<p>Driver:</p>
<p>Aren’t they the same folks?</p>
<p>Nope, only TheDad. The others are still denying that they have a problem, and avoiding therapy…perhaps your taste of what humor therapy has to offer will coax them over.</p>
<p>Driver:</p>
<p>On your head be it! 
Have done as you suggested.</p>
<p>TheDad,</p>
<p>And how is Clarence Thomas associated with a disasterous foreign policy? Did the supreme court hand down a ruling legislating some type of foreign policy? If so I apologize for missing it. Was Thomas in the majority in writing the opinion? Was he assigned to write it?</p>
<p>Note, I did not post a reference to Bush but it is clear that you assumed that I did. I posted that I voted for Clinton and felt let down by his actions while in office. Further, there is also a major distinction between consensual sex and lying about whether it occured under penalty of perjury. There is also a distinction between consensual sex between adults and whether there is some type of work relationship between the parties. For more on this see Senator Packwood.</p>
<p>Now, back to the actual topic, Frist, I think he will not be the next president. As a Senator/Candidate he should avoid even the hint of inpropriety. Blind Trust? It appears the trust only needed glasses. Once the good Senator supplied those glasses it was clear that certain stock should be sold. ;-)</p>
<p>Scuse me…I actually posted about Frist, i got ignored and we’re back to Clinton and Bush. This is a discussion about Frist and his NON blind trust and probable insider trading. No one wants to comment??
As for Clinton and Bush, final word from me. I’d rather have a president who screws one intern than screws the entire country and the world.
Ah…I see we’re back on topic. Thanks…</p>
<p>This thread is actually about Frisk–who may well be in trouble…we can only wait and hope.</p>
<p>
I believe this belongs over in the Bush Derangement Syndrome humor therapy thread.</p>
<p>“When Bush is the original post topic, the republicans talk about Clinton. When Frist is the original post topic, the republicans talk about Clinton. And when Hurrican Katrina was the original topic, the conversation was turned to . . . . Clinton.”</p>
<p>Not quite. </p>
<p>Check the first responses to the original post. In rebuttal to a number of posts, I brought up Clinton to illustrate that handicapping future presidents is not that easy.</p>
<p>As far as Frist, if you expect me to defend him just because he is a republican, you’ll have to ask another person. If he is found guilty -after having his day in court-, I’d say let him fry.</p>
<p>Responding to an earlier post in this thread, Martha Stewart wasn’t convicted of insider trading (the trading she did was not a crime), but rather for committing perjury by lying under oath about where she got the information and why she traded when she did. But it indeed was a shaft in my opinion - she was convicted of lying about something that had she told the truth about doing wasn’t a crime. I’m not sure that Frist could be guilty of insider trading either. He’s not an insider - but his brother could be. And I don’t believe Senator Frist has given sworn testimony on this matter. But his previously misleading statements and the timing of the sale are embarassing.</p>
<p>wow you grownups are a really excitable bunch…getting back to Frist (self descrobed as “the Senate’s only doctor”) I think he’s not in trouble because hes made the decision not to run. He could be a little dangerous now because he has nothing to fear from rove and could be a loose cannon. And also he hasn’t been a particularly effective majority leader, (in terms of marshalling the troops and counting votes) has he? Anyone else agree??? xiggi…i hope youre not lumping me into “you people” xx Spiker</p>
<p>Xiggi:</p>
<p>I think that both Clarence Thomas and Bill Clinton got a raw deal from “gotcha” politics.</p>
<p>I wish our political system focussed a bit more on the debate over ideas a bit less on ham-fisted character assassination.</p>
<p>Eagle, Clinton was involved in a consensual situation. (Monica was quoted in the LA TIMES as having said, when she learned of her internship, something along the lines of, “Hurray, I’m off to get my presidential knee pads.”)</p>
<p>The discussions about Clarence Thomas’s activities did not center on consensual activities. Quite the opposite. Based on the testimony, he eked out a verdict of “Not Proven,” a quaint relic of Scottish law that I wish we incorporated into our legal system.</p>
<p>And Driver says:
</p>
<p>One hesitates to consider where Driver’s mind was. Just barely.</p>
<p>Bush, Cheney, Frist, DeLay, the whole lot of 'em: feh.</p>
<p>I’m all for an investigation for Frist, but if what this person reports is true, he should be cleared in no time:</p>
<p><a href=“http://tigerhawk.blogspot.com/2005/09/bill-frist-insider-selling-and-doing.html[/url]”>http://tigerhawk.blogspot.com/2005/09/bill-frist-insider-selling-and-doing.html</a></p>
<p>Other reports convey a sense that Frist’s “blind” trust was little more than slightly astigmatic. Moreover, his purported reason for selling–wanting to avoid a conflict of interest–doesn’t pass the smell test in that he’s been dealing with health-related legislation for years and only now thinks to unload the stock…coincidentally just before it tanks. Well, some folks believe in the Easter Chicken, too. </p>
<p>We’ll have to see how the investigation goes. If it’s allowed to go. It’s now being alleged that a justice department investigator was pulled off from investigating Abramoff two years ago, demoted, and forbidden to open any new corruption investigations. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?</p>
<p>Interesteddad, we cannot rewrite history. My only point was that Clinton SURVIVED the primaries despite a number of allegations that were mostly true. At that time, Clinton delivered us the first episodes of sitting in front of the camera and, addressing the entire nation, did not think TWICE about lying and enlisting his wife for support and complicity. </p>
<p>I’m not interested in debating the issue of Dear Monica. It is obvious that many people are happy to call it consensual. Despite NOT addressing the Monica affair, my issue would have been about what happened AFTER the affair: the repeated lies, the cover-up, the moronic attempt to redefine the emaning of IS, and mostly, the ABSOLUTE lack of remorse versus te regret of having being caught. </p>
<p>One small comment: for all the people who happily dismiss the issue as consensual sex, I’m wondering if they would react differently if the issue resurfaced but involved THEIR daughter and a faculty member at their cherished school or the CEO at a prestigious internship. Inasmuch as the young girls may have been blinded by the power and prestige, the culprit did not hesitate to abuse his POWER. FWIW, the abuse of power in sexual relations tends to receive a different moniker. </p>
<p>BTW, how many faculty or CEO do you think would survive the scandal? My bet is … none!</p>
<p>I like the points made by Spiker and Interesed Dad. As for Frist…</p>
<p>Yes, I think that the criticism he received after the Schiavo mess got him thinking about his integrity. Remember he also did the Congressional republicans’ dirty work for them as an emissary to a failing Surgeon General candidate nominated by Clinton. He had (and may still have) much integrity and ethical fiber. However, time and again apparently empathic public figures such as Frist demonstrate a blind spot or exccessive casualness when it comes to personal finances. This trust problem may likely leave him D.O.A. when it comes to primary voters and, more importantly, seed money donors. That’s the way modern American politics works folks. New Hampshirites and Iowans will determine if there’s rot in Frist’s presidential timber.</p>
<p>An another note, why is it that sharp, capable and reasonable republicans get damaged by the dictates of the national party? Frist reminds me of Lamont Alexander, I fellow I admired until he went to Washington.</p>
<p>The moral failings–and lies about private sexual conduct which are ultimately irrelevant–of Bill Clinton are a pimple on an elephant’s butt compared to the moral cesspool of Bush, Cheney, DeLay, et alia.<br>
Whose daughter Clinton was involved with is irrelevant. Given a choice between Bush and Clinton, I’d happily get the White House a Bimbo-of-the-Month Club membership. Republicans seem to get off on sex as the key moral litmus test. Corruption, cronyism, and lies to justify public policy are accepted as routine. Whatever.</p>
<p>“Whose daughter Clinton was involved with is irrelevant.”</p>
<p>What an artful way to dodge the question! The same way used by all the parents I know who happen to be staunch democrats and had to follow the party line. I have little doubt that if your daughter was involved in a similar incident at Smith, you’d be on the first flight to Boston and Northampton. I know that is what my parents would do, even if the offender was Karl Rove. </p>
<p>**“Republicans seem to get off on sex as the key moral litmus test. Corruption, cronyism, and lies to justify public policy are accepted as routine. Whatever.” **</p>
<p>Oh please! Since when have “Corruption, cronyism, and lies” become labels for Republicans ONLY? The labels fit Democrats equally well, if not much better. </p>
<p>Further, how many times do we have to repeat that it is not about sex, and it is not even about Republicans versus Democrats. It is about getting rid of everyone who lacks sufficient ethics or morals to represent other citizens. I do not really care about the party affiliation as much about the person. You may think of Camelot or the Clinton’s White House with an amount of nostalgia … I surely don’t. </p>
<p>As far as the comparison of a pimple to an elephant’s butt, that is entirely a matter of subjectivity or, better said, a lack of objectivity. But, what the heck, is there anything new? Indeed … whatever!</p>
<p>If Bill Clinton were anyone other than Bill Clinton, NOW would have demanded that he be investigated as a sexual offender and were it not for statute of limitations laws would be subject to rape charges. That is a bit more than “private sexual conduct”.</p>
<p>fundingfather, how is it more than private sexual conduct (you mention “rape”), since Lewinsky was an adult consensual sex partner? Or are you talking of Clinton and other women besides Lewinsky? </p>
<p>Also, I always thought that there were no statute of limitations for criminal activities such as rape. </p>
<p>And, it seems to me that because Monica was 26 at the time of the relationship, her parents had no legal control over her activities regardless of what they thought of her affair with Clinton.</p>
<p>But back to Senator Frisk. I’ve never liked him as majority leader, although I think he’s a good, decent man and senator. I don’t think he ever had a chance as president. I don’t see, at this point, that the media people reporting this understand the arcana of the rules and regulations and facts that are creating this, our latest brouhaha. (See: Rove/CIA; also: misreporting on Katrina). </p>
<p>Will he have to step down as leader? Well, remember how he got there. That’s right–it was the media riot that occurred after Trent Lott made a silly remark at Sen. Thurmond’s 99th (or whatever) birthday. We shall see…with some sitting in fervent hope that this rather nice man will suffer some humiliation. </p>
<p>Xiggi’s right that it’s useless to speculate about presidential candidates this far out, but it’s fun, nevertheless. The Republicans IMO have taken to heart the lesson that sitting senators are bad candidates. It won’t be any of them, certainly not Lindsay Graham!! At this point, I say Giuliani or Cheney, and anyone who says they won’t appeal to the base, or have appeal in the general election doesn’t rub elbows with the base or spend much time in Red America. Country-club Republican golfing buddies and rich brothers-in-law don’t count. You need to talk to the “broken-glass” Republicans—and very few CC posters meet up with them.</p>