There are limits to the degree citizens ought to tolerate that going for the groin and the jugular that we have been witnessing from the Starr people during the recent months.

When I say that I don't care about "lying under oath" as a legal offence, of course I am exaggerating out of rage, and out of an attempt to nail home a point. The point I am trying to nail home is that there are some questions which cannot legitimately be asked without a very serious justification behind them. This sort of justification does not emanate from a law suit brought by a woman who claims a "sexual harassment" cause which is nearly a decade old.

Paula Jones plainly, on the very face of it, did not justify anybody's asking Clinton whether he was having an affair with Monica Lewinsky... unless the person doing the asking was Hillary Clinton herself and in private. It was assuredly a matter which should never have come up under "oath". I allege that under the circumstances it is a bad joke to talk about Clinton's having "perjured" himself for saying, "I never had sex with Monica Lewinsky", or having "suborned" or "obstructed justice" when, under blatantly illegitimate pursuit, he probably sort of hinted that maybe it wouldn't help things too greatly if certain items of private news got out -- like stuff about sex.

That is the totality of Starr's actual case, that and whether nuzzling or sucking or licking or whatnot might or might not have been involved between those two semi nude sexual amateurs.

The use of a man's sexual life, bizarre and pathetic as it may be... like that of a fifty year old President who's too much of a wimp actually to fuck the twenty one year old chubby sex bomb who managed to seduce this man's superficial and quavering interest, an interest maybe more in in how much he dared to try to get away with than an real interest in that hopeful and overheated young lady herself

The man must have gotten some of his jollies from risk taking. There he stood, pants down as I imagine it, among the transient and nervous-making pleasures which she freely profers.

And here come these Republicans, using this to try to overturn the foolish will of a foolish electorate. Their actions seem to me more of an immediate problem to our republic than do the sundry moves Clinton has made. And I do include among them his sending troops to Bosnia or his purportedly selling some highly sensitive (but *is* it, really?) gear to China in return (possibly and in any rate only allegedly) for Asian campaign contributions to his election to a second term. He beat Dole quite handily, I thought. I don't know how much that allegedly Chinese money did for him which he wouldn't have gotten anyway.

That is, in summary, this crux:

However unsuitable you and I may think William Jefferson Clinton is to "serve" as President of the United States, he is the sorry sad-sack jerk who was elected to the Presidency by this sorry sad-sack nation of ours. It is not up to the Republican Party to put on the mantle of God, and to overturn the will of the forty per cent or so of the electorate who took the trouble to cast their ballots for this glad-handing and licentiously rollicking individual whom they nevertheless supported.

We don't live in the sort of country which changes its governments in that fashion. I would prefer my country not to become one which changes its governments in this fashion.

Things threaten to turn bloody in such a country, which changes its governments through such Mickey Mouse coups d'etat, as is currently contemplated by "our" GOP Congress and by some opportunistically ass-licking (and mistaken) Democratic hypocrites who accompany their GOP brethren because, mainly, they believe those GOPers will win the day.

I'm not at all sure that Dull Dole would have been better for any of us if *he* had become resident of the White House -- a man of whom, as I understand it, we citizens could have rested assured that he would not spill semen on a young lady's dress.

At least that stain on our country's character would have been avoided, until Doddering Dole would have become acquainted with Viagra. Dole told the country that Viagra was a Godsend to him. You will recall that Dole attempted to censor the actions of cinematists who both marketed "smut" and supported his opponent's presidential campaign.

As for Viagra, again: Clinton probably doesn't use *that* drug yet, although I wouldn't put it past him to sniff coke, and I frankly wouldn't much care whether he did sniff it.

For me My President does *not* have to "set an example". I manage to find and/or set my own examples, and none of them have been American Presidents, not even from way way back in Golden Days when men were men and smelled like horseshit.

I see no harm in allowing the man to finish his term, and thus to diminish the chances of Environmentalist Gore, with the wife whose cause celebre thus far has been to call for the banning of nasty rock lyrics.

I prefer Hillary Clinton to such a lady as Ms. Gore.

Fact is, I prefer Hillary to the lady who adminished the land to "Just Say No" -- a neurotic busybody looking for a cause, and finding a cause in the boringly usual place: puritanism.

Rather than attempting to encourage d'etat, I believe we Libertarians ought seriously to devote ourselves to spreading simple, easily understood, libertarian ideas... and not to worry our heads too much about New World Orders per se.

What do you say to this, Compatriot?