GOP Senators Struggle Over Rival Pressures

In the feverish debate over how to conduct a Senate impeachment trial, Washington this week has learned a new answer to an old question: What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object? The answer: chaos.

In this case, the immovable object is the unwavering public resistance to removing President Clinton from office--or even to prolonging the crisis with a full Senate trial. The irresistible force is the staunch support among rank-and-file conservatives for both those actions.

Caught between those irreconcilable pressures, Senate Republicans this week buried a bipartisan plan to avoid a trial with witnesses--but also hesitated about precipitating the open partisan warfare that defined the House handling of impeachment. In political terms, they have struggled to find a formula that can satisfy their conservative base without alienating the swing voters who polls show turned en masse against the House’s handling of the Clinton case.

“Everybody wants this done,” said a senior aide to one leading conservative Republican senator. “But we have to be so careful of the base; they will be furious if we look like we are rushing through this.”

But by holding out for a more expansive, if time-limited, impeachment trial, the GOP appears to be drifting into a situation that once again raises the stakes of their confrontation with Clinton, perhaps to the point where it could risk their hold on the Senate itself.

For the first time in recent years, Republicans in 2000 will be defending more Senate seats (19) than the Democrats (14). Moreover, 13 of the 19 Republicans facing reelection are in states that Clinton carried in 1996--many of them in Northeast, upper Midwest and West Coast states where the president is most popular and public opposition to impeachment most intense.

For Democrats, Hope Grows

That alignment has raised Democratic hopes of overcoming the GOP’s 55-45 seat advantage in the Senate, particularly if the upper chamber becomes entangled in a polarizing trial over removing the president.

“For Republicans, it is probably more of a risk even than it was in the House,” said Stu Rothenberg, whose political newsletter analyzes congressional races. “Voting on whether to remove Clinton is much more of a defining act [than even impeaching him] and is more likely to be in the voters’ memories in 2000.”

What’s become clear over the past week is that even the self-consciously deliberative and dispassionate Senate is subject to the same unruly political, personal and legal pressures that tore apart all efforts to negotiate an end to the impeachment crisis in the House.

All of those forces have been evident in the collapse of the bipartisan plan by Sens. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) and Slade Gorton (R-Wash.) to preempt a lengthy trial with an expedited procedure that would likely have steered the Senate toward a quick vote on censuring Clinton.

That plan, like the earlier calls for a negotiated solution in the House, ran into intense GOP opposition on several fronts. One was legal: the belief among many Republican senators of all ideological stripes that it was wrong to short-circuit the constitutional process in any way. Just as in the House, those sentiments were reinforced by a widespread disgust among Senate Republicans at Clinton’s behavior, not only in the Monica S. Lewinsky scandal but also at many points in his life.

Senate Republicans also have been impelled forward by powerful political considerations. One is the fear that any process that seems to dismiss the charges could help Democrats in 2000 portray House Republicans as extremists for approving the impeachment articles at all, which in turn could help Democratic chances of recapturing the lower chamber. And, again like their House counterparts, GOP senators face a situation in which most of their core supporters continue to back Clinton’s removal, even as more than two-thirds of the country continue to oppose it.

Position Worse Than in House

If anything, Senate Republicans begin their struggle with impeachment in an even more difficult position than their House colleagues.

The House action itself has tilted public opinion further away from the GOP. In the wake of the House vote to impeach Clinton last month, the president’s approval rating has soared to around 70% in national surveys and public assessments of the Republican Party have plummeted.

At the same time, the public desire for a quick end to the process appears to be deepening: 63% of those surveyed earlier this week by CBS said the Senate should not hold a full trial. Strikingly, even among rank-and-file Republicans, just 52% now support a full Senate trial.

Also, during the House debate, even many of Clinton’s staunchest critics likened their votes to a grand jury decision to hand up an indictment and emphasized that they were not voting to remove him from office. Senators won’t have that defense; they appear to be heading into a process that will require them to vote aye or nay on actually forcing Clinton out.

Some Democrats already are preparing to seize on those votes. One is Democratic Gov. Mel Carnahan of Missouri--a state Clinton carried in 1996--who has announced he will challenge first-term GOP Sen. John Ashcroft in 2000.

While exploring a presidential campaign in 1998, Ashcroft led calls for Clinton’s resignation. But he has notably tempered his rhetoric since announcing on Tuesday that he will seek reelection to the Senate rather than run for president. Aides, for instance, said Thursday that Ashcroft believes witnesses should be called for the Senate trial only to resolve specific facts disputed by the White House.

Roy Temple, a campaign advisor to Carnahan, charged that Ashcroft is now merely “trying to pretend that he’s a moderate.” Temple maintained that any Ashcroft efforts to soften his image will be undermined once the senator is forced to actually cast a vote on Clinton’s removal.

If Ashcroft votes against conviction after having called for Clinton’s resignation, he will have “a huge credibility problem,” Temple said; if he votes to remove Clinton, “it reinforces the view . . . that this is a guy who is out of touch with what mainstream moderate Missourians think.”

Other Senate Republicans on the ballot in 2000 for whom the Clinton case could cause serious political problems include Rod Grams of Minnesota, who opposed any effort to preempt a trial but must face reelection in a state that leans strongly Democratic in presidential election years--and where 67% of voters polled in November said they opposed impeachment. Also potentially at significant risk is James M. Jeffords of Vermont, who may face a challenge from popular Democratic Gov. Howard Dean in a state where two-thirds of voters opposed impeachment in the November exit polls.

In a second tier of risk would fall Sens. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, Spencer Abraham of Michigan and Washington’s Gorton, the co-author of the aborted compromise. All are running in states that lean Democratic in presidential years, although the degree of their exposure will depend on whether Democrats can recruit solid candidates against them.

The same is true of Eastern Republicans John H. Chafee of Rhode Island, Olympia J. Snowe of Maine and William V. Roth Jr. of Delaware, although each should benefit from deep political roots in their states.

Just three Democrats might face similar cross-pressures: Nebraska’s Bob Kerrey, Virginia’s Charles S. Robb and North Dakota’s Kent Conrad all face reelection in 2000 in states that voted against Clinton in 1996.

Although a much longer list of Republicans faces the prospect of crossing their states on impeachment, the dominant view within GOP circles remains that even voters opposed to Clinton’s removal will not punish legislators who vote for it.

“If this drags on for eight months, maybe there is a chance it will rub off on people,” said an advisor to one of the potentially vulnerable senators. “But a month or two-month Senate trial we don’t think will have any impact.”

Darker Perception of GOP Possible

Even if few races in 2000 pivot on the specific impeachment votes, many Democrats believe the struggle still may shape the outcome by darkening overall public perceptions of the GOP, a process already measured in polls recording a rise in the party’s unfavorable rating to near 60%.

“As much as with the government shutdown in 1995, the Republicans are identifying themselves as an extremist party,” said Democratic pollster Geoff Garin. “You can argue that individual senators may have 20 months to repair this on an individual basis, but the reality is that this entire process has done extraordinary damage to the Republican brand--the brand under which they’ll be running--that can’t be fixed in 20 months.”

Few Republicans would go that far. But enough fear that there is a germ of truth in Garin’s assessment that they don’t rule out the possibility of a bipartisan agreement to truncate the impeachment process--perhaps reached even today.

“It’s a war fought for all the right reasons, and the bad guys are really bad,” said GOP pollster Whit Ayres. “But it’s a quagmire, and we need peace with honor.”

More political analysis from Ronald Brownstein is available on The Times’ Web site:

https://www.latimes.com/scandal

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

On the Spot?

Of the 19 Republican senators up for reelection next year, 13 represent states that Bill Clinton won in the 1996 presidential election. Here’s how Clinton ran in those states, along with the percentage of voters in each who opposed impeachment, according to network exit polls during last November’s election:

Spencer Abraham (MICHIGAN)

Clinton in ‘96: 52%

Oppose impeachment: 64%

****

John Ashcroft (MISSOURI)

Clinton in ‘96: 48%

Oppose impeachment: 63%

****

Mike DeWine (OHIO)

Clinton in ‘96: 47%

Oppose impeachment: 60%

****

Bill Frist (TENNESSEE)

Clinton in ‘96: 48%

Oppose impeachment: 54%

****

Slade Gorton (WASHINGTON)

Clinton in ‘96: 50%

Oppose impeachment: 65%

****

John H. Chafee (RHODE ISLAND)

Clinton in ‘96: 60%

Oppose impeachment: 74%

****

Rodney Grams (MINNESOTA)

Clinton in ‘96: 51%

Oppose impeachment: 67%

****

James M. Jeffords (VERMONT)

Clinton in ‘96: 53%

Oppose impeachment: 66%

****

Jon Kyl (ARIZONA)

Clinton in ‘96: 47%

Oppose impeachment: 62%

****

Connie Mack (FLORIDA)

Clinton in ‘96: 48%

Oppose impeachment: 61%

****

William V. Roth Jr. (DELAWARE)

Clinton in ‘96: 52%

Oppose impeachment: NA

****

Rick Santorum (PENNSYLVANIA)

Clinton in ‘96: 49%

Oppose impeachment: 63%

****

Olympia J. Snowe (MAINE)

Clinton in ‘96: 52%

Oppose impeachment: 69%

* Clinton finished irst without more than 50% because of votes cast for Reform and other parties

Source: Election results; VNS exit poll.