Contempt Contretemps

Clinton, retorted Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.), "had six years of a hostile Congress."

Gohmert felt it necessary to argue that Clinton replaced 139 U.S. attorneys, "compared to the 53 by Bush."

"Eighty-three of those of President Clinton [were] when he transitioned as the new president," countered Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Tex.), who also defended Clinton's pardon of fugitive financier Marc Rich, whom she identified as "Marvin."

Inevitably, the discussion brought in other presidential comparisons. Smith mentioned John Kennedy and George Washington. Lungren contributed Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Andrew Jackson, James Polk, Abraham Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan. Sanchez mentioned Richard Nixon. Jackson-Lee invoked Louis XIV.

There were fleeting moments of reason. Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) proposed an alternative to a constitutional crisis and a drawn-out court battle: file a lawsuit challenging Bush's executive-privilege claim. "I think there is a bipartisan interest involved in doing this," he said.

But that compromise went nowhere -- because, as Sensenbrenner told the Democrats, "you folks have got the votes to do whatever you want."

One thing both sides wanted was to discuss the looming court battle as if it were a prizefight.

"I think that the White House is going to win," said Sensenbrenner.

"We very well may lose our argument in court," said Lungren.

"If we countenance a process where our subpoenas can be readily ignored," argued Conyers, "then we've already lost."

"We have been losing," concurred Rep. Bill Delahunt (D-Mass.).

Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Va.) postulated that ordinary Americans don't much care "whether we're winning and we're losing against the executive. They're not concerned with whether Republicans and Democrats are winning and losing with each other."

He had a point. In fact, if most Americans were to express their true feelings about Congress, they'd be guilty of a misdemeanor.