Clinton's demise and y2k?greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread
Being a Brit I'm not sure of the US political implications of Clinton's (hopefully) forthcoming resignation. Unless Mr Blair succeeds in his rescue mission. How will the political fall-out and any replacements/elections affect the US gov's y2k effort (if there is one).
-- Richard Dale (email@example.com), September 07, 1998
Any political wheels that will help with Y2K would have to be in motion by now. Anything that hasn't already started will be a waste of time and effort and propbably aimed mostly at butt-covering.
I'm pretty sure that there *are* wheels in motion. Apart from Y2K-awareness campaigns, these are likely to be in the largely non-political and somewhat secretive circles that do contingency planning (for natural disasters, plagues, terrorists with nukes, you name it). Everyone hopes that these plans will never be tested, and nobody knows if they'll be worth the paper they are written on, but usually some plan is better than no plan.
-- Nigel Arnot (firstname.lastname@example.org), September 07, 1998.
I'm not sure the process will have a direct effect. Certainly it will insure that the politicians don't develop serious interest in Y2K because they'll be otherwise distracted. But, for this to affect the effort implies that there is an effort at the executive level. I havent seen indications of this. The current Y2K czar has been granted a 4 man team, (amazing) which highlights the lack of importance placed on him by the administration.
I do agree that *contingency plans* are under way. On record comments between Senator Bennett and Asst. Secretary of Defence Hamre mention the possiblity of martial law. Our neighbors to the North are more forthcoming, with newspaper articles discussing the role of the Canadian military in maintaining order and providing electricity, shelter, and foods.
-- De Lewis (email@example.com), September 07, 1998.
That's the problem with having a self-centered liar in the White House -- you earlly don't now anything, you can't believe what anybody at any high level is saying, becuase it gets painted by the BS brush. Talk to them directly, as stated elsewhere, keep itonm technology and facts. Keep it off the record, or at least off of papaer. Listen for "tells" and find out what they are doing.
Write your Congressman and local politico's via the editorial pages: 1998 is an election year, let the press feel they (the press) are being lied to and they (the press) will respond to the pressure of being made fools by the politicians.
-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (firstname.lastname@example.org), September 07, 1998.
I wonder if it will make any significant difference. The American public never ceases to amaze me. Tonight the CBS News talked about poll results that say (hope I have this right) that 59% of the American people believe Clinton broke laws; 52% believe he should be impeached if he instructed Ms. Lewinsky to lie; but he still enjoys a 62% approval rating. Go figure. Thorazine in the water supply, maybe.
Public perception is a biggie with Y2K, obviously. It seems that unless the public gets mad enough to bust a blood vessel, nothing gets done in Washington. Even then it's sort of 'iffy'. And not a large percentage of our people are "up in arms" about Y2K...more are "head in sand", or "I don't see nuthin'"...despite oceans of evidence.
If Clinton gets the boot, we have President Gore. Is that much better, in terms of Y2K? What we've seen out of our pal Al is not much more than lip service. He appoints himself our Tech Guru, then goes almost completely AWOL on the largest technological challenge in the history of humankind.
If Gore does come into power, I hope he pays more attention to Tony Blair's Y2K attitude than Clinton has. But somehow I think he'll be too busy figuring out how to pardon his buddy Clinton, a la Gerald Ford, and figuring out how to dodge his own problems with illegal fundraising.
John Howard Greenville, NC, USA
-- John Howard (email@example.com), September 13, 1998.