Perhaps the most supreme irony of the whole impeachment process is that it has caused just as many problems for the Republican Party as it has for the White House.

So far the scandal has claimed two political casualties.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich fell on his sword after he made the Lewinsky affair a central issue at last November's congressional elections and was therefore blamed for the party's poor performance at the polls.

And the man who hoped to succeed him, Congressman Bob Livingston, instead resigned after admitting to his own marital indiscretions on the very morning that the President was impeached.

Newt Gingrich was the first of the Republican casualties

There was more bad news for the Republicans the following day. An overnight Gallup poll showed that the approval rating for Mr Clinton, who just hours earlier had become only the second President in American history to face the humiliation of impeachment, had risen dramatically, jumping from 63 to 73%.

By contrast, the Republicans saw their own approval rating plummet from 43 to 31%. It seemed that the GOP, the Grand Old Party, was paying a heavy political price for an impeachment process, which had become vicious and overtly partisan.

Republicans divided

Now, as the 106th Congress is set to convene, the Republicans are deeply divided as to how next they should proceed. Working under the assumption that the 67 Senate votes, the two-thirds majority, needed to convict the President, simply are not available, there are many in the party who favour an expeditious trial.

The moderate approach seems to chime with public opinion.

Yet there are others in the party who argue that the Constitution demands a full-blown trial - one in which witnesses are examined and cross-examined - even if it were to drag on for months.

Planning for the trial is the greatest test for Trent Lott

Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott of Mississippi heads the impeachment "doves." Over the Christmas holiday Mr Lott crafted a bipartisan approach with his opposite number on the Democratic side, Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota.

The plan called for a truncated trial followed quickly by a test vote to determine whether Senators thought that the charges against the President amounted to the "high crimes and misdemeanours" necessary to force his removal from office. If 67 Senators thought that they did, then a full trial would take place.

If, as seems more likely, the resolution failed, then the Senate would turn instead to some form of censure motion, which would reprimand the president, and possibly fine him, yet would not result in his removal from office.

The problem for Mr Lott, however, is that many in his party, including some of his most senior Senate colleagues, have already rejected the plan.

Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison has expressed deep reservations, noting, "I would be very sceptical of bypassing what I think is our constitutional responsibility to have a full airing of the evidence."

Fellow Texan, Senator Phil Gramm, has also argued that to hold an abbreviated trial would be to trample over the Constitution. Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe has been even more blunt, arguing that a truncated trial would be a "whitewash" designed to sacrifice the Constitution.

Henry Hyde: Stern opposition to a fast-track trial

Even fiercer opposition to the Lott/Daschle compromise has come from Republicans in the House of Representatives.

On hearing of Lott's deliberations, Henry Hyde, the silver-haired chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, was indignant. He contacted the Senate Majority leader by phone, and then laid out his concerns in a three-page letter, which he released to the press.

"We need not sacrifice substance and duty for speed," he noted sternly. Hyde has already appointed 13 House managers, who will present the case against the President before the Senate, and are gearing up for lengthy proceedings.

Mr Lott is therefore faced with the sternest test of his Senate leadership, a position he assumed in August, 1996. To press ahead with a lengthy trial could have serious consequences for the Republicans.

It could affect not only their bid to put a GOP presidential candidate in the White House but also what could be a bitter fight to retain their majorities in the Senate and the House in the 2000 elections.

To opt for a truncated trial would be to risk splitting the Republican Party, at the possible cost of his leadership in the Senate.