I've researched the archives of the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer on impeachment, in response to John's call for some corrobatory quotes. 12-21-98, NewsHour with Jim Lehrer SEN. ORRIN HATCH: I don't think anyone would disagree with the statement that right now based upon what we know today we do not have 67 votes to convict the president and complete the process of impeachment. MY COMMENTS: The trial did not begin until 1-7-99. But the House voted to impeach on 12-19-98, so this does not meet John's criteria of being before impeachment. I included it anyway just to show the GOP does know how to count votes, and started counting votes well before the Senate trial ever began.. 12-15-98, NewsHour with Jim Lehrer THOMAS MANN: I think the message is reinforce preexisting positions and neutralize one another in the case of members. Politicians are making very complex calculations that - for which they can take a reading from E-mails or telephone calls. It's will I have a conservative primary challenge in my next election, what will happen in the general election now that it's going to be resolved - two years possibly - in advance of the next election? How can I live with my party leaders if I stray on a critical procedural vote? These are all complex issues for which signals from the public by E-mail are not dispositive. MY COMMENTS: Thomas Mann is from the Brookings Institution, of which I know nothing. This quote indicates that Democrats and Republicans, rather than solely making high-minded judgments on principle, were very much thinking about how their actions might play politically back home. 12-15-98, NewsHour with Jim Lehrer NORMAN ORNSTEIN: One of the things that Republican leaders in the House have been suggesting openly and otherwise to their own members is this is not the end of the world, because it will be resolved in a different fashion. And they're trying to, in a sense, soften the blow, lower the stakes of a vote for impeachment by their own members. MY COMMENTS: Norman Ornstein is with the American Enterprise Institute. This comment, on the idea that the Senate might vote to censure Clinton rather than hold a trial, indicates an assessment of the political advantages & disadvantages of voting for impeachment by the GOP. 12-4-98, NewsHour with Jim Lehrer PAUL GIGOT: Republicans are beginning to understand that the risks for them are voting against impeachment - their voters are going to care how they vote, where a lot of other people in the district are either going to vote for a Democrat anyway, or they're not going to give them much credit for it, because they're not paying much attention. But I will say, it's not just a matter of political calculation. There is also a question - and I talked to - get this - time and again from a lot of Judiciary members - they're playing for history here. They want to - they do not want to be associated with the president's behavior, and they do not want to be associated with what a lot of them think is a very bad constitutional precedent of censure. MY COMMENTS: Paul Gigot is a columnist for the Wall Street Journal. He talks here about Republicans voting on principle … _too_. That is, _in addition_ to weighing the political advantages and disadvantages of impeachment. I've never argued that the Republicans didn't _also_ hate Clinton, I've argued that they did not vote based _solely_ on the principle of hating Clinton. 11-20-98, NewsHour with Jim Lehrer PAUL GIGOT: Since we know the ending, which is that Bill Clinton is going to survive, because the Democrats have decided that they don't have a political risk here at the end, so they're not going to remove him from office, so what - JIM LEHRER: And they can't be - he cannot be removed without the Democrats. PAUL GIGOT: That's absolutely right. So what we're playing out here is a drama that gets to some other ending, so a lot of the real risk has been taken out of it. We know the ending, so the drama is, well, what happens in the meantime, and that's what's playing out here. MY COMMENTS: Well, what else do I need to say here? A full month before the impeachment vote in the House, a conservative columnist says flat-out on national TV that the Senate will not convict Bill Clinton. Why is this important? John has postulated that the GOP impeached Clinton on principle, not partisan calculation, because if he had been removed then Gore would have had an incredible advantage in 2000 and no partisan would take such a risk. I have argued that the GOP _did_ know Clinton would not be removed, and therefore John's hypothesis of risk to the GOP is not valid. Which means the GOP could pursue the other perceived benefits of impeachment, such as increased fund-raising, without fear of giving the Democrats a tremendous advantage in the 2000 election. Patrick Sweeney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
