LETTERS: USING LOGIC TO EXPLAIN REPUBLICANS

To the editor:

I have been trying with all my heart to make sense of why the Republican majority in the House pushed impeachment so vigorously even though its has been obvious for months that the majority of Americans wanted none of it. I decided the only thing to do was to apply a pure logical assessment, if logic is a word that can be said in the same breath with Washington without causing one's teeth to rot. I came up with the only three possible scenarios, any one of which could put sense into their blind, heedless rush to charge. Here they are.

1. They think that over 60-some percent of Americans are blithering idiots. I picture a scene where they are standing over us, patting us on the head with condescending pity and saying: "You poor foolish children. You have no idea what high crimes and misdemeanors are. But we do."

2. They are groveling for approval of the far right wing of their party, taking on the role Steve McQueen played in "The Bounty Hunter," running down the hated interloper who dared to win the last two elections without their permission. As one who very seldom agrees with what the Republicans do, I truly hope this is what happened. Catering to the wishes of a minority segment of any party is kin to the story of the demise of the escaped murderer whom the county sheriff had absolutely no love for. "Shot 32 times in the back," the sheriff drawled. "Worst case of suicide I ever seen."

3. They are intellectually challenged. They feel that there is a smoking gun waiting in the wings that will make all this seem worth it, even though it's been obvious for months that Kenneth Starr has not let an opening go unzipped. In this scenario, they think that if they keep the government tied up all next year with more of the same talk that most of us are deadly sick of, Linda Tripp will eventually stumble across that one tape she had tossed into her wish chest and forgot about, the one tape that will once and for all bring this all up to an offense great enough for removal. And if, heaven forbid, she doesn't, they figure we will just trundle along with our hands in our pockets whistling to the sky and not notice all the wasted time. Re-imagine possibility No. 1 and again being patted on the head.

So go the only three logical reasons that exist.

Don't get me wrong. Bill Clinton is a cad, at the very least. But the only fair way to handle this in the land that invented fairness is to let a normal, everyday prosecutor indict him and have a trial where he can be judged by 12 regular citizens. That would be considerably more evenhanded that being judged by a chamber where the majority are partisan politicos. It would also allow our elected minions a chance to find more helpful ways to earn their keep.

Or is that illogical? Don't get me started.

PAUL HENNRICH

Cape Girardeau