From: session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions)
Subject: Re: Bob Dornan on Bill Clinton - IMPORTANT
Organization: Univ. of North Carolina @ Wilmington
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 17:14:38 GMT

best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:


>>>> There is absolutely no proof of [Flowers] charges whatsoever.
>
>Yes, merely one person's word against another.  So why do liberals believe
>Anita Hill and do not believe Jennifer Flowers?  Also, the tape she (Flowers)
>played with what sounded like Clinton's voice on it is not proof but it is
>a damn sight closer to proof than anything Anita Hill came up with.

Sorry, but I don't think the "belief factor" of the Anita/Thomas affiar
had anything to do with partisanship. It was more of a gender issue. And
Hill presented several withness, LIVE witnesses. And there were reports
that the Flowers tape had been tampered with.

>>You place too high a standard for a mere President. Clinton's marital status
>>and whether or not he cheated on his wife in the past is totally irrelevant.
>
>You are in total disagreement with the Founders on this, they spoke of the
>importance of electing Presidents with good character.  Even the much
>misunderstood electoral college serves the purpose of electing moderate
>Presidents.  The type of man elected was of interest to them, not just his
>capabilities, for obvious reasons.

Sorry, I do not see the disagreement. Yes, the Founding Fathers wished that
the president had good character. However, George Washington slept around with
his slaves. Is that good character? And, again, the charges against Clinton
by Flowers were never proven. The Clintons admitted to having marital problems
in the past. How does that diminish Clinton's character?

>Now, explain to us why the past is irrelevant when considering the election
>to the highest and most powerful office in the _world_ when it was considered
>completely relevant to delve into the past when the liberals were blocking
>the Presidents Supreme Court appointees such as Bork?  The rules you are
>playing by are not fair - strange to think that this would be the case from
>the side which champions fairness.

Sorry, the rules I am playing by are very fair. The issues which were delved
into with the Bork nomination were perfectly justified. The attacks on Clinton's
marriage and his patriotism are patently absurd.

>>This crud is more evidence of the type of continual smokescreen put forth by
>>the RNC in order to take the interest off of the more important issues, like
>>the economy.
>
>Character mattered a great deal to liberals when Nixon was stepping all over
>the law, your hypocrisy is showing.  If it had been Bush who had protested
>the government while his fellow citizens were dying in the fields do you
>honestly believe that the democrats would be suggesting that it doesn't 
>matter?  

Yes, I would suggest that the democrats would be suggesting that it doesn't
matter since it doesn't. The republicans are the ones with the dirty
tricks campaigning history. And the current campaign is fulfilling that
legacy in spades.

>Speaking of the economy, it would be interesting to see what the stock
>market would do if Clinton was elected.  

The stock market it a weak indicator of long term economic properity.

-- 
Zack Sessions
sessions@seq.uncwil.edu
University of North Carolina at Wilmington
"Good health is merely the slowest form of dying."