Impeachment: The group of 31

When the House passed the Republican plan for an impeachment inquiry, all eyes were on 31 Democrats who crossed party lines to support it. Most of the so-called Democratic defectors are on the balance beam of modern politics, representing districts where they need to court voters who swing back and forth between the parties.

Half of the defectors were members of the Blue Dog coalition, a group of Democrats who represent the center of the political spectrum. Most face tight re-election races, and in 1996, Republican presidential nominee Bob Dole won a third of their districts.

Many spent the first hours after the Oct. 8 impeachment vote explaining their views to reporters from newspapers in their states:

Gary Condit, Calif.: "This is about moving forward into fact-finding so we can put an end to this. We've been focused on this matter for far too long, and we have to begin to put it to rest and get on with business." (Fresno Bee, 10/9) Bob Etheridge, N.C.: "I just thought it was so important to get the truth out, get the allegations behind us and get it settled." The Winston-Salem Journal noted that Etheridge "faces a tough fight against a state senator who was one of the first Republicans in the nation to run an advertisement linking a Democratic opponent with the president." (10/9)

Lane Evans, Ill.: "To limit in any way the scope or the time of the inquiry, I thought the American people might not have confidence in the process itself." The Daily Southtown of Tinley Park reported that Evans "is locked in the toughest re-election challenge of his career." (10/9)

Virgil H. Goode Jr., Va.: "I think it's important to finally wrap this whole thing up once and for all." The Roanoke Times wrote that Goode's votes "were reminiscent of his days in the state Senate, where he built a reputation as a legislator who voted his conscience regardless of whether it agreed with the party line." (10/9)

The Group of 31, Part II

Ralph M. Hall, Texas: "I think the only arena the president can get closure is in the Senate. I think felonies did occur on more than one occasion, and the Senate is the place to go with those." (Dallas Morning News, 10/9) The Houston Chronicle noted that "Hall's vote was not surprising considering the conservative lawmaker from Rockwall has sided more with Republicans than fellow Democrats in recent years." (10/8)

Ron Kind, Wis.: "My vote today is, in essence, giving the Republican leadership and the Judiciary Committee the benefit of the doubt that they will conduct the inquiry in a fair, quick and nonpartisan fashion so that we can bring some resolution that is going to be credible." (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 10/9)

Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio: "A vote for an inquiry is not the same as a vote for impeachment." (The [Cleveland] Plain Dealer, 10/9)

Nick Lampson, Texas: "Everything gets weighed in making a decision like this." (Dallas Morning News, 10/9) The Houston Chronicle reported that Lampson "does not appear in trouble in his race," even though "his Southeast Texas district has swung back and forth between the parties in recent years." (10/8)

William O. Lipinski, Ill.: "This was a vote of conscience on my part. I don't feel a full and complete investigation could be done by limiting the time and scope." (Daily Southtown, 10/9)

Carolyn McCarthy, N.Y.: "This was extremely hard for me, but I knew what I had to do." (New York Post, 10/9) "It was probably my toughest vote. . . . We have to get answers, one way or another. There's going to be a big cloud over the country until this is settled." She stressed that it was a vote for an inquiry: "I'm not voting for impeachment." (New York Daily News, 10/9)

Paul McHale, Pa.: "We cannot excuse that kind of misconduct because we happen to belong to the same party as the president or agree with him on issues or feel . . . that the removal of the president from office would be enormously painful for the United States of America." (Philadelphia Inquirer, 10/9)

Mike McIntyre, N.C.: "Justice can only be served when you allow a full and open process. I believe that we do not need for there to be any further delay, and the only way to stop conflicting allegations and to stop legal hairsplitting is to go ahead and put it on the table." (Winston-Salem Journal, 10/9)

The Group of 31, Part III

Jim Moran, Va.: "I think, particularly as a Democrat, it's incumbent upon me to have credibility." (Washington Times, 10/9) The Fairfax Journal reported that Moran voted for the GOP proposal "despite a heavy outpouring of calls from constituents who opposed his position." (10/9)

Tim Roemer, Ind.: "I want to make it clear that my vote is not for impeachment but for an inquiry into this matter." The South Bend Tribune reported that Roemer has been regarded "as one of the key Democrats in determining how moderates in the party--disgusted over the president's conduct but not ready to impeach--would vote on whether to move ahead with the process." (10/8)

John M. Spratt Jr., S.C.: "Most important of all, both resolutions started an inquiry into impeachment charges, and once the inquiry starts, it will take on a life of its own. Democrats and Republicans acknowledged that an inquiry must go forward." (The [Columbia] State, 10/9)

Charles W. Stenholm, Texas: "There's a lot of confusion out there. People at home do not understand that this vote just keeps the process going." (Dallas Morning News, 10/9) The Abilene Reporter-News noted that it took courage for Stenholm "to buck his own party leadership, but it was the right thing--the best thing--to do in this situation." (10/9) The Houston Chronicle reported that Stenholm's "district has become increasingly Republican." It said Stenholm "has barely survived in recent races" and faces "another tough challenge this year." (10/8)

Ellen O. Tauscher, Calif.: "My opponent has talked about nothing but the Clinton scandal for months. . . . I have a vulnerable district in a volatile time." (Contra Costa Times, 10/9)

Jim Turner, Texas: "The most important thing for people to understand is that this is not a vote for impeachment." (Dallas Morning News, 10/9) The Houston Chronicle reported that Turner's opponent has called on Clinton to resign, but Turner "appears to be in a strong position." (10/8)

Robert A. Weygand, R.I.: "You always like the camaraderie of being with your colleagues, but this time I had to just be with my conscience." (Providence Journal-Bulletin, 10/9)

His Excellency?

Although they're not generating much news media coverage, several state constitutional amendments before the voters next month would dramatically enhance the legal rights of women.

These attempts to place gender-neutral or female-inclusive language in state constitutions are on the ballot in Florida, Iowa and New Hampshire. WomenCONNECT Politics Daily, a Hotline publication available free on the World Wide Web at www.womenCONNECT.com, recently interviewed key backers of the proposed amendments.

The Iowa proposal, sponsored by state Rep. Minnette Doderer, a Democrat, would amend the state constitution's section on individual rights. Doderer: "The point is to add women to the constitution. We're adding two words--`and women,' because women just aren't in the constitution. . . . We're just trying to make women feel like they are part of this economic, political and social life of this state, that's all."

The proposed Florida change, backed by Constitution Revision Commission Director Ron Morris, would add "female and male alike" to the clause requiring equality of citizens before the law. Morris: "I think, when it comes to any kind of funding by the legislature, that they would consider women and men equal before the law. I would hope that it would mean that in job situations men and women would be treated equal."

In New Hampshire, an amendment sponsored by state Rep. Robert R. Cushing, a Democrat, would eliminate the requirement that the governor's title be "His Excellency" regardless of sex. Cushing: "I want my daughters to be able to read the state constitution and see that they are included in the document. . . . It's designed to reflect a change in our culture and in our attitude towards women. We need to have equality for women in our fundamental document." (WomenCONNECT Politics Daily, 10/9)

Moniculture in Carolina . . .

A North Carolina substitute teacher who was fired for passing out play money with "obscene references" to President Clinton said he made an "honest mistake." Cleveland Clark lost his $40-a-day job after handing out "Sex Dollar Bills" to middle-school students. They were emblazoned with Clinton's image and references to Monica Lewinsky and oral sex.

Clark said he gave away about 15 of the bills as prizes to "pass the time with students who finished their assignments early." Clark: "I didn't think there would be anything wrong with it. I mean, it's been all over the newspapers and national television." (Charlotte Observer, 10/9)

And in Florida

A Florida county official being investigated for his misuse of voting records advised the co-worker who helped him to follow the lead of President Clinton if he was questioned.

According to court records, St. Lucie Commissioner Ken Sattler told his alleged co-conspirator to "be technical" if questioned by police: "You could play a Bill Clinton on them if you wanted." The two were arrested "for allegedly tapping into" voting records to help Sattler's re-election bid. He was defeated in an Oct. 1 runoff and resigned on Oct. 8. (Associated Press, 10/8)