The Edsall article IS online, Mr. Churchill. You really ought to learn how to run a search. Here's the text:
Republicans Conflicted Over Impeachment Drive's Fallout
By Thomas B. Edsall and Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, December 11, 1998; Page A22
As the House Judiciary Committee moves toward recommending the
impeachment of President Clinton, more than the future of the Clinton
presidency is at stake. The ultimate outcome in the House could have
significant consequences for the Republican Party as well.
The impeachment issue puts congressional Republicans in conflict
between the determination of their conservative activists to see Clinton
punished for lying about his relationship with Monica S. Lewinsky,
and the wishes of the broader public, a majority of whom opposes
impeachment.
Some Republican strategists believe a House vote to impeach Clinton
will have few lasting consequences, but others fear it could damage the
party's performance in the year 2000 congressional and presidential
elections. The party's critics argue that the drive to impeach Clinton
against the will of the public represents another act of political
self-destruction for the GOP.
Whit Ayres, a Georgia-based GOP pollster, said that Republicans have
an obligation to fulfill their constitutional duties on such a serious
issue. "But," he warned, "there is a limit to the amount of time you can
drive a position that is supported by only one-third of the electorate
without some political consequences."
But Bill McInturff, another Republican pollster, argued that the
decision is too important to make political calculations an important
part of the decision-making process on whether to impeach Clinton. A
member of Congress weighing how to vote "ought not be thinking about
the year 2000," McInturff said. "You ought to be thinking about your
obituary years from now, and what are they going to write."
Democrats maintain Republicans will pay a heavy price if the House
impeaches Clinton and subjects him and the country to a lengthy trial
in the Senate. They argue that Republicans could lose both their House
and Senate majorities in 2000 if the public reacts angrily to the
continuation of the scandal debate that has dominated the capital but
turned off the public.
Mark Penn, the pollster for Clinton and the Democratic National
Committee, contended that if House Republicans approved articles of
impeachment, "It's going to mean the House on a partisan basis would
be doing something the voters are categorically opposed to, that goes
against their basic and considered sentiments as voters."
Penn said a vote to impeach Clinton will "identify the Republican Party
very strongly with the right wing and I don't think that identification
will disappear" before the 2000 elections.
Gary Jacobson, a political scientist at the University of California at
San Diego and a specialist in congressional politics, reinforced that
view from a nonpartisan perspective. "It's yet another case where it looks
like the party is being dominated by its right wing, and when that
happens, the party seems to get in trouble," he said.
Jacobson added that an impeachment vote could stall the operations of
government and rebound against the Republicans the way the
government shutdowns did in late 1995. "It repeats a pattern of a kind of
headlong rushing in directions that are not popular with the general
public and it comes back to hurt the party," he said.
What makes the political calculations difficult for Republicans is that
the pressures within individual congressional districts may be different
than the overall mood in the country.
Many House Republicans represent districts with heavy GOP majorities
and a substantial percentage of intensely anti-Clinton, conservative
voters. These members often face only token Democratic opposition, and
their political survival depends on preventing a GOP primary
challenger from getting the traction to take them on from their right
flank. A vote against impeachment could provide just such an opening
for a challenger.
But there is a larger political calculus for the party, which is whether it
will be branded as a party dominated by the pursuit of Clinton rather
than the public interest.
"This is a delicate and potentially vulnerable time for the party," said
Ralph Reed, a GOP strategist and former executive director of the
Christian Coalition.
Poll data suggests that the Republican Party is taking a big gamble in
pursuing impeachment. The percentage of voters holding positive views
of the GOP four months ago decisively outnumbered those with negative
views, but now the negative assessments outweigh the positive, a NBC
News-Wall Street Journal survey shows.
Of those surveyed, 68 percent said Congress should not "impeach Bill
Clinton and remove him from office."
Penn said that in his polling for the DNC, a majority of voters expressed
approval of congressional Democrats, 52 percent to 43 percent, but
"approval for congressional Republicans has fallen to 38 approve/57
disapprove," and when voters are asked whether they would cast a
ballot for a Democrat or Republican running for the House, 45 percent
choose a Democrat, and 35 percent picked a Republican.
Many Republican governors have urged their congressional colleagues
to bring the Clinton investigation to a conclusion as quickly as possible,
arguing that few people in their states are deeply interested in the issue.
But few of these governors have been willing to say publicly they believe
the House should stop short of impeachment.
Montana Gov. Marc Racicot (R) said that, given the likelihood that the
Senate will not vote to remove Clinton and the lack of public confidence
in the congressional proceedings, censure would be a preferable
outcome, assuming Clinton cooperated by acknowledging wrongdoing.
"My perception is they're [the public] weary and they don't believe the
judicial character of the process has been maintained," Racicot said in
an interview. "There is an inclination on their part to bring it to a
conclusion."
California Gov. Pete Wilson has also signaled his fear that a
continuation of the impeachment process risks a backlash and that
censure may be more appropriate.
Wilson told California reporters this week that whatever the House
decides, Congress should quickly end the debate. "I think they should
have received the message from the election that that's what the public
wants and reasonably expects," he said.
Some GOP strategists argued that predictions of doom in 2000 if the
House votes to impeach Clinton are wildly overstated.
Kyle McSlarrow, vice chairman of Campaign America, a political
committee run by former vice president Dan Quayle, declared: "The vice
president has made clear that regardless of the outcome [of the
impeachment vote], it will not affect the congressional elections one
iota."
"This will be ancient history by the time of the next elections," said
Kieran Mahoney, a New York-based Republican strategist. "A much
more seminal event was the Gulf War and it was ancient history by the
time the elections rolled around."
But Mahoney said the Republicans' focus on impeachment badly
damaged the party in the midterm elections. "I think we already paid
the price for this one and a steep price," he said. "We took what would
have been solid congressional majorities in the next century and placed
them in jeopardy, at least in the House, for 2000."
Tom Rath, the New Hampshire GOP national committeeman, agreed
that the issue hurt Republicans last month. But he said even if the
politically smart vote was against impeachment, House members should
vote their consciences.
"I'm of the old school," he said, "that if it's a choice between politics and
conscience, I prefer them to come out on the side of conscience."
Reed said that the party could survive a House vote to impeach Clinton
and a Senate trial if the public perceives Republicans as dealing "with
impeachment as 10 percent of a broader political message" that includes
work on cutting taxes, improving schools and reforming Social
Security.
search.washingtonpost.com
|
