One of the reasons I decided to take a leap into opinion journalism is that I've spent a awful lot of time reading and thinking about ways in which to describe political events in a new and different light, and formulating arguments that I hope are coherent, interesting, and support my view of the role of government in society.

I find one of the most useful ways to deconstruct a political issue is to engage in a thought experiment that does one of two things…either look at an issue as though I were on the Left and decide whether I am taking a position simply because it helps my team; or to draw an issue down to a personal level.

In the case of the Clinton impeachment, I have chosen the latter.  All during the impeachment process and trial, the MSM and The Left argued it was all about sex.  (I happened to be traveling in Europe during the trial, and folks over there thought it was either quite silly or just amazing…I watched the final vote in a little B&B in Dungarven, Ireland, and trying to defend the Republicans in the pub that night was very tough.)

But not impossible. Let’s carefully review what happened, and draw it down to a personal level.

Clinton propositions Paula Jones in a Little Rock, Arkansas hotel room.  (He drops his pants and asks her to perform a sex act.)  She refuses.  Much later, she is exposed in an article in The American Spectator and files suit against Clinton using the sexual harassment law he had himself signed into law.

The case goes to trial.  In a deposition taken for that case, Clinton denies he had sexual contact with Monica Lewinsky (this is the infamous “It depends on what the meaning of “is” is”…comment.)

After the testing of the stained blue dress, it becomes clear that Clinton, the highest law enforcement official in the land, has committee perjury.  He is impeached by the House on charges of the same.

Now the thought experiment.  Imagine your sister, daughter, wife, mother, etc. is employed by the governor of your home state.  He propositions her, and she refuses.  She is then exposed in the press.  She file suit against the governor.  He denies under oath that this took place, and also denies that other situations involving government employees have taken place (i.e., Monica.)  Your sister, daughter, wife, mother loses her case and is pilloried in the press as a liar only out for financial gain.

Would you support the removal of this governor, or now President, from office for the crime of perjury?

Again, it was not the sex, it was the perjury.

A brief side note to indicate that I believe that perjury by anyone is wrong and destructive to our Republic.

During the Senate race between Oliver North and Chuck Robb, I told my father I hoped that North would win.  My father is a Republican and almost always supports our nominees.  In this case, he said that I should not hope for North’s election, because he had lied to Congress.  (North was convicted of perjury and his conviction subsequently over turned on the technicality that the testimony which Congress had compelled him to give could not be used against in court…it did not change the fact that he had most certainly lied.)

Regardless of the fact that North was an American hero for his actions in Vietnam, a hero to the Right for his brilliant answers to the Senate committee investigating Iran-Contra, and had supported the freedom fighters who were opposing Communism in Central America, my father said it was quite simple. He had lied under oath.

In the face of this simple, but powerful point, I have since had no respect for Ollie North…he lied; he knew he was lying, and he defended his lies.  Clinton did the same.

 Neither is fit to hold public office.

There are so many things wrong with this; Charges Sought Against Rumsfeld (the “crimes” Abu Ghraib involved no severe physical punishment, the equivalency of Abu Ghraib versus the real torture and beheading our enemies have committed, the unintentional humor factor of the Germans planning a war crimes trial less than 60 years after Nuremberg) that I quite frankly don’t know where to begin, but at its heart this “trial” is really about the “criminalization of politics.

Although some commentators have contended that only in recent years has the political environment become poisonous, brutal and highly partisan, this has been the condition of campaigns in the Republic since its founding.  I find it quite humorous that soon as Republicans started winning (i.e., 1994) the MSM has begun to write and talk about “hate politics.” 

As long as the feckless Republican Congressional leaders of the 1970’s and 1980’s behaved themselves and did not aggressively try to gain control of Congress, the MSM was happy.  I remember the constant frustration we on the Right felt in those days as Bob Michel, then Minority (as in permanent minority) Leader of the House rolled over every time Tip O’Neill offered him a Milk Bone.

What is new is the use of the law enforcement function of government to attack one’s political enemies.  It is important to draw a distinction here.  The investigations of the Clinton years (including impeachment, which was about perjury, not sex, ...go here for more on this: What Clinton and Ollie North have in common ) involved the possible commission of crimes involving corruption and personal malfeasance unrelated to policy disputes. 

Whitewater and Hillary’s cattle futures deals involved something that has happened in politics since time immemorial.  Someone provides information, a false front, or a timing advantage to enable a public figure to make some cash in a way not available to the public at large.  (By the way, this also happens in business all the time….. especially on Wall Street….I’m talking about “market markers” and the advantages they provide to friends and valued customers…but that is a subject of another opinion piece.)

When the Republicans pursued these investigations, they were not directly related to an ongoing policy dispute.  Putting aside the question of whether these investigations were appropriate, they differed significantly from the investigations that have taken place of Scooter Libby, Ken Tomlinson, and now Donald Rumsfeld.  These investigations involve the use of the government’s law enforcement function to attack one's political enemies over policy differences.

Personal note:  I recently met Ken Tomlinson’s son, who is a sports producer at CNN Headline News (no way he would get hired on the news side of the operation with his pedigree.)  I told him the hatchet job that had been done on his father was disgraceful, but what was more disgraceful was that Congressional Republicans failed to defend him.  For more on this..go here…)

All of the above I write to invite you to read Fred Barnes excellent article in The Weekly Standard, Criminalizing Politics.

....in my opinion, although I may be somewhat biased as he has been a very good friend for twenty years.

He is the primary cartoonist for Roll Call, the highly influential newspaper published on and for Capitol Hill in Washington; CNN.com; The Atlanta Business Chronicle; and the Dunwoody Crier.

Go here to see a sample of his work: Mike Mikula

Just watched the Allen concession speech and the Webb victory speech. I’ll be writing more post mortem election later tonight, but seeing Webb reminded me of Casey Cagle.

Both Webb and Cagle challenged men who were running races that were supposed to be stepping stones to higher office.  For Allen, he was expected to win handily and then quickly begin his run for the Presidency. 

For Cagle’s opponent, former head of the Christian Coalition Ralph Reed, his first run for office for the Lieutenant Governorship of Georgia was to be the first step in a climb that some predicted would bring him much higher office, certainly Governor or US Senator, and potentially one day the Presidency as well.

The reasons that Allen and Reed lost are interesting, but what I find more intriguing, and actually quite exhilarating, is that two men who were given no chance to win decided to put all of their personal effort, and much of their personal money, into what all considered to be quixotic campaigns.  Thanks to significant missteps by their opponents, they both take office this January. 

This is wonderful validation of our system, of the American voter, and of the wisdom of following your heart and your dreams in the face of tremendous odds.

The White House is doing an excellent job of stealing the Democrat's post election thunder.  The Rumsfeld -Gates announcement yesterday, and Bush is headed for the Rose Garden shortly to make another.  Brilliant. 

Reagan and Clinton both became lame ducks after the sixth year elections because of Iran-Contra and Monica, although Clinton actually made gains due to the Newt controversy.  Bush seems to be determined that this will not happen to him.