SINCE REPUBLICANS TOOK CONTROL of Congress in 1994, Democrats have pursued a simple strategy in congressional investigations of President Clinton: obstruct, obstruct, obstruct. In 1995, they denounced the Senate Banking Committee probe of the Whitewater scandal as partisan, then impeded its progress. They took their marching orders from White House aides. In 1997, when Republican senator Fred Thompson chaired hearings on campaign-finance abuses, Democrats acted in the same way. Ditto when the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee looked into illegal election fund-raising. But now, as the House Judiciary Committee takes up the impeachment of Bill Clinton, Democrats have promised to be non-partisan and not toe the White House line. Why the change? The reason is Dick Gephardt, the House Democratic leader.
Gephardt, a strait-laced Baptist from St. Louis, is appalled both at Clinton’s philandering and his self-serving apology on August 17. But that is only one of the reasons why he decided Democrats should cease being apologists for the White House. Never fond of Clinton, Gephardt concluded the president was on the verge of leading the Democratic party to an election disaster in November’s mid-term election, just as he had in 1994. So the smart thing for House Democrats was to declare their independence from Clinton in hopes of minimizing their vulnerability. Which is what Gephardt did. Also, he believes independent counsel Ken Starr’s charges against Clinton are serious, will be taken as such by the public, and should be treated seriously on Capitol Hill.
A week after Clinton’s nationally televised speech, Gephardt made his move. The White House had asked Democrats to say in their public appearances that Clinton had apologized fully and thus it was time for Congress and the country to turn to more important matters. Gephardt declined. He insisted impeachment was a possibility, and if it came to that, the House should “do it the right way. . . . We have to, under the Constitution, carefully examine the facts and then make a judgment on whether or not he should be expelled from office.” He noted calmly that if Clinton were to be driven from office, “we’ll get through this.” Gephardt didn’t take up the White House complaint that the press is prying too much, and obsessively, into Clinton’s private life. He told Ceci Connolly of the Washington Post the media scrutiny is “legitimate.”
The White House was not pleased. In response, Clinton aides got two allies of Gephardt in organized labor — AFL-CIO president John Sweeney and Gerald McEntee, head of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees — to urge him to back down from his statements. They also prompted Terence McAuliffe, a prominent Democratic fund-raiser, to call Gephardt. Two days later, the minority leader shaved back on his comments, but only slightly. The thrust remained, and he reiterated his “deep desire to do this in a non-partisan way.” Last Friday, Gephardt urged Democrats “to go more than halfway to make this a non-partisan process.” And he carried two-thirds of House Democrats with him in voting with Republicans to release Starr’s report to the public immediately — without giving Clinton a prior peek.
There’s more to Gephardt’s lurch away from Clinton than one vote and some lofty words. Just ask Rep. John Conyers, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee. Gephardt feared Conyers and other Democrats were prepared to do Clinton’s bidding during impeachment hearings. Given the amount of attention the hearings are bound to get, this would be embarrassing for the party. So he took control away from Conyers. He imposed Abbe Lowell, a Washington defense lawyer and active Democrat, on Conyers as the chief minority counsel while impeachment is considered. Conyers was furious and his own chief counsel on the committee, Julian Epstein, all the more so. To tighten his hold, Gephardt privately asked one Judiciary Democrat to serve as his liaison to Rep. Henry Hyde, the committee chairman. And that Democrat quickly informed Hyde.
Meanwhile, Gephardt was one of the first Democrats summoned to the White House when Clinton began his flurry of personal apologies. He joined a small delegation of House Democrats on September 9 who chatted with Clinton over coffee and Danish. During the session, according to Ron Fournier of the Associated Press, he told the president that impeachment was in the air. Gephardt then left the session early to attend a meeting with House speaker Newt Gingrich on impeachment procedures. That meeting represented a new stab at bipartisanship, since he and Gingrich hadn’t conferred for several years. Anyway, the early departure irritated Clinton aides, especially because he didn’t stop in the White House driveway and say a kind word to reporters about the president’s apology.
All this is tricky business for Gephardt. He’s bent on holding the Democratic caucus together while separating it from Clinton. Dozens of the Democrats are uncomfortable with this, preferring to mount a strong defense of the president, and Gephardt has to placate them. One way is by noisily protesting GOP plans for conducting impeachment proceedings as unfair to Clinton. Yet when Rep. Jim McDermott of Washington expressed concern about a Republican lynch mob out to get Clinton, Gephardt balked. His answer was to nick Republicans but also say this: “We are called to be better than sometimes our natures allow us to be. This is not a second election. . . . This is not politics. This is not spinning. This is not polling This is not a lynch mob. This is not a witch hunt. . . . This is a constitutional test.” So far, Gephardt is passing.
Fred Barnes is executive editor of THE WEEKLY STANDARD.
