McCurry makes one valid argument--but it puts the Democrats in another bind. He says that all the relevant facts are on the table, so there's no need for an inquiry. But David Kendall and Co. are contesting a lot of relevant facts: facts about events, facts about the law, facts about intent. It's a safe bet Abbe Lowell, acting as a de facto defense counsel, will do so on Monday. So which is it? Are facts at issue, in which case an inquiry is necessary? Or will Democrats concede that Starr is right?

The poll data we mentioned yesterday show that a majority of the public 1) does not want Clinton to be removed from office, 2) wants Clinton to be removed from office if he committed some of the crimes alleged by the Starr report, and 3) believes that he did in fact commit those crimes. These findings are evidence either of cognitive dissonance or of a high standard of proof on the part of the public. Either way, an inquiry is necessary to resolve the issue.

Republicans are less worried than they were a week ago that Democrats would oppose an inquiry, thus making a vote for one seem partisan. Rep. Jim Talent (R., Mo.) tells us that how Democrats vote will depend "on how many of them want to join the politics of desperation and throw in their lot with Clinton. Apart from their constitutional responsibilities, I wouldn't do that when a majority of motivated voters want this process to go forward. They might be willing to take the risk. But what the leadership wants to do is not necessarily what the members want to do."

We Hear. . . .
We hear that Senate Republicans will not even vote on the House tax cut package. Senate leaders figure it won't get past President Clinton, so why give him a chance to veto it and demagogue on Social Security? It will also spare Republicans up for re-election what GOP leaders consider a risky vote for what's a tiny package anyway. . . . that Republican insiders on the Hill expect Clinton to veto spending bills no matter how much the GOP gives (and they're willing to give almost everything). They figure that Clinton will do anything to try to change the subject from Monica (besides, shutdowns are good for the president's social life). . . . that polls across the country continue to look great for GOP candidates. Sen. Patty Murray's (D., Wash) re-elect is below fifty, the gap in Arkansas Senate race is, amazingly, in single digits, and tracking polls in Georgia show's Clinton's support on a steady downward slide since August 2.

Lowell Watch
Democratic counsel Abbe Lowell makes his debut as a star Monday, surely attacking Ken Starr for all he's worth and doing everything he can to carry water for the White House. For everything you need to know about Lowell's partisan background and potential conflicts of interest, check out Landmark Legal Foundation's report .

Goalposts
DNC chairman Roy Romer is saying that since the party holding the White House loses an average of 35 House seats in the sixth year of a presidency, anything less than that is a victory. Hey, he can call it anything he wants.

The Stakes
Everyone knows that President Clinton has been terrible for congressional Democrats. They lost the House in 1994 because of him. They believe they failed to take it back in 1996 because of him. And they won't take it back this year, again in part because of him.

But, as we've pointed out from time to time, it's even worse than that: Clinton could easily keep House Democrats out of the majority for almost two decades. Rep. Bill Paxon (R., N.Y.) argues that losing even ten seats this year will put the Democrats out of shooting distance of taking the House back in 2000. "The presidential years are always the concern," he says, and it's important to be in a strong position "regardless of what happens at the top of the ticket." And 2000, he says, is "the last difficult election cycle" because Republicans will be in a much stronger position after the next redistricting. "It means Republican majorities for a long, long time."