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.