THE WEEK OF MAY 18 was not an especially good one for Bill Clinton. New China allegations had surfaced, and Republicans were quick to make hay. The House leadership scheduled a series of votes, each intended to rebuke Clinton for his China policy. Democrats had little choice but to go along. Many of them argued that China was a far graver matter than presidential lubricity.
Then, in the middle of the week, Republican leaders scheduled two more votes, this time on resolutions relating to Clinton’s obstructionism. These latter votes were little noticed by the media, but they nonetheless revealed a disquiet in Democratic ranks. One of the resolutions called on the president to demand that his friends, appointees, and associates “come forward and testify fully and truthfully” before congressional committees (including that chaired by the controversial Dan Burton). An astounding 69 Democrats out of 206 supported this measure, with another 12 voting “present.” Their votes — inconceivable before the China quake hit — stung a president whom almost every Democrat had long sought to protect.
The other resolution, however, was even more significant. Replete with references to Richard Nixon and Watergate, it urged Clinton to make available any and all documents pertaining to his claim of executive privilege — a claim that the president has yet to acknowledge in public. The measure was nonbinding, but, even so, remarkable: It essentially accused Clinton of dealing in bad faith. And 36 Democrats supported it, with 6 voting “present.” Republican whip Tom DeLay was exultant. “This represents the first crack in the Democratic stonewall strategy,” he said. And although that crack is a relatively small one, it could lead to disintegration.
So, who are the Democrats responsible for the cracking? On the executive-privilege vote, they are a mixture. A few of them are retiring at the end of the present term, free of party constraints. A few others are genuine conservatives, often unfriendly to the administration. But most of the 36 are Clinton Democrats from tough districts who face close races against well-funded opponents — and they are wary of a president who may prove an albatross around their necks.
Ted Strickland, for example, represents southeastern Ohio, a classic swing district. In 1992, he was elected with 51 percent of the vote. Two years later, he lost in the Republican tidal wave — and again the vote was 51 percent to 49 percent. In 1996, he recaptured the seat — once more with only 51 percent. And next fall, he faces Ohio’s lieutenant governor, Nancy Hollister, a moderate, pro-choice Republican who is bound to run a strong campaign.
Strickland says that he voted against Clinton on executive privilege “because I believe in full disclosure. I believe in openness, and I think the public has a right to know.” He says that he “consistently” tells his constituents that “wrongdoing should be identified and punished, and that no one is above the law — not the president, and not Kenneth Starr.” Strickland further contends, like so many of his fellow Democrats, that “the recent accusations” — meaning those concerning China — “are by far the most serious for the well-being of the country.” Still, he adds, he would welcome Clinton to his district and is not attempting to distance himself from the president.
The GOP, for its part, is targeting Strickland’s seat, and several others as well. Neil Abercrombie of Hawaii — a liberal mainstay yet one of the Democratic 36 — is considered vulnerable, with one Republican poll showing him behind. Leonard Boswell of Iowa won by 49 percent to 48 percent last time, a margin of only a few thousand votes. Charlie Stenholm in Texas is fighting a second pitched battle with his 1996 challenger, Rudy Izzard. And Republicans are fairly licking their chops over Jim Maloney in Connecticut, who, as the GOP sees it, is all but toast.
These Democrats are careful not to criticize the president too blatantly — always cluck-clucking over Starr and his long and costly investigation — but their nervousness occasionally creeps out. Scotty Baesler of Kentucky, for instance, won his party’s nomination for Senate last week. Asked about his vote in favor of the executive-privilege resolution, he called Clinton’s invocation of the privilege “a hard thing to explain back home” and said that presidential aides ought to testify when subpoenaed. Gary Condit of California allowed that he had other Democrats voted with Republicans “out of a sense of frustration and a desire to get to the bottom of [the scandals], and soon.” Marion Berry of Arkansas — not to be confused with Washington’s Mayor Barry — is a longtime backer of Clinton’s and faces no opposition in November. Yet even he supported the resolution, explaining, “I voted for it because I don’t see any problem with the information coming out.”
Thirty-six votes on executive privilege — and 69 on its companion resolution — do not a party-wide abandonment make. But Democrats are clearly starting to flinch at Clinton’s embrace. On May 19, the House voted on a measure expressing “the sense of the Congress” that the Burton committee should grant immunity to witnesses with stories to tell about illegal fund-raising. For weeks, the Democrats on that committee had blocked such immunity. But each of those Democrats — including the exasperating Henry Waxman — supported the GOP’s immunity resolution, evidently shaken by the fresh China charges. Five days earlier, all but three House Democrats had voted for a measure disapproving of Burton’s handling of his committee.
What’s more, Jim Davis, a Democrat from the Tampa region of Florida, has declared that he will not welcome the president’s support, because “I think the character issue does matter here. I am not in the camp of ‘I believe the president.’ I am in the camp of ‘Let’s have a thorough investigation and learn the facts.'” And in New Hampshire, a Democratic challenger, Mary Rauh, has called for the appointment of another independent counsel — this one to probe the Clinton-China connection.
Republicans, meanwhile, expect to schedule more votes that force their Democratic colleagues to take a stand on Clinton and scandal. And Democrats, singed over and over by the president, never know when they will be burned again. As one political insider puts it, they “keep waiting for the other shoe to drop. And some of them are starting to see that they had better be cautious about what they do.” Democratic strategist Peter Hart confided to the Baltimore Sun that “Democrats don’t want to tie themselves to the Clinton mast, because they don’t know what’s ahead.” And Sen. Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, in a particularly bracing statement, told Roll Call, “I love my country a lot more than I love the [Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee],” which he heads.
The polls, for now, show Clinton holding steady, and most Democrats are remaining calm. But when enough of them slink toward the life boats, leaving behind a bucking ship, we will know that this presidency’s endgame is in progress. Clinton may be their brother, but he is heavy, and Democrats would rather not go down with him.
Jay Nordlinger is associate editor of THE WEEKLY STANDARD.
