Salon Newsreal | And now, back to impeachment

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

AND NOW, BACK TO IMPEACHMENT | PAGE 1, 2
- - - - - - - - - -
Shays' sense of the issue's ambiguity and complexity is unfeigned. He voted to authorize an impeachment inquiry: "There was enough evidence to require that" -- but as the Judiciary Committee concluded its work he remained firmly convinced that "there were crimes, but not high crimes. Perjury is not a high crime. I don't see impeachment justified if that's the case." I asked him what seemed an obvious question: Why was there not on this Judiciary Committee an equivalent of Lowell Weicker, the maverick Connecticut Republican senator (and later independent governor) who during Watergate broke with the Nixon administration to defend constitutional principle. Shays responded by inverting the question: "Why is there no Weicker in the other party?" -- no Democrat on the Judiciary Committee willing at least to admit the seriousness of the president lying under oath and feeding falsehoods to aides he knew would carry them to the grand jury? "The partisanship was a two-way street."
To approach Shays and other Republican skeptics on their own terms is to gain some insight into why the long impeachment campaign turned so suddenly into a juggernaut (at least until the political wild card of Clinton's Iraq bombing). Shays -- like Rep. Peter King of New York, Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine and a few others -- represents a distinct Republican tradition that occupies the margins of the post-Reagan GOP but that can claim a long lineage of reformers going back through Nelson Rockefeller to trust-buster Teddy Roosevelt, early birth-control advocates, 19th century feminists and abolitionists (and on the darker side, to prohibitionists and anti-immigrant crusaders).
Shays' political mentor was Weicker; Shays' congressional predecessor in the Fourth District was the late Republican Stewart McKinney, who died of AIDS-related pneumonia after sleeping on a Washington street grate to protest budget cuts in shelter for the homeless. He is part of a tradition of Yankee blue-blood indignation: Shays' sense of political probity can be traced back to an old agrarian America that felt its status threatened on the one hand by the rise of corporate power and on the other by urban Democratic political machines that rose to serve the tidal waves of immigrants that reshaped American society from the end of the Civil War onward.
That is the history that inescapably shapes many of those "moderate Republican" fence-sitters. In Shays' account, two factors conspired last weekend to leave him with a growing sense of unease. The first was the president's own speech: "He just doesn't get it," Shays said of the president's latest lip-biting act of contrition. Clinton's remarks displayed with singular clarity the two personal characteristics that most offend his detractors: the dodgy language ("misled") and the underlying insolence (who is the president to declare he will "accept" censure, as if he had the option of defying Congress' jurisdiction?).
The other disruption was a conversation with his old mentor Weicker, who still lives in Shays' congressional district. The White House legal team at one point reportedly hoped Weicker would speak out on the president's behalf. Instead Weicker, an independent since 1990 and long an admirer of the Clinton administration, has come to believe that presidential perjury at any level is profoundly subversive of the legal system -- even under the corrupt circumstances of Kenneth Starr's investigation. "Impeachment," as Shays has come to view it, is in some sense a secondary question. The broader problem is that Clinton's lying -- first to the Paula Jones court, then to the American people -- is only part of an overall erosion of trust in the executive branch, stemming from Clinton's fundamental defects of character. "The president's word simply isn't good in Washington," Shays said Tuesday. The incredulous reaction to the timing of his decision to bomb Iraq only underscores the problem.
It's this collapse in Clinton's political credibility that Shays believes underlies the hemorrhaging of Clinton's support among his fellow moderate Republicans -- and it is for this reason, not for some extraconstitutional degradation ceremony, that he still thinks Clinton's only hope is a full-throated acknowlegment of lying under oath.
For this critical handful of reform Republicans, Clinton's impeachment remains more intensely problematic a crisis than for anyone else in the House. Intellectual, pro-choice, supportive of social welfare programs and embracing a general sympathy to civil liberties, they're isolated within their own party. Yet one of the mainsprings of this particular Republican tradition -- going back to the days of the trust-busters and muckrakers and early progressives -- is opposition to political corruption. So to them, what began as a vendetta by Starr and fanatic wackos like Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga., seems now unalterably cast in the terms not of law and the Constitution but of a national morality play about Clinton's lying.
Shays once went to jail to defend the integrity of the judicial system as he saw it. He now sees that integrity at risk both from the president and from an overreaching impeachment drive. His desire for the redemption of Clinton's presidency is genuine, even curiously pious. That is why he says he requested a private meeting with Clinton. "I am going to tell him that if it is his decision not to resign, the only alternative he has is to tell the truth in a way that no one can mistake. Getting votes in Congress shouldn't matter. My belief is that if the president told the truth without any angles to it -- even if that put him at risk of going to jail -- it would dramatically increase his credibility," and make impeachment less than a foregone conclusion.
SALON | Dec. 18, 1998
Bruce Shapiro, a columnist with the Nation, is a frequent contributor to Salon.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
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) House of adulterers By David Weir Unless the GOP is able to convince voters the impeachment proceedings are based on more than disapproval of his private sexual affairs, revelations like Bob Livingston's will continue. (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 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
		AND NOW, BACK TO IMPEACHMENT \| PAGE 1, 2 - - - - - - - - - - Shays' sense of the issue's ambiguity and complexity is unfeigned. He voted to authorize an impeachment inquiry: "There was enough evidence to require that" -- but as the Judiciary Committee concluded its work he remained firmly convinced that "there were crimes, but not high crimes. Perjury is not a high crime. I don't see impeachment justified if that's the case." I asked him what seemed an obvious question: Why was there not on this Judiciary Committee an equivalent of Lowell Weicker, the maverick Connecticut Republican senator (and later independent governor) who during Watergate broke with the Nixon administration to defend constitutional principle. Shays responded by inverting the question: "Why is there no Weicker in the other party?" -- no Democrat on the Judiciary Committee willing at least to admit the seriousness of the president lying under oath and feeding falsehoods to aides he knew would carry them to the grand jury? "The partisanship was a two-way street." To approach Shays and other Republican skeptics on their own terms is to gain some insight into why the long impeachment campaign turned so suddenly into a juggernaut (at least until the political wild card of Clinton's Iraq bombing). Shays -- like Rep. Peter King of New York, Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine and a few others -- represents a distinct Republican tradition that occupies the margins of the post-Reagan GOP but that can claim a long lineage of reformers going back through Nelson Rockefeller to trust-buster Teddy Roosevelt, early birth-control advocates, 19th century feminists and abolitionists (and on the darker side, to prohibitionists and anti-immigrant crusaders). Shays' political mentor was Weicker; Shays' congressional predecessor in the Fourth District was the late Republican Stewart McKinney, who died of AIDS-related pneumonia after sleeping on a Washington street grate to protest budget cuts in shelter for the homeless. He is part of a tradition of Yankee blue-blood indignation: Shays' sense of political probity can be traced back to an old agrarian America that felt its status threatened on the one hand by the rise of corporate power and on the other by urban Democratic political machines that rose to serve the tidal waves of immigrants that reshaped American society from the end of the Civil War onward. That is the history that inescapably shapes many of those "moderate Republican" fence-sitters. In Shays' account, two factors conspired last weekend to leave him with a growing sense of unease. The first was the president's own speech: "He just doesn't get it," Shays said of the president's latest lip-biting act of contrition. Clinton's remarks displayed with singular clarity the two personal characteristics that most offend his detractors: the dodgy language ("misled") and the underlying insolence (who is the president to declare he will "accept" censure, as if he had the option of defying Congress' jurisdiction?). The other disruption was a conversation with his old mentor Weicker, who still lives in Shays' congressional district. The White House legal team at one point reportedly hoped Weicker would speak out on the president's behalf. Instead Weicker, an independent since 1990 and long an admirer of the Clinton administration, has come to believe that presidential perjury at any level is profoundly subversive of the legal system -- even under the corrupt circumstances of Kenneth Starr's investigation. "Impeachment," as Shays has come to view it, is in some sense a secondary question. The broader problem is that Clinton's lying -- first to the Paula Jones court, then to the American people -- is only part of an overall erosion of trust in the executive branch, stemming from Clinton's fundamental defects of character. "The president's word simply isn't good in Washington," Shays said Tuesday. The incredulous reaction to the timing of his decision to bomb Iraq only underscores the problem. It's this collapse in Clinton's political credibility that Shays believes underlies the hemorrhaging of Clinton's support among his fellow moderate Republicans -- and it is for this reason, not for some extraconstitutional degradation ceremony, that he still thinks Clinton's only hope is a full-throated acknowlegment of lying under oath. For this critical handful of reform Republicans, Clinton's impeachment remains more intensely problematic a crisis than for anyone else in the House. Intellectual, pro-choice, supportive of social welfare programs and embracing a general sympathy to civil liberties, they're isolated within their own party. Yet one of the mainsprings of this particular Republican tradition -- going back to the days of the trust-busters and muckrakers and early progressives -- is opposition to political corruption. So to them, what began as a vendetta by Starr and fanatic wackos like Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga., seems now unalterably cast in the terms not of law and the Constitution but of a national morality play about Clinton's lying. Shays once went to jail to defend the integrity of the judicial system as he saw it. He now sees that integrity at risk both from the president and from an overreaching impeachment drive. His desire for the redemption of Clinton's presidency is genuine, even curiously pious. That is why he says he requested a private meeting with Clinton. "I am going to tell him that if it is his decision not to resign, the only alternative he has is to tell the truth in a way that no one can mistake. Getting votes in Congress shouldn't matter. My belief is that if the president told the truth without any angles to it -- even if that put him at risk of going to jail -- it would dramatically increase his credibility," and make impeachment less than a foregone conclusion. SALON \| Dec. 18, 1998 Bruce Shapiro, a columnist with the Nation, is a frequent contributor to Salon. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Become a Salon member. Click here.