DEMOCRATS DIDN'T always think censuring Bill Clinton was such a good idea. When the suggestion was first made last spring that Congress avoid the turmoil of impeachment by passing a resolution of censure instead, it was pooh-poohed by some of the president's staunchest defenders.
Robert Drinan, the former congressman and veteran of the Nixon-era House Judiciary Committee, warned Republicans last week not to impeach Clinton lest they be seen as acting out of "vengeance." But in March, Drinan vigorously declared that the choice for Republicans was impeachment — or nothing.
"The framers deliberately said impeachment is the one thing you can do to the president and the only thing," Drinan insisted. The prospect of a censure was "invented by Trent Lott" — the Senate majority leader who briefly lofted the censure balloon before the independent counsel's report was sent to Congress — "because they don't have the votes for impeachment."
In 1990, Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank was reprimanded by the House of Representatives. But that official rebuke didn't put so much as a dent in his political fortunes. |
Drinan's successor from the 4th Congressional District of Massachusetts agreed. In his waspish way, Barney Frank mocked the Republicans. "Faced with a choice, they go for symbolism over substance. That is what censure is."
It was easy for Democrats to be candid about the hollowness of censure nine months ago, when they thought Republicans had neither the votes nor the fortitude to impeach the president. Nobody doubts their fortitude anymore, and the numbers are adding up. Which is why the Clintonistas who scorned censure in March plead for it in December. When the House takes up the resolution of impeachment, the Democrats are planning a longshot parliamentary maneuver to substitute a vote on censure instead.
Barney Frank no longer dismisses censure as empty symbolism. His remarks in the Judiciary Committee on Dec. 10 are worth quoting at length.
"I am struck by those who have argued that censure is somehow an irrelevancy, a triviality, something of no weight. History doesn't say that. There are two members of this House right now who continue to play a role who were reprimanded for lying: myself and outgoing Speaker Gingrich. We both were found to have lied . . . in official proceedings, and were reprimanded.
"I would tell you that having been reprimanded by this House of Representatives, where I'm so proud to serve, was no triviality. It is something that, when people write about me, they still write about. It is not something that's a matter of pride. I wish I could go back and undo it. . . . I am, indeed, surprised that members [can] be dismissive of the fact that the US House of Representatives or Senate might vote a condemnation as if that doesn't mean anything. Members know better."
No doubt Frank does rue the day — July 26, 1990 — that he had to stand in the well of the House and be reprimanded by his colleagues. But who else, Massachusetts political junkies aside, even remembers it?
The day after Frank's comments in committee, I listened to a puzzled Rush Limbaugh ask callers to his radio show if they had any idea what the congressman had been talking about. Frank will doubtless be glad to learn that the nation's most popular radio talk host, an ardent conservative and a savvy political commentator, had completely forgotten about his relationship with a prostitute and the scandal it led to.
(A brief recap: Frank met the prostitute, Stephen Gobie, through a sex ad. He ended up giving Gobie the keys to his house and car, and wrote misleading letters to Virginia authorities in an effort to end Gobie's probation on a felony conviction. He also used his congressional privileges to fix 33 of Gobie's parking tickets. Gobie ran a sex-for-hire ring out of Frank's home, but the Ethics Committee rejected his claim that Frank knew about the prostitution.)
At the time, Frank's disgrace may have felt like a ticket to oblivion. But his political career has skyrocketed. He is one of his party's leading figures. He shows no shyness in asserting himself in the House, in committee, or in the media. He has never faced a credible reelection challenge.
Granted, Frank does not rejoice at having been reprimanded by his colleagues. But it didn't put even a dent in his political fortunes. It turned out to be, to quote his own words, "symbolism over substance."
What Clinton deserves and what the country needs is not a symbolic rebuke from which he will bounce back unscratched. There is only a momentary sting in being censured; impeachment will sting through history. Clinton has lied and deceived throughout his political climb. It is fitting that his lies and deceit be the cause, finally, of his fall.
Why impeach? Let a Democratic source provide the answer:
"Implicit in [the presidential] oath is the obligation that the president set an example of high moral standards and conduct himself in a manner that fosters respect for the truth. William Jefferson Clinton has egregiously failed in this obligation, and . . . has violated the trust of the American people, lessened their esteem for the office of president, and dishonored the office which they have entrusted to him."
A president who violates the people's trust and dishonors his office commits high crimes and misdemeanors and forfeits his right to the White House. The words are those of the Democrats' proposed resolution of censure. But they sum up perfectly the case for impeachment.
(Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for The Boston Globe).
-- ## --
Follow Jeff Jacoby on X (aka Twitter).
Discuss his columns on Facebook.
Want to read more? Sign up for "Arguable," Jeff Jacoby's free weekly email newsletter.