>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.

Waitaminute. You're saying that Bush said "read my lips" because he _trusted_ the Democrats to reduce the budget?? If that's the case, then I don't know what's worse, Clinton's dishonesty or Bush's stupidity.

>IF the allegations are true about Clinton, then he did indeed break the law.

We all agree about that. We also agree that this isn't about Clinton's sex life per se, but about his lying about his sex life. What we don't agree on (and neither does the American people) is whether we _care_ that he lied about his sex life.

>Again, Watergate was not about the break-in, it was about the cover-up and obstruction of justice.

I'd disagree with that. The legal issues were about the coverup. The public's rejection of Nixon was because they finally realized what he'd do to get ahead (err, so to speak).

>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.

I believe there's some debate about that. :) A certain Michail Gorbachev had something to do with all of this.

> 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.

To be honest, Mark, you do sound better informed than I. However, I seem to have some recollection of there being more indictments in the Reagan presidency than ever before. Is that correct?

>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?

A lot of this depends on one's opinion of the American people. Yours, for example, seems quite low.

>As for liberal media, in the last months of Bush, all you ever heard from the media was how bad the economy was.

Was this unsupported by any facts or reports? I don't recall that.

>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.

I mean, did the media simply lie about home-starts, unemployment, inflation, interest rates?

>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 doesn't necessarily follow. For all you know, they're watching "Mr. Ed" reruns on channel 323. :)

> 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.<

I hope everyone does read the Starr report. Then they'll realize that this is not the kind of issue that should topple a presidency. Actually, I think they already know that.