Dear Abby,
Rather than respond to your latest thoughts on women, I can’t resist changing the subject to the dominant news of the day.
Last night CNBC reported that, in its latest poll, 58 percent of the people thought Clinton should resign if the House votes to impeach him, and 38 percent believed he should not. This is pretty stunning, and certainly bad news to a White House whose main line of defense these days is that the Republicans are ignoring the will of the American people.
Here’s how I sort this out:
1. For more than a year, 60 to 70 percent of Americans have felt that Clinton is doing a good job as president, a figure that did not decline after the Lewinsky news broke.
2. At the same time, for most of the year an equally solid majority has expressed a negative opinion of Clinton’s character, a different measure to which few commentators have paid much attention.
3. QED: there’s a lot of ambivalent feeling about the Clinton presidency.
Now that the impeachment debate is coming to a boil, a lot of the people who say, good job but doubts about your character, are getting ready for the copilot to take over. Though content with Clinton’s leadership, they’re saying that keeping him in office isn’t particularly important to them, certainly not important enough to justify a further prolongation of the controversy. They’re ready to put this–and him–behind them and move on. All along, Clinton’s support has been a mile wide and an inch deep. It was not as artificial as Bush’s spectacular ratings during the Gulf War, obviously the product of rally-round-the-flag feelings that could not last. But doubts about the President’s character make most of his supporters no more than fair-weather friends. How many people really and truly think that Bill Clinton is a decent, honorable, admirable person?
These new figures call into question one of the premises in today’s full-page New York Times editorial opposing impeachment. “Two-thirds of the American people want him to finish out his term.” Ask that same question this weekend, after the President has been impeached, and the figures will almost certainly have shrunk dramatically. Those who live by the polls must be prepared to die by the polls.
The Times rants on about the intolerable “partisanship” in the impeachment drive. Whose fault is that? It takes two to tango, and arguably the true partisanship here is the absence of any Democratic counterparts to Howard Baker and others during Watergate. In its majestic impartiality, the paper in its regular reporting refers to Republicans who might oppose impeachment as “moderates.” (The regulars are evidently immoderates–i.e., extremists.) Their Democratic counterparts, who might back impeachment, are what? No, they’re not “moderate” Democrats, they’re “renegade” Democrats. Regular Democrats, like Barney Frank and John Conyers, are the moderates.
Steve
