Joseph J. Finn writes, in reference to that Pat Buchanan column I linked to…
Well, it is an interesting viewpoint from someone who helped cover for the Nixon White House; an administration that, like the current one, tried to cover up all sorts of malfeasances, lies, unnecessary combat deaths and the subversions of a free press. Sadly, we don't appear to have a Ben Bradlee right now to connect the dots and convince the reasonable elements of the Republican Party that their leader is worthy of impeachment for his crimes.
I agree that investigative reporting in this country ain't what it used to be. I'm just not sure there is a "reasonable element" in either party that will ever place principle above politics…nor did we have that back in the Watergate days. What we had then, I think, was a Republican party that realized that Nixon was going down — in popularity if not in an impeachment trial — and they threw him overboard to save their own necks. Barry Goldwater, Hugh Scott and I forget who the third one was — three prominent G.O.P. leaders — essentially went to the White House and told Nixon that he would not have solid Republican backing if it came to an impeachment vote and trial. Goldwater even said he was prepared to vote to convict on at least one count. That was when Nixon knew the time had come to have Pat start packing.
That did not happen with Clinton. The day he was impeached, all indicators had his popularity at some sort of record high. Republicans had thought the various revelations would get it down to the point where Democrats would dump the guy but it never came to that. I have little doubt that if his approval rating had been low — around where Nixon's was — some delegation of Ted Kennedy and the Democratic House and Senate leaders would have gone to see Bill. But they all decided they were better off with him than without him.
I don't expect that to happen with Bush. He has a certain hardcore following. I don't know how large it is but around 21% of Americans tell pollsters they "strongly approve" of his presidency so figure it's close to that number. Bush could get caught robbing a liquor store to buy crack and he wouldn't lose those people. They'd shrug it off as a plot by the Liberal Media, Hillary Clinton and militant gays. Nixon had a rock-solid constituency of about the same size Bush now enjoys but I'm guessing the difference goes something like this: The Republican leadership of 1974 figured they could afford to tick off the extreme right; that they weren't the heart and soul of the party and would eventually fall back in behind its next standard bearer. Which they pretty much did. Moreover, Nixon's "failings" were personal and reflected only on him and his aides. Ousting him did not in any way tarnish the grand Republican agenda.
Today's G.O.P. leadership is afraid to alienate that (approximately) 20%. That's why they won't nominate a pro-choice candidate like McCain or Giuliani in 2008 unless they think the alternative is President Hillary or someone else that fringe would think meant the end of life as we know it. Talk of impeachment might be fun for those who think Bush has been a lousy president. It might even be a good way to convince some of those not in the 20% to vote Democratic in the mid-term elections. But that's about all it's good for.