>>For someone of his position, he MUST set a prime example in the areas of telling the truth under oath.

Of course he MUST.
And of course he didn't.

The question is, what do we do if he doesn't?
The repubs spent tens of millions of dollars and virtually shut down the legislative process for weeks while passing two counts out of four that they knew didn't have a prayer of being upheld in the senate.

Meanwhile, their leader, Bob Livingston, admitted to cheating on his wife repeatedly with different women while this was going on, and Newt was dealing with ethics problems.

Even with a strong majority in the house, the repubs only approved two out of four counts and they followed almost straight party line votes.


When all this began Clinton had a 60% approval rating and had just been re-elected with a large electoral vote margin.

By the time all this got to the senate, Clinton's approval rating had jumped to 70% and the repubs in the senate saw that they looked liked fools, since they needed a 2/3 majority to convict him and didn't have a prayer.
Many of them crossed the aisle and in the final vote Clinton was easily acquitted.

All because of a stain on a dress.

Real people look at their government when it does things like that and just shake their heads.