Re: Bounced from Jose

[Michael Pugliese <debsian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Well probably from reading, "Partners In Power, " by Roger Morris on the
Clintons. Morris also wrote  well regarded books on Nixon and Kissenger. (As
for his privacy, he worked on the NSC, during the early part of Nixon's
first term, and Henry K ordered his phone tapped, after Morris dissented
from the "Secret" bombing of Cambodia.) I also believe the other accounts of
Bill's boorish behavior and worse as regards
women like Kelly Browning and numerous others. The Monica stuff- jeez she
was half his age, an intern, and he's the most powerful man in the world,
getting blown in the workplace of the most powerful  man in the world(and
who
is to say if the Mossad wasn't blackmailing him, as I've heard from
"conspiracy theorists" ).
     And there is a world of difference between
consensual sex, (even with the generational and vastly different level of
power that Monica had vs. Bill? and even given her families well offness?)
between "working people" (yup Bill's
a prolatarian?) sexual harrassment and rape.
   And finally, on the margins albeit, since the policy outcomes consequent
upon the "choice" between a Bore, a Bradley, a McCain and a Bush, are all
within the narrow ideological parameters of our poity here in the USA, but,
for all that are not without import. Myself, I've not voted, on the
Presidential level for any of the finks since 1992 (did vote for Clinton in
'92)
and plan to vote for Joel Kovel, the neo-marxist psychoanalyst Green Party
candidate this year.
Though I have given a stray thought to vote for
(California has an open primary) Alan "Mosh Pit" Keyes, to really mess with
it. A friend from college, did that (he was a brilliant philosophy major
into Wittgenstein and Nietzsche) in 1992 and voted for Pat Robertson!
                                     Michael Pugliese

----- Original Message -----
From: Louis Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2000 5:58 AM
Subject: Bounced from Jose


> [I believe that this message and Kurt's bounced because it was posted
while
> the archives index was being built. I will look into this problem on
Monday
> when Panix is open for business.]
>
> Michael,
>
>     Where do you get the idea that Clinton committed rape?
>     You say Ken Starr's case was bogus -- but what Clinton did wasn't
> "right."
>     What was it that you think was wrong with what Clinton did? Poor
> technique with the cigar? Lack of reciprocity? Not bringing Hillary in for
a
> threesome?
>     Or are you one of those, "it's not the sex, it's the lying" folks?
>
>     *    *    *
>
>     As for impeachment: I do not think Clinton should have been impeached
> for bombing Iraq or Yugoslavia or kidnapping Elián. It would not change
> anything. The solution to those kinds of problems isn't to impeach Clinton
> but to carry out a revolution against capitalist rule. In the meantime,
> however,I don't think it'd make the slightest difference if you had Bore
or
> Gush in there instead of Clinton. And Just as I wouldn't have voted for
Bush
> or Gore over Clinton in an election (or vice-versa), I wouldn't vote to
> replace Clinton with Gore in the House or Senate, which is what
impeachment
> amounts to.
>     I can perfectly well understand why the bourgeoisie might want to
> replace an especially hated or discredited president; makes it hard to
> govern. But really, that's THEIR problem. Whether Bush or Gore, Gore or
> Clinton, Nixon or Agnew or Rockefeller or Ford or Humphrey, really I could
> care less.
>
>     I was, however, decidedly against this specific impeachment of
Clinton;
> if I had been in the house or senate, I would have voted WITH the
Democrats
> AGAINST the articles in the House and AGAINST  conviction in the Senate. I
> think taking a line like "let's impeach him for his *real* crimes," would
> have been an adaptation to the pressure of bourgeois public opinion (the
> press, the pundits, the politicians, not, of course, the public, whose
> *real* opinion was against the puritanical witch-hunt from day one) and a
> capitulation to the right wing offensive against the right of all people
and
> especially working people to privacy and to have consensual sexual
relations
> without let or hindrance from the feds.
>     'That's because I'm for the right to privacy. Cops and courts and
> politicians have NO RIGHT to *ask* about such matters, never mind sit in
> judgment on them.
>
> *   *   *
>
>     I for the life of me don't understand what rape, (or assault and
> battery, infanticide, genocide, armed robbery, the death penalty)  have to
> do with the matter. Getting a blow job is one thing. Raping someone is
> another. Rape isn't an act of sex; it's an act of violence.
>
> José
>
>
> Louis Proyect
> Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/