the right view
Clinton, like Nixon, could be done in by
tapes
By David Keene
Washington's pundits, spinners and talking heads have been
busier than ever since Congress released the tape of President
Clinton's grand jury testimony.
The Clintonites are claiming that their smooth-talking boss
managed a bravura performance that proved once and for all
that, though he may be a bit sleazy, he's done or said nothing
for which he ought to be impeached.
Clinton haters, on the other hand, are convinced that while he
may not have gone off the deep end emotionally, his
evasiveness and dishonesty as well as his sleaziness had to
have been obvious to anyone who watched even a few minutes
of the four-and-a-half hour grilling that dominated the airwaves on
Monday.
The truth is, however, that those of us who breath the fumes
that dominate this federal city have no real idea of how all this is
playing in the rest of the country among real people. The polls
that were so hastily taken even as the tape was airing tell us
only that whatever the impact of all this might be, it has yet to
manifest itself in a way that can be so easily measured.
Those of us who either know too much or are inclined to like or
dislike Clinton saw what he had to say through a clouded and
distorted lens that makes it difficult, if not impossible, to
generalize from our own reactions.
Those who said he was smooth were right, of course, but did
they really expect anything else? After all, we are talking about
Slick Willie here. And those who observed that he was evasive
were just as correct, but did they expect him to either 'fess up
or lie in a way that would convince a 6-year-old that he should
be charged with perjury?
Those who've been around this town long enough will remember
the peculiar disconnect between the Nixon White House's
assessment of the impact the Nixon tapes were likely to have
on his ultimate fate. The shock that ran through the place when
Alex Butterfield almost off-handedly let the House Judiciary
Committee know that the tapes had been made was tempered
by the belief that they would "prove" very little and that Nixon
might survive even the stupidity of actually taping unguarded
conversations in the Oval Office.
He didn't, of course, even though it wasn't the evidence on the
tapes that did him in. It was, rather, what they revealed about
the atmosphere in the White House and the cynicism of a
president without much apparent regard for either the truth or
the office he occupied. Indeed, as time went on it was this that
destroyed him with the public. There was a lot of talk about the
vulgarity of his language and the unseemliness of his behavior.
This all took place in an era when expletives were still being
deleted, but the cumulative impact of his behavior destroyed
him. His defenders in what was then known as "Middle
America" were embarrassed and stood by as his enemies took
him apart. It was over because the man they heard on the tapes
simply didn't act or sound like they thought a president of the
United States ought to act or sound.
That reaction wasn't really appreciated until it took place. Those
who knew that the men who in those days ran things here
almost all talked the way Nixon did — like boys in a high school
football locker room — were constitutionally incapable of
appreciating the devastating impact tapes of that kind of talk
would have outside this city.
Things may be different these days. The language that shocked
Americans in the early seventies is now used by characters on
prime-time network TV shows targeting high school students,
and whatever public naiveté that might have existed then has
been replaced with a cynicism that has actually allowed Clinton
to mount a defense based on the argument that he's no worse
than everybody else.
But, still. Millions of people watched the tape of his Grand Jury
testimony on Monday and I suspect that most of them are
thinking about the implications of what they saw and heard.
Most of them are far less likely than the average lawyer to find
semantic hair-splitting all that attractive in a president or forgive
evasiveness simply because it was done smoothly.
Few of them want to go through the trauma of impeachment and
may, if we go that route, find themselves disgusted with both
the president and his detractors. The American people take
matters relating to the presidency more seriously than many of
us appreciate and might — just might — conclude that this is a
president who, like Nixon, just doesn't measure up. If they do
over the next week or so because they saw more in those video
tapes than those of us here in Washington, Clinton's presidency
will be over.
David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union, is
a Washington-based governmental affairs consultant.
the political life
Let the punishment ($4.5M) fit the crime
By Dick Morris
Should Bill Clinton be impeached and removed from office?
Should he resign? What should Congress do?
Clinton was elected and reelected by the voters of the United
States. They should be the ones to decide if he should stay in
the office to which they elected him.
Despite Democratic protests, the release of the president's
grand jury testimony and the release of all the evidence the
House has received is both proper and necessary. We have to
be sure that the public has all the facts and all the information.
Then, we must await their decision.
If the American people continue to believe that Clinton should
stay in office, Congress must not — must dare not — remove
him. This would be a coup d'état, even if there is a fig leaf of
Democratic support.
On the other hand, if the public concludes that Clinton must go,
he must go.
We must remember that each time we impeach and remove a
president, it becomes easier to do the next time. Had Richard
Nixon not been forced out, I doubt if anyone would be talking
about removing Clinton. The next time, it will be easier still.
But a censure or reprimand seems so mild and easily brushed
off. Particularly with the president in his current state of obvious
denial, splitting hairs and blaming other people, the chances
that he would take such a slap on the wrist seriously are slight.
He would see it as making the best of a bad political situation
and would go happily along, lying as he went.
Americans are groping for a way to hold the president
responsible for his actions that would fall short of the de-
stabilizing effect of impeachment or resignation. They don't want
a token punishment, they want a real one.
I think we should follow the Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) precedent.
Just as the Speaker was required to pay for the costs of the
investigation into his ethical offenses, so the president should
be required to pay the $4.5 million cost of the wild goose chase
on which his lies led prosecutors.
Just as the Speaker was barred from raising the money from
others and had to pay for it out of his own personal resources,
the president should be required to do so too.
Since Clinton does not have sufficient resources at the moment
to pay the fine, it should be a continuing lien on his future
income, after retirement. The deal should specifically include
what types of activity the president could undertake —
speeches, writing, etc. — to pay the fine, and would exclude
reliance on any public contributions.
As a former president, he would not be permitted to receive
contributions from friends or the public, but would have to pay off
the fine by using only his own earnings. The deal would,
presumably, have to preclude further criminal prosecution for
perjury or the like and the fine would have to be considered a full
and final punishment.
The message will go out to all Americans that the president
cannot expect to get away with lying under oath with impunity
and that he is not above the law. But we will not have punished
ourselves by destabilizing our system of government. Everybody
will see that a fine of this magnitude, which would take about a
decade for the ex-president to pay off, is no mere token
punishment.
We must remember, however, that the other shoe has yet to
drop. Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr's findings in the
Castle Grande deal, Whitewater, the Kathleen Willey affair, the
Linda Tripp personal life, the travel office findings and the White
House FBI files scandal — all are bound to be highly damaging
to the president. After these non-sexual allegations are fully
explored, it is quite possible that the verdict of America will be
that Clinton must go.
But if the public falls short of demanding Clinton's ouster, but
seeks a method of punishment nonetheless, a hefty $4.5 million
fine would be very appropriate.
hillnews.com |
