No One Stands On Principle
July 28, 2016 at 4:25 p.m.
There are lots of people these days who say character isn't really all that critical.
They say that a few character flaws, no matter what they are, don't really affect a person's ability to lead. I think that had a lot to do with the way the election went last Tuesday.
Generally, people showed that they were tired of the sanctimonious Republicans picking on Bill Clinton. They showed that they wanted Congress to get on with the business of the nation - whatever that is - and leave Bill Clinton alone.
This is troubling to me.
I think the Republicans pretty much botched this whole impeachment proceeding from the beginning. And now they're flat out looking like fools.
It wasn't all too long ago that we were hearing the phrase "constitutional crisis." The Republicans were talking about how grave this matter was and how it was one of the most important undertakings in history. The judiciary committee's work would be long and arduous.
Then after Clinton's televised testimony boosted his approval rating, the judiciary committee figured maybe they could get done by the first of the year.
Now, after the election, the word from the chairman of the judiciary committee is that he only wants to call Kenneth Starr and maybe one other witness and that the committee could wrap the whole thing up by Thanksgiving.
What gives? Is it a "constitutional crisis" or not?
Remember when the Democrats wanted to just censure poor Bill? Republicans said that was unacceptable. Wanna bet what happens now?
Question: Who's standing firmly on principle these days in Washington?
Answer: Absolutely no one.
All this brings me back to the character issue.
It seems there is a void when it comes to character in Washington these days and there are those who say it really doesn't matter.
No kidding, I hear people on the talk shows on CNN debating it. (We have the television in the newsroom tuned to CNN or Headline News all day.)
I guess the fact that we even have a debate going on about whether character matters tells a lot about the state of morality in our society.
I liked what Gen. Norman Schwartzkopf once said when asked how he judged the worth of a man. He said he looked at "character and competence - in that order."
I couldn't agree more.
The general knows he can teach a soldier how to fight. But he can't teach a soldier how to be honest or to have integrity.
Unfortunately, not that many people think that way anymore.
Especially when it comes to Bill Clinton.
You know, they used to call Ron Reagan the Teflon¨ president. Bill Clinton makes Ron Reagan look like Velcro¨. And for whatever reason, most of the American people are completely willing to give him a pass.
"Who cares if he had sex?" "It's all about sex." "It's just a sex lie."
"Yeah, it was a pretty rotten thing he did, but, hey, the economy is good."
The character issue eludes these people. They don't even see the mess in Washington as a character issue. But I think it has everything to do with character.
If you're willing to lie under oath in a civil deposition or before a grand jury, what's to say you will be honest about your policies?
Nothing.
Just a couple weeks ago, during the budget debate, Clinton threatened to veto any bill that came to him with a tax cut. He said we shouldn't be using the recently acquired budget surplus for tax cuts. He also said not a dime - much less the $6 billion in tax cuts proposed by Republicans - should go back to taxpayers until there was a plan to save Social Security. I suppose you could debate those points, and maybe he's right. Maybe we taxpayers don't deserve any tax dollars back just yet.
Maybe it should all go toward eliminating the national debt. Maybe we should save Social Security first.
But why, then, would the president propose $20 billion in spending for new programs before saving Social Security or eliminating the debt?
These days, Clinton is dead set against a tax cut and we have a $70 billion surplus in the federal budget. But does anyone remember 1992 when he was trying for the first time to become our president? The main plank in his campaign platform was the famous "middle class tax cut."
Remember? At the time, the government was running some $260 billion in the red during that fiscal year. How could a person campaign for a tax cut when the country is running in the red and against a tax cut when the country has a surplus?
During that same 1992 campaign, Clinton said the deficit would exceed $300 billion. He said he would address that problem if elected (along with giving us a middle class tax cut). In 1993 when Clinton became president, he told us that he couldn't give us the tax cut after all because the deficit was far worse than he thought, around $260 billion.
But just a few months earlier he said the deficit was $300 billion and that he would give us a tax cut.
When Hillary Clinton's national health care plan was all the rage in 1993, she and Bill proposed paying for it by reducing the growth of Medicare to 6 percent per year. "This is not a cut," they assured us.
"This is a reduction in the amount of growth." And it was true. It wasn't a cut. Medicare would grow by 6 percent per year.
But in 1996, just three years later, the Republicans in Congress proposed a reduction in the growth of Medicare to 6 percent to help shore up Social Security. Clinton went on the offensive. He told Medicare recipients that the Republicans were going to "eviscerate" and "decimate" Medicare. How could he say that when just three years earlier he and Hillary had proposed precisely the same thing?
There are lots more examples of deceit in this administration. The 100,000 cops that never made it to the streets. The 100,000 teachers that will never make it into classrooms.
And you know, it's not just Clinton. It's Republicans and it's Democrats.
No one stands on principle anymore.
Some of my friends say to me, "Geez, Gary, what are you complaining about? Do you think things are really that bad?" Frankly, no, things are pretty good for me. But I worry. I worry about my kids' future. I worry about a growing tax burden. I worry about a shaky global economy. I worry about the increasingly violent and sexual "entertainment" foisted upon us. I worry about the general decline in morality this country is experiencing and I worry about the character of the people we elect to lead us.
I guess more than anything I would like to see our leaders tell the truth. I would like to see a fair airing of the issues on both sides, devoid of all the hype.
But I guess that's too much to ask. Politicians lie. Everybody knows that.
And from the looks of recent events, character doesn't really count for all that much either.
I think we need a new slogan on our money.
"God help us." [[In-content Ad]]
There are lots of people these days who say character isn't really all that critical.
They say that a few character flaws, no matter what they are, don't really affect a person's ability to lead. I think that had a lot to do with the way the election went last Tuesday.
Generally, people showed that they were tired of the sanctimonious Republicans picking on Bill Clinton. They showed that they wanted Congress to get on with the business of the nation - whatever that is - and leave Bill Clinton alone.
This is troubling to me.
I think the Republicans pretty much botched this whole impeachment proceeding from the beginning. And now they're flat out looking like fools.
It wasn't all too long ago that we were hearing the phrase "constitutional crisis." The Republicans were talking about how grave this matter was and how it was one of the most important undertakings in history. The judiciary committee's work would be long and arduous.
Then after Clinton's televised testimony boosted his approval rating, the judiciary committee figured maybe they could get done by the first of the year.
Now, after the election, the word from the chairman of the judiciary committee is that he only wants to call Kenneth Starr and maybe one other witness and that the committee could wrap the whole thing up by Thanksgiving.
What gives? Is it a "constitutional crisis" or not?
Remember when the Democrats wanted to just censure poor Bill? Republicans said that was unacceptable. Wanna bet what happens now?
Question: Who's standing firmly on principle these days in Washington?
Answer: Absolutely no one.
All this brings me back to the character issue.
It seems there is a void when it comes to character in Washington these days and there are those who say it really doesn't matter.
No kidding, I hear people on the talk shows on CNN debating it. (We have the television in the newsroom tuned to CNN or Headline News all day.)
I guess the fact that we even have a debate going on about whether character matters tells a lot about the state of morality in our society.
I liked what Gen. Norman Schwartzkopf once said when asked how he judged the worth of a man. He said he looked at "character and competence - in that order."
I couldn't agree more.
The general knows he can teach a soldier how to fight. But he can't teach a soldier how to be honest or to have integrity.
Unfortunately, not that many people think that way anymore.
Especially when it comes to Bill Clinton.
You know, they used to call Ron Reagan the Teflon¨ president. Bill Clinton makes Ron Reagan look like Velcro¨. And for whatever reason, most of the American people are completely willing to give him a pass.
"Who cares if he had sex?" "It's all about sex." "It's just a sex lie."
"Yeah, it was a pretty rotten thing he did, but, hey, the economy is good."
The character issue eludes these people. They don't even see the mess in Washington as a character issue. But I think it has everything to do with character.
If you're willing to lie under oath in a civil deposition or before a grand jury, what's to say you will be honest about your policies?
Nothing.
Just a couple weeks ago, during the budget debate, Clinton threatened to veto any bill that came to him with a tax cut. He said we shouldn't be using the recently acquired budget surplus for tax cuts. He also said not a dime - much less the $6 billion in tax cuts proposed by Republicans - should go back to taxpayers until there was a plan to save Social Security. I suppose you could debate those points, and maybe he's right. Maybe we taxpayers don't deserve any tax dollars back just yet.
Maybe it should all go toward eliminating the national debt. Maybe we should save Social Security first.
But why, then, would the president propose $20 billion in spending for new programs before saving Social Security or eliminating the debt?
These days, Clinton is dead set against a tax cut and we have a $70 billion surplus in the federal budget. But does anyone remember 1992 when he was trying for the first time to become our president? The main plank in his campaign platform was the famous "middle class tax cut."
Remember? At the time, the government was running some $260 billion in the red during that fiscal year. How could a person campaign for a tax cut when the country is running in the red and against a tax cut when the country has a surplus?
During that same 1992 campaign, Clinton said the deficit would exceed $300 billion. He said he would address that problem if elected (along with giving us a middle class tax cut). In 1993 when Clinton became president, he told us that he couldn't give us the tax cut after all because the deficit was far worse than he thought, around $260 billion.
But just a few months earlier he said the deficit was $300 billion and that he would give us a tax cut.
When Hillary Clinton's national health care plan was all the rage in 1993, she and Bill proposed paying for it by reducing the growth of Medicare to 6 percent per year. "This is not a cut," they assured us.
"This is a reduction in the amount of growth." And it was true. It wasn't a cut. Medicare would grow by 6 percent per year.
But in 1996, just three years later, the Republicans in Congress proposed a reduction in the growth of Medicare to 6 percent to help shore up Social Security. Clinton went on the offensive. He told Medicare recipients that the Republicans were going to "eviscerate" and "decimate" Medicare. How could he say that when just three years earlier he and Hillary had proposed precisely the same thing?
There are lots more examples of deceit in this administration. The 100,000 cops that never made it to the streets. The 100,000 teachers that will never make it into classrooms.
And you know, it's not just Clinton. It's Republicans and it's Democrats.
No one stands on principle anymore.
Some of my friends say to me, "Geez, Gary, what are you complaining about? Do you think things are really that bad?" Frankly, no, things are pretty good for me. But I worry. I worry about my kids' future. I worry about a growing tax burden. I worry about a shaky global economy. I worry about the increasingly violent and sexual "entertainment" foisted upon us. I worry about the general decline in morality this country is experiencing and I worry about the character of the people we elect to lead us.
I guess more than anything I would like to see our leaders tell the truth. I would like to see a fair airing of the issues on both sides, devoid of all the hype.
But I guess that's too much to ask. Politicians lie. Everybody knows that.
And from the looks of recent events, character doesn't really count for all that much either.
I think we need a new slogan on our money.
"God help us." [[In-content Ad]]