A Sad Decision for San Jose Moderate

Rep. Tom Campbell of San Jose returned from two weeks in Africa on Sunday, spent 24 hours mulling the case against President Clinton and on Tuesday became the latest to join a swelling roster of Republicans who plan to vote for impeachment.

Almost instantly, Ted Koppel and a “Nightline” crew were camped out in his office.

“Mr. Koppel!” Campbell beamed. “I have to tell you, it was 20 years ago, my wife and I were standing in line to see ‘Star Wars’ and you were in line too.”

Not much in Washington is clear lately except this: The shortest road to overnight fame is to: 1) waffle on impeachment and then commit or 2) commit on impeachment and then waffle.

An Unexpected Source of Sound Bites

Until noon Tuesday, Campbell--a courtly constitutional law professor at Stanford University whose notion of profanity is “poppycock”--had not exactly been regarded as a fountain of sound bites.

But as the impeachment vote nears and the House slowly and deliberately makes up its mind, moderate Republicans like him are the last grains of sand that will tip the scales.

For some, the decision-making has been agony. Rep. Brian P. Bilbray (R-San Diego) went so far as to ask his mother and by Tuesday he still was not sure. Rep. David L. Hobson (R-Ohio) fielded questions from a constituent in a supermarket parking lot.

But for Campbell, 46, the process was not anguishing, only sad. He said weeks ago that perjury is impeachable, then waited for Clinton to make the case that the facts in the report by independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr’s report were wrong, that the president never lied under oath to a federal grand jury.

In Africa for the last two weeks exploring political conditions, Campbell came home to a stack of transcripts of House Judiciary Committee hearings. He read the president’s two-day defense, pondered the Constitution and decided to support at least one article of impeachment.

Monday night, a group of protesters staged an anti-impeachment vigil at Campbell’s district headquarters just outside San Jose. He represents Silicon Valley communities that, his constituent mail tells him, do not want this boat rocked. He has his eye on Democrat Dianne Feinstein’s Senate seat in 2000. Rejecting impeachment might have been politically safer.

“There are worse things than losing an election,” Campbell said, insisting that he never considered the political consequences of his decision to back impeachment. “It’s the only way to live with myself. What an immense feeling of freedom it has.”

Campbell is considered a bit of an iconoclast in political circles, and this was not the first time he has put conscience over political well-being. Campbell was one of the first of a handful of Republicans to vote against Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) for speaker in 1997 based on charges of ethics violations, a stand that some say hurt him.

“The speaker never found it to his benefit to use Campbell’s talents, let’s put it that way,” said Larry Gerston, a San Jose State University political science professor.

Now, as then, Campbell came to his conclusion dispassionately, almost mathematically. The president’s alleged failure to tell the truth in the Paula Corbin Jones deposition in January might be forgivable because he was caught off guard and embarrassed. But, in Campbell’s view, Clinton’s alleged failure to tell the truth before a grand jury seven months later could only be viewed as premeditated.

Resignation Called ‘Very Logical’

“Accordingly, I conclude that the president intentionally, on more than one occasion, did not tell the truth in a federal criminal grand jury. That is very serious. That is impeachable. And I will vote to impeach the president of the United States.”

There was no fiery rhetoric. When asked if he thought the president should resign, Campbell said yes, then added politely: “Thank you for raising that point. I think that is very logical.”

When one reporter tried to outshout another, he admonished professorially: “Pardon me, I’ll be right with you.”

He declared the alternative of censure as “extra-constitutional,” concluding that impeachment without conviction by the Senate is the sincerest form of censure.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Undeclared

The following House Republicans have not said publicly how they will vote on the impeachment resolution against President Clinton:

Brian P. Bilbray (San Diego)

Sherwood L. Boehlert (N.Y.)

Jay Dickaey (Ark.)

Benjamin A. Gilman (N.Y.)

Stephen Horn (Long Beach)

Ray LaHood (Ill.)

Rick Lazio (N.Y.)

James A. Leach (Iowa)

Constance A. Morella (Md.)

Robert W. Ney (Ohio)

Jim Nussle (Iowa)

E. Clay Shaw Jr. (Fla.)

Joe Skeen (N.M.)

C.W. Bill Young (Fla.)