Salon Newsreal | House of adulterers

A L S O+T O D A Y

Life of the party?
By Joshua Micah Marshall
With Livingston gone, Tom DeLay runs the party
(12/19/98)
Clinton tries to carry on...and on
By Harry Jaffe
(12/19/98)
A plague on all their houses
By Murray Waas
On Capitol Hill, partisan hard-liners have damaged the constitutional democracy they claim to hold so dear
(12/18/98)
The war at home?
By Jeff Stein
There's not much the U.S. can do to prevent an Iraqi terror attack, besides watch and listen
(12/18/98)
Going through the motions
By Harry Jaffe
Patrick Kennedy and Bob Barr's offstage sparring was the only surprise of Friday's impeachment debate
(12/17/98)
The Impeachment War: What on earth is going on?
Experts, pundits and kibitzers weigh in on Washington's weirdest week
(12/17/98)
Home for Ramadan?
By Jeff Stein
Don't hold your breath: Clinton's air war isn't likely to knock out Saddam Hussein
(12/17/98)
And now, back to impeachment
By Bruce Shapiro
Republican skeptic Christopher Shays tries to explain why fence-sitting Republicans suddenly rushed to oppose the president
(12/18/98)
Rep. Bob Livingston's remarks
The text of the statement Thursday by the incoming speaker of the House
(12/18/98)

T A B L E+T A L K
Do you agree or disagree with President Clinton's decision to bomb Iraq? Join the debate in Table Talk's International Issues area

R E C E N T L Y
The few, the proud, the relieved
By Jeff Stein
President Clinton risked a revolt within the military if he pulled back from the brink with Iraq once again
(12/17/98)
Baghdad bombing: The right move, the wrong time
By Lori Leibovich
A foreign policy expert says Clinton should have struck Baghdad sooner -- and argues that U.S. sanctions should be lifted
(12/17/98)
Reaping the whirlwind
By Joshua Micah Marshall
Clinton's move against Iraq raises the stakes for both parties in the impeachment debate
(12/17/98)
The whole world is watching -- again
By Todd Gitlin
Left-wing literati turn out to block impeachment
(12/16/98)
Peace, the movie
By Daryl Lindsey
Clinton's three-day visit to the Middle East was full of symbols and photo ops, but precious little in the way of content
(12/16/98)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Browse the
Newsreal Archives
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

spacer

House of adulterers
Commentary
Unless the GOP is able to convince voters the impeachment proceedings are based on more than disapproval of Clinton's private sexual affairs, revelations like Bob Livingston's will continue.

BY DAVID WEIR | This is all getting too weird. Just when it seemed that the news coming out of the nation's capital could not possibly get any stranger, it did. Already reeling under the pressure of two huge news stories -- the bombing of Iraq and the impending impeachment of the president -- the nation learned Thursday from incoming Speaker of the House Bob Livingston, R-La., that he had carried on his own extramarital sexual affairs, and he offered to resign.
Livingston's GOP troops rallied to his defense, so he didn't have to resign, after all. Once again, throughout media spin land, there arose the theory that all this might be part of some grand "scorched-earth" policy, presumably coordinated by nefarious operatives in the White House.
This all has a familiar ring to us. After all, Salon broke the original stories that revealed that certain people in the Clinton camp were discussing such a strategy last summer.
In September, when Salon published our exposé of Rep. Henry Hyde's affair, in which he admitted his now-notorious "youthful indiscretion" with a woman named Cherie Snodgrass, it was widely speculated that the White House had planted the Hyde story. Only when reporters followed our tracks was it confirmed that the Hyde story came from Snodgrass' ex-husband -- not from shadowy White House operatives.
Similarly, Livingston's confession appears to have been triggered by press outlets searching into the heretofore obscure politician's past once he was elected to replace Newt Gingrich as speaker. In fact, Salon reported just last week that some in the White House were considering another round of "scorched-earth" revelations about Republicans, but Livingston was not among those whose indiscretions were being peddled to reporters.
It is regrettable, but the current polarized political environment inside the Beltway, revolving around the impending impeachment of President Clinton for allegedly lying about a sexual affair, has unleashed a wave of curiosity among the press corps -- and to some extent among constituents -- about whether those who would judge the president are themselves free of "indiscretions" in their past.
It turns out, of course, that many of them are not without such blemishes, and Livingston's embarrassment is only the latest in a string of revelations that seems likely to continue until or unless congressional leaders can somehow convince a skeptical public that their proceedings against a popular president are based on more than disapproval of Clinton's private sexual behavior.
The Republicans have failed to accomplish this, and the fallout that has ensued is therefore both logical and inevitable. This isn't about scorched earth. This wave of revelations is being driven by the press and the public. You might say the GOP has brought it on itself.
SALON | Dec. 18, 1998

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Become a Salon member. Click here.

A L S O+T O D A Y Life of the party? By Joshua Micah Marshall With Livingston gone, Tom DeLay runs the party (12/19/98) Clinton tries to carry on...and on By Harry Jaffe (12/19/98) A plague on all their houses By Murray Waas On Capitol Hill, partisan hard-liners have damaged the constitutional democracy they claim to hold so dear (12/18/98) The war at home? By Jeff Stein There's not much the U.S. can do to prevent an Iraqi terror attack, besides watch and listen (12/18/98) Going through the motions By Harry Jaffe Patrick Kennedy and Bob Barr's offstage sparring was the only surprise of Friday's impeachment debate (12/17/98) The Impeachment War: What on earth is going on? Experts, pundits and kibitzers weigh in on Washington's weirdest week (12/17/98) Home for Ramadan? By Jeff Stein Don't hold your breath: Clinton's air war isn't likely to knock out Saddam Hussein (12/17/98) And now, back to impeachment By Bruce Shapiro Republican skeptic Christopher Shays tries to explain why fence-sitting Republicans suddenly rushed to oppose the president (12/18/98) Rep. Bob Livingston's remarks The text of the statement Thursday by the incoming speaker of the House (12/18/98) T A B L E+T A L K Do you agree or disagree with President Clinton's decision to bomb Iraq? Join the debate in Table Talk's International Issues area R E C E N T L Y The few, the proud, the relieved By Jeff Stein President Clinton risked a revolt within the military if he pulled back from the brink with Iraq once again (12/17/98) Baghdad bombing: The right move, the wrong time By Lori Leibovich A foreign policy expert says Clinton should have struck Baghdad sooner -- and argues that U.S. sanctions should be lifted (12/17/98) Reaping the whirlwind By Joshua Micah Marshall Clinton's move against Iraq raises the stakes for both parties in the impeachment debate (12/17/98) The whole world is watching -- again By Todd Gitlin Left-wing literati turn out to block impeachment (12/16/98) Peace, the movie By Daryl Lindsey Clinton's three-day visit to the Middle East was full of symbols and photo ops, but precious little in the way of content (12/16/98) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Browse the Newsreal Archives - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
		House of adulterers Unless the GOP is able to convince voters the impeachment proceedings are based on more than disapproval of Clinton's private sexual affairs, revelations like Bob Livingston's will continue. BY DAVID WEIR \| This is all getting too weird. Just when it seemed that the news coming out of the nation's capital could not possibly get any stranger, it did. Already reeling under the pressure of two huge news stories -- the bombing of Iraq and the impending impeachment of the president -- the nation learned Thursday from incoming Speaker of the House Bob Livingston, R-La., that he had carried on his own extramarital sexual affairs, and he offered to resign. Livingston's GOP troops rallied to his defense, so he didn't have to resign, after all. Once again, throughout media spin land, there arose the theory that all this might be part of some grand "scorched-earth" policy, presumably coordinated by nefarious operatives in the White House. This all has a familiar ring to us. After all, Salon broke the original stories that revealed that certain people in the Clinton camp were discussing such a strategy last summer. In September, when Salon published our exposé of Rep. Henry Hyde's affair, in which he admitted his now-notorious "youthful indiscretion" with a woman named Cherie Snodgrass, it was widely speculated that the White House had planted the Hyde story. Only when reporters followed our tracks was it confirmed that the Hyde story came from Snodgrass' ex-husband -- not from shadowy White House operatives. Similarly, Livingston's confession appears to have been triggered by press outlets searching into the heretofore obscure politician's past once he was elected to replace Newt Gingrich as speaker. In fact, Salon reported just last week that some in the White House were considering another round of "scorched-earth" revelations about Republicans, but Livingston was not among those whose indiscretions were being peddled to reporters. It is regrettable, but the current polarized political environment inside the Beltway, revolving around the impending impeachment of President Clinton for allegedly lying about a sexual affair, has unleashed a wave of curiosity among the press corps -- and to some extent among constituents -- about whether those who would judge the president are themselves free of "indiscretions" in their past. It turns out, of course, that many of them are not without such blemishes, and Livingston's embarrassment is only the latest in a string of revelations that seems likely to continue until or unless congressional leaders can somehow convince a skeptical public that their proceedings against a popular president are based on more than disapproval of Clinton's private sexual behavior. The Republicans have failed to accomplish this, and the fallout that has ensued is therefore both logical and inevitable. This isn't about scorched earth. This wave of revelations is being driven by the press and the public. You might say the GOP has brought it on itself. SALON \| Dec. 18, 1998 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Become a Salon member. Click here.