In a message dated 6/19/01 7:40:35 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
<< I don't think that this point is as intractable as you paint it, Patrick.
Let's consider this issue like scientists: >>
OK, I'm game. :)
First, let me note that I still disagree with your premise that the GOP had
to weigh the risk of removing Clinton & facing Gore as an incumbent in 2000
against any benefits of an impeachment trial.
I contend that this was not a plausible outcome.
The votes simply were not there, as many conservative commentators --
including Pat Robertson! -- pointed out from the very start.
At least 67 votes were needed to convict. At the time, the GOP had 55
senators and the Democrats had 45. If all the Republicans voted to remove
Clinton, it would have taken 12 Democrats to agree. And some GOP defections
were quite likely on a vote of such gravity -- in the end, in fact, 10
Republicans voted to acquit on at least 1 of the 2 charges.
The chance of 12 or more Democrats voting to convict a president of their own
party was very slim. Particularly since, given the format of the trial, there
would be no surprise revelations capable of swaying the vote so profoundly.
It wasn't as if Monica Lewinsky was going to break down under
cross-examination and admit to being a Chinese spy, after all. As the people
_putting on the case_, the GOP had to know it did not have a case strong
enough to garner the necessary votes.
The final vote was 55-45 to acquit on the first count, and 50-50 on the
second, both far short of the 67 required for removal.
The possibility that Clinton might actually be removed, harming GOP chances
to win the presidency by making Gore an incumbent in 2000, was so remote
that, IMO, it simply could not have been a factor in the decision to proceed
to impeachment.
<<Occam's Razor suggests that we take the simplest explanation for this
observation - the simplest explanation being that those people acted on
principle, just as they have argued for three years now.>>
Without accepting your argument for the moment, let me ask if -- on the same
principle -- you accept Democrat pronouncements that they acquitted solely
because the case was not made, without any bias, pre-judgment or partisan
influence whatsoever?
I don't think I'm being _too_ cynical to suggest that the public
pronouncements of politicians of either party are not a sound basis for
judging their actions. :)
Touching briefly on two observations:
On fund-raising, how could a targeted fund drive to "Help us impeach Bill
Clinton" _not_ raise more money than a general "Support the GOP" drive? When
is a conservative more likely to contribute -- when nothing much is going on,
or when he's red-faced with anger watching those "commie libs" thwarting
impeachment on his TV every night?
On Clinton's legacy, I'm not necessarily contending that Clinton-haters in
the GOP backed impeachment to boost their chances in the 2000 election. I'm
proposing that the idea of embarassing Bill Clinton in history books
forevermore was incentive enough -- perhaps not partisan in your definition
of winning elections, but certainly not a pure-hearted and selfless motive,
either.
Patrick Sweeney
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
