LIMBAUGH COMMENTARY: IMPEACHMENT BACKLASH? DEMOCRAT SUPPORT WILL LIVE IN INFAMY

Timid, moderate Republicans kept warning Senate Republicans to end the impeachment trial so as not to incur the people's wrath and jeopardize their hold on both houses of Congress in 2000. They were wrong.

Other Republicans held fast to their conviction that Senate Republicans should be guided by principle, not political expedience. They were correct.

Feckless Republicans failed to comprehend that polls are one-dimensional. Just because polls supposedly showed that most people wanted the trial to be concluded quickly didn't necessarily mean they would later punish Republicans for insisting on completing the trial. The media's incessant reporting that there would be a backlash was their editorial opinion, not objective news. Plus, it was contradicted by contemporaneous Zogby poll results showing there was no evidence of a backlash.

This is not to say that Republicans cannot lose their congressional majorities, but if they do it will be for reasons other than impeachment, such as failing to govern and abandoning their conservative base.

Cocksure Democrats who continually predicted the demise of the GOP because of their tough stand on impeachment were probably posturing with the hope of intimidating Republicans into caving. Had they convinced Republicans to wholly abandon a trial, or to go along with them in some watered-down censure resolution, they would have effectively negated any stigma attaching to them for their shameless support of Clinton during the impeachment ordeal.

Though the Senate Republican leadership conspired with Senate Democrats to dispense with a genuine evidentiary trial, at least they resisted Byrd's motion to dismiss and insisted on completing the trial through a vote.

By adhering to principle to that extent and not acquiescing to the censure charade, the Republicans not only did what was right -- they distinguished themselves from the Democrats and forced them to stand alone in their support of Bill Clinton and to blend with him into historical infamy.

By their unwavering and unprincipled support of Clinton, congressional Democrats have acquired ownership of the president and figuratively adopted his felonies -- even, to some extent, those not in issue at the time of the trial. As Rush Limbaugh presciently observed, the Democrats, by their actions, were wrapping themselves around all of Clinton's Bruno Magli shoes -- i.e., future disclosures of Clinton's wrongdoing.

Since the acquittal, a pair of Bruno Maglis has already surfaced: 1. Juanita Brodderick and 2. further disturbing revelations about this administration compromising our national security in its dealings with Red China.

Please don't tell me these matters are irrelevant. The most outspoken senator against the impeachment proceedings, Tom Harkin, has allowed that he may have voted differently had he known about Brodderick.

Impeachment issues are unlikely to have much impact on congressional elections in 2000, with the possible exception of very close races involving high-profile impeachment players. What will ultimately drive those elections will be the hot issues at the time of the election, the candidates themselves and campaign money.

The scandal's impact on the presidential race may be more profound. It is a curious irony that while Clinton always manages to escape accountability for his wrongdoing, his closest confidants do not. His former business partners and government appointees are racking up felony convictions right and left.

Assuming Al Gore gets by Bill Bradley and wins his party's nomination, he will have a difficult time distancing himself from the Clinton record -- all of it. And this won't be merely a case of guilt (or credit) by association. Gore has deliberately embraced every fiber of Clinton's presidential persona, even to the point of proclaiming him one of the greatest presidents of the century the very day he was impeached!

When given an opportunity to retract his remarks by CNN's Wolf Blitzer, Gore refused. Then amazingly, he invoked Scripture to describe favorably the Clinton administration: "Ye shall know them by their fruits." Ye shall indeed.

Gore's presidential bid may help to unravel this curious mystery behind dichotomous polls that on the one hand give Clinton high approval ratings and on the other strongly disapprove of his character. The people are probably far less willing to re-elect a scoundrel (or his protege) than they are to favor his ouster.

If the Democrats' promised backlash does materialize in 2000, its most likely casualty will not be congressional Republicans, but our Buddhist Temple-emissary, Al Gore.

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