LIMBAUGH COMMENTARY; GEORGE AND THE DEFECTORS

Republicans have marveled with incredulity at how Bill Clinton's defenders have remained loyal to him even to the point of effectively rewriting the law on impeachable offenses and sexual harassment, the latter at least being thought to be quite nonnegotiable to them. This loyalty has been no accident, however, but the result of an ongoing calculated assessment of the relative disadvantages of remaining versus those of defecting.

Throughout the panoply of scandals, Democrats determined that the negatives which would accrue to them and their cause by remaining loyal to Clinton would be outweighed by the potential harms that would result from his political exile. Thus, retaining a serial felon as president and undermining the Constitution, the rule of law and the women's movement itself were deemed preferable to conceding substantial political ground to evil, conservative Republicans (excuse the redundancy).

The release by George Stephanopoulos of his new book about his White House experiences, though, has brought to light a little-noticed pattern of defection among former Clinton advisers. As incredibly loyal as Clinton's soldiers have been, Stephanopoulos is not the first ex-insider to rebuke him publicly. In the past year, there has been a steady stream of past aides scampering from the reservation.

Clinton's first press secretary, Dee Dee Myers, has been less than charitable about Clinton's dalliances. Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich described Clinton's Oval Office conduct with Lewinsky as outrageously reckless. Press deflector Mike McCurry has admitted that Clinton's lying "probably destroyed his effectiveness as president."

Bimbo-eruption virtuoso Betsy Wright bemoaned that "Clinton can resist anything but temptation." Dick Morris's daily denunciations of Clinton speak for themselves. And ex-adviser David Gergen, one of the president's most ardent defenders despite his delusional self-description as a Republican, has rhetorically parted ways with the Big Creepster.

A sea change is occurring within the world of liberalism concerning its public loyalty to Bill Clinton, of which the exodus of his ex-advisers is but a symptom. There seems to be an increasing trend among Clinton loyalists of all stripes to distance themselves from their political savior. Even the president's most fiercely loyal defender, Hillary Rodham Clinton, is showing signs of disaffection with her recent trial-balloon separation from Bill.

Considering that we've had nearly a bona fide scandal per month since Clinton has been in office with barely a chink in the Clinton-loyalty armor, what could account for this recent turn of events? Don't buy into this nonsense that ex-loyalists such as Stephanopoulos have just now begun to see the light.

Something has happened -- something has been introduced into the equation that is effecting the Democrats' cost-benefits analysis respecting their allegiance to Clinton. Ultimately, it boils down to their Trippesque-instinct for self-preservation.

A combination of factors is involved, including 1. the sheer cumulative weight of the plethora of scandals, 2. the sobering possibility that this character may have compromised our national security in exchange for his personal political gain, 3. the short time remaining in his term, 4. the growing realization that Clinton's Teflon may have reverse coattails, especially for enviro-munk Al Gore, and, last but decidedly not least, 5. the eminently believable allegations of Juanita Broaddrick.

The bottom line is that even Clinton's defenders cannot escape the strong possibility that he is a rapist, and more importantly, that the public knows that they know it. Forget the legalities here. We're not discussing his exposure to criminal liability, which has long since expired.

We're talking about an allegation by an accuser who A. is financially independent, B. was a supporter of Clinton's at the time and related her horror story to a number of friends contemporaneously with the event (some of whom can corroborate her torn pantyhose in the crotch area and her badly bruised lip), C. was forced by the criminal process into breaking her silence, and D. has nothing to gain and much to lose by her charges, and whose story has been checked out meticulously and confirmed as accurate by a relentless news team on a mission to discredit her.

Against all this, we have the no-comment, non-finger-wagging denial by the Denier in Chief through his lawyer.

The stark reality is that a startling number of thinking people (including, probably, the first lady) genuinely believe that Bill Clinton is a rapist. That is too much even for Kool-Aid guzzling Clintonites to digest and publicly tolerate.

~David Limbaugh of Cape Girardeau is a columnist for Creators Syndicate.