DEMOCRATIC REPRESENTATIVE VIRGIL GOODE of Virginia — that’s rural, conservative, Southside Virginia, in his case — scarcely knows President Clinton. “I’ve never talked to him except when I went over to the White House for the Christmas party and shook his hand,” Goode says. That was in 1997, Goode’s first year in Washington. Oh, yes, Goode says, there was one more encounter. That was last summer when he went to a picnic for members of Congress at the White House and shook Clinton’s hand again. But he’s never discussed policy or politics with the president — or impeachment. Goode may soon be summoned for a chat, now that he’s publicly indicated he intends to vote to impeach the president for perjury.
Impeachment Democrats are a small but significant bloc in the House. For every Democrat who defects, Clinton faces the difficult task of picking up another moderate Republican who will vote against impeachment. At the moment, he needs at least 15 Republicans, 11 to offset the 228-207 GOP majority in the House and 4 more to compensate for the 4 Democrats ready to vote for impeachment. Besides Goode, Gene Taylor of Mississippi says he’ll vote to impeach, and colleagues of Ralph Hall of Texas insist he’s pro-impeachment. A fourth House Democrat says privately, “If there’s a floor vote to impeach, I’ll vote for it.” Also, Paul McHale of Pennsylvania, the first Democrat to call on Clinton to resign, may back impeachment so long as there’s no chance to vote for a tough censure resolution. And there are a handful of others — Chris John of Louisiana, for example — who are seriously considering going against the president. In the end, as many as 8 Democrats may abandon Clinton.
Why would these Democrats defy both Clinton and House Democratic leaders? Two reasons. They are social conservatives outraged by the president’s conduct, or they represent Republican-leaning congressional districts where Clinton is loathed. Goode qualifies on both counts. He’s a pro-life conservative who routinely bucks the White House and House Democratic leaders. And he’s probably the only Democrat who could hold the district between Charlottesville and Danville. Also, there’s a comfort factor. For him and a few other Democrats, reelection in 2000 will be far easier if they vote to impeach. Goode had no Republican opponent in 1998. Nor did Chris John. If either votes against impeachment, he will face a Republican foe in 2000.
Given the criteria, the pool of potential pro-impeachment Democrats isn’t large. Most social conservatives, pro-lifers especially, have long since migrated to the Republican party. And most of the GOP-leaning House seats, particularly in the South, have already been captured by Republicans. The result: There aren’t many Democrats for whom a vote against Clinton makes strong political sense. Even for the few who do represent Republican districts, there’s not much grass-roots pressure for impeachment. Representative Charles Stenholm of Texas polled every few days on this issue in his campaign for reelection. At no point, Stenholm says, have more than 39 percent of voters in his conservative, West Texas district favored impeachment. (Roughly half want Clinton to resign, however.) Texas governor George W. Bush, by the way, got nearly 80 percent of the vote in the district. Stenholm got 54 percent.
Stenholm hasn’t ruled out voting for impeachment. “I’ve pretty well made up my mind that serious offenses were committed,” he says. “There definitely must be an appropriate punishment. We can’t walk away from it and do nothing.” Stenholm hasn’t decided what that punishment should be. McHale of Pennsylvania, a Bob Casey Democrat who’s socially conservative and economically liberal, hasn’t either. He’s proposed a stinging censure resolution (“a pattern of deceitful and dishonest conduct that was grossly inconsistent with his constitutional obligation”). While inclined to stick with censure, McHale told Tim Russert on Meet the Press that he hasn’t “foreclosed the possibility of voting for impeachment.”
Representatives Gary Condit of California and Collin Peterson of Minnesota might have brought some Democrats with them if they’d decided to impeach. But they opted otherwise. They’re leaders of the Blue Dogs, the group of 29 moderate and conservative House Democrats. And they were among the 31 Democrats who voted in October for the open-ended Republican version of an impeachment inquiry. Now, they claim Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee haven’t made the case for impeachment. “It was incumbent upon them to tell us and tell the American people how this [Lewinsky investigation] connected with the original [Whitewater] investigation,” says Condit. “I don’t think they did that.” Peterson says Republicans have run the inquiry poorly, notably by not calling the proper witnesses. “They haven’t brought anything new to the table.”
Taylor and Goode didn’t need any new evidence. Taylor is a perjury hawk. Former Democratic representative Butler Derrick called him on Clinton’s behalf in November, noting that one Democrat had softened his objection to Clinton’s conduct. Have you? Derrick asked. “I said no,” Taylor says. “I feel like the president intentionally misled — that’s perjury,” he says. “It’s a serious offense punishable by five years in jail. I think it’s an impeachable offense.” Taylor believes two different messages may be sent, depending on what the House does. One is, “If you’ve got the right lawyer or you’re bright or you’re the president, then you can get away with it. That’s what happens in Latin America. I don’t want to see that happen here.” The message Taylor wants to send is, “Perjury is a serious crime, perjury is an impeachable offense, and everyone in this country has to obey the law. Period.”
As for Goode, when asked on the House floor a few weeks ago if he could be counted on to vote against impeachment, he replied: “Don’t put me down that way.” (Goode says Ralph Hall said the same.) His chief concern is “the false statements under oath, both before the grand jury and in the deposition for the Paula Jones case.” Goode cites what he calls a “for instance” — Clinton lawyer Bob Bennett’s submission of Monica Lewinsky’s affidavit denying a sexual relationship with the president. During the deposition, “Bennett asked Clinton if this is true,” Goode notes. “Clinton said — and this is a direct quote — ‘Absolutely.’ I don’t see how the president wouldn’t know Monica Lewinsky’s affidavit was false.” If Clinton is to ward off impeachment, he’d better have an explanation for Goode.
Fred Barnes is executive editor of THE WEEKLY STANDARD.
