SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Les H who wrote (10420)10/20/1998 6:43:00 PM
From: Borzou Daragahi  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 67261
 
One could be drunk, getting a BJ, and speaking on the phone with Arafat all at the same time, no?



To: Les H who wrote (10420)10/20/1998 8:46:00 PM
From: Les H  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 67261
 
IS CLINTON'S HISTORY REPEATING ITSELF?

By DICK MORRIS
New York Post

IT was a tough August and September for Clinton. He was
battered in Congress and his ratings dropped. But through
skillful manipulation of foreign-policy issues, he was able to
climb back by October. He avoided military action in a foreign
crisis and shepherded a Mideast agreement to fruition.
Everything looked good for the November midterm elections
now that Clinton's ratings had risen.

The year was 1994.

The similarity between the events of that autumn and of this one
is eerie. In '94, Clinton had been beaten badly in Congress
when his health-care reform proposal couldn't even pass one
house. This year, he has been the object of a vote to
commence an impeachment inquiry. In '94, he avoided
bloodshed in Haiti through diplomatic maneuver. This year, he
avoided having to order airstrikes in Kosovo. In '94, he went to
the Middle East to preside over the signing of a peace deal
between Jordan and Israel. Now he is working to bring Bejamin
Netanyahu and Yasser Arafat together at Wye Plantation in
Maryland.

In both years, the foreign-policy triumphs salvaged his
plummeting ratings, seemingly to give him a new lease on life.
This year, Clinton's success in exploiting his usual foil - the
Republican Party's orthodox insistence on opposing education
and environmental programs - has also contributed to his
sudden momentum.

Will history go on repeating itself? Does the president's
October improvement presage disaster for Democrats on
Election Day, as it did in1994?

Here's why Clinton's fine October '94 poll numbers did nothing
to help him in the congressional elections the next month: He
squandered his popularity by campaigning for endangered
Democrats. That tarnished the presidential aura that the foreign
triumphs had lent him, so that he once more seemed like a
party politician out on the stump hawking for votes.

Democrats are not exactly dying to have Clinton come out and
campaign for them this year - but the president will likely revert
to form and try to use his new popularity to influence the
elections.

He would do much better to stay at home - off the campaign
trail entirely. All he can do by campaigning is to weaken his
ratings and bring down his popularity. And since the very act of
campaigning will lower his ratings, it will actually hurt him and
those he tries to help.

But I doubt Clinton can help himself. The chance to curry favor
with the House and Senate members who will sit in judgment
on him is too tempting to resist - for either Bill or Hillary. The
First Lady is already cutting radio commercials for Democratic
candidates. It's part of her attempt to pick a jury for her husband
by electing Democrats who will oppose impeachment or
removal from office.

An ever bigger reason Bill Clinton probably won't resist the lure
of campaigning is that he likes it too much. The reflected
adoration of the crowds turns him on and lets him become truly
alive. Warm-blooded animals can generate their own bodily
warmth from within. But the president is more like a
cold-blooded creature who needs outside energy to keep up
his body temperature: For him, basking in the adulation of a
crowd is like lying in the sun, soaking up the rays.

A campaign stop affords the chance to inhale the fumes of
positive reinforcement. For a man whose self-esteem has been
so battered over the past few months, that will be too sensuous
a pleasure to turn down.

The best thing Clinton can do to get Democrats elected is to
stay out of the way. The more he projects himself as the head
of his party, the more each Senate or House race becomes a
referendum on him, not on the candidates actually running.
Nothing could more injure the Democratic Party. While the
White House's capacity for self-deception is legendary, it is
hard to believe that anyone seriously thinks that the public will
stand on line in the rain outside a voting booth for hours in
order to affirm the principle that a president should be allowed
to lie under oath without consequence.

Nineteen ninety-eight will not be a happy year for Democrats at
the ballot box in any case. The GOP will likely gain several
Senate seats and could approach a filibuster-proof 60 votes.
Republican candidates are very likely to win open currently
Democratic Senate seats in Ohio and Kentucky. And
Democratic Sens. Carol Moseley-Braun (Ill.), Harry Reid (Nev.),
Fritz Hollings (S.C.) and Barbara Boxer (Calif.) all seem
headed for trouble. Only in Indiana will a Democrat take a GOP
seat. This would translate into a 60-40 Senate, unless Rep.
Chuck Schumer is able to remain ahead of Sen. Al D'Amato.

In the House, the trends are also likely to be bad for Democrats
with a likely GOP gain of 30-40 seats, giving the Republicans a
margin of about 60 votes.

Does all this mean Clinton is finished? No. While the House will
likely vote a party-line impeachment, the Republicans can only
really count on Sen. Bob Kerrey (D-Neb.) to back removing
Clinton. Most Democratic moderates will not go along unless
there is a broad consensus both in the nation and among their
party that Clinton has to go. Nobody will want to be the 67th
vote to remove a president unless he has a dozen or more of
his Democratic mates for company.