[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 81 (Thursday, June 23, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: June 23, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
              ELDERS: THE MOST EXPLOSIVE MINE IN THE FIELD

  (Mr. DORNAN asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend his remarks and to include extraneous 
material.)
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, a few days ago in USA Today Richard 
Benedetto wrote an article that was titled by his paper ``Doubts Dog 
President's Every Move, Every Poll.'' In the body of the article, which 
I will submit for the Record, Mr. Benedetto says:

       Clinton has little wiggle room as he maneuvers the 
     political mine field toward reelection. Among the dangers 
     Clinton faces over the next two-years:
       The fate of his health care reform legislation; the results 
     of the 1994 elections----

  Holy Haley Barbour, I will read that one again:

     the results of the 1994 elections; the long-term performance 
     of the economy; the outcome of the sexual harassment lawsuit 
     filed by Paula Jones, a former Arkansas State worker; 
     hearings on his Whitewater land dealings; his ability to get 
     a handle on foreign affairs.

  Here is what he does not need as he negotiates his political 
minefield, Mr. Speaker. Here is today's paper, and here are dispatches 
from the culture war front: ``Elders Taunts the Religious Right: 
Joycelyn Elders, Surgeon General, warming to a favorite target, 
yesterday rips religious conservatives.''
  The bottom of the front page, ``Classifying homosexual couples as 
families was not what Virginia Governor Allen had in mind during his 
family values campaign.''
  Here is something we are going to discuss as soon as the 1-minutes 
are over: ``NEA's Jane Alexander defends bloody performance on AIDS.''
  The next page, ``Elders Lashes Out at the Religious Right.''
  Mr. Speaker, it is amazing that the President went to Georgetown, to 
a Jesuit university. I went to Loyola University, also a Jesuit school. 
Through his policies he is taking on the entire Catholic Church and 
every Protestant and Orthodox person in this country who focuses on 
religion and goes to church once a week. What the heck is going on 
here?
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the Wall Street Journal article 
and the article in USA Today written by Richard Benedetto:

                     [From the Wall Street Journal]

            Catholic Voters May Be Problem For Clinton Team

                          (By Gerald F. Seib)

       When it comes to gauging the power of the pope, the most 
     famous commentary was offered 60 years ago by one Joseph 
     Stalin. When somebody suggested that he encourage Roman 
     Catholicism in the Soviet Union to please the pope, Uncle Joe 
     replied scornfully: ``The pope! How many divisions has he 
     got?''
       Mocking though it was, that very question is again relevant 
     for the Clinton administration. For right now, the White 
     House is locked in a quiet but emotional battle with the 
     Vatican over something that normally produces only deep yawns 
     and glazed-over eyes: a United Nations report.
       By itself, this relatively obscure debate doesn't spell 
     serious political trouble for the Clinton team. But the 
     struggle is important, because it suggests that some deeper 
     significant troubles with Catholic voters may be developing 
     for the Clinton administration.
       The immediate dispute is over the draft of a U.N. plan for 
     international population control, which is to be approved at 
     a conference in Cairo, Egypt, later this year. Pope John Paul 
     II is deeply unhappy with the draft, which he thinks both 
     encourages abortion and devalues the traditional family. More 
     than that, the pontiff is clearly annoyed at the U.S. for 
     supporting the plan as it takes shape, a point he made 
     directly to President Clinton this month in Rome and in a 
     series of other ways.
       This argument alone isn't likely to set the political views 
     of most American Catholics. After all, they don't move in 
     lockstep with their church leadership on political issues.
       No, the problem for Mr. Clinton is more subtle. After Mr. 
     Clinton went some distance toward recovering the Catholic 
     vote for Democrats in 1992, the struggle with the Vatican is 
     just the latest addition to a series of issues--abortion, 
     school choice, the very makeup of the administration--that 
     threaten to undermine his bonds with Catholics.
       In sheer political terms, this matters because the Catholic 
     vote matters. Catholics--many of them urban, ethnic, working-
     class voters--traditionally fit most comfortably into the 
     Democratic Party. Through the 1950s and 1960s, Democrats won 
     the Catholic vote in one presidential election after another, 
     sometimes overwhelmingly. That turned around with George 
     McGovern's candidacy in 1972, which turned off many working-
     class Catholics. By 1984, Republican Ronald Reagan won more 
     than six in 10 Catholic voters.
       But in 1992, Bill Clinton began pulling back Reagan 
     Democrats, and he recaptured the Catholic vote. That helped 
     him win the crucial states such as Pennsylvania and New York.
       Since then, though, the road has been bumpier. Prominent 
     Catholics groused that the administration found a top job for 
     a member of every big Democratic constituency except urban, 
     ethnic, Northeastern Catholics. Meanwhile, there was a place 
     for Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders, who has managed to insult 
     Catholics of every stripe with thoughtless criticisms of the 
     Vatican.
       There is also the abortion issue, of course, where there is 
     an inescapable rift between the administration's pro-choice 
     policies and Catholic teachings. There also are tensions over 
     school choice, and problems growing out of the president's 
     personal life.
       The administration knows it has a problem. Undersecretary 
     of State Timothy Wirth, who is steering American policy 
     toward the U.N. population conference, is holding a series of 
     private meetings with all American cardinals to find common 
     ground, administration aides say. Last month, Raymond Flynn, 
     the ambassador to the Vatican, sent a letter to church 
     leaders and prominent Catholic laymen, stressing Mr. 
     Clinton's desire for good relations. While Mr. Clinton and 
     the Vatican ``do not always agree,'' he has ``always been 
     respectful of the church's position, both publicly and 
     privately,'' Mr. Flynn wrote.
       Certainly there is common ground between President Clinton 
     and Catholics. The president, after all, was educated in a 
     Catholic grade school and attended a Jesuit college, 
     Georgetown University, and therefore knows Catholic 
     sensibilities. And significantly, while sticking to 
     Democratic pro-choice positions, he argues that his goal is 
     to make abortion as rare as possible.
       Mr. Clinton has good reason to tend to the Catholic front, 
     for there is a growing political threat on the horizon if he 
     doesn't. As the Religious Right rises in political power, 
     some Republicans are trying to build bridges between its foot 
     soldiers and American Catholics.
       And there is one Republican who appears uniquely qualified 
     to do the job. He is William Bennett, the former Education 
     secretary and potential 1996 presidential candidate. He is 
     both a practicing Catholic and a hit with the Religious Right 
     because of his unflinching family values rhetoric. ``I've 
     been arguing that Catholics, when they look at the world of 
     politics today and see the Clinton administration and the 
     Christian Coalition, they'd better be clear which side 
     they're on,'' Mr. Bennett says. ``And it's the Christian 
     Coalition side.''
                                  ____


                     [From USA Today, June 9, 1994]

             Doubts Dog President's Every Move, Every Poll

                         (By Richard Bendetto)

       Jobs are up, inflation's low. And, despite foreign fumbles, 
     the USA is at peace.
       By every traditional measure, President Clinton should be 
     riding high in the polls, yet recent surveys find growing 
     disquiet with his presidency.
       A USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll this week finds the electorate 
     less interested in his accomplishments and more concerned 
     about who Clinton might be.
       Those doubts have helped keep Clinton's approval ratings 
     low at a time he needs to be building beyond the 43% who 
     elected him in 1992.
       The degree to which Clinton is able to ease questions about 
     his character will count as much as legislative achievements 
     as he moves closer to 1996. And it could mean the difference 
     between victory and defeat.
       ``Bill Clinton seems to have given people cause for 
     specific cynicism,'' says Rutgers University political 
     scientist Ross Baker: ``And no president, given the sort of 
     dispirit abroad in the country, will do well. Bill Clinton 
     just does worse. He has to get his act together'' for 1996.
       Poll analysis finds many have reservations about his moral 
     leadership, and genuine splits over whether he shares their 
     values and is honest and trustworthy enough for the job.
       More specifically:
       35%, likely fueled by the continuing charges about 
     financial dealings and extramarital affairs, say Clinton has 
     tended to lower the stature of the presidency.
       A third of the nation ``strongly disapproves'' of Clinton's 
     presidency.
       Only one in 10 say they'd ``definitely'' vote for him in 
     1996; 32% definitely won't.
       Support is deep as well. One out of four say they like 
     Clinton, but those numbers have not grown over the 16 months 
     of his presidency.
       About one in five make up a narrow band of undecided, swing 
     voters who most likely will mean the difference between re-
     election in 1996 or a ticket back to Little Rock.
       Duke University presidential scholar James David Barber 
     says Clinton has a communications problem, that he needs to 
     find more ways to talk directly to the American people and 
     seriously explain to them in simple terms what he is trying 
     to achieve, and how much he is accomplishing.
       ``People see a lot of him but they don't necessarily hear a 
     lot of him,'' Barbar says. ``He needs to do weekly, 15-minute 
     talks like Franklin Roosevelt's fireside chats.''
       Barber says Clinton may not be getting credit for 
     achievements because they're being obscured by so many 
     ``troubles'' in the country that continue to keep people 
     uneasy: rising crime, rampant poverty, economic displacement, 
     declining education and continued dissatisfaction with 
     government itself.
       Clinton has little wiggle room as he maneuvers the 
     political minefield toward reelection. Among the dangers 
     Clinton faces over the next two plus years:
       The fate of his health-care reform legislation.
       The results of the 1994 elections.
       The long-term performance of the economy.
       The outcome of a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by Paula 
     Jones a former Arkansas state worker.
       Hearings on his Whitewater land dealings.
       His ability to get a handle on foreign affairs.
       ``If this was 1996, and it was November, I'd say I was 
     going to vote for him again. But with two years to go, it'll 
     depend on what happens between now and 1996,'' says Gary 
     Smith, 45, a Bristol, Ind., postal worker, a Republican who 
     voted for Clinton in 1992.
       Clinton political adviser Paul Begala insists Clinton has 
     no character problem, just nasty politicial opponents who 
     keep throwing mud and keep trying to fan the flames of 
     discontent.
       ``Republicans and the radical right have made a conscious 
     effort to undermine this president in a coordinated 
     strategy,'' he says.
       Everett Ladd of the Roper Center for Public Opinion 
     Research attributes the galvanizing of Clinton detractors to 
     two tenets: They are opposed to big government and have 
     serious reservations about his character.
       ``It's a confluence of the personal and the political,'' he 
     says.
       White House communications director Mark Gearan generally 
     agrees Clinton has a lot of work ahead but discounts the 
     character issue.
       ``People will be looking at whether we have maintained 
     faith with our commitment to create jobs, keep the economy 
     going, provide health care and reduce crime,'' he says.
       Indeed, those who support Clinton tend to be measuring him 
     primarily on job performance. They like his willingness to 
     tackle health care, his efforts to shake up the status quo, 
     his hard work, his knowledge of the issues.
       ``I'm a registered Republican, but I voted for Clinton 
     because I thought the country needed something different,'' 
     says Smith.
       But Clinton detractors appear to be judging him on a far 
     more personal level. They say he's indecisive, a weak leader, 
     unable to get a grip on foreign policy, a poor example of 
     moral authority, a person who tells people what they want to 
     hear.
       ``People are kind of iffy about him because they're not 
     sure they can trust him,'' says Rosio Sanchez, 20, a San 
     Diego college student.

                       A Crisis Without a Crisis

       By most standards, President Clinton is not facing a major 
     crisis.
       But he can't seem to muster more than 43% of re-election 
     support, the same percentage he got in the 1992 election. And 
     40% of the electorate appears to be solidly opposed to him.
       And when people are asked to rate him on a 10-point scale 
     of whether they like or dislike him, numbers suggest he's in 
     deep trouble:
       25% say they like him very much; 19% say they don't like 
     him very much.
       It's almost as if he's in a crisis without a crisis.
       Indeed, Clinton's like-dislike numbers fall into a range 
     similar to those measured for other presidents facing some of 
     the toughest times in their tenures.
       He's slightly lower than Lyndon Johnson in August 1967, 
     when antiwar protests were building, body counts were 
     mounting in Vietnam and the country was splitting. Seven 
     months later Johnson decided not to seek re-election.
       He's slightly higher than Richard Nixon in August 1973, 
     when Senate Watergate hearings were causing people to pause 
     from their vacations to watch. A year later, Nixon resigned.
       He's a little better than Jimmy Carter in August 1980, when 
     U.S. hostages were being held in Iran and a rescue attempt 
     had failed. Three months later, Carter lost his re-election 
     effort to Ronald Reagan.
       And he's about where Ronald Reagan was in June 1982, when 
     the nation, gripped by a recession, was in a sour mood. The 
     economy eventually recovered and Reagan went on to win a 
     second term.

                          ____________________