Earlier last week my colleagues here at the Daily warned incoming Republican congressmen about delving into President Bill Clinton’s alleged personal and public misconduct.

The editorial called the attempts at starting congressional hearings as a witch hunt.

Unfortunately, my fellow employees fail to see their folly.

These hearings do not exist to smear President Clinton. Rather, they are an avenue to explore various allegations about the administration. If these trails were really witch hunts, then the American public would be outraged, much as they were during Senator Joseph McCarthy’s 1953 pursuit of Communists and other “Un-American activities.”

This administration has been plagued with more scandals than any other White House in recent history. This fact is not the fault of the Republican party, and they should not be chastised for attempting to uncover the truth.

A seedy land deal gone bad, and the files concerning it have the First Lady’s fingerprints all over them. Nine hundred FBI files on prominent Republicans find their way into the White House, and are monitored by a former nightclub bouncer.

A President of the United States is accused of sexual harassment by a former employee. Hundreds of thousands of dollars find their way into Clinton’s reelection campaign, gifts of major far eastern businessmen (none of which are U.S. citizens). Hillary Clinton fires members of the White House Travel Office and replaces them with loyal Clinton supporters. Two cabinet members are accused of major wrongdoing during their tenures.

These incidents all occurred during the first four years of this administration.

I’m not making this up. Every one of these scandals is serious enough to warrant an investigation. If the Congress is not allowed to exercise its right to monitor the executive branch, then we are insulting the framers of our Constitution.

Still convinced that the Republicans are out to get President Clinton? Well, let’s look at some other famous witch hunts.

1986: Supreme Court nominee Douglas Ginsburg admits to having smoked marijuana while at Harvard. He was voted down by the Senate.

1987: Secretary of Defense nominee John Tower is accused by Democrats as a drinking womanizer because he had been seen in bars with female acquaintances. He was voted down by the committee.

1991: Clarence Thomas is taken through the wringer as former assistant Anita Hill accuses him of sexual harassment years earlier. He was narrowly approved by the Senate.

1992: Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee are disappointed because Supreme Court nominee David Souter doesn’t have any scandals for them to dig up.

Each and every one of these “scandals” was investigated by a Democratic Congress. The Senators and Representatives at that time said they were only looking for the truth. If you think they were looking for the truth, keep reading.

If the Democrats were so critical of Ginsburg for smoking pot, why do they support a President who “never inhaled?” If they dismiss Paula Jones as someone trying to smear Clinton, why did they pursue Clarence Thomas so aggressively?

If they think accusations of Bill Clinton as a womanizer amount to nothing more than partisanship, why did they defeat Senator Tower’s nomination?

If the Republicans are only trying to make the President look bad, what exactly were the Democrats doing during their hearings? If the Democrats were investigating the truth, then shouldn’t a Republican Congress be allowed to do the same? This is hypocrisy, my friends; pure and simple.

This hypocrisy doesn’t just exist in the Democrats in Congress. President Clinton is as guilty of it as anyone else.

During the 1992 election, Vice President Dan Quayle was assailed by the press, Hollywood and Democratic candidates for his wish that Americans would concentrate more on family values than they had previously.

At the 1992 Democratic National Convention, Bill Clinton said, “I am sick of politicians talking about family values.”

During the past year, he and other formerly liberal candidates have said more Americans should build these values in their lives.

He also called on the movie and television industry to present more family-friendly programs and to reduce sex and violence on the screen. He also supported development of the V-chip, which prevents children from watching those programs.

The fact that Clinton changed his political philosophy to get elected doesn’t concern me, since it’s in effect an endorsement of conservative ideals.

Regardless of the message, it is the messenger of these “new” ideas that scares me. Had Clinton been a person with high moral character, many more people might have voted for him.

However, he is neither a morally grounded person nor does he have a belief in a particular set of values. That is a dominant reason why he received only 49 percent of the popular vote, and last time I checked that wasn’t a majority.

People think that many conservatives like myself take great joy in seeing Bill Clinton up on the whipping post. Though Ronald Reagan and George Bush spent 12 years on that same post, that doesn’t mean I want Clinton used as a tool of revenge.

It actually saddens me that the voters of our country elected a man with this many moral shortcomings. It speaks volumes about our society and what we really are concerned with.

Last Tuesday’s election sent a message. That message is, “Your moral character is irrelevant. What have you done for me lately?”

In 1992 the message was, “It’s the economy, stupid!” I shudder to think what the message in 2000 will be.

The President of the United States is without a doubt the most important job in the world. If that person is accused of wrongdoing, then we have an obligation as Americans to find out the truth.

The President has an unwritten contract of trust between himself and the American people. Any violation of that trust, no matter how small, should be investigated to every minute detail.

---

Rob Zeis is a senior in finance from Des Moines.