Placating the Implacables

John K. Taber jktaber at
Tue Dec 22 11:34:17 PST 1998

> Subject: RE: Impeachment: Clinton's Service to the Democrats
> > Thanks for the heads up, Mike.
> yes, thank god for guys like Mike.

Ouch, ouch.

> > Why Clinton keeps trying to placate the implacables
> > is beyond me. It only enflames the paleo-cons (thanks
> > Nathan, I like the term) all the more.
> Very simple: to save his ass.

Well, ok, I'm dumb. Explain it to me. It seems to me that Clinton had to forcefully resist the Right at the beginning of his administration. For example, Travelgate. It makes perfectly good sense to me to fire the lot of employees, even if they are low-level, if you can't trust them. They were Republican loyalists and spies, weren't they?

But the Right made an issue of it, and Clinton backed down. He should not have backed down. He needed to fight Gingrich to the death if need be at that point, or being president is a joke.

He surrendered instead. Did that help? No. The Right, having got that concession, demanded more. That's how it looks to me. He needed to fight for each and every appointment. Instead, he gave in, or didn't make the appointment. He ran out of his own people to appoint, and had to resort to middle level bureaucrats to head their own bureaucracies.

He conceded every fight necessary for him to fight, to save his ass, and now he loses his ass to boot.

He needed to fight as bloody as it might be right at the start to save his ass. So, where is the sense of his placating?

More information about the lbo-talk mailing list