GOP Speaks Out Against Clinton
Leaders' Criticism Breaks Silence on Allegations
By Thomas B. Edsall and Terry M. Neal
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, January 31, 1998; Page A01
The Republican code of silence on the sex and perjury allegations against
President Clinton was repeatedly broken yesterday, as GOP Senate leaders,
prospective presidential candidates and conservatives began to escalate their
attack on White House ethics.
Republicans are worried that Clinton's favorability ratings have shot up past
the 70 percent level in some surveys, despite the unprecedented charges that
have been leveled against him. GOP leaders are also under pressure from
party loyalists to speak out on the controversy dominating television and
newspapers for the past 10 days.
Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Tex.)
began to open up on the president with the political equivalent of small gun
fire, while Sen. John D. Ashcroft (R-Mo.) and former education secretary
William J. Bennett both lobbed hand grenades.
In open defiance of Republican strategy calling for elected officials to keep
their distance from the situation, Ashcroft told the Conservative Political
Action Conference in Crystal City: "It is time for us to worry less about what
is right for the party and more about teaching young people what is right and
what is wrong. It is time for us to say what we know to be right, to say: 'Mr.
President, if these allegations are true, if these allegations are true, you have
disgraced yourself, you have disgraced this country, you have disgraced the
office, and you should leave.' "
Bennett, whose brother Robert S. Bennett is one of Clinton's defense lawyers,
told the gathering of about 1,000 conservatives: "If you were caught in this
situation and you had not done it, your reaction would not be the reaction that
we saw from the president. You would have said this is outrageous, this is
ridiculous. I don't do that sort of thing." If the president "did do this, he has
lied straight to us and he has destroyed the basic trust between the American
people and its president."
Lott and Gramm were less explicit in voicing their suspicions, but their
comments went further than the general GOP approach of maintaining a
hands-off stance.
"I refuse to believe that the American people are willing to dismiss conduct
like this that's alleged, if it's true," Lott said. He described the president's
recent poll numbers as "inflated, they will be coming down." If the
allegations are proven "false, the president will be vindicated. . . . If they are
true, or even parts or them are true, it's very serious and I don't think the
American people are going to stand for it."
Along similar lines, Gramm, in an interview at the CPAC event, said: "If you
were mayor of College Station [Tex.] and you were accused of something like
this and you looked the people of College Station in the eye and said 'I didn't
do it,' if it turned out you did do it, you couldn't stay in office as mayor of
College Station." If the charges against the Clinton prove true, "the president
will have no credibility with the American people."
While most critical of the possibility that Clinton lied, Republicans suggested
that they consider allegations that Clinton had sex with a young White House
intern as damning. Lott, for example, said that if "even parts [of the
allegations] are true," the public would find it intolerable. "I believe
something tawdry went on, I believe he had some kind of sexual relationship
with Monica Lewinsky," Bennett said.
The Republican strategy of silence was adopted with an eye toward the
November elections on the theory that the crisis would be pushed forward by
the independent counsel, the news media and the Paula Jones sexual
harassment suit against the president. If Republicans were seen to be adding
fuel to the fire, the theory went, it would only make the issue look partisan
and lessen its impact.
There are, however, other pressures on a number of Republicans -- especially
those seeking the GOP presidential nomination and those seeking to serve as
voices for the conservative, bitterly anti-Clinton wing of the party.
Malcolm S. "Steve" Forbes, for example, is competing with Ashcroft for
support in the race from the social conservative wing of the GOP, and he too
is more vocally critical of Clinton. "The president's silence on this issue is
deafening," Forbes said yesterday at the CPAC meeting. "We were promised
the most ethical administration in history. Look what we've got."
Another prospective GOP candidate, Gary Bauer, head of the Family
Research Council, is scheduled to speak at CPAC today, but as the flood of
criticism of Clinton began to build, Bauer released the text early so as not to
get drowned out: "If a president is willing to exploit vulnerable women who
work for him, then he cannot be trusted to protect the vulnerable in society. .
. . If the charges being investigated prove to be true, President Clinton must
resign."
Even as the GOP strategy of silence on the Clinton controversy was loosening
among these Republicans, Christina Martin, spokesman for House Speaker
Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), said he and other House leaders are sticking firmly to
their policy of avoiding direct comment, a stance confirmed by House
Majority Leader Richard K. Armey (R-Tex.), who told reporters: "I got
nothing to say about them [White House officials] on that [the charges]."
And outside of Washington, several GOP leaders and consultants said
yesterday that it was best to leave it alone and concentrate on building the
party by expounding on its issues.
Iowa Republican Party Chairman Steve Grubbs said: "We have gained [in
elected office] every year since 1992, and we've done it by comparing with
the president on issues. I hope we stay focused on issues, because we're not
going to win with any personal problems the president is having."
A number of state GOP officials said in interviews yesterday that there was
little to be gained from attacking a lame-duck president with proven
resiliency, especially considering the dearth of facts in the case. However,
should more damning evidence emerge, the party should be ready to shift its
strategy and go on the offensive.
"I thought the smart strategy was to keep our mouths shut," said Indiana GOP
Chairman Mike McDaniel. "Instead of getting frustrated, we should let this
one play itself out." Florida Party Chairman Tom Slade said: "You never
ever get in trouble keeping your mouth shut."
Atlanta-based strategist Ralph Reed had a different take: While it is best for
the GOP as a whole to avoid attacking Clinton, the party should designate
"someone who is beyond reproach personally, and who is widely respected"
to take the vocal, moral high-ground "The base is physically sick about this.
They want to know that their leaders care."
Then there was Republican Mayor Paul Helmke of Fort Wayne, Ind.,
president of the Conference of Mayors. At the same time the president was
being attacked at CPAC, Helmke was at the White House giving Clinton a
warm introduction. "He's someone whose heart's been in the right place. He
cares about our country, he cares about our communities, he cares about our
people. I am honored to know this president," Helmke told his fellow mayors.
c Copyright 1998 The Washington Post Company |
