Forums

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by bilmore
This bothers me on a fairly deep level, and I'm not quite sure I can define it well. I had the same sort of feeling watching NOW defend - hell, lionize - Clinton as the rape and harassment allegations were all coming out.

It bothers me because, on the one hand, I can understand it. NOW knew that, in Clinton, its aims and goals could be more profitably sought - it knew that the major societal changes it wanted had a higher chance of realization with Clinton as Prez than with the other choices. Because of that cost/benefit analysis, NOW had to, most likely, stifle an urge to condemn the guy doing exactly those things that it professes to hate.

But what do we, as a society, give up when we make such a choice? I understand that there's no perfect leader - but how far down are we willing to draw the line of acceptability in order to fight for our positions?

This isn't just a Clinton/Dems issue - I'm not just addressing his past crimes - but do we accept a Hitler who can deliver cheap, universal medical care? A Saddam who can stop crime? Exaggerated examples, both - but illustrations of the scary idea that we make a moral choice to allow unacceptable conduct if it profits us.

It doesn't lead to admiration of what we've become.

After the Clintons the only thing that stands between us and complete ruin is the Second Amendment and the babyjesuschristsuperstar. Let's pray to the latter that the former can hold off the RedChinese overlourds of the Clintons.