaching him,
perjury and obstruction. But both papers also (naturally) oppose
any effort by the Senate to remove him from office, with the
party line being that his offenses do not rise to the level
necessary to justify removal because his crimes do not threaten
our system of government-whatever that might mean. Funny, I can't
find those words anywhere in our Constitution.
The PPH has gone from the "sublime to the ridiculous"
in it's support of Clinton since the Lewinsky affair surfaced.
Almost every day, including Sundays, their lead editorial
concerns itself with either an attack on the GOP, or a defense of
Clinton's activities, however gross, and it matters not one iota
to them what lies he tells, or how disgusting the things he does
are.
I disagree that lying and obstruction do not threaten our system,
not that my opinion matters. I can't imagine anything more
threatening to our form of government than having, as our top
official, an acknowledged liar who is willing to exert the power
of his office to pressure any witness who might expose him into
silence. Think of what he did to Hubbell ("I guess I'll have
to roll over one more time") and Susan McDougal, who chose
jail rather than face what she perceived as a worse fate, to wit,
offending Billy. Then too, she may have been wise in making that
decision, given that the landscape is littered with those who
have given Bill problems in the past, but again, that's another
story.
Right at the moment, I am serving on a Federal Grand Jury in
Portland. It makes my skin crawl each day to hear witnesses swear
to "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing etc"
as they take the stand, followed by US attorneys spelling out
exactly what the penalties will be (jail, fines, and worse) if
they fail to do so. I imagine I can see a smirk cross the face of
each of them as this farce is administered, and given the
circumstances, it is hard to believe that the witnesses, or even
the US Attorneys, take any of it seriously anymore. That is the
kind of damage to our system that our fearless, lying, smutty
leader and his defenders have visited upon our system.
Lyndon Johnson lied about the Gulf of Tonkin incident and look
what effect that had. And he wasn't even under oath at the time.
It is my belief that the one thing we all have to believe, for
our system to function, is that leaders will tell us the truth.
You just can't run this, or any other government for that matter,
based on lies and deceit. And I now challenge any liberal Clinton
defender to debate that statement with me. I want to hear a
justification for any politician lying to the American people -
it should be rich.
I notice that a whole bevy of liberal columnists, and even some
relatively conservative ones, are taking the position that the
GOP is going against the will of the people in pursuing Clinton,
and they better reverse field and pronto. I guess they feel that
guilt or innocence should be determined by polling data, rather
than the facts. Now that's a mind boggling thought for you. I've
written to several and asked them for the logic they used to
reach their conclusions, but not surprisingly, none have replied.
If the polling is accurate, I can only conclude that the majority
of Americans have not read the Starr report, which neither
Clinton or his defenders have denied any part of up to now. It is
absolutely impossible to be aware of just how disgusting the
stuff that Clinton and his lover Lewinsky engaged in on a regular
basis is and still approve of the man continuing to hold the top
office in the land. Phone sex (over an open White House wire) is
the least egregious piece of it. I can't imagine how anyone,
fully aware of what he has done, can stand even being around him,
and that includes his wife and child. The man is a total crud.
The fact that there are fawning religious leaders who support
this kind of human degradation blows me right out of the water.
I'm even considering becoming a hermit, which would please my
liberal friends no end, but don't hold your breath!