By Mary Mostert, Analyst, Original Sources
July 31, 1998
The refuge of the Democrats and Clinton supporters on the air yesterday were the polls. The polls, they claim, show that the people still "support the president." The Gallup Poll question was as follows:
"Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bill Clinton is handling his job as president?"
Thirteen times the Princeton based group asked that question from the first week of January to April 1st. They ranged from 59% in early January to 67% on April first. In a poll released by Gallup yesterday the approval rate is at 65%.
What does that mean? Does it really mean that the people approve the BEHAVIOR of Bill Clinton? No, it doesn't mean that. It means that so far most people have jobs, their lives are not in a turmoil and they can pay their bills. They have been trained to believe that the president is responsible for those things – whereas Bill Gates and other innovators are far more responsible for the present economic boom than Bill Clinton. The Republicans balanced budget and welfare reform are far more responsible for the present economic boom, than all of Bill Clinton's failed social programs – his largest tax rate increase in history, his rejected socialized health insurance scheme, the 900 FBI files he garnered, his take-over of the Travel Office, selling the Lincoln Bedroom for campaign funds and his determined support of partial birth abortion and the homosexual agenda..
But, what about those in depth questions Gallup asked back in January when this story first broke? While the "approval" rating has been discussed in nearly every talk show and by nearly ever news anchor, none of them have talked about those in depth questions which tell a very different story. In fact, they tell a story that should really worry Bill Clinton. Let's talk about what those unreported polls mean at this point in American history.
Sometimes we forget that when Clinton was voted in as president, most of the people in exit polls said they KNEW he was a womanizer and that he lied about it. They voted for him anyway, because they were convinced his personal morality had nothing to do with his ability to be a good president. In effect, they believe that good fruit CAN come from a bad tree. Also, I suspect, it tells us a whole lot about the moral level of the average American. In a nation of divorce and troubled children, many baby boomers still haven't seen the light yet. They still think happiness can come from wickedness. It doesn't.
The first of the questions asked was:
Overall, what kind of a moral example do you think Bill Clinton sets as President?
Those who thought him a "poor" example range from 21% in January to 25% in June. Those who approve his moral leadership range from 47 % in January to 57% in June.
And, on what did they BASE their opinions on his "moral leadership?" The pollsters went on to ask the people participating in the poll their opinion of the President's relationship with three women with whom he has been accused of sexually pursuing - Monica Lewinsky, Paula Jones and Kathleen Willey.
Those opinions are fascinating. In effect we see that the people know Clinton is immoral, but they don't think there is any consequence of his being immoral. They also evidently don't think their own immorality is in any way responsible for the mess their own personal lives are in. This is why so many of them believe that, even though Bill Clinton is immoral and a liar, in their opinion he is still a "good president.
The next few weeks may educate not only Bill Clinton, but a lot of baby boomers who have the same views he has on morality. Gallup asked back in January:
As you may know, there are allegations being reported in the news that President Clinton had an extramarital affair with a White House intern named Monica Lewinsky. Clinton has denied these allegations. How closely have you followed the news about these allegations?
The only samples were all taken in the last week in January and showed that 80%-83% of those polled were either "somewhat closely" or "very closely" following the news on the subject. So, those polled are actually listening and reading what the media has been saying about the issue.
Next the participants in the polls were asked:
I'm going to describe some of the allegations being made in this matter. As I read each one, please say whether you think it is definitely true, probably true, probably not true, or definitely not true.
First...(a) the allegation that Bill Clinton had sexual relations of any kind with Monica Lewinsky.
Four samples were taken, January 30, February 13-15, February 20-22 and April 17-19. In the first poll on this question 55% believed the charges were probably to definitely true and in the last poll taken 64% believed the charges were probably to definitely true – a 9% change which they never reported.
The next questions was whether the President Had an extra marital affair.
That question was only asked 3 times, all from January 21 to January 28 – then Gallup quit asking it. It showed that on January 21st 54% believed that was probably to definitely true, and 37% believed it probably was definitely not true. A week later 52% believed it was probably to definitely true and 37% believed it probably to definitely not true.
Think for a minute what the people's opinions are actually based on. They are based on what they are hearing in the media, by and large, unless they have such a strong like or dislike of the president that no data makes any difference to them.
The next question asked was about: .. .(b) the allegation that Bill Clinton lied under oath about having an affair with Monica Lewinsky.
This question was asked nine times between January 21st (that was 4 days after Clinton gave his testimony on January 17, 1998) and February 20-22. In other words, it was asked nine times in one month, and not since then. On January 21 49% thought the charge was probably to definitely true and 43% thought they probably were not to definitely not true.
A month later, on February 22-22, 56% thought the charge was probably to definitely true and 33% thought they probably to definitely were NOT true.
The next question was tougher, asking the people whether they thought about:
...(c) the allegation that Bill Clinton participated in an effort to obstruct justice by getting Monica Lewinsky to lie under oath about the affair.
This question also was asked nine times between January 21 and February 22. On January 21 39% of the people thought it was probably to definitely true. On February 22: 40% believed it was probably to definitely true. On January 21: 51% thought it probably to definitely not true. On February 22nd, after a month of spin on this subject, 40% thought it was probably to definitely true and 48% thought it probably to definitely not true.
The people are about to find out with some pretty strong evidence that this probably IS true. They will be hearing tapes and testimony and it will be discussed in Congress. It will be hard to defend the president by claiming there is no "proof." There's proof. +
Another question asked only in January was: .
..(d) the allegation that Bill Clinton had sexual relations of any kind with any other woman besides his wife or Monica Lewinsky since he became President.
On January 23-24 a total of 51% figured it was probably to definitely true. A week later, on January 30th, a total of 62% thought it probably to definitely true. Only 29% to 30% that week thought it was probably or definitely not true.
When asked if they thought:
..the charges that Clinton had extra-marital affairs while Governor of Arkansas are true or not true, or are you unsure?
On January 6-8 only 19% believed that to be true. Less than three weeks later, on January 24-25 a total of 50% thought it was true.
And, finally we get to the question that has taken over the airwaves as we move into August 1998:
If it turned out to be true that Bill Clinton had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, how serious would you consider this matter -- very serious, somewhat serious, not too serious or not serious at all?
This poll was only taken twice – from January 23 to January 25. It was not asked again. What is the latest poll from the premier pollster of America, now that the above question is literally on the mind of nearly every American, what is the Gallup poll asking? It's: Do you personally believe homosexual behavior is morally wrong or is not morally wrong? (59% believes it is morally wrong.)
A total of 60% of the people said that it would be somewhat to very serious if Clinton had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky.
Clinton supporters and apologists are busy trying to convince the people is DOESN'T matter whether or not Bill Clinton had sex with Monica Lewinsky. That is not what they were saying a short time ago. In fact, Bill Clinton looked firmly into the camera and said directly to the American people back in February or March: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman…Monica Lewinsky. And I never told anyone to lie …"
As it becomes increasingly obvious that he DID have sexual relations, and if it really doesn't matter that he did, then when did he lie about it not only on camera but in his deposition? Why didn't he just say, "Yes, I had sex with Monica Lewinsky. So what?" That basically is what his defenders are saying now – after saying they believed him when he said he DIDN'T have sex with her.
What about the problem of lying under oath about the situation? What do the American people think about that? Gallup asked the question, but I've never heard anyone in the media refer to it, other than me. The question asked was:
If it turned out to be true that Bill Clinton lied under oath about having sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, how serious would you consider this matter -- very serious, somewhat serious, not too serious or not serious at all?
Back in January 23-25, it was asked only twice. Gallup has not asked it since. Those two polls showed that 81% to 84% believed that it would be somewhat to very serious. Only 14% to 16% of those asked that question said it was either not serious at all or not too serious. Most of America knew what they thought about that. Only 2-3% had no opinion.
So, the people are saying that it's OK to cheat on your wife, but it isn't OK to lie about it under oath? Why? Because they know that in a divorce situation, if THEY lied under oath about their behavior, they could end up in jail. The question now is: Is it OK for the President to lie under oath and get away with it, but not for you to lie under oath and get away with it?
The next question the Gallup poll asked was:
If it turned out to be true that Bill Clinton participated in an effort to obstruct justice by getting Monica Lewinsky to lie under oath about their sexual relations, how serious would you consider this matter -- very serious, somewhat serious, not too serious or not serious at all?
In late January 83% to 85% said that would be somewhat to very serious.
And, finally, Gallup asked THE question:
If you were convinced that Bill Clinton participated in attempts to get Monica Lewinsky to lie under oath about her involvement with him, would you favor or oppose an effort to impeach Clinton and remove him from office?
Those who favored and those who opposed impeachment were head-to-head – 47%. Some, I know from asking this question myself, oppose impeachment because they believe it would be politically more powerful if Congress just left him to dangle in the wind, rather than have an opportunity to use his considerable charm to wiggle out of this mess. It probably will bring a larger plurality of conservatives into Congress in the November election, and that would enable the Republicans to routinely override his vetoes. By impeaching him and putting Al Gore into the Oval Office would not be an improvement, and would give him an undeserved boost in getting the Democrat nomination in the year 2000.
If all the charges are proved, and he is not impeached, which takes a two-thirds majority, he will be as ineffective as President Andrew Johnson, Lincoln's vice-president, when he was tried, but not convicted in impeachment proceedings. The ability of radical Republicans to control government during the next few years created such anger and bitterness that many of the honorable goals of Abraham Lincoln in trying to preserve the Union were smashed. It took the South a hundred years to really recover from the harsh military reconstruction imposed on them by the radicals, who had gained total control over the federal government. By almost ousting the president and by refusing to allow those from Southern and border states that disagreed with them to be seated in Congress, even after being elected, the radicals nearly wrecked the union Lincoln died to save.
Whether or not Bill Clinton is impeached, the real story here is what the American voters are learning or failing to learn from this situation. Will the voters continue to believe that "Character doesn't matter?" in politicians? Will the aging free love and drug using wing of the baby boomer generation begin to see that their lifestyles are destructive – to themselves and their families? Will the younger generation demand a higher standard in those they chose as leaders?
I'm optimistic to think that some of them will.
To comment: mmostert@originalsources.com