Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Clinton's Scandals: Is this corruption the worst ever? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JF Quinnelly who wrote (49)	8/1/1998 4:54:00 PM
From: jimpit	Respond to of 13994

July 31, 1998 Wall Street Journal Dems Stand By Their Man. Good Luck! By PAUL A. GIGOT Give Democrat Chaka Fattah credit. At least the Philadelphia congressman was willing to defend President Clinton in public this week. The rest of his party colleagues were taking the fifth, so to speak. Mr. Fattah bravely went on CNBC's "Hardball" to argue that Monica Lewinsky's immunity deal with Ken Starr is no problem. This startled Chris Matthews, the show's host and former spin-meister to Democrat Tip O'Neill, who asked, "So this is good news for Bill Clinton?. . . That the woman's gonna bring state's evidence against the president, charging him with having a sexual relationship with a 21-year-old?" Mr. Fattah was left stammering that Ms. Lewinsky may be imagining a "fantasy relationship." Other Democrats in Congress may soon have to reach similar depths of political improvisation. For seven months--or four years, if you take the entire Starr probe--they've loyally supported the president's strategy of stonewall and delay. Now they discover they've delayed long enough to face a Starr report or indictments just weeks before they run for re-election. Dr. Faust knew all about this kind of bargain. For a while it looked like the Tammy Wynette strategy might pay off for Democrats. Mr. Clinton had raised a pile of cash for them, despite the scandal. He'd moved left on the issues, promising to veto GOP bills and fight for theirs. He gave them hope of retaking the House--which is the only reason such old bulls as John Dingell chose to stick around. By hitching themselves to Bill's Starr-bursting, Democrats hoped to avoid the GOP's fate of 1974. In that Watergate year, Republicans thought Nixon's August resignation would absolve them in November. But their own voters were so demoralized they didn't turn out, and Democrats gained 48 House seats. "The first person who stands up now and says something, the dam breaks, and who knows what happens then?" explains one Democrat. Better the devil they doubt (Bill Clinton) than the devil they know (Newt Gingrich). But the price for slavish spinning is high and rising. Burdened by scandal, Mr. Clinton has lost his power to persuade. Republicans have shredded his agenda with no discernible downside. Mr. Clinton can't create public support for the issues--tobacco, campaign reform, education, HMOs--Democrats want to run on. Instead Democrats now find to their horror that the president himself may become the issue this fall. "We're creating an unnecessary referendum on Clinton, which is exactly what the party was not planning to do," says Brian Lunde, a rare Democratic consultant who'll speak on the record. "Now the election is getting nationalized around the scandal." This makes GOP scandal calculations that much easier. Mr. Starr's report will now come too late for Congress to hold impeachment hearings before November. "There's just not enough time on the schedule," says House GOP campaign chief John Linder. But a report might come soon enough for the press to broadcast, and voters to absorb, damaging details about abuse of power. Imagine an autumn with Linda Tripp's tapes made public, Monica Lewinsky's testimony on TV, and coverup facts uncovered. Republicans can take the high road, while reporters ask Democrats whether they favor a Clinton perjury loophole: It's OK for a president to lie under oath, as long as it's about sex and the Dow is above 9000. Fear of this nightmare helps explain the clamor among honest liberals that Mr. Clinton now offer a Mea Monica Culpa. Everyone from Leon Panetta to Lanny Davis(!) is pushing the grand apology. The president could say he had to lie to protect Hillary, or more emotive yet, Chelsea. He wanted to spare them, and the country, embarrassment for his personal lapse. But he's been a good president and. . . you can write it yourself. In our therapeutic culture, this might even work. It would sure make life easier for Democrats, who could attack Republicans for bloodlust, without having to defend the president's misbehavior. But don't hold your breath. An apology would require Mr. Clinton to overcome a lifetime of political habit. He has lied his entire career and been rewarded for it. He has learned that if he can persevere long enough, and smash back hard enough, he can survive. He also knows that a confession on perjury still wouldn't answer the questions about obstructing justice. So look for more of what White House aides privately call "thermonuclear war." Look for Monica to join Linda Tripp on the trash heap of Clinton history, and for the attacks on Ken Starr to resume. Mr. Clinton will accommodate when he is forced to do so politically--as he has in answering Mr. Starr's subpoena. He knew Democrats couldn't support him if he resisted. But even here his spinners boast that they forced Mr. Starr to make concessions, especially on the scope of questions. This hardly sounds like a new desire to tell all. We are watching the greatest barroom brawl of our age. The trouble for Democrats is that their reward for standing by their man may be to get a bottle smashed over their heads before Bill Clinton does. Copyright c 1998 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.