Republican Trump defenders beware: Democrats paid long-term price for sticking with Bill Clinton

[mystery-ak]

Republican Trump defenders beware: Democrats paid long-term price for sticking with Bill Clinton
by Philip Klein
 | October 08, 2019 12:18 PM



Republicans, with few exceptions, have been circling the wagons to defend President Trump on Ukraine. But as the story plays out, they should keep in mind that Democrats paid a long-term price for their defenses of Bill Clinton -- a price that arguably included the election of Trump himself.

In previous posts, I have gone through the details of the Ukraine story and explained why I thought it was bad news that a transcript revealed that Trump asked Ukraine’s president to investigate Joe Biden. But right now, the details are not going to sway many Republican Senators. What matters to them is the politics.

Right now, the politics are that 89 percent of Republicans approve of the job that Trump is doing. To the base of the party, the Ukraine story is a vicious attempt by the Left, Democrats, deep state, and media to overturn an election because they despise Trump. Any critical Republican will be viewed as a traitor and relentlessly attacked by Trump on Twitter. Most Republicans who go too far in criticizing Trump on Ukraine risk a primary challenge and depressed turnout in any general election. For most Republicans, gutting it out with Trump is probably the least risky strategy in the short run.

But while the short-term political calculations seem obvious, particularly for Senators up for reelection in deeply red states, the potential longer-term costs are quite different. And this is where it would pay to look back at the Clinton precedent.

more
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/republican-trump-defenders-beware-democrats-paid-long-term-price-for-sticking-with-bill-clinton

[EasyAce]

From the article:

I do not think Trump ever could have gotten elected president had Clinton resigned in disgrace in 1998 over the Lewinsky scandal. But even if you wouldn’t go this far, at a minimum, it is undeniable that it made his path a lot easier than in an alternate universe in which Clinton had resigned.

Republicans should consider this history and try to think about the long-term implications of digging in for Trump. This isn’t to say that every Republican needs to go from zero to conviction in 60 seconds. It means that they should make judgments based on the evidence, as opposed to reverse engineering a defense for any Trump deed. It means that even if they don’t think impeachment is the ideal remedy during an election year, they can still acknowledge that certain behavior is wrong.

They should recognize that defending all of Trump’s actions will have a long-term cost. For instance, endorsing the idea that it’s OK for presidents to urge foreign countries, even adversaries, to investigate political rivals, and that presidents should bar witnesses from testifying before Congress will inevitably come back to haunt Republicans. And it will only get worse with each new ad hoc defense of whatever else emerges. Even if Republicans survive damage in the short term, the long-term consequences will be severe and unpredictable, even if they take decades to play out.

There do indeed come times when "winning" proves to be losing.

[skeeter]

This is funny. Before today the common media wisdom held that it was the GOP that paid the price for impeaching Bill Clinton.

Why is it not surprising that today we're suddenly asked to believe it was really the rats who paid for defending Clinton, not the GOP for impeaching him.

Humorous.

If there is any truth in this at all it may be because people understood Bill Clinton was actually guilty of doing something illegal.

[EasyAce]

This is funny. Before today the common wisdom held that it was the GOP that paid the price for impeaching Bill Clinton.

Why is it not surprising that today we're suddenly being asked to believe it was actually the rats who paid for defending Clinton, not the GOP for impeaching him.

They did pay a price for defending Clinton---they lost the White House in 2000 and Congress shortly after that for long enough. (Somehow, it gets forgotten that the GOP reaped the benefits in the end of impeaching Clinton.) And even with Obama in the White House the Democrats still re-lost Congress for a long enough spell.

Just a shame, concurrently, that when the Republicans had those controls they said, figuratively, "You can't walk all over the Constitution and spend like drunken sailors---only we can walk all over the Constitution and spend like drunken sailors!"

[skeeter]

They did pay a price for defending Clinton---they lost the White House in 2000 and Congress shortly after that for long enough. (Somehow, it gets forgotten that the GOP reaped the benefits in the end of impeaching Clinton.) And even with Obama in the White House the Democrats still re-lost Congress for a long enough spell.

I've never heard the rat's loss in 2000 attributed to the Clinton impeachment, it seemed to me more a matter of the usual win/loss cycle. And even then the GOP won only by the slimmest of margins.

Just a shame, concurrently, that when the Republicans had those controls they said, figuratively, "You can't walk all over the Constitution and spend like drunken sailors---only we can walk all over the Constitution and spend like drunken sailors!"

That is unarguably true.