Volume 3, Number 2
A SCROOMtimes Editorial
The President is under attack.
Make no mistake about it, Hillary was right on the money when she spoke of the right wing conspiracy to undermine her husband's presidency. The right wing has been gunning for Bill Clinton since the day he won election in 1992 and now they smell blood. For more than five years the President has endured a withering barrage of accusations from the right wing of lying, cheating, stealing, or otherwise acting in an immoral manner. The fact that none of the allegations have ever been satisfactorily proven has regularly been attributed to the craftiness of "Slick Willie".
Only now the Republicans think they finally have Slick Willie cornered. They say the President is guilty of having an affair and lying about it. They say he then asked his mistress, 24-year old intern Monica Lewinsky, to lie about it to investigator Kenneth Starr. They question his morality and his fitness to lead the country.
Let me interject, here, that after 5 years in office, with the economy booming, the unemployment rate shrinking, welfare rolls reduced, and the nation at peace, I hardly think that the President need defend his ability to lead the country. If Clinton's sexual habits have had any bearing on his job while in office, I say we should toss him a few more 21-year olds and let the good times roll!
But the President is an adulterer, they say, and adultery is wrong. True, adultery is wrong, but it is not illegal. Adultery is a matter to be dealt with between husband and wife, not citizen and government, and since Hillary seems to have no problem with Bill's antics, why should we? If the voting public thinks that the act of adultery should render a person unfit to lead, then they have the option of not voting for that person. The fact that Clinton's adultery was widely known as early as 1992 yet he was voted into office twice anyway tells you all you need to know about the public's stance on this issue.
But he lied about it, say the Republicans, and we can't have a liar in public office. (As millions of Americans pause to laugh until their fillings shake free and fall into their breakfast cereal.)
Again, Americans have grown accustomed to the reality that their politicians, Democrat and Republican alike, are going to lie to them. Right or wrong, this is the reality of modern day politics. Besides, to make an issue out of the President's lying about his sex life is to presume that he had an obligation to be honest and forthcoming about it in the first place. The President owes us the truth with regard to our money or the lives of our soldiers. He does not owe us the truth with regard to his sex life. I challenge you to find someone, anyone, who has never lied about their sex life. Whether it be "Who did you sleep with last night?" or "When did you lose your virginity?" or "Do you still masturbate?". There is little more private than our sex lives and there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to expect our elected officials to forfeit that privacy simply because they aspire to public office.
Which brings us to what should be the critical question in this entire affair: Not, "Did Clinton lie to Kenneth Starr", but "Why did Kenneth Starr ask the question in the first place?" Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Kenneth Starr supposed to be investigating the Whitewater allegations? Last time I checked, Whitewater was still some sort of real estate scandal. How does President Clinton's sexual proclivities have any bearing whatsoever on the Whitewater investigation?
What this entire affair amounts to is a good old fashioned Witch Hunt. The American people made their choice on election day 1992 and reaffirmed that choice in 1996. Unfortunately, the Republican party has different ideas as to who should be occupying the oval office and have taken it upon themselves to remove our selection from office, at any cost.
And that, dear voters, should be of much more concern to you than who Bill Clinton is sleeping with.