Radio show
Alan Keyes' radio show, "America's Wake-Up Call"
January 18, 1999[Partial transcript]
Dr. Keyes: What's THE GOOD NEWS TODAY?
Looks like any effort to summarily dismiss the charges against William Jefferson Clinton is losing steam. Talking heads over the weekend- -you had a number of Senators on the air, a number of people indicating that the presentation of the House Managers has created sufficient doubt to have some people inclining toward calling witnesses, and so forth and so on, that weren't before. Phil Gramm actually, on ABC's THIS WEEK, made a pretty strong and to-the-point statement summarizing his own observations on this score. Let's take a listen.
(soundbite of Mr. Gramm)
Dr. Keyes: So, it looks like so far that presentation has had a salutary effect on the process. But don't forget, we are still facing several days in which the President's defenders will be up, in which he'll have his State of the Union Address, and in which there will be questions, 16 hours, I think, of questioning from Senators. Written questions that will be sent through Chief Justice Rehnquist to the two teams of presenters. So, a lot of water is gonna go under the bridge before they finally are faced with the time when they will be making motions to summarily dismiss. At the moment, the line of battle is swaying against that, but we'll see how things turn out over the next few days.
In line with that, I want to reiterate what I think is still an important issue, and that important issue has to do with the State of the Union Address. As I told you last week and read to you and shared with you last week, I have an article that's appearing in Human Events in which I argue that the Congress was wrong to extend this invitation to the President under the circumstances. It is contrary to the stated position of the House in the Articles of Impeachment, and it's contrary to the Oath of Impartiality taken by the Senators, that they would allow this one-sided presentation to be made by the defendant . . . on an issue, by the way, that is material to the judgment that they have to make, at least if you're taking seriously the argument that is being made by the Clinton defenders.
The Clinton defenders are saying that no material harm has been done to the nation, the Executive, to anything about the country, from Clinton's actions- -they are purely personal, they have had no public or Constitutional effect. He gets up and gives a rosy State of the Union Address, pats himself on the back, tells us how wonderful everything is, and he is making the case that is part of the presentation of his defenders.
Is he going to be cross-examined about this? Because, do you think Bill Clinton is going to be including in his State of the Union Address something about the moral condition of the country? Is he going to cite in his State of the Union Address articles like the one I saw today, talking about how parents have to answer questions now from their children about whether, "Mommy, is Daddy going to have girlfriend?"- -and so forth and so on, as a result? Is that sort of moral condition of the country going to be part of his State of the Union Address? I doubt it.
And so, in the State of the Union Address, is he going to be presenting something about the disrespect for civilian authority that is rampant within the military on account of his misbehavior? The sense of resentment and demoralization that results when our people in uniform see the Commander in Chief being held to a standard of accountability less honorable than that they are held to, while he himself enforcing against them the necessary higher standard? Is he going to address that?
So you see, he's going to get this unchallenged shot to present a one-sided, biased view of things, that does not address the issues of the State of the Union that in fact would reflect upon the damage that his conduct has done to the country, and no one will be there. Nobody can ask questions. Nobody will cross-examine. Therefore, it is a prejudicial statement made by the defendant to the Senators, and they are sworn to impartiality, and yet they're allowing this prejudicial procedure. And they don't have to. When they get up and give the impression "this is the President's judgment, his decision to make," that's a lie. It's not his decision to make. He does not have the right to address the Congress. It is not a Constitutional imperative or prerogative of the presidency. The Constitution directs that he has to present a State of the Union message, but a lot of Presidents prior to the beginning of this personal appearance actually presented it in writing.
Phil Gramm showed an awareness of this when he was on ABC's THIS WEEK, when he made the following remarks. Listen.
(soundbite of Mr. Gramm)
Dr. Keyes: Submit it in writing. See, he recognizes that that was, in fact, the tradition. It's how Washington and Lincoln, and so forth- -great Presidents, honored Presidents. It is no dishonor to the presidency. All this bunk is simply that, it's bunk. It is no dishonor to the presidency to present the State of the Union message in writing when great Presidents like Lincoln and Washington presented it in writing, okay? So the notion that that somehow dishonors the presidency is bunk.
What it does is withhold honor from this particular President, and that is appropriate under the circumstances, necessary it seems to me for the House if they are credibly to say that they voted these Articles of Impeachment and sincerely believe that the Articles of Impeachment are justified and correct, and they send House Managers to the Senate to make the case they have been making, that he should be convicted and removed, then it is totally contrary to their stated, voted position as a House, as a body, to then admit him to the chamber where he personally will deliver the State of the Union message.
They will show respect for their Constitution and respect for the presidency by receiving the message in writing, because that's what the Constitution requires. But they are doing honor to the particular individual who holds the office of President when they admit his person to the chamber. And they have a perfect right, and in this case I believe an obligation, to withhold that honor from this individual.
Because precisely the question that is at stake in the impeachment is whether or not he has personally upheld the duties, upheld the requirements of his duties, of his office. And so the House is doing something that I think totally undermines the position they have taken in the Articles of Impeachment. And that, in its turn, undermines the integrity of the impeachment process and does harm to the Constitution. So you're going to tell me that in order to do honor to the presidency, they are going to violate the integrity of this Constitutional process and therefore damage the Constitution? Does this make sense? Not to me.
I also question this whole notion of doing honor in some abstract way to this abstract thing "the presidency." If you read the Constitution with any care, there is no such thing as "the presidency." The Executive power is not vested in "the presidency." The Executive power is vested in a President of the United States, a person. And we should not allow ourselves as a people to be put in the position of the old Roman Senate where Caligula invited the Senators to worship his horse or something. And we're invited to worship not even an inanimate object- -I mean, they're not even setting up a chair or something we can actually see. They have this abstract inanimate thing called "the presidency," and we're supposed to do honor to that. What kind of people have we become?
In fact, the concept that is embodied in our Constitution, different than what's embodied in divine-right monarchies or absolute monarchies or anything like that, was that you had people, individuals in office for a limited term, and they were going to be held personally accountable and responsible for what they did while in office.
Hamilton makes this very clear, and draws a contrast between this approach and the approach that's taken under the divine-right, life-tenure monarchies. And I think that our folks would do well to think about this before they recommend to us that we honor some abstraction called "the presidency."
No, our people have to understand that you get elected to these offices- -depending on how you conduct yourself in the office, you're going to be honored or not, respected or not. That's up to you. And that the people not only have the right, they have an obligation, to pass judgment on what you're doing. Montaigne, in the essays as I have said before, his famous essays? He has passages in there about how under these old monarchies and under the imperial rule in Rome, people were not allowed to pass judgment on the emperors while they were alive. They were not allowed to hold them accountable while they were in there, and then when they died, when they left office, right, then they were able to hold them accountable somehow in their speech. This is the slavish mentality of subjects. It is not what ought to be the mind of a free people.
We should hold our officials accountable, and withhold honor based on their performance. And that means that the Congress should not extend this favor to this President.
(commercial break)
Dr. Keyes: Welcome back to America's Wake-Up Call. Today and tomorrow, I'm going to be emphasizing what I think is the important issue of NOT attending Clinton's State of the Union Address. I don't think people in Congress ought to go. I think it's totally contrary to their responsibilities, both in the Senate and the House. And I would recommend if any of you agree with that, this is a good time. Pick up the phone, call them, let them know how you feel. 202-224-3121.
And when I say "this," I don't necessarily mean right now. I should clarify that, because after all, today is Martin Luther King Day, it's a federal holiday, and guess what? They're not there. Everybody's home. The staff's home, everybody's enjoying themselves. So store this up, and tomorrow I'll be reiterating this point, but that would be the effective time to call, okay? Tomorrow. And in the course of the day I will be reiterating my own reasons for believing that this is correct. Because on this show, you know, I try not to just state opinions and feelings. I try to walk through my reasons for believing that this is correct, and to deal, therefore, with what I think are the sort of logical imperatives of the situation.
And in this particular case, the logic on the House side is pretty clear. How you can tell me in the Articles of Impeachment that this is an individual who has lied, who has violated his oath of office, who has dishonored himself and the White House and the office, who has undermined his position and credibility as Commander in Chief, and etc., etc., etc., and then take the position that it is right to extend to him the personal honor of an invitation to speak before the House of Representatives? Total contradiction.
The House is saying one thing in the Articles of Impeachment, and acting directly contrary to that statement by having him come in person to deliver the State of the Union Address. There is a taint or cloud over his personal credibility right now, and until that taint or cloud is removed one way or the other, the House, it seems to me, is obliged to act in a way that's consistent with the Articles of Impeachment. If they think he should be removed, what are they doing inviting him into the House? And the Senate, of course, has sworn impartiality- -so since they've sworn impartiality, how come they're letting the defendant make an unchallenged statement to the Senate that then is part of, in fact, and material to one of the points being made in his defense? Doesn't make any sense.
So, both houses are violating the integrity of the impeachment process, doing what damages the Constitution. They say they're doing it to honor the presidency, but somebody explain to me, how can you honor the presidency by damaging the Constitution, from which the presidency derives its authority? Leave aside the question of whether or not you can even talk in this context and make sense using this term "presidency." The Constitution does not recognize the so-called "presidency." It recognizes the President. The Executive Power is vested in the President, not a "presidency."
And this is very important, and Hamilton makes this clear in the Federalist Papers- -it's made clear in other writings and speeches during the course of the debates on the Constitution that the whole point behind the impeachment process is that this Chief Executive is held personally accountable. He's not like the King of England was, where he was not held personally accountable, he was above the law, he could do no wrong in person. His person was sacrosanct. This is not the case with the President of the United States, and we should not let it become the case, because that destroys one of the key features that is part of the republican character of our Constitution.
Let's go to a caller in Sunbird, Minnesota.
Caller: Hi Alan, just wanted to send condolences to all the Viking fans, but we praise the Lord out here because we've got people on that team that are giving glory to God, and it's good to hear, in spite of it all.
Dr. Keyes: Amen.
Caller: But anyway, I wanted to talk about Clinton, and I think his sins are finding him out, and I think whether he speaks tomorrow or not, I don't think that's an important issue really. Because I think he's gonna injure himself just like he has before.
Dr. Keyes: Well, one, that is not the case, that he injured himself before. I don't know why you're saying that. In his last State of the Union Address, he in fact saved his presidency. And the fact that he spoke, and the Republicans reacted as they did helped to create an environment that I think has deeply damaged the country's perception of this whole process throughout this last year. So, there, I don't understand why you're saying that. His last State of the Union Address, it was a mediocre, vapid, self-congratulatory speech, but it did have a decidedly positive effect on his fortunes.
Caller: Yeah, I guess I'm referring to his decline lately, and what he said, everything seems to be going downhill for him. And I think he's on a downward spiral.
Dr. Keyes: It could be, but I guess the reason I emphasize the point is that I am not making this case because I think that Clinton's gonna do himself so much good, or so much harm, or anything like that in his speech. I am making the case because, in terms of what the Senate and the House have to do in this process, receiving the President under these circumstances does objective harm to the impeachment process. Wouldn't matter who the President was, wouldn't matter whether I thought he was gonna do well or badly, because it's not a tactical judgment I'm making. It's a judgment about what this does to the Constitutional process. And I think it damages it deeply, that I think the precedent should be established clearly that when a President has been impeached it is inconsistent with the impeachment process to accord him the personal honor of an appearance before a Joint Session of the Congress. Until that impeachment is resolved, that kind of sort of personal favor should be withheld.
Caller: How many people are being made aware of this? I mean, does the Senate realize they have that power? People think that it's a privilege, rather I mean it is something that could be delivered in writing, like you said before? It doesn't necessarily have to be done in public, on TV- -and I wonder, like you said, other than calling our Senators, what can be done about that?
Dr. Keyes: Well, at the moment, I think calling Congressmen and Senators is very important, because there's only one effective thing that can be done now. Unhappily, the leadership in both Houses snuck this through. They snuck through what were called unanimous consent resolutions- -at least, on the House side that's what it's called. And I'm not sure that a lot of members of the House were even aware of what was happening. They obviously knew that it might become an issue, and therefore they snuck it through in the fashion they usually do when they know they're doing something that shouldn't be done and they want to get away with it. That already tells you that something unfortunate is going on. But anyway, it is there, and they have passed the resolutions, extended the invitation.
I think the only recourse at this stage that's practical is for members to stay away from the speech. They should not go. It is inconsistent with their responsibilities, the position taken by the House people. This is especially true of those members of the House who voted for the Articles of Impeachment. And it's entirely inconsistent with the role all the Senators have to play and the oath that they have sworn, for them to listen to this biased presentation from the defendant. So I think that on those grounds, they should stay away. And that's what I would recommend people say to them. "Don't go to the State of the Union Address, it is inconsistent with the integrity of the impeachment process." And I don't say that because I think the President's going to do himself a lot of good; I don't know, he may do himself harm. I think it does the process and the integrity of the process under the Constitution a great deal of harm to take this "business as usual" approach.
. . .
Dr. Keyes: Let's go to a caller in Phoenix, Arizona. Welcome to The Alan Keyes Show.
Caller: Hi Alan. I know it's a little off the subject, and yet it still ties in because it's Martin Luther King's holiday. I've been involved for many, many years in the political process, and ran years ago as a conservative, and lost twice. But Alan, in regard to the Martin Luther King holiday, I always objected to honoring Martin Luther King because of his sexual exploits, which I didn't think would be a role model for young black men. And I would love to hear your response.
Dr. Keyes: Well, I think you're right on that point. The things that have come out in subsequent years, pretty much I think confirmed by testimony from his contemporaries and that have been reported by his major biographers, indicate he was an individual perhaps not up to the level of a Bill Clinton, but certainly who had sexual appetites unrestrained by what one would certainly would have expected, in his case, would have been the requirements of his ministerial vocation, right? And that these things were pretty well verified. In that sense, he is no role model, particularly for people who are looking for somebody to hold up as an example of what you do as a husband and father in terms of respecting your marriage vows. And given what appear to be the facts on the record- -and I've read several biographies and sad to say I think that there really is not much dispute on this point- -what you say is correct in terms of this not being somebody you'd want to cite as an example to your young children how you behave in your personal life and your marital vows.
And sad to say, also, I can't sit here and say that I don't think that that distracts somewhat and detracts somewhat from what I think was a real achievement on his part, in terms of helping the nation to deal with a tremendously difficult issue of justice in a way that did not cost a lot of bloodshed and violence for the country. This was, in my opinion, a true contribution to the nation for which he should be honored in terms of what that contribution implied for the country. But I think that it is always tough to separate that from the judgment one has to make, at least when you're talking to your children and dealing with what you want future generations to emulate. You have to deal with the whole picture. I'm not saying, therefore, that I don't think he deserves some honor. I am saying that if you honor somebody unequivocally and then your children look into it and find that this is their kind of behavior, isn't that gonna aid and abet their own temptations? This is a problem.
Caller: That's what I thought. I've raised six children, and now have eight grandchildren, and I know how important- -I mean, we parents, and now I hear these young parents, and I know that my grandchildren are being influenced by the example of Bill Clinton, and we heard Henry Hyde read the letter from the nine-year-old, and this is, parents are having to use it in a positive way to show how not to lie and not to do the things that Bill Clinton does. But I have been worried all of these years about what kind of example Martin Luther King is going to really be to the young black men.
Dr. Keyes: Well, but before we proceed with that, I do have to clarify a point, though. I find it difficult to believe that we are going to be able to have paragons of perfect virtue to hold up to our children from any generation or time, in the history of humankind. Because, except for Jesus Christ, I don't who you'd look for, which is why I think we ought to be careful not to allow our children to fix on any role model that falls short of what I think is that perfect example that He gave us. Do you see what I'm saying?
For me, that is the antidote to all of this. "Put not your faith in princes," which means that human beings are always going to turn out to be just that, and you're going to find that some of them were capable of great insights, of statesmanship, feats of nobility, heroism on the battlefield, all kinds of stuff, and then when you scratch the surface, you're going to find that in this area or that area or the other area, they showed as weakly human- -and therefore, put not your faith in them as the models, because you should in fact be taking your right model not from them, but from the one that God Himself provided to us, put in human form so that we would know an example of perfection which we would otherwise not know, because we human beings are incapable of rising to that level.
So that, I think, to me, that's the best antidote. And in that sense, I think we shouldn't be unrealistic. We're not gonna find any public people, be it George Washington or Thomas Jefferson, or any of these other folks where you're now going to find that in some area that's critically important they didn't fall short of human perfection. And so I wouldn't expect it, not from Martin Luther King or anybody else. But we have to keep- -what I fight for is not this notion that nobody who's imperfect should be respected by us, because that's not true. We're all imperfect. But we should keep the standards in mind, and for those people who, like Bill Clinton, end up being egregious violators of those standards, they must be removed from their position.
And if Martin Luther King were out there today, and one knew what we know about his background and so forth and so on, I'm not sure he is to be preferred to positions where that is going to be an example for our kids. Do you see what I'm saying? So it has relevance to our choices and judgments, but at the same time, I don't think we should set our standards in such a way that we're looking for some kind of perfection we're never gonna find. Because then our system will break down. We only have people to choose from for these offices, and that means we only have imperfect folks to choose from.
Caller: Well, thank you, Alan. Thank you so much.
Dr. Keyes: You're welcome. Thanks for your call, appreciate it very much.
Looks like any effort to summarily dismiss the charges against William Jefferson Clinton is losing steam. Talking heads over the weekend
(soundbite of Mr. Gramm)
I'm not sure now that the White House is even going to make a motion to dismiss the trial. I think that would fail, and I think there's a very real question of whether they're going to want to begin the process with two defeats in votes in the Senate. And I don't think they'll get all their own people on those votes.(end of soundbite)
Dr. Keyes: So, it looks like so far that presentation has had a salutary effect on the process. But don't forget, we are still facing several days in which the President's defenders will be up, in which he'll have his State of the Union Address, and in which there will be questions, 16 hours, I think, of questioning from Senators. Written questions that will be sent through Chief Justice Rehnquist to the two teams of presenters. So, a lot of water is gonna go under the bridge before they finally are faced with the time when they will be making motions to summarily dismiss. At the moment, the line of battle is swaying against that, but we'll see how things turn out over the next few days.
In line with that, I want to reiterate what I think is still an important issue, and that important issue has to do with the State of the Union Address. As I told you last week and read to you and shared with you last week, I have an article that's appearing in Human Events in which I argue that the Congress was wrong to extend this invitation to the President under the circumstances. It is contrary to the stated position of the House in the Articles of Impeachment, and it's contrary to the Oath of Impartiality taken by the Senators, that they would allow this one-sided presentation to be made by the defendant . . . on an issue, by the way, that is material to the judgment that they have to make, at least if you're taking seriously the argument that is being made by the Clinton defenders.
The Clinton defenders are saying that no material harm has been done to the nation, the Executive, to anything about the country, from Clinton's actions
Is he going to be cross-examined about this? Because, do you think Bill Clinton is going to be including in his State of the Union Address something about the moral condition of the country? Is he going to cite in his State of the Union Address articles like the one I saw today, talking about how parents have to answer questions now from their children about whether, "Mommy, is Daddy going to have girlfriend?"
And so, in the State of the Union Address, is he going to be presenting something about the disrespect for civilian authority that is rampant within the military on account of his misbehavior? The sense of resentment and demoralization that results when our people in uniform see the Commander in Chief being held to a standard of accountability less honorable than that they are held to, while he himself enforcing against them the necessary higher standard? Is he going to address that?
So you see, he's going to get this unchallenged shot to present a one-sided, biased view of things, that does not address the issues of the State of the Union that in fact would reflect upon the damage that his conduct has done to the country, and no one will be there. Nobody can ask questions. Nobody will cross-examine. Therefore, it is a prejudicial statement made by the defendant to the Senators, and they are sworn to impartiality, and yet they're allowing this prejudicial procedure. And they don't have to. When they get up and give the impression "this is the President's judgment, his decision to make," that's a lie. It's not his decision to make. He does not have the right to address the Congress. It is not a Constitutional imperative or prerogative of the presidency. The Constitution directs that he has to present a State of the Union message, but a lot of Presidents prior to the beginning of this personal appearance actually presented it in writing.
Phil Gramm showed an awareness of this when he was on ABC's THIS WEEK, when he made the following remarks. Listen.
(soundbite of Mr. Gramm)
I'd rather go to the dentist, and I didn't go to the dentist 'til I was 16 and had 11 cavities, they filled them all at once, so it was a painful experience, but I intend to go. I do think that the President should follow a procedure that is much older than presenting these speeches to the Congress, and that is submitting it in writing. I think it would be the right thing to do.(end of soundbite)
Dr. Keyes: Submit it in writing. See, he recognizes that that was, in fact, the tradition. It's how Washington and Lincoln, and so forth
What it does is withhold honor from this particular President, and that is appropriate under the circumstances, necessary it seems to me for the House if they are credibly to say that they voted these Articles of Impeachment and sincerely believe that the Articles of Impeachment are justified and correct, and they send House Managers to the Senate to make the case they have been making, that he should be convicted and removed, then it is totally contrary to their stated, voted position as a House, as a body, to then admit him to the chamber where he personally will deliver the State of the Union message.
They will show respect for their Constitution and respect for the presidency by receiving the message in writing, because that's what the Constitution requires. But they are doing honor to the particular individual who holds the office of President when they admit his person to the chamber. And they have a perfect right, and in this case I believe an obligation, to withhold that honor from this individual.
Because precisely the question that is at stake in the impeachment is whether or not he has personally upheld the duties, upheld the requirements of his duties, of his office. And so the House is doing something that I think totally undermines the position they have taken in the Articles of Impeachment. And that, in its turn, undermines the integrity of the impeachment process and does harm to the Constitution. So you're going to tell me that in order to do honor to the presidency, they are going to violate the integrity of this Constitutional process and therefore damage the Constitution? Does this make sense? Not to me.
I also question this whole notion of doing honor in some abstract way to this abstract thing "the presidency." If you read the Constitution with any care, there is no such thing as "the presidency." The Executive power is not vested in "the presidency." The Executive power is vested in a President of the United States, a person. And we should not allow ourselves as a people to be put in the position of the old Roman Senate where Caligula invited the Senators to worship his horse or something. And we're invited to worship not even an inanimate object
In fact, the concept that is embodied in our Constitution, different than what's embodied in divine-right monarchies or absolute monarchies or anything like that, was that you had people, individuals in office for a limited term, and they were going to be held personally accountable and responsible for what they did while in office.
Hamilton makes this very clear, and draws a contrast between this approach and the approach that's taken under the divine-right, life-tenure monarchies. And I think that our folks would do well to think about this before they recommend to us that we honor some abstraction called "the presidency."
No, our people have to understand that you get elected to these offices
We should hold our officials accountable, and withhold honor based on their performance. And that means that the Congress should not extend this favor to this President.
(commercial break)
Dr. Keyes: Welcome back to America's Wake-Up Call. Today and tomorrow, I'm going to be emphasizing what I think is the important issue of NOT attending Clinton's State of the Union Address. I don't think people in Congress ought to go. I think it's totally contrary to their responsibilities, both in the Senate and the House. And I would recommend if any of you agree with that, this is a good time. Pick up the phone, call them, let them know how you feel. 202-224-3121.
And when I say "this," I don't necessarily mean right now. I should clarify that, because after all, today is Martin Luther King Day, it's a federal holiday, and guess what? They're not there. Everybody's home. The staff's home, everybody's enjoying themselves. So store this up, and tomorrow I'll be reiterating this point, but that would be the effective time to call, okay? Tomorrow. And in the course of the day I will be reiterating my own reasons for believing that this is correct. Because on this show, you know, I try not to just state opinions and feelings. I try to walk through my reasons for believing that this is correct, and to deal, therefore, with what I think are the sort of logical imperatives of the situation.
And in this particular case, the logic on the House side is pretty clear. How you can tell me in the Articles of Impeachment that this is an individual who has lied, who has violated his oath of office, who has dishonored himself and the White House and the office, who has undermined his position and credibility as Commander in Chief, and etc., etc., etc., and then take the position that it is right to extend to him the personal honor of an invitation to speak before the House of Representatives? Total contradiction.
The House is saying one thing in the Articles of Impeachment, and acting directly contrary to that statement by having him come in person to deliver the State of the Union Address. There is a taint or cloud over his personal credibility right now, and until that taint or cloud is removed one way or the other, the House, it seems to me, is obliged to act in a way that's consistent with the Articles of Impeachment. If they think he should be removed, what are they doing inviting him into the House? And the Senate, of course, has sworn impartiality
So, both houses are violating the integrity of the impeachment process, doing what damages the Constitution. They say they're doing it to honor the presidency, but somebody explain to me, how can you honor the presidency by damaging the Constitution, from which the presidency derives its authority? Leave aside the question of whether or not you can even talk in this context and make sense using this term "presidency." The Constitution does not recognize the so-called "presidency." It recognizes the President. The Executive Power is vested in the President, not a "presidency."
And this is very important, and Hamilton makes this clear in the Federalist Papers
Let's go to a caller in Sunbird, Minnesota.
Caller: Hi Alan, just wanted to send condolences to all the Viking fans, but we praise the Lord out here because we've got people on that team that are giving glory to God, and it's good to hear, in spite of it all.
Dr. Keyes: Amen.
Caller: But anyway, I wanted to talk about Clinton, and I think his sins are finding him out, and I think whether he speaks tomorrow or not, I don't think that's an important issue really. Because I think he's gonna injure himself just like he has before.
Dr. Keyes: Well, one, that is not the case, that he injured himself before. I don't know why you're saying that. In his last State of the Union Address, he in fact saved his presidency. And the fact that he spoke, and the Republicans reacted as they did helped to create an environment that I think has deeply damaged the country's perception of this whole process throughout this last year. So, there, I don't understand why you're saying that. His last State of the Union Address, it was a mediocre, vapid, self-congratulatory speech, but it did have a decidedly positive effect on his fortunes.
Caller: Yeah, I guess I'm referring to his decline lately, and what he said, everything seems to be going downhill for him. And I think he's on a downward spiral.
Dr. Keyes: It could be, but I guess the reason I emphasize the point is that I am not making this case because I think that Clinton's gonna do himself so much good, or so much harm, or anything like that in his speech. I am making the case because, in terms of what the Senate and the House have to do in this process, receiving the President under these circumstances does objective harm to the impeachment process. Wouldn't matter who the President was, wouldn't matter whether I thought he was gonna do well or badly, because it's not a tactical judgment I'm making. It's a judgment about what this does to the Constitutional process. And I think it damages it deeply, that I think the precedent should be established clearly that when a President has been impeached it is inconsistent with the impeachment process to accord him the personal honor of an appearance before a Joint Session of the Congress. Until that impeachment is resolved, that kind of sort of personal favor should be withheld.
Caller: How many people are being made aware of this? I mean, does the Senate realize they have that power? People think that it's a privilege, rather I mean it is something that could be delivered in writing, like you said before? It doesn't necessarily have to be done in public, on TV
Dr. Keyes: Well, at the moment, I think calling Congressmen and Senators is very important, because there's only one effective thing that can be done now. Unhappily, the leadership in both Houses snuck this through. They snuck through what were called unanimous consent resolutions
I think the only recourse at this stage that's practical is for members to stay away from the speech. They should not go. It is inconsistent with their responsibilities, the position taken by the House people. This is especially true of those members of the House who voted for the Articles of Impeachment. And it's entirely inconsistent with the role all the Senators have to play and the oath that they have sworn, for them to listen to this biased presentation from the defendant. So I think that on those grounds, they should stay away. And that's what I would recommend people say to them. "Don't go to the State of the Union Address, it is inconsistent with the integrity of the impeachment process." And I don't say that because I think the President's going to do himself a lot of good; I don't know, he may do himself harm. I think it does the process and the integrity of the process under the Constitution a great deal of harm to take this "business as usual" approach.
. . .
Dr. Keyes: Let's go to a caller in Phoenix, Arizona. Welcome to The Alan Keyes Show.
Caller: Hi Alan. I know it's a little off the subject, and yet it still ties in because it's Martin Luther King's holiday. I've been involved for many, many years in the political process, and ran years ago as a conservative, and lost twice. But Alan, in regard to the Martin Luther King holiday, I always objected to honoring Martin Luther King because of his sexual exploits, which I didn't think would be a role model for young black men. And I would love to hear your response.
Dr. Keyes: Well, I think you're right on that point. The things that have come out in subsequent years, pretty much I think confirmed by testimony from his contemporaries and that have been reported by his major biographers, indicate he was an individual perhaps not up to the level of a Bill Clinton, but certainly who had sexual appetites unrestrained by what one would certainly would have expected, in his case, would have been the requirements of his ministerial vocation, right? And that these things were pretty well verified. In that sense, he is no role model, particularly for people who are looking for somebody to hold up as an example of what you do as a husband and father in terms of respecting your marriage vows. And given what appear to be the facts on the record
And sad to say, also, I can't sit here and say that I don't think that that distracts somewhat and detracts somewhat from what I think was a real achievement on his part, in terms of helping the nation to deal with a tremendously difficult issue of justice in a way that did not cost a lot of bloodshed and violence for the country. This was, in my opinion, a true contribution to the nation for which he should be honored in terms of what that contribution implied for the country. But I think that it is always tough to separate that from the judgment one has to make, at least when you're talking to your children and dealing with what you want future generations to emulate. You have to deal with the whole picture. I'm not saying, therefore, that I don't think he deserves some honor. I am saying that if you honor somebody unequivocally and then your children look into it and find that this is their kind of behavior, isn't that gonna aid and abet their own temptations? This is a problem.
Caller: That's what I thought. I've raised six children, and now have eight grandchildren, and I know how important
Dr. Keyes: Well, but before we proceed with that, I do have to clarify a point, though. I find it difficult to believe that we are going to be able to have paragons of perfect virtue to hold up to our children from any generation or time, in the history of humankind. Because, except for Jesus Christ, I don't who you'd look for, which is why I think we ought to be careful not to allow our children to fix on any role model that falls short of what I think is that perfect example that He gave us. Do you see what I'm saying?
For me, that is the antidote to all of this. "Put not your faith in princes," which means that human beings are always going to turn out to be just that, and you're going to find that some of them were capable of great insights, of statesmanship, feats of nobility, heroism on the battlefield, all kinds of stuff, and then when you scratch the surface, you're going to find that in this area or that area or the other area, they showed as weakly human
So that, I think, to me, that's the best antidote. And in that sense, I think we shouldn't be unrealistic. We're not gonna find any public people, be it George Washington or Thomas Jefferson, or any of these other folks where you're now going to find that in some area that's critically important they didn't fall short of human perfection. And so I wouldn't expect it, not from Martin Luther King or anybody else. But we have to keep
And if Martin Luther King were out there today, and one knew what we know about his background and so forth and so on, I'm not sure he is to be preferred to positions where that is going to be an example for our kids. Do you see what I'm saying? So it has relevance to our choices and judgments, but at the same time, I don't think we should set our standards in such a way that we're looking for some kind of perfection we're never gonna find. Because then our system will break down. We only have people to choose from for these offices, and that means we only have imperfect folks to choose from.
Caller: Well, thank you, Alan. Thank you so much.
Dr. Keyes: You're welcome. Thanks for your call, appreciate it very much.