DENNY'S TURN
The apparent rise of Rep. Dennis Hastert (R., Ill.) to the Speakership, following Bob Livingston's startling announcement on Saturday, does not come as a surprise. Hastert's name was briefly floated for Speaker last month, and several Republicans tried to draft Hastert to run for Majority Leader against Armey. Hastert wouldn't do it; he had already endorsed Armey for re-election and had to rush back to Illinois to attend his father's funeral. Because leadership races generally demand that candidates spend a lot of time personally canvassing fellow members, there was no way an out-of-pocket and seemingly unwilling Hastert was going to win. His name was actually included on the first Majority Leader ballot, and he came in fourth place behind Armey, Steve Largent, and Jennifer Dunn.

The real news is that Republicans appear to have avoided a leadership bloodbath. They need to be unified now more than ever. The public is treating President Clinton with sympathy in the aftermath of the House approving two articles of impeachment. A GOP at war with itself would be a calamity for the Party right now.

Hastert is a good choice for Speaker. But it's not an enviable job--with a slim majority in the 106th Congress, it will take only 6 Republican defectors to derail an agenda.

NICKNAMES
How long before the AFL-CIO starts running ads about "Dennis the Menace"?

LIVINGSTON
What was he thinking? Was he thinking at all? More than one Republican observer has asked these questions about the first-let's hope the last-Speaker to be taken down by Hustler magazine. Surely almost-Speaker Bob Livingston (R., La.) knew that his infidelities would be publicized, in this of all years. To run for Speaker anyway was an act of both selfishness and stupidity. And while NR has maintained that public figures' infidelities should remain private, an affair with a lobbyist with business before one's committee is not a private matter-it sounds more like a perk of the job. Nor is the manner of Livingston's exit quite as noble as Republicans portray it. His announcement that he would leave office altogether, following the same action by Speaker Gingrich, makes Republican leaders look self-centered and power-hungry: if they can't be in charge, they seem to be saying, they'll stomp off the playground. (Recall the unbelievable egotism of Rep. Bill Archer's statement last month that while he might be the right man for the Speaker's job, it wasn't the right job for him.) It was bizarre in the first place to hand the Speakership to someone who had been planning to leave if he couldn't get it-as if the position were a gold watch before retirement. (Republicans have the presidential nomination for that.) Now Republicans look like they can't even run their own caucus, let alone Congress, while they are trying to oust a president.

Livingston's resignaton is noble only in comparison to Bill Clinton's, and its portrayal as more than that it is perhaps another testimony to the lowering of standards Clinton has worked.

SUPPORT THE TROOPS
Among the more odious spectacles of a week which has been full of them were the professions of deep concern for the morale of our troops by people who have taken every opportunity to gut the military. (You know who you are, Rep. Waters.) Going ahead with impeachment while our young men and women are in danger, we were told seven times in a row by House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt, was "wrong." Hello? The hostility of the Armed Forces to President Clinton is legendary. Few constituencies despise him more. This hostility has in fact led to all manner of ernest hand-wringing by liberals about civil-military relations, much of which seems implicitly to posit a military coup lurking as a background danger; and to well-publicized (and proper) disciplinary action against Clinton's critics in uniform. So let us at least dispose of this particular canard. Want to boost our troops' morale? Remove Clinton from office.