What an utter creep...

[David Bailey]

Any lawyer who lies and is caught faces professional sanctions if outside court, and incarceration if in court.

What, like being disbarred and given a $25K fine?

[Barry Shnikov]

What, like being disbarred and given a $25K fine?

Uh - yeah, like that. You were expecting a ritual treading of the wig, perhaps?

[David Bailey]

Uh - yeah, like that. You were expecting a ritual treading of the wig, perhaps?

Nope, I was just pointing out that he'd lied, he'd been caught lying, and he'd been punished for it.

Which is the only thing I was trying to say, to rebuff the "Oh, it wasn't really a lie, it was an evasion / oh, it wasn't really sex" brigade.

Actually, I though Clinton was a pretty good president overall (as did most of the American public). Good economic growth, no unnecessary foreign wars, pragmatic approach to working with a hostile Congress.

Mind you, anyone looks good compared to Bush.

[Barry Shnikov]

Nope, I was just pointing out that he'd lied, he'd been caught lying, and he'd been punished for it.

Which is the only thing I was trying to say, to rebuff the "Oh, it wasn't really a lie, it was an evasion / oh, it wasn't really sex" brigade.

Actually, I though Clinton was a pretty good president overall (as did most of the American public). Good economic growth, no unnecessary foreign wars, pragmatic approach to working with a hostile Congress.

Mind you, anyone looks good compared to Bush.

Sigh.

I was responding to the post about "surprise! lawyer tells a lie", not to specific points about Clinton.

How could Clinton look anything other than a good president? He has f-wits for the three presidential periods before him and now for two after him as well. When you factor the plonkers who have been vice-presidents over the last twenty years - Benny from Crossroads would be a stand out.

Isn't the real question why Clinton was being hounded for shagging someone in the first place? He was never a home-and-apple-pie candidate; no doubt Hillary and Chelsea were entitled to drop a piano on him but whose business was it otherwise? Two consenting adults, blah blah.

It wasn't wise of him to take the attitude he did. He should have refused to say anything other than 'I refuse to answer on the grounds that it's none of your goddamn business'. (Somewhat like the Blairs refused to answer questions on their children's medical history. There were good reasons why people might have asked whether they had had their baby immunised with the MMR jab, but there were better reasons why they should refuse to say.) That way he could have avoided personal difficulties and tried to introduce the principle that there are some things the electorate is not entitled to know.

[David Bailey]

Sigh.

I was responding to the post about "surprise! lawyer tells a lie", not to specific points about Clinton.

Oops - sowwy

It wasn't wise of him to take the attitude he did. He should have refused to say anything other than 'I refuse to answer on the grounds that it's none of your goddamn business'. (Somewhat like the Blairs refused to answer questions on their children's medical history. There were good reasons why people might have asked whether they had had their baby immunised with the MMR jab, but there were better reasons why they should refuse to say.) That way he could have avoided personal difficulties and tried to introduce the principle that there are some things the electorate is not entitled to know.

David Cameron - a man who I feel is pretty much a standard slimey politico otherwise - has adopted this stance on the drugs issue. And I think it's worked.

Realistically, the only successful strategies for scandal-management are:

• Refuse to comment - the "it's none of your business" approach
• Confess and say sorry.

So why oh why oh why do most politicians still try the "indignant denial" route? When they get caught - and the always get caught - it's ten times worse for them.