 |
Impeachment looms. And Another Thing...By Rick Horowitz Thoughts on the Current Unpleasantness: Did I Miss Something? All last week, the highly affable chairman of the House Judiciary Committee was busy assuring everyone within earshot that a vote to impeach the president was no big deal. The House of Representatives merely accuses, Henry Hyde kept insisting; it's the Senate that does the heavy lifting. An "aye" for impeachment, Chairman Hyde made constantly, comfortingly clear to his members, doesn't necessarily mean you're convinced the president is guilty, or should be removed from office, simply that his behavior is something the Senate should take a peek at. So there was the very same Henry Hyde on the Sunday talk shows, just hours after his committee had finished its labors, saying that if the House did vote to impeach, the president should resign. Good of the country, strain of a Senate trial, a chance to go out with honor -- all the usual formulations. Bill Clinton could still travel across the land making speeches, Hyde suggested. There were many groups, he said, that would be delighted to hear from the suddenly-former president. Apparently those House votes matter after all. And speaking of talk shows... "The Hammer"? Or "The Fumigator"? On the very day Hyde was telling Clinton to consider cleaning out his locker, Tom DeLay was doing likewise on another show. Except that DeLay saw no need for delay: The president might as well resign right then and there. No surprise, really; when all around him were losing faith, the House Republican whip kept banging the gong for impeachment. Censure? No way, says DeLay -- it would "cause James Madison to roll over in his grave." Discuss among yourselves: Does Tom DeLay come across as perfectly rabid because of all those teeny-tiny, razor-sharp teeth of his -- dentistry as destiny -- or because it's impossible to forget that he started his career in the pest-control business? Or because he's perfectly rabid? Anyway, it's comforting to see former exterminators worrying about James Madison's feelings. And speaking of teeth... Language Is His Life. White House counsel Greg Craig has very nice teeth; you can't read an article about Greg Craig without running into his boyish smile. But there he was on the tube -- boyishly, earnestly -- complaining that certain people are so hung up on the particular words the president uses (or more precisely, refuses to use) to describe his periodic and not-quite-accurate accounts of the Lewinsky affair. Nice try. But it wasn't Congress who made every presidential utterance a magic act, who turned the English language into a nonstop game of "Truth or Dare." These folks have been snookered once too often; this time they want it all spelled out. You live by the word, you die by the word. And speaking of magic... Whatever Happened to What's His Name? Perhaps you were expecting to see Newt Gingrich presiding over the impeachment debate in the House. He is, after all, still officially the Speaker -- shouldn't he be in charge? Only in Clinton's dreams. Newt Gingrich has disappeared. The Speaker's poll numbers make Bill Clinton look like Brad Pitt. The last thing the Republicans want is to turn this into Clinton vs. Gingrich. Instead, the man in the chair is Ray LaHood, a second-termer from Illinois. They say he's fair-minded, a skilled parliamentarian. Mostly, he's not Newt. Who says Republicans aren't educable? And speaking of Speakers... Win One for the Dicker? As sordid as it is, the Lewinsky mess doesn't hold a candle to Watergate. Everyone concedes that -- or do they? "Richard Nixon did not burglarize anybody," incoming Speaker Bob Livingston recently declared. "He faced impeachment because he covered up a burglary committed by others. He did not perjure himself in that cover-up." Bill Clinton, on the other hand, "admits certain acts that he covered up and admits to having covered up. He doesn't admit to perjury, but I think a pretty concrete case has been made of perjury." "So why," Livingston wonders, "was impeachment the remedy for Nixon and not for Clinton?" Except for omitting that nasty old business with the FBI and the CIA and the IRS and the wiretaps and all the rest, it all sounds pretty persuasive, but that's not the question. Does Bob Livingston really want to refight Watergate?! After all this time, does he really still feel that their guy got the shaft? Is that feeling even a little bit of what this current misery has been about -- Republicans avenging the loss of Nixon? Just what the country needs: another round of payback, with more to come. Most Democrats don't care a whit for Bill Clinton personally. But toss him out on a party-line vote and those same Democrats will be waiting for their shot to even the score -- the first chance they get, or as long as it takes. It's the curse of endless memory. We'll be Ireland without the bombs or the ballads. Posted
12/15/98. Fresh stuff right here twice
weekly!
 |
  |
