You ran some line of casuistry about the above in reply to somebody's email. Would you mind running it again? RMC

-- Dick Cummings (paxvitae@aol.com), May 07, 2000

Answers

Just to clarify: the answer (above) to Clinton Problem was written by me, not Dick Cummings. His name at the bottom was a mistake. Cummings had asked me to reprint it from an earlier Web response. Cummings is a right-winger and an anti-Clinton man. CARROLL

-- Carroll O'Connor (carroll@oconnor.net), May 07, 2000.

We have two questions here. Nancy wants to know whether a president who is being blackmailed could, in paying off the blackmailer, harm the nation. (I think that is what is troubling her.) My answer is that if I strain my imagination beyond all bounds, I can think up a plot like that; yes. Next, Susie says that Clinton has no problem with lying (it is a proven proposition); he cannot be believed in general, he might be lying all the time. Well, as I have said before, he had a problem about admitting his sexual peccadillos, but so has every man. If we want to deprive ourselves of genuine political talent and statesmanship, we could, I suppose, require all political candidates to solemnly vow, under pain of perjury, that they will deny themselves illicit sex while in office. We might ask them, as well, to swear on The Bible that they have never enjoyed illicit sex. But no, I withdraw that. That would be excessive zeal.

-- carroll oconnor (carroll@oconnor.net), September 03, 2000.

Everybody has a right--nay, is expected--to lie about his sex life. A man's secret behavior may be considered shameful, wrongful, sinful, but if his sex act is not material to a crime, he should not be put under oath and questioned about it. If he is wrongly forced under oath to testify about a non-criminal private affair, he may properly lie under the oath, which is a tainted oath. In the light of the Constitution which protects the man from self-incrimination even in a criminal matter, this tainted oath is without meaning. The law is not interested in an oath that is not an oath. I say "wrongly forced to testify" because, though a man may call on the Constitution to relieve him of testifying, he may be unwilling to turn the public against him by doing so--by asserting a right to which odium has been ignorantly attached. In fine, I am suggesting that the man in question may lie.

-- Dick Cummings (paxvitae@aol.com), May 07, 2000.

I totally agree, whatever happens between a man and another consenting adult is not the public's interest. If he is married and his wife wants to forgive him, who is anyone else to judge? The entire situation was an embarrassment to our country, as Europeans view this subject with far more maturity, and, I am sure, thought we were ridiculous. In a marriage there are many reasons that may cause a person to look for gratification elsewhere, this does not necessarily make the person a lesser person to do the job he has been chosen to do. I found the whole investigation rather voyeuristic, and, what with the dress deal, beneath contempt.

-- Connie Degrassi (CDegrassi@webtv.net), May 07, 2000.

I want to completely dissociate myself from the The Old Man's views on this case. Clinton should have taken the Fifth right from the git-go and spat in Starr's eye. By the way, what's happened to that rooting swine disguised as a government inquisitor?

-- igorsikovic (igorsikovic@hotmail.com), May 07, 2000.

Re: erroneouslt Dick Cummings. Carroll, I thought as much, but I didn't know it was yours. Thanks!

-- Connie Degrassi (CDegrassi@webtv.net), May 07, 2000.

Re: erroneously Dick Cummings. Carroll, I thought as much, but I didn't know it was yours. Thanks!

-- Connie Degrassi (CDegrassi@webtv.net), May 07, 2000.

I do agree that a person's sex life is his own business. The only concern I have is what length will a public official go to hide an indiscretion from his wife? If he engages in an extramarital affair, will he do political favors or make some other compromise to keep someone who discovers the affair quiet? That would certainly stand to impact us -- the voters. Some people do not take being cheated on very well and the cheater may do just about anything to prevent from being "caught" by the spouse.

Nancy

-- Nancy Kersey (Nckersey@aol.com), May 10, 2000.

Well, I think that if a man lies to his wife, then it is a reflection of his whole personality, since he made the original agreement with his wife to begin with. Maybe it's not a crime, but why is it the man who represents the highest office of the land is using lying to sidestep the truth instead of keeping his integrity and refusing to speak about it, the answer is obvious, he doesn't regard lying a problem. So then how am I to feel comfortable with his speeches to the country, as far as what he says he is doing or has done or intends to do, when a person lies then there can be no trust. So in fact we have a man with whom we are to respect in office that we do not even trust.

-- Barb e. (Suesuesbeo@aol.com), July 24, 2000.

How can anyone say he (Clinton) has lied to the country as far as what he will do for us? All you have to do is look at his record. When he initially said he did not cheat, he was lying to his wife, not to us. He has kept his promises, and done much for the country. Has everyone forgotten the unemployment lines of the Reagan/Bush years? The wasted funds poured into the military? The cuts to the elderly? If you think Bush will keep his promises,,,,,,

-- Connie Degrassi (CDegrassi@webtv.net), September 03, 2000.