The thing is Graham, sexual morality is unimportant. I don't give a damn if clinton and trump screwed every bimbo from here to Timbuctoo. What I care about is "Did they do their job?" I am not a great fan of Bill Clinton, his attack on Social Services recipients was inexcusable. NAFTA was not well examined to see what harm might (and did) result to American labor. I think both clinton and trump should have been more discreet, in their sexual exploits, but that's what comes of electing persons of low character and no ethics.
I do agree that inappropriateness in leadership is of far greater importance. Clinton had some leadership ability, trump is too self centered and has NO leadership ability whatsoever. His only ability is to ham it up for the amusement of his poorly educated base (And yes, that makes me a snob)
What Cook says about the 60+% figure is that, seemingly, if a leader is seen to do his job, as you put it, that makes it all right not only that he has a profligate sex life but that he lies about it. And what that communicates to the leader is that, if he does his job, he needn't worry about lying about how he does that job, whether in relation to his sex life or anything else.
The crucial factor in the Lewinsky matter was not his extramarital affair, not one bit of it. Nor his experimentation with drugs at Oxford. It was his technically worded excuses, which he believed exculpated him and no one else bought for a second. (On his drug adventures, see here: https://endlesschain.substack.com/p/just-on-the-offhand.)
The Lewinsky, Flowers and Jones affairs were not the only matters that cast doubt on the honesty of Mr, and indeed Mrs, Clinton. But what they did 25 years ago has given us the situation today in which leaders can act with an openly dishonest hand, and still claim impunity (or, in one particular case, immunity). Whether it was Mr Clinton who started that ball rolling, or Mr Nixon, as Cook alludes to, is arguable. But he certainly ranked high in the bare-faced liar stakes.
Your reactions are, as ever, heartily welcome, thanks.
Agreed Graham. And I agree it did go back to Nixon and goofy Ford. I understood Jerry Ford's rationale. But unfortunately he did not know Nixon as a person. Nixon, like Trump could never own up to a 'wrong doing' so, tricky dick never admitted his complicity, not just in the coverup, which was stupid, but in his use of government agencies, IRS (taxes) and FBI (criminal investigations) against his "enemies list" That list did not include any criminal activity, just prominent people who had spoken against Nixon. His exoneration by Ford led to Reagan, Clinton, Bush (Sr and Jr), to Trump (the slime at the bottom of the barrel)
The point being, don't let any criminal - no matter how lofty their position - get away without public punishment.
The thing is Graham, sexual morality is unimportant. I don't give a damn if clinton and trump screwed every bimbo from here to Timbuctoo. What I care about is "Did they do their job?" I am not a great fan of Bill Clinton, his attack on Social Services recipients was inexcusable. NAFTA was not well examined to see what harm might (and did) result to American labor. I think both clinton and trump should have been more discreet, in their sexual exploits, but that's what comes of electing persons of low character and no ethics.
I do agree that inappropriateness in leadership is of far greater importance. Clinton had some leadership ability, trump is too self centered and has NO leadership ability whatsoever. His only ability is to ham it up for the amusement of his poorly educated base (And yes, that makes me a snob)
What Cook says about the 60+% figure is that, seemingly, if a leader is seen to do his job, as you put it, that makes it all right not only that he has a profligate sex life but that he lies about it. And what that communicates to the leader is that, if he does his job, he needn't worry about lying about how he does that job, whether in relation to his sex life or anything else.
The crucial factor in the Lewinsky matter was not his extramarital affair, not one bit of it. Nor his experimentation with drugs at Oxford. It was his technically worded excuses, which he believed exculpated him and no one else bought for a second. (On his drug adventures, see here: https://endlesschain.substack.com/p/just-on-the-offhand.)
The Lewinsky, Flowers and Jones affairs were not the only matters that cast doubt on the honesty of Mr, and indeed Mrs, Clinton. But what they did 25 years ago has given us the situation today in which leaders can act with an openly dishonest hand, and still claim impunity (or, in one particular case, immunity). Whether it was Mr Clinton who started that ball rolling, or Mr Nixon, as Cook alludes to, is arguable. But he certainly ranked high in the bare-faced liar stakes.
Your reactions are, as ever, heartily welcome, thanks.
Agreed Graham. And I agree it did go back to Nixon and goofy Ford. I understood Jerry Ford's rationale. But unfortunately he did not know Nixon as a person. Nixon, like Trump could never own up to a 'wrong doing' so, tricky dick never admitted his complicity, not just in the coverup, which was stupid, but in his use of government agencies, IRS (taxes) and FBI (criminal investigations) against his "enemies list" That list did not include any criminal activity, just prominent people who had spoken against Nixon. His exoneration by Ford led to Reagan, Clinton, Bush (Sr and Jr), to Trump (the slime at the bottom of the barrel)
The point being, don't let any criminal - no matter how lofty their position - get away without public punishment.