UA students, profs reacts to Clinton acquittal

Wildcat File Photo Arizona Daily Wildcat President Bill Clinton His acquital Friday has left many UA students and faculty with mixed reactions.

Philosophy sophomore Eric Gregory said the scrutiny Clinton has endured during his tenure as president has turned off many from running for political office.

"I wouldn't want to be president," Gregory said. "There's too many people watching you."

After one of the biggest presidential crises this century, the U.S. Senate acquitted Clinton on perjury and obstruction of justice impeachment articles. Article I, perjury, was defeated by a 55-45 vote and Article II, obstruction, failed due to a 50-50 vote. Conviction required 67 votes.

Two professors at the University of Arizona were divided along party lines as to whether Clinton should have been impeached, much like their representatives in Congress.

"This is going to blow up in their (Republicans') faces," said UA political science professor Peter Goudinoff. "I think the Democrats will take the house back next year."

Goudinoff said he thinks the American people will react unfavorably to the Republican attempt to "shame him (Clinton) out of office." Election results will probably show that the American people "don't want those kinds of people running the country," he said.

However, people with more conservative views are not so quick to count out Republicans in the 2000 elections.

"I think the thing one has to be aware of is people judge different officials differently," said Henry Kenski, a UA communication professor. "The bottom line is going to be the different campaigns. Generalizing from this to broader things is always a risky business."

Kenski said while the impeachment may have helped democratic fundraising efforts, it was not a "front-burner issue" for a lot of people, he said. He said the election will hinge on attracting the most voters to the polls. Kenski, a Republican, works part-time in office of U.S. Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.).

Both professors also had differing opinions on whether Clinton should have been impeached.

"The president didn't go around bragging about his conquests," Goudinoff said, adding that the tactics employed to snare Clinton were somewhat suspect. "I think the Republicans exposed themselves as being dirt-digging puritans."

Goudinoff, a Democrat, served 20 years in the Arizona Legislature as both a senator and a representative, from 1977 to 1997.

"I think it was a big mistake," he said. "It was purely a partisan political process."

The House of Representatives votes whether to impeach a president and the Senate trial determines if he will be removed from office.

Kenski, however, said the president's behavior warranted further examination by the Senate. It was not merely a private matter, he added.

"The problem was he did perjure himself - he did obstruct justice," Kenski said. "The media has framed this as a private problem dealing with sexual activity but it really was a matter of lying under oath."

While many polls seem to indicate that the Republican party hurt its chances for prevailing in the 2000 presidential race, some critics have said there were no winners because Democrats have condoned morally indecent behavior.

"The winner in this whole thing was the Constitution," Goudinoff said, referring to the framers' high standard of a two-thirds vote. "The Constitution held."

Kenski said he thought there were no winners, and Americans wants to put the saga behind them.

"If anything, this proves that life will go on regardless of what happens in the body politic," he said.

But, many people agree that the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal and resulting impeachment will be harmful to Clinton's legacy.

"It's certainly going to be in the first paragraph of his obituary," Goudinoff said.

Kenski, however, agreed that Clinton's personal reputation was damaged, but his job effectiveness and legacy were not.

"This president has been diminished in terms of respect but I think (the office of) the presidency will survive," he said.

Some UA students questioned the validity of Clinton's impeachment and said they were opposed to it, although they did express concerns about the fact Clinton lied.

"I don't think he should have been impeached," said Lisa Alves, a sociology senior. "Yes, he did lie under oath but he I think that should have been taken care of after (he left office)."

Alves said she felt the office of the president had been weakened by the whole impeachment process, but added that things should not just end with Clinton's acquittal - he should be punished for his actions.

Undeclared freshman Lisa Varrecchia said Clinton should have been penalized, but it should not have gone as far as impeachment.

"It turned into a public humiliation type of thing," Varrecchia said. "Even though he is the president, he's still a person - that's his own personal business."

But senior Melissa Lone said Clinton deserved to be penalized for his dishonesty.

"I think he should have been impeached because he lied," Lone said. "It's amazing how many people still support him."