2000

2001

Nothing will ever be the same in Shuteye Nation, or so they tell us. We're going to be keeping an eye on that, just to make sure. But we've also got to stay on the alert right here at home, in Shuteye Town, where the acts of ruthless terrorists have also changed the landscape--and maybe the residents--for the foreseeable future. Maybe everything was better before... but we can't go back to the past, can we?

ALSO: See what's NEW from MOTHER PUBLISHING...

January 5, 2002

Daschle Blasts Bush's Tax Cuts

WASHINGTON (AP) - Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle blamed President Bush's tax cuts Friday for wiping out budget surpluses and called for a ``growth agenda'' for a country hammered by terrorism and recession. 

``Sept. 11 and the war aren't the only reasons the surplus is nearly gone,'' Daschle, D-S.D. said in a speech that effectively launched an election-year debate over Bush's stewardship of the economy. ``The biggest reason is the tax cut,'' he added. 

The GOP agenda, Daschle said, ``is being written by a wing of the Republican Party that isn't interested in fiscal discipline. They have one unchanging, unyielding solution they offer for every problem: tax cuts that go disproportionately to the most affluent.'' 

In his remarks, Daschle did not propose repealing or deferring elements of the $1.35 trillion tax cut that Bush pushed to passage last year. Nor did he mention that 12 of the Senate's 50 Democrats voted for it. 

Republicans responded quickly. 

``Perhaps the most important thing the Congress did last year to promote economic security was to pass the president's tax relief proposal,'' said House speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill. ``Senator Daschle voted against that proposal and now he seems to indicate that he wants to repeal it,'' Hastert added, saying that would be ``exactly the wrong way to achieve long term economic security.'' 

Daschle offered praise for Bush's handling of the war against terrorism and the aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. But the main thrust of his speech was an attack on the president's economic priorities, and a tax cut that he said had ``probably made the recession worse.'' 

``At a time when we needed to fight both a war and a recession - when our nation has urgent needs on all fronts - the tax cut has taken away our flexibility and left us with only two choices - both of them bad,'' he added. 

``We can shortchange critical needs, such as strengthening homeland security, or we can raid the Social Security surplus and borrow money to pay for them,'' he said. ``We cannot have it both ways.'' 

Daschle also expressed opposition to the three recommendations of a Social Security commission appointed by Bush. All three would let younger workers invest some of their payroll taxes in the stock market. Instead, Daschle said he favors allowing supplemental private accounts. 

Daschle, the nation's most powerful Democrat, was speaking more than two weeks before lawmakers return to work from their year-end break, but at the same time Bush readies trips to Oregon and California to urge congressional action on recession relief. 

Daschle, too, was proposing new temporary efforts at passing recession relief, and outlined a tax credit proposal for companies that create new jobs. Under the plan, businesses would receive a tax credit equal to the amount of additional money they pay in Social Security payroll taxes for each new job. 

Apart from attacking the tax cut, Daschle's speech included a call for more money for homeland security in response to the terrorist attacks and greater funding for domestic programs such as education and assistance for workers hard hit by trade imbalances. 

He also urged the president to submit a one-year budget proposal that includes a stimulus plan and a long-term plan that ``restores fiscal discipline'' while protecting the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. 

As majority leader and Bush's nemesis during last year's struggle over economic stimulus legislation - Daschle also is mentioned as a potential White House contender - the South Dakotan routinely receives extensive news coverage of his speeches. 

AP-NY-01-05-02

Thursday, January 3, 2002

Geraldo Rivera's War Stories

This is a partial transcript from The O'Reilly Factor, January 3, 2002.

BILL O'REILLY, HOST:   In the Personal Story segment tonight, Fox News correspondent Geraldo Rivera, just back from Afghanistan.  Of course, Geraldo couldn't just go over there and report.  All hell had to break loose, and it did.  So what happened with this friendly fire story? 

GERALDO RIVERA, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT:  What happened is that I made an honest mistake and a really weak kneed, back stabbing, sweaty palmed reporter from a minor newspaper used it to -- as a platform to attack me. 

O'REILLY:  Should he have not reported the story? 

RIVERA:  Well, I think he should have gotten the whole story and then could have reported it.  It would have been a very boring story.  If it were any other correspondent, Bill, any other correspondent over there, this would not have been a story.  It was only the fact that they were, you know, I had a bull's eye.  I've always had a bull's eye painted right on my backside, particularly with my colleagues.

I've had a strange relationship, a dichotomy, with my colleagues and peers over 32 years, an unblemished career.  I mean, I've done some things that I'm not particularly proud of, opened Al Capone's vault and got my nose broken in a brawl, but never, ever has there been any charge that I faked anything.

And to have this -- and really, I only got the full impact of it.  Remember, I came home from Afghanistan after 32 days.  Arguably Greg Hart, my team, I call them the Fox patrol, and I were closer to the action than any news team over there, print or broadcast. 

O'REILLY:  All right.  Now how did you get confused?  I mean, what -- because you did it on our program on The Factor here.  That's how you got in trouble.  You basically said that you were around --

RIVERA:  That's because I'm such a popular guy with these guys. 

O'REILLY:  Yes, I mean, you basically said that you were on the same ground where the --

RIVERA:  Hallowed ground. 

O'REILLY:  Yes, three Americans got killed by friendly fire. 

RIVERA:  No, didn't say that.  I said I was on hallowed ground where a friendly fire incident happened.

O'REILLY:  All right, so you didn't say that they were Americans who got killed.

RIVERA:  There were two.. separate, near-simultaneous friendly fire tragedies on or about the 6th of December.  One happened in the western part of the country.  The other happened where I was, in the eastern part of the country.

On the ground in combat, you don't have the same kind of access to Associated Press wires and the same flow of information.  So we only got the fragmentary report that the tragedy had happened, that three of our guys had been killed, along with a couple of the mujahideen, the Afghans.  Nineteen of ours wounded, plus an unspecified number of Afghan resistance  fighters wounded.

I had just been told by two Afghans that a terrible tragedy had just happened, that at least two of their people had just been killed by an American bomb.  That was the night of the 5th.  The morning of the 6th, I went there.  I walked the hallowed ground.

O'REILLY:  This is in Tora Bora?

RIVERA:  In Tora Bora.  I saw the fragments of uniforms, the boots with the feet still in them, that kind of stuff. 

O'REILLY:  You thought they were Americans who were killed at that point? 

RIVERA:  I didn't know who it was.

O'REILLY:  OK.

RIVERA:  And I was specifically vague because I didn't know who.  I had no idea who specifically of our forces had died there, of our guys. 

O'REILLY:  All right, so the guy from "The Baltimore Sun" obviously thought you were talking about Americans when you were in Tora Bora and --

RIVERA:  I don't think he cared to know what I was talking about.  I think that he was so gleeful.  Here's a guy who never covered combat, who admitted to me that he had never watched me on Fox News, had never seen any of my reports until he got a tip that I had made this fake report.  I mean, imagine standing in Tora Bora and pretending you're in Kandahar.  I mean, it says Tora Bora on the screen.

O'REILLY:  Yes, it didn't make any sense to me.

RIVERA:  I mean, it didn't make any sense.

O'REILLY:  All right, so you basically got confused about who was killed where? 

RIVERA:  Right.

O'REILLY:  OK.  All right, that's fine.  And Fox is going to check it out.  What, do they have some little panel that they're going to convene or?

RIVERA:  They've already gone through all the videos, all corroborates everything I've said.

O'REILLY:  All right so --

RIVERA:  And the reason I wanted to come, before I go back into the field, was to let people know that this never happened.  This was a false report.  This was a lie.  Whether it was intentional or clumsy reporting on the part of a TV critic, I don't know, but I have a feeling that the same kind of maliciousness that has characterized their view of me now in my fourth decade on television is --

O'REILLY:  But what is all that?  I mean, I get it too.  You know that.

RIVERA:  Of course, you do.

O'REILLY:  Why?  I mean, what is it? 

RIVERA:  Because we don't tow the line.  We don't speak the -- we're not the lemmings.  We -- you know, these are people who, I remember one time I went on a Jimmy Carter press tour of South America, quick story.  And I remember one night in Brasilia, the then new capital of Brazil.  An AP reporter went running through the hallways, "The lead is Amy Carter.  The lead is Amy Carter."

And everyone's dutifully following it.  OK, the lead is Amy Carter.  They're petrified that they're going to get out step with the mass of the profession. You and I have made our mark by being our own -- marching to the beat of our own drummer, being our own...

O'REILLY:  Well, why is it personal with -- especially the print press?  You know, I mean, there's cattiness among the broadcast press.

RIVERA:  Well, I think that generally speaking, you're correct.  And the print press is much more venal.  However, Aaron Brown at CNN...went out of his way to make a (UNINTELLIGIBLE). 

O'REILLY:  Ah, I saw that.  I mean, look --

RIVERA:  He went out of his way.

O'REILLY:  Do you think so?  I saw what he did.

RIVERA:  This is the guy who would poop in his pants if he was anywhere near what I was near in Afghanistan.

O'REILLY:  Well, I saw it. And all I saw him do was basically lift his eyebrow up in a  sense that --

RIVERA:  Well, it s more than that.  He said, "This, we thought long and hard before we presented this report, but it goes to the very essence of what we...

O'REILLY:  Yes, he's trying to justify it, so he can be -- but look, do you really think that Aaron Brown cares about what you do in Afghanistan?  He doesn't care. 

RIVERA:  No, Aaron Brown cared about the fact that I was opposite him the weekend before.

O'REILLY:  Yes, it's the ratings.

RIVERA:  Saturday and Sunday.  And I kicked his butt.  That's what he cared about.  He cared about undercutting a competitor, who is threatening their, you know, their entire franchise over there.  CNN is over.

December 10, 2001

Irrelevant Cleverness

 by Hugh Hewitt

Three months ago, terrorists launched a devastating attack on America that claimed several thousand dead and thousands more wounded, and shocked and shook the entire nation. The president rallied the country and ordered the execution of the military's plan for reprisal. The plan's first stage is largely and successfully complete. There are enormous concerns, of course, and a long and dangerous struggle is still ahead. But more has been learned - relearned, actually - about this country and its people in the past three months than in the past 30 years. 

So, as the 90-day anniversary of the attacks approaches, upon what are the elites of the left focused?

Run through the Sunday papers from Dec. 9: In the Washington Post, Michael Kinsley has filed an attack on Ari Fleisher for being boring and evasive. In the New York Times, Maureen Dowd is essaying on the translation of Harry Potter into Latin. The "featured writer" of the Los Angeles Times is John Balzar, and the paper has invested much in the effort to make him a "must read" on both coasts. There's a reason you haven't heard of him - he uses his column this Sunday past to extol his credentials as a "connoisseur of microbrew beer" as he defends alcohol and its users. Over at the Boston Globe, Ellen Goodman at least works the word "Afghanistan" into her big piece for the week. But the column is an attack on our military's dress code for women deployed in Saudi Arabia. 

Two days after the 60th anniversary of Pearl Harbor and on the eve of a national look back at a fall of savagery, fear, regrouping and bravery unlike any other in our history, and a quartet of representatives from the political and cultural left all chose to write on small matters irrelevant to the drama before us and before the world. Not only did they make these choices, their editors gave them the space to do so. I wonder what Walter Lippmann chose to write on in early March of 1942? 

Whether they have nothing to say or are still stunned by their sudden and nearly complete irrelevance, this simultaneous reach for absurd subjects underscores some obvious but hard truths about the pen-pushers on America's left. 

All of these people are clever writers. Once again, cleverness is revealed as unrelated to wisdom. Wars always reveal this. And it is always forgotten in a long peace. The locust years of the last presidency elevated the clever people higher than they had ever got before, because there was no substance there at all, just words. Now they are stumbling around. These folks have tried to write about the serious things, but have hit the wrong note every time. Poor Ms. Dowd may have set a record for outrageous misses. No wonder she is regressing to her high school days and writing of the difficulty she had translating Caesar's "Commentaries." 

We also have to relearn that pretensions to seriousness are not the same thing as seriousness. Kinsley may never be the same since being knocked around by O'Reilly, but truth be told he's never been significant in the way that George Will or Charles Krauthammer have been. Balzar won't get out of AA ball, and if Goodman has penned a memorable column in her life, I missed it. 

These and many others have risen because they share attitudes (they don't deserve the higher tag of "ideas") with the hiring editors and the column buyers. Attitude was enough during the long stretch of years after the fall of the Soviet empire when folks demanded peace dividends and argued with straight faces that HMO reform should take precedence over national defense and foreign affairs. All of a sudden, we need serious analysis from serious people and it turns out the wittiest people from the college papers are running the show. What a surprise: They have nothing to say. 

It is common now to note how little time was spent on terrorism in the three presidential and one vice presidential debates last fall. Don't blame President Bush or Vice President Gore - they weren't asking the questions. And you really can't blame just Jim Lehrer. He was the perfect distillation of center-left attitude in the country, and a gentleman to boot. Go back and watch the tapes of Russert during the campaign. After Vice President Cheney's selection was announced, he made the obligatory appearance on Meet the Cuomo Aide. The first seven questions dealt with his heart condition. Not much talk of that now. 

Try finding a single elite media commentator who spoke or wrote seriously about the dangers in the world and the first priorities in presidential selection during the fall or 2000. There was at least one - I thought at the time that this writer made a crucial point on the Thursday before the presidential election. In fact, rereading the last four paragraphs of Peggy Noonan's Wall Street Journal column of November 2, 2000, I am convinced that Noonan deserves the Nostradamus Award as well as a Pulitzer. Here is what she wrote 13 months ago: 
 

Mr. Bush is at odds with the spirit of the past 8 years in another way. He appears to be wholly uninterested in lying, has no gift for it, thinks it's wrong. 

This is important at any time, but is crucial now. The next president may well be forced to shepherd us through the first nuclear event since World War II, the first terrorist attack or missile attack. "Man has never had a weapon he didn't use," Ronald Reagan said in conversation, and we have been most fortunate man has not used these weapons to kill in the past 50 years. But half the foreign and defense policy establishment fears, legitimately, that the Big Terrible Thing is coming, whether in India-Pakistan, or in Asia or in lower Manhattan. 

When it comes, if it comes, the credibility - the trustworthiness - of the American president will be the key to our national survival. We may not be able to sustain a president who is known for his tendency to tell untruths. 

If we must go through a terrible time, a modest man of good faith is the one we'll need in charge. That is George Herbert Walker Bush, governor of Texas. 

Yes, she really did write that more than a year ago, and it has far more relevance and power than any or all of the four offerings mentioned above which appeared on December 9, 2001. The point is, as the coach said to the sprinter who asked to be made fast in Chariots of Fire, "You can't put in what God left out." 

God left seriousness, wisdom, and perspective out of most writers, as well as political judgment. A few, like Ms. Noonan, got all the gifts. We ought to read the latter, and ask the former to find a better outlet for their cleverness. We haven't the time to spare anymore. 

(c) 2001 WorldNetDaily.com

Friday, November 2, 2001

'Patriotic' Geraldo Bolts NBC for FNC & the Afghan Front 

By Lisa de Moraes

Geraldo Rivera is reinventing himself again.

This time he's a war correspondent for Fox News Channel, reporting from Afghanistan on the war against Osama bin Laden.

FNC has signed the former "20/20" correspondent, one-time daytime trash-TV host and recent potential mayoral candidate about midway through his NBC News contract.

On Nov. 17, the day after his last appearance on CNBC's "Rivera Live," he will be dispatched to the Afghanistan region, where he'll join FNC's other recent hiring coup, former CNN correspondent Steve Harrigan, in providing live reports.

Rivera was four years into a six-year pact with NBC News that paid him about $6 million per year to host the CNBC
prime-time talker, host quarterly prime-time NBC News specials on the broadcast network and appear regularly on the "Today" show.

But unlike Fox News Channel when Paula Zahn left it to join CNN, NBC News did not announce yesterday that it was sacking Rivera immediately and mulling whether to file a breach-of-contract suit against the agent representing him.

Instead, NBC News announced that it wished the host of its No. 1-ranked prime-time program well as he heads to its
competitor, and that it "understands Geraldo's desire to be on the front lines." That's because Rivera exercised an exit clause in his NBC contract.

Rivera said he's leaving because he's sick of being told he can't leave his anchor desk, like when he recently pitched that his next NBC prime-time special be on why Muslims hate America.

"They said I couldn't leave the country because of the program," Rivera said. "It was a constant irritant; I want to go where the story is and they'd say, 'What's the domestic angle?'

"It got to the point after September 11 where I couldn't bear it anymore," said Rivera, who says that 15 parents of children at his kids' elementary school were killed in the World Trade Center attacks.

"I've always seen myself, certainly in the last four or five, six years, as a newsman first and a talk show host second," he said. Rivera told The TV Column he's taking "a significant pay cut" to move to FNC.

The new deal reunites Rivera with Fox News Channel President Roger Ailes, who was president of CNBC when Rivera began working there in '94. Ailes subsequently tried to bring Rivera to FNC in '97; that resulted instead in Rivera's lucrative deal with NBC News.

But though Rivera landed lots of dough in that bidding war, the guy who had opened Al Capone's vault live and got his nose smashed by a folding-chair-wielding white supremacist was never accepted into the NBC News family.

On his CNBC show last night, Rivera told viewers he was leaving NBC and heading to the We Report, You Decide Network because "I'm not the same guy I was before the maniacs tried to tear our hearts out.

"I'm feeling more patriotic than at any time in my life. Itching for justice -- or maybe just revenge."

November 14, 2001

How to Destroy a Village: 
What the Clintons Taught a Seventeen Year Old

By Jason D. Fodeman 

When Bill and Hillary Clinton entered the White House in January of 1993, most people either liked them or didn't. Just as most people either agreed with their beliefs or didn't. However, when Bill Clinton became President, I was only nine years old. I was a fourth grader at Long Lots Elementary School in Westport, Connecticut. I did not know anything about the Clintons personally or politically, which parallels the fact that I had no political beliefs at the time. My main concerns were playing Nintendo and learning how to do long division. 

From that day eight quick years ago, I transformed from a political know nothing to part of the evil "vast right-wing conspiracy" that is out to get the innocent Clintons. Obviously, at age nine, I was not against the Clintons, so something had to trigger or cause me to feel the way that I do now. 

About two years ago, I started getting interested in politics. I watched the news, mostly cable and some network. I read newspapers, books, and Internet articles. Facts that I learned about the Clintons were so shocking and repulsive that it was hard for me to fathom how this family could rise to the most powerful office in our great country. It was these disturbing actions and the lessons that the actions give that turned me against the Clintons. 

It is a good thing that I was brought up in such a moral household. My parents' strong emphasis on honor and integrity helped me avoid being sucked in by the Clintons' horrible examples. My parents taught me not to lie, to always obey the laws, and to treat others respectfully (even those I didn't like or agree with). The Clintons' actions were in direct conflict to all of these lessons. Even parental lessons that the Clintons' deeds in part corroborated, the Clintons still managed to put a corrupt, dishonest spin on them. Luckily my parents embedded so many morals in me that I was able to see the wrong in the Clintons' actions and was not seduced by the darker side. However, I fear that other teenagers who did not have as strong an upbringing as I did may have been negatively influenced by what the Clintons did. Many young adults are impressed by money and power. If they see a man who has both but has no integrity, these young adults may think inappropriate conduct is acceptable, even a justifiable means to an end. 

Much attention has been given to the decline in youth values after events like the atrocious Columbine massacre. The experts and pundits often blame the easy-accessible R-rated movies that are filled with death, violence, sex, and profanity. Other experts reproach the rappers who produce CDs that glorify violence and profanity. While others denounce the excessively violent video games. The three above items may indeed be inappropriate and much too easily accessible to children. However, over the past eight years the three were not nearly as prominent in our society as the former First Family was. 

The Clintons in a way were similar to these forms of entertainment in their effect on youth. No, the Clintons did not teach us violence, but the logic is the same: just as violent video games and rap music have some effect on children, so did the Clintons' behavior. Kids heard about the actions of the Clintons and just as with the video games, children have become desensitized to inappropriate actions while more impressionable children may have adopted the Clintons' modus operandi as their own. Kids learn from what they see and hear. 

The Clintons' lessons may actually be worse. Rap, movies, and video games often exhibit negative aspects of violence. Movies may contain violence, but usually the bad guys don't get away scot-free and admired by millions of people. In most movies the villains are either killed or arrested showing kids the negative aspect of violence and the price that must be paid for such a lifestyle. The same can be said about violent video games too. If you keep playing, you will eventually lose or die. 

Even vulgar rap music indirectly shows the negatives of the lifestyle mentioned in the music. No the songs don't say violence is bad or not to do what the music says, but if you have followed the police reports lately you will be aware that rappers Jay-Z, Puff Daddy, DMX, and Eminem have all had problems with the law. Also in the past decade two rappers died in a way similar to their music. 

Rap, movies, and video games indirectly show children that there will be dire consequences to their actions, but the same can not be said about the Clintons. The Clintons have demonstrated to kids do whatever you want and then cover up and do anything possible to evade responsibility. The Clintons did not really suffer from their behavior because they did not get into serious trouble and worst of all their methods prevailed in part because of a blind eye from the Justice Department and the media. However, the Justice Department will not look the other way for the average citizen. A young person who follows the Clinton formula will get no such free ride. 

According to an analysis of Hillary Clinton's book, It Takes a Village, the book is titled after the African proverb, " 'It takes a village to raise a child' " (Anderson, "It Takes a Village: An Analysis of Hillary Clinton's Book"). I guess it all depends on what the definition of "village" is, but my definition is everyone in a community from ordinary salesmen to teachers to powerful politicians. That means that in the "village" of the United States the Clintons as the First Family had a key influence in the raising of each child. It was their role to set a moral and ethical example for the younger generation to learn from. As we all know, unfortunately they did not. The innumerable Clinton scandals demonstrate the clear negative lessons that the Clintons espoused. I have rejected their mantra and its likely consequences. Were you and your children able to? 

I am a busy teenager who wrote this to address the issue of the Clintons' influence on children that has thus far been ignored. Unlike catastrophic violence, children's everyday wrongdoing and its causes, which are much more rampant, have not been adequately explored. The Clintons lowered the bar for what is acceptable behavior in a civilized society. 

Fool Me Once Shame on You, Fool Me Twice, Shame on Me 

At a young age I learned the proverb, fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. My parents explained that the saying means you should learn from your mistakes. No one is perfect. Everyone makes mistakes. The difference between success and failure is often the ability to learn from those mistakes. It is acceptable to make a mistake, but do not repeat the same error. 

Obviously, this applied to the Clintons, but what has been learned from the experience? The Clintons' record of sleaze, their pushing the envelope to the outer fringes, and their wrongdoing from Arkansas to Washington have been well documented. Were those who supported Clinton duped or simply taken in by his charm, intelligence and slick talk? Were they seduced by a job and a strong economy? Did they prostitute the values and ethics they were teaching their young for that pay check while ignoring the barrage of disturbing allegations and the unending layers of scandal? 

I believe that ultimately it is the children, the family, and indeed the very fabric of our society that have suffered from enduring and tolerating the Clinton years. For children the waters were muddied as to right and wrong. It was a time that exposed the hypocrisy of parental guidance: demonstrating compromised values, do as I say, not as I do. Clinton did just about everything that a parent would advise against. He lied, covered up, verbally attacked those perceived as a threat, was disloyal to friends, and basically only cared about himself. Clinton had a " 'You got to do what you gotta do' " ("the New Senate Politics") attitude that superseded all other interests. 

President Clinton is out of power now, so what's the difference one might inquire? To ask the question is to have missed the point. It is the future I am concerned about, not the past, and the imprint embedded in the nation's conscience. People learn best by example and practice, and children are the most susceptible of all. These children observed a spectrum of disgraceful conduct from a sitting president committing perjury without punishment to repeated declarations that oral sex was somehow not sex. The danger is that they will try to emulate the Clintons' strategies while lacking the power, communication skills, and support system of their mentor. Those who follow the Clintons' model undoubtedly are in for a rude awakening 

Hopefully the Clinton Presidency will prove to be an anomaly, not a precedent for politicians and others in positions of trust and power. Frankly, I have my doubts. As long as the tactics work, there are those who will try to exploit them. Character assassinations worked for Clinton and his acolytes, so now we see Governor Gray Davis attacking the management of Texas utility companies for the California energy problems, conveniently ignoring conservationist and environmental policies that thwarted production for many years. When the personal and financial dealings of Rev. Jesse Jackson are questioned, rather than addressing the issue directly, which should be the obligation of any public figure using tax exempt donations, there is an attack on the motives of the messenger, Bill O'Reilly. Whether it is New Jersey Senator Torricelli facing allegations of bribery or California Congressman Condit's involvement in a liaison or worse, the pattern is becoming more brazen: hire a legal team, hold on to power at all costs, stonewall, obfuscate, demean the accuser or the victim. Sound familiar? 

The Clinton era has created a heightened level of cynicism. Many question and even distrust their democratically elected government. When missing FBI documents suddenly appear, immediately after FBI Director Freeh announces his resignation, and shortly before the scheduled McVeigh execution, there are those I am sure who wonder, honest mistake or a page out of the Clinton play book-read Hillary's billing records. This skepticism can lead to a diminution of confidence in our institutions of government and that is not a healthy situation for any of us. 

I believe character, values, morals do matter for all of us, and especially in our political leaders who enjoy great power and influence. If one can not be responsible in the most interpersonal relationships, how can there be trust among constituents and professional associates? Furthermore, it does not suffice to simply say Clinton was too shrewd or blame a complicitous Justice Department or a largely adoring media. To paraphrase Shakespeare, the fault lies with us. 

This is not a liberal-conservative, Democrat-Republican issue. It transcends labels. All participants should hold their candidates and leaders to the highest standards, which should be a prerequisite. If the parties fail to do so, the public should reject them. There are well qualified, honest, articulate individuals representing all philosophies. Why must we settle for less? Yet having said all this, we see Hillary Clinton elected United States Senator of New York of all places. Surely there are distinguished New York Democrats with a respected record and value system who could better and more honorably represent the Empire State. 

What does it all mean? Has the United States fallen into a hopeless morass or were the Clinton years a freak of nature with the sun, moon and stars aligning in a once-in-an-eternity pattern? I do not know much about astrology but as a seventeen-year-old looking toward the future, there has to be a positive side to these events. Lincoln said, "It is true that you may fool all the people some of the time; you can even fool some of the people all the time; but you can't fool all of the people all the time." It should be noted that Clinton never won a majority of the votes cast in either the 1992 or 1996 election. When he was first elected president, Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress and thirty governorships. When he left office in January 2001 Republicans recaptured the presidency carrying both Arkansas and Tennessee, narrowly controlled both Houses of Congress, and held thirty governorships. Furthermore, despite high job approval ratings, even during the impeachment period, he left office with the majority of those polled believing he is a person of low moral character and integrity. Finally, whether a supporter of Mr. Clinton or not, I find it hard to believe that anyone can look in the mirror, or send a child to the military or off to school or even out on a date and express pride and respect in our forty-second president's behavior. 

The spring and summer of 2001 marked the first time in ten or more seasons that I did not try out and play on a baseball team. I love the game, but I wanted to finish this manuscript before college commenced in the fall. I know that assorted professional experts have covered the Clintons' scandals ad nauseam over the years, yet I still believed there was something to add from a young person's perspective. I believe the Clinton phenomenon has left deep scars on the soul of American life. Particularly affected are the young who saw parents turn a blind eye to the endless stream of scandals and malfeasance, who preached lofty goals and values but fell short themselves. I wrote this to address this perceived dichotomy and its likely consequences. Adults, who clearly would not want this philanderer for a spouse, or depend on him as a friend, or leave him five minutes with their daughter, or trust him with their legitimate business interests, apparently concluded that for a president he was okay. 

It saddens me that parents still do not get it. Children see the president as a role model who should set the highest moral and ethical standards, values to which we all can aspire. If you do not want your kids to behave irresponsibly, to lie, and to deceive, then do not rationalize that a president's disgraceful actions are somehow acceptable. In today's vernacular, you got to talk the talk and walk the walk. Nothing is a bigger turn off to a kid than this do as I say, not as I do mentality. 

Some people may dismiss this analysis as just that of another Clinton basher. I refuse to be put on the defensive. I believe the office of the presidency was debased and the public trust violated by Mr. Clinton. It is a further shame that Clinton himself, an obviously bright man with a golden tongue, diminished his own legacy by his personal failings. 

I consider myself a compassionate young person with no political agenda or ax to grind while growing up in the 1990's. It is precisely for this reason that people should objectively consider the points raised in this writing. I think in the fullness of time, sociologists will study and debate the ramifications of issues raised herein. America is a great nation with a heritage that is the envy of the world. People often try not to be too judgmental. But there are times when events require a judgment, when a sophisticated society must definitively declare something right or wrong. It is my contention that at some point during the Clinton years, Americans unambiguously should have said, " enough…we will tolerate this no more." Time will tell.