On InterNight tonight (12-23-98), on MS-NBC, a spirited debate went on between talking heads over (surprise) the Senate trial. One of these is a blonde, party-line-spouting person (I still don't know what her qualifications are; perhaps she 'knows' the president) named Cynthia Alksne. If there were ever an argument for the rightness of the Republican stand and the shaky moral and ethical ground of the Democrats, she is it.

Throughout the show, she spent her time attacking Republicans, claiming she couldn't wait to see the political damage that this issue would bring to the Republican party. Now, that's not partisan, is it? Oh, but Democrats would never be partisan, would they? Not only did she attack Republicans, she did so using completely unsubstantiated statements and predictions. As far as I could tell, every statement was pure opinion and had nothing to do with any sort of facts. She was simply following the apparent Democratic philosophy: circle the wagons and attack the messenger. Note that they don't bother to try to refute the facts with truth, because they can't.

John Gibson (the host of InterNight) presented her with an argument that perhaps the American public hadn't seen all the evidence and that moderate House Republicans had been cemented in their votes for impeachment by evidence which has not been released to the public. He used a quote from Tom Delay, House minority whip, to that effect, to which Alksne immediately began to follow the Democratic party line, attacking DeLay, and claiming he was lying. Well, that's simple enough to prove; simply ask each of those moderate Republicans if the evidence they saw in a room of the Ford Building confirmed them in their decision to vote for impeachment, or go beyond that and ask them if the evidence *changed* their decisions. Of course, Alksne isn't going to do it; all she has to do is the same thing every other Democratic spinmeister has done; blow a lot of hot air and show a complete disdain for the facts (not to mention the Constitution). Besides, she'll look like an idiot when Gibson's (and DeLay's) point are confirmed. It sure is easy for someone who didn't take an oath to protect the Constitution to attack its defenders, who *did* swear an oath and are following up on it with diligence and attention to duty.

Do you really think that the Republicans of the House of Representatives are so disconnected from reality and insulated from the voting public that they would or could completely ignore public opinion? If that were so, there would be many fewer press conferences than there have been regarding this process. Representatives justified their positions to the American people during the days of the vote on the articles of impeachment. Why do you think there was an 'avalanche' of moderate Republicans coming out against Clinton just before the impeachment vote in the House? Perhaps they have a reason other than the motivation to attack the Democrats? Perhaps they know something we don't? If they were as disconnected from reality as Democrats seem to want us to believe, why did they spend so much time justifying their position(s) to the public? Why not just do it and get it over with? If a Representative is truly not plugged in to the voters' desires, why would he even consider justifications? Is it not because he has a fear of being misunderstood in his choice, and wants to make his position clear so that his eventual electoral opponents can't use it against him in the future?

I hope that the American public is wise enough not to buy into the lies and obfuscations of the Democrats, who are clearly doing nothing but protecting Clinton and attacking the Republicans. That's it, aside from saying, 'Oh, what Clinton did wasn't serious enough to get him removed from office.' Notice the complete lack of any factual support contesting the allegations made against him, and also notice how easily they ignore the fact that practically any other person in the United States would have been thrown in jail for doing just what Clinton did. That, my friends, is a textbook example of a double standard. How many Democratic Congressmen have come out over the unfairness of the trial of Barbara Battalino? She lost her medical license, as well as the ability to practice law or psychology. That's THREE professions that she can never follow again, all three of which she has undergone long training for. She is currently under house arrest. How many have said that she shouldn't have been given the kind of punishment that she received? I'll give you a hint. The answer is round and less than one. And what did she do? She had sex in a government building, and then lied about it. Sound familiar?

Also, bear in mind that these are not necessarily the only allegations which can be made against him. The Senate can vote to allow other evidence into the trial than was included in the House Judiciary Committee investigation by a simple majority, and can also make that evidence public by the same vote. Also, Senators can choose to view that evidence in executive session, rather than release it publicly; the most damaging (or embarrassing) evidence in the case probably has not been and will not be seen by the public until 75 years from now.

It is instructive to compare the party dissenters; those Democrats who voted for impeachment and those Republicans who voted against it. Apparently, those Democrats who defied their party's dictates must have had some reason for it; not only were they bucking their own party, but also the American public. They risked (and still risk) losing not only votes, but the funding to go out and get more votes. Why did they do this? Would they have voted for impeachment without clear indications of serious criminal wrongdoing by Clinton? I don't think so. Is it merely a political play by these Democrats to garner some advantage? I find that highly doubtful considering the risks of voting for impeachment in this political climate.

Meanwhile, Republican dissenters apparently had systemic questions about the articles of impeachment; for instance, Lindsey Graham didn't think one of the articles would be provable, so he voted against it, saying he'd give Clinton the 'benefit of the legal doubt'. This is a far cry from defending Clinton, let alone claiming that the allegations are false.

Whether you like it or not, or believe it or not, the entire Constitutional system is at risk here. If a President in future can look back and say, "Hey, I can get away with doing damned near anything as long as I do a good job!" because Clinton got off with nothing but censure, that is an extraordinarily serious threat to the well-being of the government, causing the balance of power to shift from the three branches of government to the executive branch alone. Congress will have progressively less and less control over the actions of the President, until it becomes a rubberstamp for executive policy. Which, according to my dictionary, is the exact meaning of the word 'tyranny.'

So what (else) is the Democratic party hiding?

- The Watcher (Alksne and her ilk are the parasites that will drain the Constitution dry until it's nothing but meaningless words on a piece of paper, a curiosity from far-removed history.)