Buck up, Bucko. It's an ugly job, but someone's got to do it. We are in your debt.
At 12:25 PM 2/8/99 -0500, you wrote:
>I don't have time to wade into this --
>little thing called the Federal budget
>is diverting me -- but for what it's
>worth I think Nathan is mostly right
>here and his detractors mostly wrong.
>I posted this to say that defense of
>clinton, which Nathan is being pestered
>with, has nothing what-so-ever to
>do with the issue, in my view. The
>new budget is more conservative than
>anything Ronald Reagan even dreamed
>about, so I would count myself as
>second to none in anti-clintonism.
>I don't even disagree that the departure
>of Clinton from office per se would be
>much of a setback for anyone. But it
>seems to me that forced removal under
>the pressure of the machinations of the
>G.O.P. is a world removed from an outcome
>where Clinton's guilt was investigated
>and assessed in any kind of neutral
>The real issue is tyranny of a legislative
>majority (not backed, incidentally, by
>even an electoral majority), acting
>thru Special Persecutor K. Starr.
>Whatever relative shades of victimization
>and bimbo-ismo can be ascribed to Willey,
>Monica, et al. is regrettable but secondary.
>In war there are casualties, first among
>them the luxury of moral absolutism.