| |
Let's not make a deal
Seeking a way out, Clinton faces
more obstacles than opportunities
By Jay Severin
MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR
Sept. 24 — War and politics have in common
several things. Chief among them is that when
you are confident of victory, you do not retreat
and sue for peace. So if Democrats really believe
public support for Bill Clinton is solid, why is
Sen. John Kerry demanding an immediate
armistice?
To Democrats, a
deal means a
parking ticket:
censure and,
maybe a fine, in
return for
admitting to lying
(but not perjury.)
To Republicans, a
deal
meansClinton's
resignation in
return for a
promise not to be
criminally
prosecuted.
PRESUMABLY KERRY, Rep. Richard Gephardt
and other Democratic party elders are not motivated by a
wish to save Republicans. Could it be that they are
desperate to cut a deal now, while this event is still viewed
mainly as a sex scandal as opposed a crime? Could it be
that they fear that in the election just 40 days away, voters
are poised to “pull a Watergate” — punish a corrupt
president by voting the other party into office? They ought
to be, and their hectic calls for a deal prove that they are.
LAW OF POLITICAL PHYSICS
Queer as it is, politics is not entirely immune to the laws
of physics. What goes up (Clinton support) must come
down. The president is at the apex of his defense trajectory.
The window of opportunity is closing. He must deal now.
But the problems with a deal are many. For openers,
Congress isn't a local district attorney's office dealing with a
common criminal. That body simply is not constitutionally
authorized to plea bargain, even with such an uncommon
criminal as the president of the States.
Another barrier to a deal — especially to a quickly
arranged one — is politics. Democrats want and need a
deal more than do Republicans, and the GOP knows it. In a
deal, both sides give and both sides get. But a deal is in the
eye of the beholder. To Democrats, a deal means a parking
ticket: censure and maybe a fine in return for admitting to
lying (but not perjury.) To Republicans, a deal means the
gas chamber: Clinton's resignation in return for a promise
not to be criminally prosecuted.
I'd say the two sides remain somewhat far apart on
terms.
More political complications: Democratic candidates
across the country are begging their leaders to do something
now, because the Clinton scandal is killing them. Republican
voters are warning their leaders that if they let Clinton off,
they'll make them pay on election day.
Democrats say they are negotiating a deal. With whom
— Bob Dole? Howard Baker? Dwight D. Eisenhower?
Not with Newt Gingrich or Trent Lott or Henry Hyde.
There is nobody who counts on the GOP side who is
dealing.
As to the idea — proposed by Democrats — that
President Clinton volunteer to testify before Congress, it
would be fascinating theater, but hardly a deal-maker.
Besides, even Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle frets
over what kind of fair hearing Clinton would get.
Good point, Senator. I mean, once he's up there, you
just don't know — they might treat him like a liar, a cheat.
REFERENDUM ON IMPEACHMENT
It would appear the imminent election will, essentially,
be a referendum on impeachment. If the GOP gains seats,
the Clintons can start looking at retirement property. But if
Democrats prevail, the Clintons are in clover: if Republicans
lose just 11 seats in the House, Judiciary Committee
Chairman Hyde would be replaced by John Conyers. The
White House is acutely aware of this.
A Democratic party that once cut candidates off
without a dime if they distanced themselves from a
Democratic president are now being permitted — nay,
encouraged — to slam Bill Clinton, with full party financial
backing. Say anything negative you want about him and
what he did, they are being told, but just say it isn't
impeachable.
So this is what Clinton meant by “new Democrat.”
Not that Team Clinton doesn't have some guns to fire
in the President's defense, it's just that they're looking
increasingly feeble.
Let's see, we've got the standing ovation at the United
Nations — proof, some would say, that the world forgives
and needs Bill Clinton. And then there's the plaintive plea of
Pennsylvania Congressman Chaka Fattah, who warns
ominously that forcing Clinton from office would cost the
United States two million to four million jobs —
disproportionately harming minorities. (I am not making this
up.).
No, if there is to be a deal it will most likely come after
the House of Representatives impeaches President William
Jefferson Clinton. But that depends, of course, on what you
mean by “is.”
|
|
