>>Lying under oath ( in court and in the Grand Jury )is a LITTLE different than saying "no new taxes!" Please compare apples to apples.
>
>And lying about one's private sex life is different from promising not to take the American people's money. You're right, it is apples and oranges: What Bush did was far worse. Since you're a conservative, dedicated to individual freedom (including sexual freedom, presumably) and against taxes, I'd expect you to agree with me, here.
>

Bush's failing was trusting the Democrats when he made the deal in 1990 for the tax increase. The Dems renegged on the deal by not reducing the budget. What Bush did was not illegal, just naive in his trust of the oily-hided liberal lawyers who cared nothing about there end of the deal.

IF the allegations are true about Clinton, then he did indeed break the law. Again, Watergate was not about the break-in, it was about the cover-up and obstruction of justice. This is not about infidelity, it is about the cover-up, obstruction of justice, perjury, etc.


>Oh, I don't know. After the "Teflon presidency" of Ronald Reagan and all the _real_ misdeeds that went on under his aegis, not to even get _into_ Nixon, I don't think the Republicans have quite taken over the moral high ground yet.

At least the policies of Reagan kept the Soviets out of Afghanistan, and brought about the eventual fall of the Soviet Union and the Berlin wall. Reagan did more for the advancement of democracy and true freedom in other countries than Clinton has ever dreamed about. And less has stuck to Slick Willie than ever stuck to the Teflon Kid.

>
>>>BTW, I suppose you think our press is quite liberal, too. How do you account for the fact that the press seems much more interested in impeaching Clinton than the public? :)
>>
>
>Exactly. It doesn't matter how liberal they are, they will feed the public what the public slavers for. Interesting, again: You say they're out for ratings.
>

Actually, I think this more of a chicken-or-the-egg scenario. Is it the media filtering then deciding what to air, then the public showing interest? Or the other way around?

As for liberal media, in the last months of Bush, all you ever heard from the media was how bad the economy was. I remember because my wife kept hammering me with this when I was trying to setup our investments. But after the 92 election, the economy suddenly healed and the media stopped harping on it. Why? Because there poster-boy got elected.

>> You imply that they give the news a liberal slant. What do these two things tell you about the American people?

The overall ratings for the major network News programs has dramatically dropped since the advent of cable. They are turning to more programs like Lehrer, Captiol Gang, and others where they can hear both sides, then form an opinion. That is why so many are reading the *Starr Report* for themselves -- they are tired of being spoon fed and want the unfiltered version. I applaud those that take this initiative instead of sitting on their usually passive rear-ends as usual.