If all that you say is true (it isn't) about making Clinton a hero, why should "impeachment be here to stay"?
Anyway, you are wrong that they detested impeachment. When you took those who thought that Clinton ought to resign, be impeached, or be censured, a majority thought that some action should be taken, and, retrospectively, most people perceive impeachment as the functional equivalent of censure. What they were against was removal, which, of course, did not occur.
It was, at the time, predicted by Democrats that public outrage would lead to a considerable backlash against the Congress. We retain both houses of Congress, and most House members associated with impeachment remain in office. Furthermore, Gore has, at best, won a Pyrrhic victory in this election, at worst simply lost. So I would guess that the detestation of the unfairness you refer to is overestimated.
On the question of the public's view of Clinton: most people give the credit for the economy to the private sector, not government, and of those who credit government, about half credit the Congress, and of those who credit the Executive, more credit Greenspan than Clinton. The high job approval ratings are very shallow. Furthermore, the personal approval ratings are very low, and show a real contempt for the man among more than two thirds of the populace.
On the question of impeachment: for all the Democratic caterwauling, perjury and obstruction of justice constitute impeachable offenses. The best they could offer was extenuation, and trying to undercut impeachment with the call for censure. Democrats are the ones who were unconscionably partisan on the issue. Still, as I pointed out earlier, most people took the matter seriously enough, and that accounts for the lack of appreciable backlash. Not everything will pass muster as grounds for impeachment....... |
