Who's Responsible?: The President's Impeachment
Tyrrell, R. Emmett, Jr., The American Spectator
Who is responsible for the Impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton-the event, not the docudrama?l
How has it come to pass that a superbly educated aspirant to the Liberal glory of John F. Kennedy and Roosevelt II slid from his 1992 campaign promise of the "most ethical administration in American history" to an ignominy that Congress has reserved for only one other president, a common drunkard, Andrew Johnson? Johnson was, of course, more than a drunkard. He was a foolish rustic whose coarse racism enhanced his incompetence. Such qualities combined to make him easily the most boorish president of the nineteenth century. Now along comes Clinton bereft of the excuse of drunkenness and yokelry.
So how has it come to pass that this implausible fellow has bamboozled the Liberal elites into defending him as though he were their latest version of Sacco and Vanzetti or the Hollywood Ten or the Hero of Chappaquiddick? With the rude exposure of his improbity the past year, the Liberals' defense of him has become positively emotional but at enormous cost in policy and in principle. As Liberal activist Patrick Caddell and Nation contributing editor Marc Cooper have written, the travesty has left the Liberals paying "a staggering price: unconditional surrender of their ideals." Caddell and Cooper marshal their evidence. Clinton's role in the cruel and illegal execution during his 1992 campaign of an Arkansas murderer incapacitated by brain damage. His cowardice during and after the Branch Davidian massacre. His 1996 support of the "Effective Death Penalty Act." His endorsement last year of the "roving" wiretaps legislation. His tolerance of the government's summary deportation of some 3o,ooo aliens, though many were legal residents. He has adopted Republican welfare while making a mockery of "two decades of hard-earned gains in sexual harassment law." Caddell and Cooper save their most grievous blow for last: "The most disturbing consequence of the surrender to Clinton has been the self-strangulation of the Democratic peace constituency" pursuant to defending an administration that has more frequently resorted to military action abroad than any other administration in this century. With almost no victories to show for it, let us note. How have the Liberals come to defend such a scoundrel?
On a lighter note, why have the Republic's literati received the Starr Report with a gasp rather than with rejoicing? What the hell is going on in the land of the free, the home of the brave?
Start with the Starr Report. In any other decade of the modern era, the literary set would esteem it a work of art. Kenneth Starr's report bids fair to become a classic, a bawdy epic, weighing in somewhere between Chaucer's Canterbury Tales and Rabelais's Gargantua and Pantagruel. In Starr's great work we read of our big lovable lug of a president lumbering through the West Wing of the White House during the 1995 Government Shutdown. A simple pizza brings him and the shapely Monica together. She rouses his jumpy libido with a saucy display of her historic "thong underpants." They rendezvous by the presidential toilet, and vavavavooom!
Days pass in the Oval Office. His pants are up. No, they are down. She administers oral sex. He gropes her. Yet this is the White House, and Standards must be maintained. This sex must not become adulterous. The forty-second president is a married man; and so, lest he "go too far," Monica converts to his theory of exculpatory fellatio. The theory first reached a national audience when the Arkansas state troopers explained it in The American Spectator's Troopergate story. Fellatio when administered upon Clinton cannot be adultery. Scripture says so. And "uncompleted" fellatio is probably not even sex. More likely for this 199o's kind of guy it is a New Age equivalent of the Heimlich maneuver. And so practically every time Monica fellates him, Boy Clinton, devoted husband and father, breaks from her embrace. …