A numbers game where bets are off
Analysis,
By Joanne Gray
Conventional wisdom holds that there will never be a
two-thirds majority in the US Senate willing to force
President Clinton from office.
But conventional wisdom has been wrong on so many
occasions in Washington in the past year that it almost
seems safe to bet against it.
Whether he proves to be a victim of a runaway
Congress, or a flawed president who squandered his
potential through self-destructive behaviour and serial
failure to tell the truth, Clinton has only a few more
chances to save his presidency from total ignominy.
To avoid the trial of the century he must do two things:
preserve the surprisingly high level of support he enjoys
with the American people and convince the Senate that a
harshly worded censure will close this bitter period in US
political history.
In two elections the American public was aware of the
allegations that Clinton was a sexual predator and chose
to ignore them.
To a large extent the record-breaking economic boom
the US has enjoyed under his presidency has bolstered
his standing, and given plenty of material reasons why the
public could ignore the more troubling aspects of his
character.
Without the scandals, Clinton would also be remembered
for his success in bringing the Democratic party to the
American middle ground.
The people could start to believe that resignation would
be the best thing for the country if a drawn-out
impeachment trial starts to harm confidence in the
stockmarket or if the economy falters.
If public opinion were to turnagainst Clinton, it is likely
that his own party, the Democratic Party, would also
start to get cold feet and push for him to go.
If he has any energy left to fight, Clinton must now work
out how to get out of this mess using smart political
judgement rather than legal tactics.
The situation is especially tricky because the only deal
that seems to be acceptable to Republicans would be an
admission of lying to the grand jury. In return, the Senate
trial and the threat of conviction could be dropped.
But such an admission could place Clinton in legal
jeopardy and the political climate is so toxic in
Washington that it is hard to see exactly whom he could
strike a deal with.
At the same time, the Democrats have painted the
impeachment process as unfair and partisan and, because
of that, illegitimate. But that stance does not sit well with
the difficult task of trying to find common ground with
Republicans in the Senate.
In retrospect, Bill Clinton has made a series of major
blunders, all of them betraying a lack of the political
judgement he was so well known for in the past, and an
inability to admit to mistakes or his own lapses of
judgement.
He should have tried to settle the Paula Jones sexual
harassment case this time last year when he knew that her
lawyers were aware of Monica Lewinsky.
Last January, he should have admitted he had an affair
with Lewinsky and asked for the nation's forgiveness
instead of wagging his finger in a nationally televised
response to a question and emphatically appearing to
deny it.
Every time the President has spoken about this matter, he
has offended or enraged Republicans. Remorse and the
truth were his political weapons, but he chose instead
legal weapons of obfuscation, hair-splitting and evasion.
And finally, when he answered 81 answers sent to him by
the Judiciary Committee, they were seen as once again
legalistic and evasive.
Many of the 20 or so moderate Republicans who
decided to vote for impeachment said they did so
because the President failed to show contrition or take
responsibility for his actions, and many seemed insulted
by the somewhat cavalier way he was treating the
process.
Just a month ago, few people thought the impeachment
process was going anywhere.
The White House and the Democratic Party generally
misinterpreted the November mid-term elections in which
the Republican Party lost five seats when it was expected
to win twice that many. That led to the surprise
resignation of Newt Gingrich, who has been demonised
by the White House, and was seen as the force driving
the impeachment bandwagon.
But an even more zealous Republican, Tom DeLay, then
took up the impeachment drive, telling wavering
Republicans that impeachment was the only constitutional
option available to the House to punish the President. A
bipartisan censure motion just wouldn't do it. Now
political commentators are saying that Gingrich may have
been more amenable to a compromise.
In a carefully staged show of support yesterday, a flock
of Democrats climbed into buses after the House of
Representatives vote and drove to the White House.
afr.com.au
|
