GOP Hopefuls Between a Rock and a Scandal

Far from ending with President Clinton’s acquittal, the political skirmishing over impeachment now shifts from the floor of the U.S. Senate to places such as Iowa and New Hampshire.

But rather than pitting Democrat against Republican, a battle is brewing between those GOP candidates and activists hoping to make impeachment a major issue in the 2000 presidential campaign and those wishing to change the subject as quickly as possible.

“People are sick of the entire debate,” said Whit Ayres, a Republican pollster and counselor to Lamar Alexander’s 1996 presidential campaign. “They don’t want to be reminded; they think it’s a stain on the body politic and there’s very little to be gained by talking specifically about it.”

But Jonathan Baron, communications director for former Vice President Dan Quayle, insisted: “A serious Republican contender for the presidency not talking about this issue is impossible. This is a defining issue. This is an enormous issue for the Republican Party.”

With impeachment looming so large for so long, it’s easy to lose perspective and foolhardy to attempt any far-reaching predictions. “The most important thing to remember is things tend to be less important than we think at the time,” said Democratic strategist David Doak. “All things seem huge when they’re actually occurring.”

Still, there is widespread agreement that, at the least, issues such as character, values and personal integrity are likely to play a more prominent role in the 2000 presidential campaign in reaction to Clinton’s personal peccadilloes.

“America has a great self-correcting democracy,” said Don Sipple, a GOP media strategist. “At some level, the excesses of Clinton will be dealt with in the 2000 election.”

Already, the spectacle of a capital seemingly consumed in eternal partisan warfare has revived Beltway bashing as a staple of presidential stumping. Democrat Bill Bradley calls for restoring Americans’ “shaky faith” in their institutions. Publisher Steve Forbes relentlessly flays “those Washington politicians.” Republican Elizabeth Hanford Dole blames a top-heavy federal bureaucracy for usurping the role of parents.

If the widespread public repugnance toward Washington persists in 2000, it could make Al Gore, Clinton’s loyal vice president and the front-runner for the Democratic nomination, an inviting target for an anti-establishment challenge.

“One of Gore’s problems is that, in many ways, he’s Washington incarnate,” said David Axelrod, a Chicago-based Democratic strategist. “He grew up there. He’s spent most of his adult life there. . . . He’s going to have to do something to address that as he campaigns.”

Reaching for the outsider mantle, Bradley--Gore’s sole announced rival for the Democratic nomination--has criticized the vice president’s Beltway pedigree.

But Bradley has not directly linked Gore to the scandal. Instead, after Clinton’s acquittal, the former New Jersey senator spoke of a need for “a fresh start, not only to deal with the pressing issues we face but to restore the integrity to our political process that Americans expect and deserve.”

Of course, it makes no political sense for Bradley to pursue the Democratic nomination by directly attacking a popular Democratic president or his faithful understudy.

The calculations are far more complicated on the GOP side.

Clinton remains anathema to a majority of Republicans, especially those in the party’s conservative wing, who enjoy disproportionate influence in the primary process and were vital to pushing impeachment efforts. Moderate Republicans were notably less enthusiastic about pursuing Clinton’s ouster, with many fearing potential long-term political damage.

Given that, the candidates appealing most aggressively to the party’s right wing have been most vociferous in raising the impeachment issue, among them Forbes, Quayle and activists Gary Bauer and Alan Keyes.

The candidates attempting to position themselves closer to the center--Alexander, Arizona Sen. John McCain and the two undeclared front-runners, Dole and Texas Gov. George W. Bush--have been notably more restrained.

Consider the recent scene in New Hampshire, a key presidential proving ground. When 1,000 activists gathered for a Christian Coalition dinner this month, the most sustained applause was for two local congressmen honored for supporting impeachment. In subsequent remarks, Keyes brought a roaring crowd to its feet by warning senators preparing to vote for acquittal: “The future of this nation is on the line--and so are their political futures--and we will not forget.”

Two days later, making her maiden political appearance at the same Manchester hotel, Dole spoke only indirectly of the scandal. She even took a veiled poke at Congress, hours after senators heard final arguments in the impeachment case. Quoting President Franklin Pierce--”the more trifling the subject, the more animated and protracted the discussion”--Dole quipped: “It’s amazing how little has changed in 150 years, isn’t it?”

But the following day in Iowa--site of the kickoff of presidential caucuses--Quayle recalled how Gore hailed Clinton just after his impeachment by the House as “one of America’s greatest presidents.”

“Al Gore and I have a different interpretation of what ‘great’ means,” Quayle said. “I can assure you that will be an issue in this campaign.”

That prospect worries more than a few Republicans, mindful of the staunch anti-impeachment sentiment among independent voters and potential crossover Democrats, whose support any GOP nominee will need to win the White House.

“There’s a real problem,” said one party strategist. “Either the kind of moderate candidate who can win [the general election] won’t get the nomination because they’re not sufficiently anti-Clinton, or in the end we’ll be stuck with some anti-Clinton firebrand who excites the Republican base. And then we’ll lose in November for sure.”