Letters

Editor:

Re "From the Editor" in the October MAAM, I disagree.

Our morality is shaped largely by advertising and the ad men discovered at least a half century ago that only two subjects would insure that an ad would be read (no TV then). Those two subjects were sex and death. All ads from then on featured pretty girls and, concealed in the foliage – skulls. I could never find the skulls myself unless someone pointed them out to me. Maybe they aren’t there any more. But sex is surely there or implied so the public, so conditioned, will not be able to see anything else in the Lewinsky affair.

As to lying, if we want to have a social life, we sometimes must conceal the truth. That’s the way it is. People do foolish things when they are attracted to someone else. If in our opinion, the attraction is unwise, it is best to ignore it.

Besides, you are not supposed to kiss and tell. If someone asks you point blank, can you change the subject? It is a time to lie. Under oath or not. Especially if telling the truth would embarrass your wife and child.

How could dallying with a groupie rise to the status of a high crime or misdemeanor? The groupie isn’t even pregnant. And Kenneth Starr is an oaf.

Mildred McCloskey

Editor, Mensodak (Sioux Falls, SD)

Mildred:

I promised no more soapbox, so I won’t address the political portion. But … I’ve been in the ad business for over 30 years, and my spouse close to 40 (and on three continents) and neither of us ever put skulls in our ads. Or knew anybody who did. Where did you get that information? I’m really curious.

But the pretty girls, well …

To the Editor:

Stevie, I must respond to your editorial in the October MAAM about the state of the Presidency. You seem to imply that anyone who doesn’t call for the President’s resignation is forgiving his sleazy acts in the White House. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I, too, care that he lied a whole lot about his sex acts. But I care even more that he not be removed from office for this offense and am deeply concerned that the Congress seems hell-bent on removing him. The founders of the country intended that the choice of President rest with the people and it should be much harder than sex, lies and audio/video tapes to negate this decision. The founders did not want Congress to make this decision and they made it extremely difficult to remove a sitting president in order to avoid the total chaos that often results when a lynch-mob mentality takes over.

What also concerns me are some of the statements in your editorial that are simplistic, misleading and sometimes downright incorrect:

"We impeached…Tricky Dick for the same thing – he lied…" Well, not really. Nixon’s "smoking gun" was his voice on tape admitting that he used the power of his office and ordered the FBI to end its investigation of the original Watergate break-in to prevent anyone from finding out just how involved he was. Along the way, he ordered his Attorney General to fire the Special Prosecutor investigating him and ultimately fired not only the Attorney General when he refused, but also the Special Prosecutor. Nixon was also directly involved in the payment of cold hard cash – hush money – to keep the public from knowing what was going on. In fact, lying was the least of Nixon’s offenses. When he did lie – about his personal income to the IRS to avoid taxes – the powers that be in Congress decided that lying about one’s personal life was not an impeachable offense and moved on in their investigation. Interesting twist, isn’t it.

"The fact that the American Public is willing to become apoplectic over [lies about thefts] and forgive [lies about deep kissing] is a sad commentary on our situational ethics". As a member of the American Public that fits this description, I object to the assumption that my ethics are somehow lax. They’re not. But I’m not apoplectic over Clinton’s actions because they did not threaten my rights as an American citizen. What Nixon and his cronies did was undermine the electoral process that separates this country from all the others by sabotaging the campaigns of the opposition using dirty tricks. This is presidential tyranny at its most chilling. Deep kissing an airheaded intern – as unforgiving as this act is to me – is not tyranny and does not threaten my participation in a free election.

"…a lie told under oath …. is an impeachable offense…" Again, it’s not that simple. The founders made sure it wasn’t. What is required to remove a President from office is this: high crimes and misdemeanors that undermine the Constitution. Not sex, not lying about sex, not even just high crime and misdemeanors. High crimes and misdemeanors that undermine the Constitution. What does that mean? That’s the tricky part. That’s what has to be decided, argued, debated and finally voted upon in a way that preserves the balance of power and the right of the American people to have the final say in who leads the country. That’s as it was intended: painstakingly difficult, not glibly decided on with a "you lied, you’re gone; it doesn’t matter what you lied about" mentality. It DOES matter what the lie was about and that is to protect us all the any possible attempt by Congress to tip that precious balance of power that is the foundation of our democracy.

As an aside, we can argue whether Clinton’s lie was even "perjury" as you define it: a material lie under oath. Perjury may be lying, but not all lies are perjury. Clinton lied about his relationship with Lewinsky under oath during the deposition in the Paula Jones case. The judge in that case decided that all testimony regarding Lewinsky was inadmissible because it was immaterial. So by the judge’s standard, Clinton lied about an immaterial fact. Sleazy? Yes. Perjury? Hard to prove. Impeachable offense? I doubt it and so do many legal experts – even those that would love Clinton gone.

I don’t object to your opinion about Clinton. I don’t even care at this point if he remains in office – I personally think Al Gore would make a good President and anything that would give him a leg up for the election in 2000 is fine with me – but I do object to your being fast and easy with historical facts and interpretations of them. And I particularly object to the comparison of a President who was sex-driven and lied about it with President who bombed innocent people and lied about it. It’s not my "abysmal inability…to see beyond [the Prurience Factor]" that forms my opinions. It’s having lived through the Nixon years, remembered what exactly was going on and being able to see the difference, because, yes, ethical absolutes or not, there IS a huge difference. Let’s not let our distaste for the man cloud our judgment to the point where we undermine the system.

Carol Young

First of all, we didn't impeach Tricky Dick. He resigned. If he hadn't, it's hard to tell how many others would have been dragged down. His subsequent pardoning cleared the decks for the remainder of his staff.

Clinton is an attorney and a time honored practice in the legal community is "hair splitting". He might get caught doing it, but it's doubtful. Unlike Nixon, the major characters (Bill and Monica) have certainly been embarrassed and condemned to the max already.

To return to the beginning of your editorial. It's your national agony, not ours (certainly not mine). "Grow up" and concern yourself with the execrable acts Clinton is actually committing: robbing the poor, bombing the helpless, involving the nation in disastrous "free market" policies, etc., etc.

Wes McKane