I am impressed that Stuart Rothenberg managed to write this column. The ostensible point of the piece (as indicated by the headline) is to examine whether or not there is any likelihood of a wholesale exodus of Republican lawmakers who are so outraged or embarrassed by Trump’s behavior and positions that they rescind their endorsements of their own party’s presidential nominee.
Rothenberg argues that this is unlikely to happen because the Democrats didn’t abandon Bill Clinton during l’affaire Lewinsky.
Why am I so skeptical that mainstream Republicans who have already climbed out on the Trump limb will turn around and crawl back? Because that is not how American politics works.
Something very similar happened back in 1998, when Democrats circled the wagons and stuck by Bill Clinton even though he had a very inappropriate relationship (including in the Oval Office) with an intern and lied to the American public. Democrats turned the scandal into a partisan fight.
That construction right there…that retelling of not-too-distant history…is almost sufficient to boil my brain and make my ears steam.
I’m not going to re-litigate the Lewinsky scandal this morning, but a supposedly neutral analyst like Stu Rothenberg sure sounds like a Clinton-hating Republican when he says that it was the Democrats who turned the president’s bad behavior into a partisan fight.
For the young people who might not know, the Republicans’ hounded President Clinton relentlessly with frivolous investigations backed by unhinged conspiracy theories, and when they finally caught him lying about his sexual relationship with an intern, they told the nation that the only remedy was to treat it as a high crime and misdemeanor, hold an impeachment trial, share every sordid detail of the affair, and remove him from office. Any humiliation or punishment short of that was supposed to undermine the very fabric of our government and society.
But, for Rothenberg, the way the Democrats’ responded to that provocation is exactly the same as how the Republicans are responding (and likely to continue to respond) to having to defend Trump’s big mouth and policy heterodoxies.
The beauty of this column is that it allows Rothenberg to slam Bill Clinton and to say that however disgraceful Donald Trump is and how shameful it is for Republicans to continue to support him, the Democrats are exactly the same.
Like Bill Clinton back then, Trump’s behavior has been so far over the line — with his comments ranging from incoherent to inaccurate to outrageous — that it is remarkable so many Republicans continue to support and defend him.
Can you imagine what Republican officeholders, activists and voters would say if a Democratic presidential nominee acted as Trump has or benefited from Kremlin hacking? (I am sure Democrats would be defending that nominee.)
If the Democrats had a candidate who benefitted from Kremlin hacking, who insulted women, blacks, Latinos, gays, Muslims, and the disabled, while taking positions on civil liberties and rights that were completely at odds with their values and the Constitution, I think it is unlikely that they’d stay united behind that nominee.
But Rothenberg tells us that both sides are equally to blame.
In spite of all of the talk about weaker parties and the growing number of independents, partisanship runs very deep in American politics. It is easier and probably safer politically to hunker down with fellow partisans than to break from the crowd.
Character and principle are qualities that are in short supply on both sides of the aisle.
But that certainly is nothing new.
It’s true that people care about stuff and they don’t want to see someone who disagrees with them about important things elected president. Therefore, people will only reluctantly conclude that the other party’s candidate is the only suitable choice for president. But reluctance is not the same as making the right decision when it is forced upon you. It was totally unnecessary to impeach and attempt to remove Bill Clinton from office. The decision to rally behind him was completely unlike the decision some Republicans are making to stick with Donald Trump.
I wonder if the “objective” analyst Stu Rothenberg pulled any muscles contorting himself this much to make a “both sides do it” argument.
Somewhere, no doubt, David Broder is smiling and nodding approvingly.
Just out of curiosity: what is the appropriate remedy when a sitting President is caught committing perjury and obstruction of justice?
Depends on the subject matter of the lying and obstructing.
Let’s not forget that the witchhunt was led by at least one pedophile, among other sordid figures.
Several of the leaders attacking Clinton and getting up on their moral high horses were engaged in their own “inappropriate” affairs with younger women not their wives, most notably serial adulterer (who ditched his first wife literally when she was coming out from under sedation from breast cancer surgery) Newt Gingrich – who attempted to run for GOP Pres. this year. John Ensign was also one of the top dogs going for Clinton’s jugular, while he, himself, was in an adulterous affair. The list goes on.
Monica Lewinsky was entrapped by the execrable Lucienne Goldberg, who was tasked to find and exploit someone like her. And now we all pay the price by having her loser son Jonah, Doughy Pantload, Goldberg getting to play the role of “serious person” in the media. Gack.
He lied about the shenanigans with Lewinsky. Obstruction of justice? Remind me about that.
>>obstruction of justice
whatever Bill Clinton may have obstructed, it cannot accurately be described as “justice”.
The courts thought it was disbarment.
It’s only obstruction of justice if the original offense is actually a crime. Getting a bj from a willing intern is not a crime. Lying about it in a SPEECH to the public is not a crime … maybe it should be, but it isn’t.
If you read down to about the middle of the article in Wikipedia you find the infamous “what the definition of ‘is’ is” defense. You don’t have to like it, you don’t have to agree with it and you don’t have to act on it. A judge, however, DOES.
The law has nothing whatever to do with justice, right, or morality. It has to do with legality and definitions.
Yes. Thanks. That often gets lost in the ongoing witch hunt, whining and vetching about the Clenis.
The answer to that would appear to be nothing. Not that I would put WJC’s perjury in the category of “obstruction of justice.” He lied about a personal intimate relationship with a consenting adult, which is not an illegal act. Was it even germane to the Jones’ sexual harassment lawsuit? Interpretations and opinions on that will vary, mostly along strictly partisan lines. Count me among those then and now that viewed the perjury as NBD and understandable and that Starr was out of line in going there. Didn’t say anything good about Clinton’s character, but that shouldn’t have been a revelation to anyone.
It’s all the big lies that Presidents speak and that do harm to individuals and society at large that should concern us. The big lies, that technically aren’t perjury, for which there is no accountability in this country. Those fit the definition of “high crimes and misdemeanors” and which the Constitution defines the remedy. To date it appears not ever to have been used (short-circuited in the one instance that likely would have led to conviction and not guilty decision in the only two instances of impeachment).
Apparently a gracious resignation and retirement in dignity and a “both sides do it” hunt for the next member of the opposition party to be elected President. To bad that Jimmy Carter was squeaky clean; there were other ways to peel that peanut.
I recall this like it was yesterday. I remember the righteous Republicans, led by Newt Gingrich, prying into any crack in the sidewalk to find an excuse to stick it to Clinton.
All they could find is he got a BJ.
AND, for all of you Republicans that are soooo mad at Clinton, please remember that Newt Gingrich (Speaker of the House) had a sex shack set up as he was cheating on his 2nd wife who he married after cheating on his first wife.
I’ve got $50 that says Gingrich denied the affair (that would be lying) and there isn’t one single Republican that cared then or cares now.
Yet it is sad to say that the Democratic Party did not learn from all of the hassles that the GOP has put various Democratic Presidents thru.A huge disservice was done to the country by not doing a full investigation into the Bush Administration. There was far more damage caused by the Bush Administration to the world. Then Bill Clinton ever caused from his supposed crime.
The problem is the GOP has continuously shown blatant disrespect for Democratic Presidents and that has progressed to what we have today from GOP members. Free speech is one thing but from what I have seen from the GOP far surpasses anything that the Founding Fathers wanted to protect. It is way past time to hold the GOP accountable for their numerous transgressions against this country. One way to show the world we are a country of laws would be to investigate all of the Bush Administration.
Hear! Hear!! Indeed. Sadly Nancy Pelosi, D, is the one is said the investigation of BushCo will not happen. Thanks, Nancy.
So keep in mind who, exactly, is protecting whom in Wash DC.
There is famous bumper sticker:
No one died when Clinton lied.
You can’t say the same about Bush’s lies, now can you?
But let’s get all up in arms and exhibit our self-righteous indignation and upset over Clinton’s lie.
No, it wasn’t right, but if Bush had been put under oath at the right moment, I wonder what he would’ve said.
And I’m not even all that fond of the Clintons. But the unseemly and ridiculous witch hunts have cost this nation millions upon millions upon millions of utterly wasted tax dollars that could’ve been better spent on nearly anything else, like infrastructure.
But no, let’s all witch hunt the Clenis one more time.
At the state level, that’s one thing, but at the federal level, Criminal investigation of the previous administration is what happens in 3rd world countrys. I can see why our pols are very leery about going down that road. Better in most cases to rely on political remedies and let the miscreants walk, otherwise every time the White House changes hands we’ll get arrests.
“Sadly Nancy Pelosi, D, is the one is said the investigation of BushCo will not happen.”
The problem is the American “all or nothing” political system. If we had a Eurotype parliamentary system, bringing Bush & Co up on charges would not create the precedent that doing so does in the USA. The investigation of Blair is going to be quite interesting. But if the Repubs won majorities in both Houses after indicting Bush, “witch hunt” wouldn’t begin to describe what would happen.
Anyone who’s ever studied the history of the late Roman Republic in the century or so leading up to the transition to emperors will grasp your point.
Stu Rothenberg is full of it. Full of ridiculous “Both Sides!” nonsensical crap. It sells well to his 1% Masters.
IOW, yet another day that ends in “y” in Versailles on the Potomac.
. . . de la Reine” within “Versailles on the Potomac.”
aka, “The Village”.
They wont repudiate Trump because their problem is with his empty suit/con man asoect, not the bigotted aspect. How many other candidates jump on vetting muslim bandwagon earlier, they got no grief. Thats why the exodus of GOP lawmakers or even voters is a unicorn.
The only people who think Rothenberg “objective” are listeners of NicePoliteRepublican radio. He’s a right wing water carrier, not as obvious as somebody like David Brooks but one nonetheless.
This makes me wonder if the right wing wurlitzer is trying to generate a new talking point, namely always bringing up Bill Clinton’s sexcapades and finding ways to make the stick on HRC in terms of character, etc. I say this because the other night on The Nightly Show (and despite how they lambast Trump, they also make it clear they don’t like HRC) they had on an editor from National Review and sure enough, she worked in Bill Clinton’s issues and how that was a poor reflection on HRC, blah, blah, blah.
Of course that’s a dicey subject given Trump’s marital issues over the years.
It is stunning that Rothenberg essentially makes the argument that Linda Tripp was a Democrat, that Lucianne Goldberg was a Democrat, and that Kenneth Starr was a Democrat.
True, Joe Lieberman was a
DemocratConnecticut for Lieberman partisan (likely the only one).Now can we talk about media gunning for Bill Clinton from Day One. The bore from the 1988 convention was not supposed to beat Poppy Bush (Thanks Ross).
The best available evidence, realtime exit polls, indicated quite strongly (I would say dispositively) that Perot did not tip the election to Clinton, but rather drew about equally from both him and Bush.
Sure would be nice to see that Zombie Talking-Point die and RIP once-and-for-all.