Senatorial fickleness just sign of the times |

Senatorial fickleness just sign of the times

The Feb. 1 issue of your paper recorded a curious bit of waffling on the part of some Republicans to the extent they now say that maybe Clinton (the elected one) didn’t lie after all. Since the facts that gave rise to the charging allegations have not changed, from whence does this change of opinion arise?

Well, these senators are mostly lawyers, and as Peter Akroyd observed in his book “The Life of Thomas Moore,” “Lawyers are not necessarily supposed to be devout or principled,” and further observed that they do what is natural to them “in putting a lawyer’s gloss upon ambiguous circumstances.” His comments shall stand for the ages, because he amply characterized 20th century politicians.

Possibly these wavering senators have yielded to the constant left wing media pressure couched in terms like “partisanship.” That alone raises some legitimate questions like, why did it apply only to the media non-approved Republican party? Are the tax and spend-o-crats not also partisan? Why not expound on the partisanship question with another question; why not? Voters did not send these politicians to Washington for the purpose of agreeing with the other guy, and I cite as example that after 40 years of Democrat influence, in the year 1994 the voters said “enough already,” and changed the Democrats into a minority party. They didn’t say, “You Republicans, we are sending you to the Congress to act like Democrats,” and the voters validated their 1994 judgments in 1996, and contrary to left wing spin, they did the same in 1998.

As another example, the seven or eight Republican representatives who voted to impeach Richard Nixon – and rightfully so – all lost in the mid-term elections! Partisanship has its place in politics because the voters said so. The voters did not elect the news media to tell them how to think, but some of the voters have obviously yielded to the constant left wing pounding. Remember also that in both elections, the Clintons received less than 50 percent of the votes, and more crucial to this so-called popularity in 1994, President Clinton held a rating that bordered on nil. Step in that famous toe kisser (where does he find these people?) who showed how with Asian and union money – all illegal – Clinton could buy back the country, but that is another story. Morris chuckled about that in his book by observing that Clinton was re-elected before the Republicans had even selected a candidate.

Maybe the senatorial fickleness is simply an image of their constituency after all with one notable exception. Rep. Henry Hyde said that he would give up his congressional seat rather than bend his conscience to fit opinion polls. I do not think Senators Bryan and Reid were listening to Manager Hyde when he emotionally uttered that personal opinion.

Back to Front Page

Support Local Journalism

Support Local Journalism

Readers around the Lake Tahoe Basin and beyond make the Tahoe Tribune's work possible. Your financial contribution supports our efforts to deliver quality, locally relevant journalism.

Now more than ever, your support is critical to help us keep our community informed about the evolving coronavirus pandemic and the impact it is having locally. Every contribution, however large or small, will make a difference.

Your donation will help us continue to cover COVID-19 and our other vital local news.

Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.

User Legend: iconModerator iconTrusted User


See more