Feinstein Throws a Lifeline to GOP Senators

U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein is not one to suffer fools kindly, although she would never call a colleague a fool, in public anyway. You could detect the fire in her eyes--gleaming hot daggers--when U.S. Sen. Phil Gramm last Sunday belittled her effort to censure President Clinton as a “covering-your-fanny approach.”

“Censure is about getting political cover,” the Texas Republican asserted on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” as the California Democrat sat next to him, a slight grin on her face, probably thinking, Shall I take this guy’s head off now or later? “People want to be on both sides of the issue,” Gramm continued. “ ‘The president is not guilty’ . . . ‘The president’s guilty.’ ”

Interesting Gramm theory, if farcical and tortured: Feinstein, who’s up for reelection next year in a state where Clinton always has been highly popular, is covering her fanny by pushing a resolution that censures the president for being “shameless, reckless and indefensible”? And that’s just the first whereas clause.

Her draft censure goes on to say--among other things--that Clinton “deceived the American people” and engaged in “unacceptable” conduct that “demean[ed]” the presidency; he “brought shame and dishonor to himself and to the office” and should be condemned “in the strongest terms.”

Now, you’d think that Gramm and his Republican cohorts would welcome such condemnation of a Democratic president by a Democratic senator and her party. Indeed, if any fannies are being protected by Feinstein, it’s the Republicans’. They’re the ones who need the cover.

For months, polls have shown that Americans think Republicans are ganging up on Clinton out of partisan pique. With a bipartisan censure, the GOP could crow: See, Democrats also think he’s despicable. The worst nightmare for the president--besides being booted from office-is that Americans will view his attackers as reasonable, fair and legitimately disgusted by his misbehavior.

Like Feinstein.

*

It was a few minutes later when Feinstein took off Gramm’s head. “Most respectfully,” she told him, “I don’t question your motivations. Please don’t question ours. . . . The motivations for this censure are not political. . . . It is not something to ‘cover one’s posterior.’ ”

Her motivation, she said, is simple: What Clinton did does not deserve conviction and removal. But it does merit a strong Senate rebuke “that will go down in history [and] become part of the legacy of this presidency [proclaiming] we find these acts to be egregious.”

Feinstein was greatly offended by the Texan’s remarks, according to an associate.

In a telephone interview, Feinstein insisted “it’s very important [Americans] not look at [Clinton’s misconduct] as something that is OK. . . . There were many wrongful actions: Lying to the American people, lying to the Cabinet, lying to staff, lying in judicial proceedings. And the conduct itself.

“I mean, you know, this is the Oval Office. This is a special place. This is the people’s place. And it’s a place that’s generally held in awe. And to have this kind of conduct going on with an intern and a subordinate in the Oval Office . . . “

Feinstein was especially incensed by apparent White House attempts to portray Monica Lewinsky as a “stalker.” She notes: “There are many people who are hangers-on. I’ve seen women fawn over this president. That’s nothing new. He’s a very good-looking man and a very powerful man. And those two things together seem to be very attractive to women of all ages. But because she hung around and made herself available doesn’t mean she’s a ‘stalker.’ ”

*

To put this in particular perspective for Feinstein, it helps to recall that she sat 10 feet from Clinton in the Roosevelt Room of the White House when he wagged his finger at America and declared: “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky.” The senator had been invited to this staged lie and later felt used.

When Clinton finally ‘fessed up, Feinstein announced her trust in his credibility had been “badly shattered.”

With the finger-wagging, she told me, “I had to believe him because it was such a total commitment--of voice, of expression, of body language. It was one of the most forceful things I had ever heard him say. . . . It had to be true.”

And later? “I felt very much betrayed. There was a degree of personal disenchantment, of real disillusionment.”

Yet, she emphasizes, “For me, this has been a very good public policy president.”

Republicans are drowning as they ineptly try to oust a popular president. Feinstein has tossed them a lifeline. But they’re too stubborn or slow-witted to grab it.