4.25.00
Can I Get A Witness?

4.24.00
Freeze Frame

4.19.00
Getting Away With It

4.17.00
Everyday I Write the Book...

4.14.00
Living Through Another Cuba

4.12.00
Killing In The Name Of...

4.10.00
Broadway Blues

4.07.00
Conservatism Go Boom?

4.05.00
Begala's Baby-Boomer Blues

4.03.00
Hagel-ian Logic: Bush's Ideal V.P.

3.31.00
Back Stabbin' Games People Play

3.29.00
The Ink Is Black, The Page Is White

3.27.00
Pleased to Meet You

3.23.00
Diallo II?

"You bet there'll be Congressional hearings. We're going to find out — I hope that the judiciary branch will be as outraged and will exercise its constitutional rights, too. I think both branches, the legislative branch and the judiciary branch, should look into this in depth, because this is a frightening event." — Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX), Meet The Press, 4/23/00

ongressional Republicans don't have much time to get their ducks in a row. The gut reaction to the seizure of Elian — as reflected by Tom DeLay — may be that there must be congressional hearings. That position might be the one most reflective of Congress' constitutional authority. But it is fraught with political landmines. The GOP might want to consult with its presidential nominee to decide whether fulfilling a perceived constitutional duty is necessarily smart politically.

Rich Lowry calls this episode "Waco Redux." But what does that mean? More than 80 people died seven years ago, and Janet Reno basically got away with it — not once, but twice! Conservatives must not forget that Reno first stood down her critics immediately after the incident. She took "full responsibility" and became a heroine to the media of the rare government official who doesn't duck accountability. Two years later, the newly-elected Republican majority held full hearings on Waco. Anyone remember Kiri Jewell? Democrats presented this poised 14-year-old girl who testified to having been raped by David Koresh at the age of ten. From that moment on, the GOP was on the defensive. Details of tear gas and whether FBI agents fired upon the compound were completely ignored or rushed over. In addition, time constraints on the questioning of witnesses made a rigorous examination impossible. It was, to be blunt, a total rout.

This occurred, it's important to remember, before the fall 1995 budget shutdown, which is when Bill Clinton began to really exert his voodoo on the congressional GOP. The hearings did happen exactly two months to the day after the Oklahoma City bombing. That event, more than anything else, knocked conservatives off their stride in terms of strongly criticizing Clinton. The later GOP capitulation should, in retrospect, be considered predictable.

But the tone was set with Waco. Since then, congressional investigations have become a disaster for Republicans: Whitewater. Campaign finance. You name it. Whether due to Republican stumbling, media laziness, or genuine public indifference, hearings have not been an effective weapon for advancing the GOP case against the Clinton-Gore administration.

There are two notable exceptions — one was a slam dunk, the other has a mixed record. The slam dunk has nothing to do with scandal per se: It was the September, 1997 IRS oversight hearings conducted by Senator Bill Roth of Delaware. Roth brought witness after witness who testified to how easy it was for one federal agency to ruin ordinary Americans’ lives. Just a few days of compelling testimony was enough to put the IRS on the cover of the newsweeklies, and send a reform bill zooming through Congress to an eager Bill Clinton ready to sign it into law. The GOP had clearly seized the agenda on two signature Republican issues — taxes AND abuse of government power. This was a substantial and political winner.

The other exception — and it is debatable if it truly counts — is impeachment. For one thing, the House Judiciary impeachment hearings basically ratified Ken Starr's report. More significantly, immediately speaking, this was a political loser for the GOP. Congressional Republicans were thrown off their agenda, impeachment became the be-all and end-all of 1998 and Democrats picked up seats. On the substance, the House impeached Bill Clinton, a clear "win." That became a mixed victory when the Senate failed to convict.

Republicans face similar risks face now. If this is Waco II, does anyone want to bet against Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder representing the administration in hearings? On "Meet," Holder was Br'er Rabbit, daring DeLay to summon him to the Hill and toss him into the hearings briar patch. Holder, in fact, went after the Majority Whip on a matter of fact ("…is [DeLay] saying that the state judge who dismissed…the custody application, the custody suit by the family—was that judge wrong?"). DeLay started babbling about "Clinton spin." For people unaware of the issues, Holder sounded like someone who knew the details and DeLay sounded like he was playing politics. If Janet Reno could send the GOP packing in 1995, does anyone believe Holder would be worse?

Is this Impeachment II? Early polls appear to support the administration's position, with a clear majority approving the reuniting of Elian with his father. The public is almost evenly split on the force issue (40 percent say too much force, 36 say "right amount"). A USA Today poll finds 68 percent opposed to hearings. The GOP is not wrong to pursue an investigation of the raid in terms of principle — as happened with impeachment. But if this starts to look like an extension of the "politics of scandal," then Republicans are steering into very dangerous waters.

Consider the wise words of Ramesh Ponnuru and John Miller in the March 23 Washington Bulletin: "But Republicans cannot spend the next seven months talking about a Buddhist temple. A constant drumbeat would be more likely to desensitize the public than to anger it, as happened during the Lewinsky scandal….Scandal and character issues didn't work for the Republicans in 1992, 1996, or 1998. True, the case was not made well or, sometimes, made at all. But that track record does not give much reason to hope that running against Gore on ethics will work in 2000."

Substitute "Elian" for "Buddhist temple" and "six months" for "seven months" in the above and you have an approximation of the current situation. Yes, Gore has left himself wide open on this issue. But, come to think of it, which is worse? Flip-flops on the Elian case — or being caught red-handed in the Buddhist temple? Would George W. Bush be served well by having his message drowned out by parades of witnesses coming up to Capitol Hill to explain why a young boy was reunited with his father? Does he really need the face of the GOP in the next several months to be the sputtering, outraged Tom DeLay? Or Dan Burton? Or Bob Smith?

Republicans have a reasonable alternative in front of them: Reach out to like-minded Senate Democrats. On Sunday's "This Week," Florida's Bob Graham was nearly as furious as his Republican counterpart, Connie Mack. Graham declared that Clinton had lied to him (in the Oval Office, surprisingly!) by reassuring him that there would be no taking of Elian at night. Since Elian was taken at 5 a.m., apparently Clinton's word depends on the definition of "night." Bob Graham may be someone interested in hearings.

Senate Republicans should find out whether Graham might be amenable to hearings. The ideal forum would be a Select Committee. A bipartisan arrangement would allow Congress to follow its constitutional mandate, but give Republicans cover on the charge of a political witchhunt.

If such an arrangement is not possible, Republicans have to decide what is most important over the next several months: Do they go all-out to embarrass a blatantly shameless Justice Department, at the risk of an investigation blowing up in their faces? Or do they take a low-key approach — assess what is realistically attainable — and allow George W. Bush to make the comprehensive (political, economic, moral) argument against Al Gore and the Clinton legacy?

Columns / Current Issue / Goldberg File / Nota Bene
Washington Bulletin / Subscribe / Ad Info / Home