By Mary Mostert, Analyst, Original Sources (www.originalsources.com)
October 24, 2000
As much as everyone is trying to avoid the dreaded "I" word in this election, the underlying, fundamental issue in the Clinton-Gore contest IS Impeachment. Specifically, the impeachment of Bill Clinton.
In analyzing the Senate trial last year I pointed out that almost the entire Congress, on both sides of the aisles, agreed on one important fact - the President had lied. He lied to the public, to the Congress, to his advisors, to his family and to a grand jury.
The only substantive difference between those in favor of removing the President from office and those in favor of allowing him to stay was: Does it MATTER that the President of the United States lies?
The Senate was evenly matched for the most part. Fifty senators voted that lying DID matter and Fifty senators voted that lying DIDN'T matter.
On Sunday the New York Times, which took the side of those who believed that Bill Clinton's lies didn't really matter, has taken a similar stand in its editorial last Sunday endorsing Hillary Clinton for Senator. Honesty is not considered by the N.Y. Times to be an important characteristic for an elected representative of the people. The editorial noted that Hillary had "encountered civic doubt and open hostility from predictable sources, as well as a surprising resistance from feminists offended by her passive response to the marital humiliations inflicted by her husband. It then dismissed that doubt and hostility with:
"The hesitancy among some voters, however, has been understandable, and we share some of those concerns. Her health care task force failed to deliver the promised reform. The investigative literature of Whitewater and related scandals is replete with evidence that Mrs. Clinton has a lamentable tendency to treat political opponents as enemies. She has clearly been less than truthful in her comments to investigators and too eager to follow President Clinton's method of peddling access for campaign donations. Her fondness for stonewalling in response to legitimate questions about financial or legislative matters contributed to the bad ethical reputation of the Clinton administration. If she should choose to carry these patterns and tendencies into the Senate, her career there could be as bumpy and frustrating - and ultimately, as investigated - as her White House years."We believe, however, that Mrs. Clinton is capable of growing beyond the ethical legacies of her Arkansas and White House years. She has shown a desire to carve out a political identity and create a legislative legacy separate from her husband's."
Mrs. Clinton is "capable of growing beyond the ethical legacies of her Arkansas and White House years?" Out of curiosity, why would she WANT to "grow beyond" the questionable ethics that have gotten her what she wants so far?
The New York Times, Washington Post and the Networks have done an incredible job in framing the Year 2000 presidential debate to avoid ANY reference to the impeachment of Bill Clinton. However, in spite of their efforts, I believe that the American people are showing in their response to the candidates, and the candidates are showing, in their campaign speeches, that THE cardinal issue in this campaign isn't any of the issues the media has identified as "key" issues - gun control, education, taxes, social security, health care, foreign policy, etc. And, in spite of what popular political wisdom tells us, this year it isn't even the economy which is still considered strong, in spite of some dark clouds on the horizon, that is a pivotal issue.
Two weeks before the election, it appears that the most important issue is: Who can we trust to tell us the truth - Gore or Bush? Can we trust either of them? Yesterday in Little Rock Al Gore talked at some length about "measuring the level of trust in our government."
The Bush campaign website replies by quoting a question Bill Bradley asked Al Gore January 26th of this year during the Democratic Presidential Debate: "Why should we believe you would tell the truth as president if you don't tell the truth as a candidate?"
Last year polls indicated that the American people did not think it was important for the President of the United States to be held to a standard of truth during the Senate trial. However, the notion that "character doesn't matter" and "everyone lies about sex" that has permeated our political debate seems stuck in our craws like an indigestible and poisonous lump.
There are still about 10% of the voters (20% according to the Battleground Poll) who appear to have not made up their minds yet. Quite a few of them are still trying to decide, having been convinced a year ago that ALL politicians will lie just as Bill Clinton did, whether or not to believe anything any of them are saying about any issue.
Some of the pundits are ridiculing the voters for their "shallow" approach to the "issues" they were so certain a short time ago would determine this election. They complain that the people are making decisions on the "likeability" of George W. Bush.
What they are missing is that people are beginning to move towards George W. Bush because they believe him. When asked in the debates if he was "proud of his record number of executions" as governor of Texas, Bush said, "No. I'm not." When asked point blank if he was in favor of universal health care, he said, "No. I'm not." People who were not supporting Bush before, immediately decided to support him, not because they necessarily agreed with his statement, but because they felt he was telling them the truth.
Last year in the Senate trial of President Clinton, one half the Senators believed it was important that a president tell the truth and one half the Senators believed it was not particularly important that a president tell the truth. I believe that vote probably reflected the mood of the American people at the time.
What appears to be happening now is that there are people who didn't think it was important a year ago that a president lied, who are now beginning to realize that a president who lies as a candidate, as Bill Bradley said, can't be believed when they are president.
And, many are deciding, a president who doesn't tell the truth can seriously affect their lives and their pocketbooks once in office.
To comment: mmostert@originalsources.com
To Subscribe to the Reagan Monitor, the newsletter that gives you news FACTS you can USE to make your life, and the world, better go to:
Start Your Subscription
