Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The Hidden Henry Hyde: Arch-Conservative Tried To Derail Clinton Impeachment

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
meegbear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-30-07 07:55 AM
Original message
The Hidden Henry Hyde: Arch-Conservative Tried To Derail Clinton Impeachment
Henry Hyde goes to his resting place honored among conservatives as the lead prosecutor in bringing the articles of impeachment against Bill Clinton before the Senate.

<snip>

But, as conservative Paul Harvey tells his radio audience, here's the rest of the story.

Hyde, the courageous hero of impeachment, in fact had cold feet -- freezing cold feet. The "real" story can be found buried on pages 484-7 of Bob Woodward's 1999 book, Shadow: Five Presidents and the Legacy of Watergate.

No one, including Woodward's editors at the Washington Post, appears to have noticed this brief but explosive tale, known as the "Four Bobs" story. It was not published in the paper's excerpts and no one wrote a story about it.

What it shows is that Hyde thought impeachment stank and he tried to get it killed before it even reached the House floor.

As Woodward tells it, and as confirmed by Huffington Post, just after the House Judiciary Committee voted for the articles of impeachment on December 12, 1998, Hyde, the chairman, privately asked California Democrat Howard Berman to call him at home later after work.

That evening, Hyde outlined to Berman a complex scenario to substitute censure for impeachment: "You've got to go to Bob Strauss" a wheeler-dealer Texas Democrat with bipartisan contacts, Hyde said. Strauss, in turn, was to go to former Republican House leader Bob Michel and former Senate majority leader Bob Dole. "Then they can go to Bob Livingston and say, 'We've got to have a censure option for the good of the party.' And then Livingston will visit with me and I won't put up much of a fight."

Hyde was adamant that his role in the scheme remain secret. "My fingerprints can never be on this....I have to be against censure or they (his constituents) will kill me." Hyde may have had additional motivation: his extramarital affair in the 1960s had been disclosed three months earlier when Hyde first began publicly pushing for Clinton's impeachment. In 1965, Hyde, as a 41-year-old state legislator and the father of four sons, began an affair with 29-year-old Cherie Snodgrass, who was herself married with a son and two daughters. Their relationship lasted until at least 1969. The Snodgrasses divorced because of the affair.

The four Bobs' plan collapsed when Bob Livingston was forced by his own sex scandal to resign from the House.

If Hyde and Berman had been able to pull off the censure scenario, it would have dramatically changed the course of events -- possibly to Clinton's detriment.

The former President emerged from the impeachment proceedings a hero to many, with relatively high favorability ratings. If, instead, Clinton had been swiftly censured, the political damage could well have been severe and long-lasting.

Perhaps, however, the more important aspect of the four Bobs story is that it never became part of the public discourse. Few, if any, politically influential conservative read Woodward's book or Hyde would not have been the honoree at so many Republican gatherings celebrating impeachment. Among reporters, political operatives and activists, none that I have encountered has ever heard of it.

From the narrow perspective of the Washington Post, the paper missed the opportunity to publish what would have been a major story.

From the larger perspective of voters and their elected officials, timely publication of the story - Headline: "Lead Impeachment Prosecutor Believes His Case Rotten" - would probably have stopped impeachment proceedings in their tracks.

In reality, government ground to a halt. For the two months from December 12, when Hyde first spoke to Berman, to February 12, 1999, when the Senate acquitted Clinton, both the Congress and the White House were completely preoccupied with impeachment.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/11/29/the-hidden-henry-hyde-ar_n_74722.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
KingOfLostSouls Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-30-07 08:35 AM
Response to Original message
1. or hyde could have done the american thing
and not bother the president about where his pecker was going and get back to work.

who else remembers when clinton and gore were trying to warn everyone about terrorism and get legislation passed and all the republicans did was say they were trying to divert people from his affair?

how much damage could have been spared if henry hyde and the republicans had supported the president? tsk tsk.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-30-07 08:36 AM
Response to Original message
2. Why should I believe an account from Bob Woodward from Paul Harvey about Henry Hyde?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
meegbear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-30-07 08:40 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Becasue it was written in 1999, before Woodward became a suckup ...
and Paul Harvey is being used as a literary reference to move the story along.

Is that OK?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-30-07 08:43 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. mmm... no, not really.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1932 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-30-07 08:52 AM
Response to Original message
5. Why are Republicans always redeemed when they die?
Granted, if you do bad things while alive, and the cultural mandate is to speak well of the dead, the only direction you can go is redemption. But what the the hell?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zbdent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-30-07 09:11 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. those who say that you shouldn't speak ill of the (Republican) dead,
usually say all kinds of nasty things about JFK and such ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gratuitous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-30-07 09:24 AM
Response to Original message
7. I don't buy it
And since his book on William Casey in 1987, I don't consider Woodward to be a credible source for . . . well, much of anything. The fact that this story has mouldered for eight years until Hyde kicked the bucket, tends to make me think it's more off-reservation wandering by Woodward. Hyde certainly gave no public indication that he wasn't an enthusiastic and whole-hearted supporter of Clinton's impeachment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 01:01 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC