Well, folks, the 'wag the tongue' show continues, with Democrats flocking to the media to prove just how partisan they are, if you had any doubts before now.

On the Larry King Show tonight (1-26-99), Mrs. (Ms.?) Boxer (I refuse to call her Senator, even though she's from my state) said directly that she has already released public statements to the effect that she will be voting against both Articles of Impeachment. Not satisfied to wait for the trial to be over, Boxer probably wants to see what the reaction of people from her home state will be, so that, if the public opinion polls (notice I didn't say public opinion) should change radically, she can change her vote (a very similar strategy to what her co-conspirator, Dianne Feinstein, has done in the past, with the usual motivation of trying to gain political advantage).

If this were *any* other court in the land, Boxer would have been PROSECUTED for this action. She cannot possibly claim impartiality now; before all the evidence has been reviewed and all the witnesses interviewed, Ms. Boxer has made her decision. Have you noticed how practically every Republican Senator has been at pains to show that he/she has *not* made up his or her mind, and said that the trial is not over yet? In contrast, Democrats are apparently trying to give the impression that the trial *is* over (facts such as the extremely probable defeat of a dismissal proposal notwithstanding).

In no other trial in the country would a juror who has taken an impartiality oath (whether written or oral) be allowed to do what Boxer has done. Have you *ever* seen a juror make a public statement about his/her deliberations while the trial was still going on? If so, what happened to them? I'd be willing to bet they got an all-expenses paid prison stay. At the very least, they would have been disqualified from the jury, which I would LOVE to see in this case. But then, you'd have to disqualify practically every other Democratic Senator as well...

Yet, in the face of all precedents against it, Boxer pulled a political maneuver with solely political motivations. And she has the temerity to claim that this trial is a witch hunt, and (of course) blames the House managers for it. Man, oh man, if I had seen nothing about the impeachment proceedings and had only the most cursory knowledge about them, I would still think something was wrong with her actions. For someone who has most of the information that the House managers, White House counsel, and jurors have regarding the impeachment trial, this stinks to highest heaven. Voters of California: is this *really* what you wanted when you voted Boxer into office? If so, congratulations...you got it. If not, it's time to do something about it.

It's getting difficult to tell who the Democratic ringmasters are, anymore; nearly every Democrat who opens his or her mouth to the media proves how little respect he/she has for the process, and for our republican system of government (little r, not big R). Rather than let the system itself prevent Clinton from being ousted, they are bound and determined to twist it to their own ends.

It comes down to this: if you want impartiality from a Congressman, you'll need to talk to a Republican. Democrats have proven that they don't know the meaning of the word. Like her beloved imperious leader, Boxer has proven to be more interested in her own political survival than in the needs of the country.

-The Watcher (Boxer doesn't need a leash; she needs a muzzle. I think I'm going to spearhead the 'Recall Barbara Boxer' drive.)