-
https://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/files/original/11d3e1a58171f6f848e6e13168c00413.pdf
79276ec0fb9347a9c85eb99984653bb6
PDF Text
Text
FOIA Number:
2006-0469-F
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the William J. Clinton
Presidential Library Staff.
Collection/Record Group:
Clinton Presidential Records
Subgroup/Office of Origin:
Speechwriting
Series/Staff Member:
Michael Waldman
Subseries:
13659
OA/ID Number:
FolderlD:
Folder Title:
Strategic Scheduling: [Marc] Brailov Strategy Document
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
S
92
3
8
1
�Memorandum
To: Bruce Reed
From: Marc Brailov ^fyfa
Re: Strategy Document
^ V T J L A V V ^ C^O^ ^
-yA^CtA
^
^ '
'
w
v
Date: December 28,1994
I apologize for the further delay in sending the attached to you. I found that it was
quite difficult to complete it during the holidays while still maintaining a high level
of discretion. But keeping that discretion high was worth the delay. (I have also
sent this to Paul Begala, Mack McLarty and Margaret Williams).
All of this material is now the property of the President and his team, to do with as
they like.
I wish the President, the First Lady, and the Vice President a very happy New Year!
And, of course, I wish you the same!
�A POLITICAL NEW DEAL: BLUEPRINT
FOR VICTORY IN '96
�A representative government that no longer commands the respect of the people it
is empowered to serve ceases to be a representative government.
�"Our problem is quite daunting - the collapse of faith in the efficacy of the national
political process and the actors involved. But our plan is equally impressive -- to
change the very nature of that process and the actors involved."
--President Bill Clinton, January 1995
�Forward
Over sixty years ago, a great man ascended to the U.S. presidency during a terrible
economic catastrophe of unparalleled dimensions. He immediately recognized that
the unprecedented nature of the situation demanded unprecedented policy
approaches.
He addressed the calamity aggressively, comprehensively,
imaginatively. After all, great problems require great solutions. He understood that
the problem he faced did not involve one dimension of the American economy, but
several. He thus formulated policies and programs that dealt with all of them —
whether it dealt with the banking industry or the agricultural sector, whether it
involved raising workers' wages or building up the physical infrastructure.
This writer in an earlier memo compared today's political environment to that
earlier period's economic difficulties, using the term "political depression." And
the comparison is indeed apt. The breadth and depth of today's eroded faith in the
national political system appears close to equaling the diminution of confidence that
the public suffered toward the nation's economic system in 1933.
Neither political party has yet to fully grasp this, though the GOP has clearly been
more shrewd in exploiting the situation. But they have misread the results of their
recent landslide. They are apparently ignoring the fact that only 20 percent of the
voting age population supported their candidates. They are also apparently ignoring
the fact that the public's attitudes on the responsibility of the national government
appears at odds with their own: They are misreading the public's desire to make
government more efficient and less burdensome as a desire to eviscerate
government.
But thus far, the most profound error that the GOP has made is in failing to
recognize what was really the catalyst behind their massive victory - the widespread
belief that the entire national political system had suffered a nervous breakdown
and that most stricken were our nation's legislative officials.
Ironically, what
citizens were most mad about - the way Congress was comporting itself ~ the GOP
has so far only addressed superficially.
But for the Democrats to exploit this situation, they too must first discern what was
really the catalyst behind the GOP's massive victory. And more importantly, they
must develop an agenda that demonstrates to the public that not only do they
recognize it, they have a plan to do something about it.
As with that great man decades ago, the Democrats must now understand that they
are dealing with a multi-dimensional problem of an unprecedented nature. Voters
have loss faith in both Congress and the legislative process; in the national electoral
process; in the two-party system; in the federal bureaucracy; and in the criminal
justice system. In the entire national political system. Most certainly, this has been
a political depression.
�Today's great President obviously lacks the mandate that the aforementioned fellow
had 60 years ago. But Bill Clinton does have something identical. He has the same
character — the courage to seize the moment, regardless of the daunting odds, to try
to effect the great change so desperately needed to restore this nation's health.
�CONTENTS
1. Fundamental Change. Not Exenteration
2. Political Disaffection, The Economy & The Midterm Election
3. Selling The "Middle Class Bill of Rights." Economic Populism & Negativism
4. Taxes & Political Reform
5. Midterm Debacle: Contributing Factors
6. Midterm Debacle: Catalyst I -- The Legislative Breakdown
7. Midterm Debacle: Catalyst II - The 30-Second TV Bombings
9, The GQP's Vulnerabilities
9. Political Reform & Two Distinct Agendas
10. Choosing Headlines
11. Principles Of Broad Political Reform
12. A Political New Deal - Blueprint For Victory In '96
13. Excerpts From The President's State-of-the-Union Speech. Tanuary 1995
Appendix: Partisanship & Negativism -- The People Speak (Tuly-November 1994)
�"in this survey, we asked those independent voters who had just revolted against politics how they would change
govemment. It became apparent very quickly that voters are not looking simply for a government that is smaller, that
costs less and does less. Only 24 percent of the independents says that is what it means when thinking about changing
govemment. Instead voters are looking for a govemment that belongs to the people [54 percent] and one that delivers
services more efficiently and for less money [50 percent]. The center of public thinking on the role of govemment is not
in gutting govemment but in reclaiming it for ordinary people and making sure it does the right things with less
bureaucracy and waste." - "The Revolt Against Politics" (DLC Survey/Report, 11/17/94)
1. Fundamental Change, Not Exenteration
To anyone who had been listening to the mainstream talk shows this year or
tracking the other media, analyzing other polls, the above paragraph above (from
the Greenberg-DLC survey) is likely to be more of a corroboration than a revelation.
(That doesn't make it any less valuable; with all the superficial examinations of the
election floating around, this incisive survey was a most welcome sight.) Often this
year, so very often, one heard or read the comments of voters venting their anger
with Washington, and Congress in particular. But those comments, along with the
polling data, did not reveal a public desirous to see a scuttling of the national
government, of wholesale cuts in the federal policy apparatus. In fact, one heard
relatively little anger expressed at the federal bureaucracy.
That, of course, doesn't mean that the voters had grown happy with the
bureaucracy. Not at all. But rather, that their anger at Congress, at their elected
representatives, had become so intense, so unbridled, that the evils of the
bureaucracy, that the sins of appointed officials, may have suddenly seemed very
tame. After a modest uptick late in 1993, Congress's public ratings sunk again in
1994 as the voter witnessed gridlock redux. By late summer, voters were literally
retching at the sight of thermonuclear partisan warfare, of intense special interest
activity, and of the seeming inability of Congress to get anything worthwhile done.
On the eve of the midterm election, Congress's approval rating had dropped to an
almost comically low 16 percent. The election -- one of the dirtiest on record - only
served to reinforce the public's very dim view of its national legislature.
Despite all this, most of the talk of reform these days has been concentrated on the
bureaucracy, or more precisely, in cutting it. The public does indeed want that cut.
But seemingly foremost in their minds is a wish to see the national government
fully transformed into something that zuorks effectively for them, not into
something that is an exenterated shadow of itself. And considering the public's low
regard for Washington, and the events of the last few years, that surely implies
nothing less than a comprehensive makeover of the institutions and culture of this
city. Again, however, that doesn't mean torching the city. It means, among other
things, placing efficiency over waste, decentralization over centralization, legislative
productivity over gridlock, the national interest over special interests, cooperation and, yes, compromise -- over partisan bickering, and the creation of a new citizenfriendly politics.
�Neither one of the parties has yet to formulate a plan incorporating such goals. One
could understand why the Democrats, now such a demoralized lot, would be slow to
move. But one would expect the GOP, sitting pretty on its "mandate," to make great
haste. But as already noted, they have misinterpreted their mandate.
Nonetheless, to a weary public, they now seem like the only game in town.
Certainly, if voters, inflicted with such a deep political disaffection, are only given a
choice between a status-quo/limited reform agenda ~ which will give them little
confidence that Washington will be transformed into something that works
effectively for them — and a conservative gut-government agenda, many will feel
they have little choice but to support the latter.
The Democrats challenge now is not to give the public a kinder and gentler version
of the GOP's contract. That contract, after all, is rigid ideological dogma first, a
political reform agenda second (a rather distant second). No, the Democrats must
now offer the public something fundamentally different: something that is truly a
comprehensive plan to engender the fundamental changes in the national political
system that the public has been crying out so loudly for.
�2. Political Disaffection. The Economy & The Midterm Election
For several months prior to the November election, seemingly wherever you
looked or listened, in all media, average citizens were expressing their deep
dissatisfaction w i t h Washington and blaming excessive partisanship, endless
bickering, the intense special interest activity and the lack of legislative production.
" I wish they would put their party loyalties aside and work for the good of the
people" was the type of comment seen or heard almost incessantly. Perhaps what
was most significant about these voter complaints was that they were often
volunteered, with little or no prompting. The polls, meanwhile, were giving a
similar picture of the critical nature of political dissatisfaction. Over the course of
this year, the change i n the level of political dissatisfaction -- primarily directed
toward the Congress and the legislative process ~ appeared closely correlated with
the decline in the Democrats' public standing ~ as people grew angrier at Congress,
the Democrats' position weakened. For example, as recently as March of this year,
the country, according to an ABC-Washington Post poll, was spilt (48-49 percent) on
whether Congress was dealing with the "big issues facing this country." And as late
as June, the Democrats were up by 8 points in some voting intention polls. But then
things deteriorated. By October, just weeks before the Democrats' Waterloo, another
ABC-Washington Post poll found that most (61 percent) now believed that
Congress was not dealing w i t h the "big issues facing this country." A n d
concomitantly, the Democrats found themselves trailing the GOP in the voting
intention polls (see ahead).
In stark contrast, the change in the level of economic dissatisfaction over the last
year seemed inversely correlated to the Democrats' standing - people grew more
confident about the economy as the Democrats' support sank. In the year preceding
the election, consumer confidence survey indicators rose and stayed at very high
levels (and, i n fact, one survey indicator showed a marked rise right before the
election). Just as significantly, the percentage of voters identifying economic issues
as the nation's most important problems dropped sharply. A Times Mirror poll, for
example, showed that in September '93, 47 percent of those surveyed pointed to
economic issues (including unemployment) as the nation's top problems (58
percent had indicated the same in April 93); but by October '94, that figure had
dropped to just 27 percent. Similarly, while a Nezv York Time/CBS survey in
January 1993 found that 44 percent of those surveyed said the economy was the most
pressing problem confronting the nation, by September '94, that number had fallen
to just 15 percent.
x
Why? All though wage growth has essentially been flat (though it did pick up this
fall), the fact remains that 5 million more people have jobs today than in January
1993, with inflation under control. And real disposable personal income was 4
percent higher in November than it was the year before. In any event, and this is
often forgotten, income growth does not tell the whole story about household
finances. Remember that in 1993, millions of Americans were able to strengthen
their finances by refinancing their mortgages at lower rates.
�Despite all the talk that job insecurity was driving voter anger against Democrats, a
pre-election Times Mirror poll showed that "supporters of Democrats congressional
candidates are more likely than supporters of Republican candidates to give top
priority to improving the job situation" (see attached). A Harris poll reported that
in April '93, 20 percent of respondents indicated that "employment/jobs" was one of
the "two most important issues for the government to address"; by April '94 that
figure was 15 percent; and by November '94, it had dropped to 10 percent. And the
Conference Board's survey on the public's perceptions of the job market indicates a
sharply more optimistic public view now than in early 1993 (see attached).
The election exit polls gave somewhat conflicting signals: While those who
described the national economy as poor or their financial situation as getting worse
were more likely to support GOP candidates, those who listed the economy/jobs as
their top priority actually preferred Democratic candidates, by a 57-43 percent
margin. In contrast, those who listed taxes as the top issue gave the GOP the edge by
a 72-28 percent margin (see attached).
The point here is not that economic imperfections had no affect on the election.
They certainly did, as they have always in the past. But this year, something far
more significant was operating. Traditional economics simply did not make this
election a rout. While the numbers obviously don't point to a lack of economic
dissatisfaction, they do suggest a relative lack of intensity of such economic
dissatisfaction, and that much more than the actual state of the economy was
fueling whatever economic dissatisfaction that was being manifested. The polling
numbers, the turnout numbers and the anecdotal evidence seem to indicate
something almost unprecedented: unlike elections past where the most salient
feature was an economic dissatisfaction coloring political perceptions and attitudes,
this election may have been most marked by a deep political disaffection shaping
economic perceptions and attitudes.
Specifically this may have been surfaced in two ways:
First, the widespread misperception of middle-class voters that the Administration
had raised their taxes coupled with their disappointment and anger over the
breakdown of the legislative session may have convinced many of them that not
only were they directly worse off by paying more taxes (in their minds that is), but
also indirectly worse off by getting less value for those taxes from a gridlocked
Congress. Indeed, a December Wall Street journal poll suggests that Congress'
failure to enact health reform during its recent tumultuous session could have
contributed significantly to voters' lingering economic anxiety. The poll revealed
that while concerns over unemployment are down, anxiety over health insurance
(and over retirement benefits) are up sharply. When asked to rate the severity of
economic problems, 70 percent cited unaffordable health insurance as among the
most serious problems (only 51 percent mentioned unemployment).
�••.1(1/28/04
15:18
O202 293 2569
0007/0:18
TIMES MIRROR
••i if.
r
he issues And Campaign '94
Once again, crime tops the list of America's most important problems. Almo*: three in ten
(2S;%) say crime is this country':; most pressing problem, little changec frorn .fuly (26%).
Health care is i ccond on the list ('10%), halved since June (20%). Jobs/utiemj: Joy ment [9%),
public morals, (.thics, inA values (i%), rhi bjdget-defi6it-(a%).,^iTd the eccnomy (7%) :Josij|y
IgUauigOirthis list.
When all economic issues (including unemployment, budget deficit, and tlx: oootiiotty^per
•e) are tal^n tc^ether, theytotal27%, v/hich is essentially the same as mention; c. crime. But"
r"
this economy aggregated figure has dropped fully 50 percentage points sinct January 1992
ien 76% cited these economic issues asxthe nation's most critical problems.
Sujjpciters^of Republican congressional^ candidates are about as likely as supporler
Democratic candidates to name~criffl<i-a£_the nation's most importanLiaf^e-^fr^r^^. 31%).
Republican supporters, however, tendotofbe more concerned about moral anc sthical isstes
(12% vs. 6%), while Democratic supporters) are more concerned about health ewe (1:% vs.
'/%) and unemployment (11% vs. 7%).
Improving the job situation gets a lower priority as the nation's unemployment rah; gees
cown. When asked to choose one issue among five as President Clinton'^ top priority, more
ATriericans pick reducing crime (25%) and reducing the budget deficit (23%), Hut as many as
one in five (1S%) choose improving the job situation as a top priority-ckspite •'Ji? eccmorriic
rscovery, more than ctoosehealth c£rgj^f(>yp (15%) and welfare refonn
!nn\l3%>. ^
^
Supporters ofT)eniocratic" congressional candidates* are more likely than s jppor:;rs of 1
Republican congressional candidates to give top privity to improving the job siiuation (21%
^ s. 16%). Republican supporters fire more-li^'^to^lace the highest priority on the: traditional
Ilepublican iss\:e of trmming the size of government:^ 1 of Republican supporter think
%
rsducing the budget deficit - should ^be^Clfiiton's top priorify^and 17% say wcl&rc tefoim
should be at thetop.In comparison, 19% of Democratic supporters choose reducing the bud&et
ceficit and onlv 11% choose welfctre reform.'
The midterm election climate, featuring \1ONV unemployment and a strong economy, tends
w favor the Republican? over the Democrats. The Republican Party is seen sy mon; Americans
as the one that could do a better job at keeping the country prosperous (45V* vs. 33% for
Democrats), while the ^Democrats are seen by a plurality as the-party most ible to improve the
j ?b situation (42% vs. 37% for Rep^blicansJr^The, QOIf is also viewed by pbidities of the
public as bener able to make wise decisions about foreign policy and about dealirg widi taxes.
The Democratic Party has lost Bslot, but not all of its tdvantage on the health cari issue; but
cn dealing with crime, an issue or.^which-^epublicans have long enjoyed an edgo, the public
row divides nenrly evenly Between the GOP and the Democrats.
-
4
I
/A
�TRENDLINES
Consumers Snap Back
Spending^ in Style Now That Jobs Seem Secure
The whole process fed on itself,
in a fashion reminiscent of the
WMbiagtoa Past Stiff Writer
burst of economic activity—which
economists sometimes call a
All year long, economists and
"snapback"—that usually comes
government policy makers have
immediately after a recession.
been surprised at the strength of
consumer spending. The chart at More spending triggered more
production, more production
right shows a key underlying
meant more jobs and more income
reason for that surprising
yielded more spending.
robustness—the strength of the
1994 job market.
Years ago, when he was a
Late in 1993, most forecasters private economic consultant,
Federal Reserve Chairman Alan
predicted that 1994 would be a
Greenspan closely watched the
good year for the economy, with
growth sufficiently solid to reduce layoff rate—afigurethat later fell
the unemployment rate modestly. victim to budget cuts at the
Bureau of Labor Statistics—for
Instead, consumer purchases
an early signal that a recession
soared, especially for expensive,
was about to end. Greenspan said
long-lasting goods, such as new
that when the layoff rate began to
cars and furniture, and the
economy took off. By last month fall and workers who had feared
the unemployment rate was down for their jobs began to relax, those
to 5.6 percent, compared with 6.7 still at work were apt to increase
8M TRENDLINES, B18, CoL 4
percent in January.
By John M. Berry
PEOPLE WORRYING ABOUT LOSING THDR JOB and being unable to
find another one generally aren't eager to buy a new car or
redecorate the house. One reason for this year's surge in consumer
spending has been the perception that the job market is in much
better shape than it was when economic recovery got going in 1991
and 1992. Responses to the Conference Board's monthly consumer
confidence survey reflect that improvement.
18
97
'88
SOURCE: The Conference Board
TMC WASHINGTON ""OST
�USA TODAY • WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 1994 • 9A
The issues
right
Democrats and Republicans differed, often drastically, on issues that include the direction the
country is moving, and which problems Congress should address first.
Clinton Job approval
| | Democrat
£ Republican
Need for govemment Involvement
More
Less
44%
All
Republican
18%
Democrat
Direction country Is headed
Democrat Republican
Rightdlrecdon
66% V ^ ; M %
Wrong track
34%
66%
Support for term limits
Democrat Republican
Approve
42%
. 41|§$|
Disapprove
60%
40%
Most Important national Issues
Democrat Republican
Foreign policy
53%
47%
Healthcare
. '
Deficit
as%'/* ^Tjife'
Cnme
Hmetorac^
Atnb "52%
42%
Can^sperfemianbe
_
72%
82%
49%
51%
3 0 % u t f . 70%
'
58%
29%
: '--X^M 71%
28%
National economic condition
65%
57%
43%
35%
> \
Good
Not good
Poor
Change In support for GOP from 1992
Not good
Poor
1
7.111%
1 ^WtkS45%
;
Which issue Congress should address first
Democrat Republican
, :
Candidate's experience 61%
39%
Healthcare
69%
ueropaignarign&iworm 60% ^
28%
The deficit
%
10%
1%
36% , 64%
67%
33%
90%
Ttewte
Mtantf
: Support Clinton policies
94%
55% .*5%
. ;
t for GOP frnm 1992 * ^
y
Democrat Republican
^
iMevtti* ^
^
I S
Clinton
1%
91%
Independent
43%
v 113%
By Marty Baumann, USA TODAY
.-.•it
I )•',••.
-ii**
' - j -
�VOTING AND INTEREST
IN POLITICS
1987
1988
1990
1992
1994
1 feel it's my duty as a citizen
to always vote
Agree
Completely
Disagree
Don't know
Total
85
46
12
3
100
88
56
9
3
100
85
50
13
2
100
91
69
8
1
100
93
66
7
I'm interested in keeping up
with national affairs
Agree
Completely
Disagree
Don't know
Total
81
28
15
4
100
86
39
12
2
100
82
33
16
2
100
91
51
8
1
100
100
I'm pretty interested in
following local politics
Agree
Completely
Disagree
Don't know
Total
70
16
26
4
100
72
21
27
1
100
70
17
29
1
100
73
26
26
1
100
76
24
23
1
100
1 feel guilty when 1 don't
get a chance to vote
Agree
Completely
Disagree
Don't know
Total
66
25
28
6
100
69
32
26
5
100
67
30
30
3
100
69
39
25
6
100
70
38
27
3
100
•
100
89
46
11
*
(Based on Q.52u, v, x and z)
Economic Attitudes And Faith In America
The ups and downs experienced by the U.S. economy over the past seven years are
understandably reflected in the public's views on personal finances, as well as its faith in
America's economic future.
Today 64% of Americans say they are pretty well satisfied with the way things are going for
them financially. Fifty-eight percent felt that way in 1990 and in 1992 when the economy was
in recession. While 53% of the public agreed that money was one of their most important
concerns in 1990, only 40% say they feel that way in 1994. And the percentage of respondents
who said they often don't have enough money to make ends meet fellfrom52% in 1992 to 43%
in 1994.
Despite the overall improvement in the personalfinancialpicture of Americans since 1992,
some groups have fared worse than others. Younger Americans (age 18-29), for example, are
most likely to say they often don't have enough money to make ends meet, and least likely to
25
Vis
�be satisfied with the way things are going for themfinancially.This group also shows much
positive change in attitudes from 1992 to 1994 than do other age groups.
While minorities, including blacks, feel better about their personal financial circumstances
now compared to two years ago, they continue to express more negative attitudes in this regard
than the public overall. Only 44% of non-whites (blacks, Asians and others) said they are satisfied
with the way things are going for them financially this year, compared to 64% of all respondents;
and while 43% of the public said they often don't have enough money to make ends meet, 55%
of non-whites feel that way.
PERSONAL FINANCES
1987 1988 1990 1992 1994
I'm pretty well satisfied with the way
Things are going for me financially
Agree
Disagree
Don't know
Total
63
35
2
100
65
34
1
100
58
41
1
100
58
41
1
100
64
35
1
100
Money is one of my most important
concerns
Agree
Disagree
Don't know
Total
47
51
_2
100
52
47
53
46
40
60
JL
J.
N/A
N/A
N/A
100
100
1 often don't have enough money to
make ends meet
Agree
Disagree
Don't know
Total
43
55
2
100
45
54
1
100
47
52
1
100
PERSONAL
18-29
1992 1994
FINANCES
Total
1992 1994
I'm pretty well satisfied
with the way things are
going for me financially
Agree
Disagree
Don't know
Total
57
42
1
100
64
35
1
100
*
«
I often don't have
enough money to make
ends meet
Agree
Disagree
Don't know
Total
52
47
1
100
43
56
1
100
54
46
53
47
100
100
54
45
1
100
49
51
*
100
54
45
1
100
(Based on Q.52r, s and t)
26
52
47
1
100
30-49
1992 1994
52
47
1
100
#
100
43
56
1
100
50+
1992 1994
100
65
33
2
100
72
26
2
100
43
56
1
100
50
48
2
100
39
61
63
37
*
•
100
�Second, by being seen as the leaders of a gridlocked Congress, Congressional
Democrats may have forced themselves out of the running for any benefit-of-thedoubt that some voters who have yet to fully benefit from a growing economy give
to the party in power. For a striking historical context, let's compare 1994 with the
1982 midterm election. With the unemployment rate today some 5 percentage
points lower than it was in 1982, the Democrats lost tzvice as many House seats this
year as the GOP did that year, not to mention nine Senate seats (the GOP lost nary a
seat in '82). Amazingly, therefore, with unemployment at levels (10.8 percent) not
seen since the Great Depression, 1982 voters seemed more patient toward the GOP
than 1994 voters were toward the Democrats, strong economy or no strong
economy. Certainly, voters had far more reason to feel insecure about losing their
jobs, or having their wages cut, in 1982! But of course, 1982 was not marked by a
widespread perception that Congress and the legislative process had completely
broken down.
In short, political disaffection -- in particular, disgust with the failings of Congress
(carrying a record low approval rating of 16 percent) — appears to have been the
crucial factor in fueling both voter anger and non-voter apathy this year.
The latter is, incredibly, given short shrift by too many of our brilliant political
pundits. The reasons why Democratic voters did not vote were as critical, if not
more so, as the reasons why GOP voters did show up. After all, the GOP secured its
mandate with the support of only about 20 percent of the voting age population!
Indisputably, one reason the GOP won so massively was because throngs of angry
white males showed up at the polls to vote down Democrats. But, just as
importantly, if not more so, the GOP also won so massively because throngs of
Democrats and open-minded independents -- disappointed by the party's inability to
end politics-as-usual in Washington and by it then proceeding to run the absolute
epitome of a politics-as-usual campaign — stayed home. Put another way, if
Democratic turnout had gone up by the same rate that GOP turnout did, wouldn't
this election have been significantly different?
�3, Selling The "Middle Class Bill pf Rights," Econpmic Populism & Negativism
Bravo to the President's new "Middle Class Bill of Rights" proposals! And he gave a
fine speech i n announcing them. Also, he was very smart to give a title to his
proposals. On a personal note, I was particularly impressed with the college
education proposals. Owing some $35,000 in student loans, I wish we had such
provisions on the books two decades ago.
The issue at hand is not the merits of the President's proposals, but how to sell
them. As will be discussed ahead, the most politically sensitive method to sell his
social and economic proposals is to present them as the intended products of a
sweeping political refonn agenda. The Democrats should also scrupulously avoid
using the tax proposals to engage in class-bashing. Most Americans do not seem to
share the seemingly deep enmity that some "populist" Democrats feel toward the
affluent. For example, a recent USA Today poll showed that only a narrow
majority supported keeping the tax cuts limited toward the middle class.
Nevertheless, I have deep concern that some Democrats — who don't want to learn
the lesson from the debacle this fall or for that matter, from the election disasters of
the 1980s ~ are eager, foaming at the mouth perhaps, to use the proposal for a
middle class tax cut to bash the GOP, once again, as the party of the rich. To avoid
being seen as the practitioners of politics-of-usual negativism, the Democrats need
to be clever and sly in both when and how they criticize the GOP, not crude and
obvious. The Democrats must strive to be f i r s t seen as occupying a high moral
plane (and, hopefully, a higher one than the GOP's) when they iveigh in with
criticism of the GOP proposals.
And just saying that you're a friend of working
people, and the GOP is not, is insufficient, I repeat, is insufficient. The voters have
heard that before, ad nauseam, and to many, it just sounds like more partisan
bickering.
As will be discussed, pushing for a series of bipartisan nationally televised town
meetings to debate the merits of tax and spending proposals could be the ideal way
to reach that higher moral plane -- and potentially offer significant political benefits
for the President and his party.
When you do confront the GOP over their tax cuts, you should not deride them for
being for the rich. Rather you should say: "We are targeting the middle class simply
because they need the relief far more than the wealthy, and because we have to be
careful not to expand the deficit. So with limited monies we should target those
most in need. We are certainly anti-rich. In fact the rich will benefit more from our
proposals because they will benefit over the long run from a health middle class.
After all, many of them were once in the middle class."
Some Democrats have yet to learn the perils of wholesale embraces of economic
populism. Putting lines between whole classes of people and implying that one
class is more worthy than another is invidious (there are both middle class tax
�cheats and super rich philanthropists) — and politically stupid. The most viable
political strategy is one that is inclusive, not exclusive, one that doesn't judge people
by their economic station, but by their behavior - by not hoiv much money they
have, but by hoiv they use it. That was the standard that some of the greatest
progressive leaders of the past adopted. Theodore Roosevelt and his New
Nationalists endorsed it. TR's "malefactors of great wealth," was, after all, a
description of an odious type of behavior. So was FDR's famous "economic
royalists" epithet.
During the 1980s, the Democrats were actually losing presidential elections while
still being seen, in public opinion polls, as the party of average working people. To
some extent, the problem emerged because some working people had grown
uncomfortable with the Democrats' attacks on the rich. Judging by their comments
in the media, some working-class voters incorrectly viewed Democratic proposals to
hike taxes on the wealthy as directed at the middle class as well (this misperception
resurfaced again in '93). Some also believed that those who target the rich with
taxes, regardless of the rationale, must be soak-the-rich socialists. Still others
believed, and still do, that trickle-down economics actually works, that it's the
essence of capitalism. That's an unfortunate view of course, but it's a part of
political reality that any viable political strategy must be sensitive to.
Don't get me wrong. I oppose extending any significant new tax breaks to the
wealthy. I am very sympathetic toward the notion that the country was better off,
socially and economically, when the top tax rate was 70 percent. But possessing
those beliefs should not automatically lead to the embrace of class-bashing tactics
that too often seem to scare as many middle class voters as wealthy ones. I t is very,
very critical to understand that some middle class people have interpreted these
class-hashing tactics hy Democrats to mean that the party is against opportunity.
against success — in short, against the very heart of the American dream. The Jim
Hightower-method simply doesn't work. The fact that he is currently hosting a
radio show rather than holding office speaks volumes
I certainly have respect for the way Congressman Gephardt has stood up for average
Americans, and am glad that he has usually supported this great President. But the
Congressman's approach to selling his tax cut plan is the wrong way to go, and may
risk damaging the party. By blasting the GOP as "trickle-down terrorists" and
promising a "no-holds-barred" campaign for his proposals in which the "fur's going
to fly," he sounds like he is mobilizing for the same type of partisan warfare that
voters rejected overwhelmingly in November, either by voting or not voting. To
Joe- and Jane-Six-Pack, it's likely to come across as just more name-calling and more
mudslinging. They're damn sick and tired of this sort of thing, regardless of how
compelling the rationale. Period. Democrats too. And yes zuorking-class
Democrats as well.
The grassroots Democrats that I talk to in the Midwest are either working stiffs or
know them quite well, and believe me, they're all fed up with all this, and the
�language they use to describe it ain't always this polite. Like many Democrats in the
Midwest and elsewhere, some chose not to vote November 8, and in many cases,
precisely because of this endless partisan zvarfare! The polls, the focus group
reports, the media interviews all speak volumes! For example, according to a Times
Mirror poll out this month, "[b]y a 61% to 33% margin. Democrats think their party
leaders should go along with the GOP to get things accomplished, rather than
standing up to the GOP on issues that are important to Democratic groups."
I'm not arguing that the Party should jettison its basic principles. No way. I badly as
hell want to see Gingrich and his reactionary folloivers defeated, because I care very
deeply about the success of this great President and the classic progressivism that he
embodies. But one has got to be objective about this sort of thing, to think logically,
from the head not from the heart, without the partisan blinders on. And when you
do, you have to conclude that the best way to beat the GOP is to outsmart them, not
to out-scream them, to outflank them, not to out-bombard them, and most critically,
to be seen seizing the higher moral plane by casting yourself as the Party that is out
to discipline partisanship and minimize politics-as-usual negativism, rather than
being seen as just another practitioner of such politics. But if the Democrats do
insist on traveling down that muddy politics-as-usual path, a third force may
emerge to further marginalize them ~ or even to replace them.
(On a policy note: I recall quite vividly following the news on the bargaining in 1981 over what later emerged as the
so-called Economic Recovery Tax Act. Both parties wanted to load the Reagan tax program with their special goodies.
The result was a massive tax cut that truly scared the hell out of the markets. Reaganites love to discount or dismiss all
that. But I also remember tracking interest rates -- both the federal funds and long-term rates -- during 1981-82 and
watching how even after the Fed started to cut the federal funds rate, long term rates rose and then stayed high well
into the severe 1981-82 recession (and high for much of the decade, particularly in real terms). (See attached letter to
someone you know.) In a normal environment, that wouldn't have happened. The markets were convinced that the tax
cuts would engender bigger deficits and induce more inflation and higher interest rates. The situation is much different
today, of course. But the Fed has already displayed an itchy finger on the interest-rate trigger, and one should be
careful not to give them too much ammunition to pull it once too often.)
�HARVARD UNIVERSITY
JOHN r. KENNEDY SCHOOL OF GOVERNMENT
CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS 02138
May 23, 1983
Marc Brailov
2130 University Avenue
Apt. 57
Madison, Wisconsin 53705
Dear Mr. Brailov:
Thank you f o r your l e t t e r . I'm sorry 1 didn't
quite understand your question when you asked i t on
the Freeman Reports. I agree that i t w i l l be very
d i f f i c u l t f o r us t o restructure our economy i f
i n t e r e s t rates continue to be high i n r e a l terms.
Surely a coherent macroeconomic p o l i c y i s a necessary
c o n d i t i o n , although perhaps not a s u f f i c i e n t condition,
for moving ahead. Your second p o i n t — c o n c e r n i n g defense
spending—is a good one, although i t seems t o me that
the p o l i t i c a l costs of t r y i n g to dramatically reduce
defense expenditures at t h i s point are too high a price
to pay f o r any p o l i t i c i a n . That i s d e f i n i t e l y a goal
for the f u t u r e , however.
Sincerely,
Robert B. Reich
RBRrem
�4. Taxes & Political Reform
A tax cut is certainly not a panacea for all your problems; it's not a golden ticket for
reelection. While support for a tax cut is indeed broad and solid, its relative support
is surprisingly unimpressive. Polls have shown that voters rank other issues and
proposals higher on their priorities. For example, in the Greenberg-DLC survey,
independents ranked such matters as protecting Medicare and Social Security,
cutting government bureaucracy, controlling health costs and ensuring health
insurance for all, and limiting campaign spending as all higher priorities than
cutting middle-class taxes. Democrats in the survey ranked cutting middle-class
taxes only slightly higher as a priority; like independents, they also gave higher
rankings to protecting Medicare and Social Security, controlling health care costs
and ensuring health insurance for all, and limiting campaign spending than that
given to cutting middle class taxes. Other surveys have produced similar results.
Why? The easiest reason to discern is that voters have other pressing concerns that
a tax cut can't possibly address - crime, welfare reform, health care (though tax
credits can help a bit here), and the government's ability, or lack thereof, to deal
with these matters. Moreover, average voters are not stupid. They know that a tax
cut will not really make their finances that much more secure, or certainly not make
their jobs more secure. And remembering the experiences of the 1980s, many voters
may fear that any federal tax cut could easily be eaten up by state and local tax hikes
(or possibly, even subsequent federal tax hikes), not to mention by rising interest
rates induced by bloated deficits. And that touches on, once again, the issue of
political disaffection: voters are so skeptical about the Feds these days that to some,
anything that looks good ~ even a tax cut - is probably too good to be true. It doesn't
help, of course, when the USA Today runs headlines like "Tax plan may not add up
to much." Understanding all this, it's not surprising that polls tend to show voters
assigning a much higher priority to deficit reduction than to tax cuts.
There are two other things to consider. First, the GOP has made cutting taxes central
to their agenda. By overly stressing the issue, the Democrats risk being seen as mere
followers, not leaders. It's not fair but it's a real possibility. But as will be discussed,
the Democrats do have ample opportunity to put forward proposals dealing with
areas that the GOP has foolishly ignored. Areas that the voters have been quick to
associate with a dysfunctional government.
Second, as with the risk of ouer-emphasizing
proposals to cut government
spending, if the Democrats give inordinate attention to tax cuts, they will also be
misreading the voter's minds, giving inadequate attention to what seems central to
most voters -- creating an efficient government that works successfully for them.
Like massive cuts in government spending, a tax cut simply can't engender that.
Only broad political reform can.
�5. Midterm Debacle; Contributing Factors
Thirty Years of Government Failures
There were factors, as listed below, that, when combined, were a certain recipe for
voter impatience this year. Factors which have helped put the American public into
a political depression with origins going back some 30 years. Yet this deep-rooted
political disaffection, while potent, was insufficient by itself to produce the revolt
that occurred November 8. Catalysts were needed, and they will be discussed next.
Had those catalysts not manifested themselves, the Democrats might still have lost
seats in, perhaps, the 20-30 seat range (the postwar average is about 27). But had
Democrats recognized early on the sorry state of the political environment and
responded with bold actions - a comprehensive political reform agenda - they
might have been able to avert the manifestation of the catalysts and to mitigate
significantly the country's continuing political distress. A midterm election
profoundly different from that on November 8 could have been their just reward.
The contributing factors to the rout that did occur November 8 are listed below.
o Social Decay
In the midterm exit polls, voters picked crime as the nation's most critical problem.
Not only has 30 years of rising violent crime rates made voters personally insecure,
but to many of them, such crime translates into a complete indictment of both
government social programs and the criminal justice system. In short, to some
Americans, crime represents more than just the failure of the welfare state, but a
welfare state that has wasted their tax dollars while threatening their very safety.
o Economic Deficiencies
Economic deficiencies have been a major reason behind the public's unhappiness
with the national government ever since the outbreak of Vietnam War-induced
inflation during the late 1960s. Stagnant real wages, however, only tells part of the
story of America's economic troubles during this period of time. Some more
details: unprecedented stagflation; three of the worst recessions since the Great
Depression (1973-75, 1981-83 and 1991-92); two OPEC price shocks; mortgage rates
approaching 20 percent; bank failures in numbers not seen since the 1930s; and the
rise of America as the world's leading net-debtor nation.
While economics was certainly not an insignificant factor in affecting the preceding
election, it still appears to have been no more than a secondary factor. After all,
over 70 percent of exit poll respondents selected issues other than "economy/jobs"
as being most important in influencing their votes. I certainly don't want to dismiss
the economic problems that exist. There is some real pain out there. But the
context of history is revealing: In the 1982 midterm election, when the exit polls
�found that 38 percent of voters felt they were worse off financially, the GOP lost 26
House seats and no Senate seats; in the 1994 election, in contrast, when exit polls
found that just 23 percent of voters felt they were worse off financially, the
Democrats lost 52 House seats and 8 Senate seats.
o Other Government Failures
Of course, over the last 30 years, there is also a long list of government failures not
under the social and economic rubrics. And they have probably done as much
damage, if not more, to the public's trust in their national government Vietnam,
Watergate, Abscam, Iran-Contra, the House Post Office scandal and the
Congressional check-bouncing mess ~ all have left deep scars on the body politic.
�6. Midterm Debacle: Catalyst I -- The Legislative Breakdown
The breakdown of the second legislative session that occurred during the summer
and early fall of '94 was likely the single most important reason behind the
Republican Party's seizure of Congress November 8. Undoubtedly, the inability of
the Democrats to get such key measures as health reform, welfare reform, campaign
and lobbying reforms enacted was a profound disappointment to those who had
voted Democratic in 1992 thinking that one-party control of the Congress and the
Presidency would mean an end to gridlock. A gridlock that returned with a
vengeance this summer. But as disappointing as the failure of Congress to get key
legislation passed this year was, that only told part of the tale. Whatever was passed
— the crime bill, in particular -- seemed to get passed only after interminable partisan
squabbling and intense special interest group maneuverings, in short only after a
terrible exercise of politics-as-usual. And this sorry spectacle did not just further
taint Congress, but also any legislation that was enacted.
Back in 1992, the voters had high hopes that a Democratic President and a
Democratic Congress would change the culture of Washington by stopping the
partisan bickering, constraining the special interests and jettisoning gridlock. To too
many voters, all that seemed like a pipe dream by the summer of '94. (One point
needs to be made emphatically
here: An objective
examination
of the
preponderance of polling data and other information shows that by any definition,
the 103rd Congress was a significant drag on the President — not the other way
around.)
The polling data clearly demonstrates how damaging this legislative breakdown was
to Congress and to those perceived in control - the Democrats. Partisan warfare
first went nuclear during the so-called Whitewater hearings in late spring. Even
before things had really gone thermonuclear, in late summer, voters were already
expressing anger at the perceived costs of excessive partisanship in Washington. A
late June Washington Post survey found that over 74 percent of respondents
believed that Congress had accomplished nothing or not much at all in the
preceding 18 months. Of those 74 percent, nearly 70 percent placed the blame for
this inertia on partisanship: 56 percent said the lack of legislative productivity was
due to the "inability of Democrats and Republicans to work tougher"; 11 percent
indicated that it was because of the "[ejfforts of Republicans to block programs that
the Democrats want to pass" (see appendix).
Over the course of this year, the change in the level of dissatisfaction with Congress
and the legislative process appeared closely correlated with the decline in the
Democrats' public standing -- as people grew angrier at Congress, the Democrats'
position weakened. For example, as recently as March of this year, the country,
according to an ABC-Washington Post poll, was spilt (48-49 percent) on whether
Congress was dealing with the "big issues facing this country." And as late as June,
the Democrats were up by 8 points in some midterm voting intention polls (see
attached USA Today/CNN/ Gallup poll). But then things really deteriorated. By
�October, just weeks before the Democrats' Waterloo, another ABC-Washington Post
poll found that most (61 percent) now believed that Congress was not dealing with
the "big issues facing this country." And concomitantly, the Democrats found
themselves trailing the GOP in the voting intention polls (also see attached Times
Mirror poll). Another ABC-Washington Post poll was particularly striking. The
poll in February found that "Democrats enjoyed a 46 to 32 percent advantage with
Americans polled as the party best able to deal with the country's problems"; but by
late October, in the aftermath of the legislative wars, the GOP had secured a 40-39
percent advantage over the Democrats (see attached).
Yet perhaps the most memorable poll was a Time survey conduced during midAugust, as the partisan bickering was reaching a fever pitch (so much so that
Nightline devoted an entire show to it). The Time poll asked respondents to
identify the main problem facing the country today. Fewer people than in
September '93, when the poll was last taken, named the economy, unemployment,
health care or the budget deficit as that main problem. Slightly more identified the
lack of morals as the main problem. Not surprisingly, the percentage of those
identifying crime as the main problem nearly doubled from the preceding
September, pushing crime up from second to the top rank. But most startling was
the fact that the percentage of those selecting "politicians/government" as the
country's top problem had tripled since September '93, causing the issue to
skyrocket from last place to second (see attached).
The post-election DLC survey should dispel any doubt that the American public has
now overdosed on Washington's partisan bickering. As the attached numbers
illustrate, when asked to volunteer their thoughts about the mess in Washington,
partisan bickering and gridlock tend to be the very first things that voters vent their
rage about.
�OPINION OUTLOOK
Views on the American Scene
IHOW'D THEY DO?
WORK, WORK, WORK
During 1993 and 1994, do you think Congress has accomplished
more or less than it usually docs in a typical two-year period'.'
Mow much do you worry about losing your job'.' (Yankclovicli
Partners Inc. for CNfi-Timc magazine)
3/93
10/94
16%
12%
(iri-al deal
17
Some
15
Only a little
20
23
Not at all
48
48
Not sure
0
1
(CBS NCWS-V/K- New York
Times)
More
Less
Same (volunteered)
Don't know, no answer
Total
23%
55
11
11
1
11/94
Reps. Dems.
26%
19%
59
52
12
8
14
10
I
Inds.
24%
55
12
9
Do you think Congress is able to deal with the big issues facing
this country, or not? (ABC News-TV^' Washington Post)
3/91
Yes
No
No opinion
3/94
9/94
10/94
60%
48%
36%
35%
37
3
49
3
62
2
61
4
1
Do you think that most Members of Congress are more interested in serving the people they represent, or more interested in
scrvine special-interest groups? (CBS-Times)
i
11/94
—I
Total
Reps. Dems. Inds.
People they represent
16%
14%
21%
14%
Special-interest groups
78
72
81
82
Don't know, no answer
6
7
5
4
In general, do you think most Members of Congress work hard,
or not? (CBS-Times)
,
11/94
,
Total
Reps. Dems. Inds.
Work hard
48%
48%
50%
46%
47
Don't work hard
49
44
49
5
Don't know, no answer
3
6
5
Compared with a few years ago, do you feel that your job
requires you to work longer hours than previously, shorter
hours, or do you work about the same amount of hours as
before'.' (asked of full-time workers by Yankclovich for CNNTime)
10/94
Longer
38%;
Shorter
6
Same as before
56
Do you think it w ill be easier or harder to find a new job, as compared with the last 12 months? (Yankelovich for CNN-Time)
3/93
10/94
Easier
29%
37%
Harder
54
48
No difference
10
9
Not sure
7
6
HEALTHY CONCERNS
HAVING A SAY
Are you pleased or are you disappointed that Congress failed to
pass a health care reform bill? (Times Mirror Center for The
People & The Press)
10/94
Pleased
45%
Disappointed
45
Not sure
10
How much say do you think people like yourself have atxiut
what the government does? (CBS-Times)
SPOUSE ABUSE
Do you think the police where you live try hard enough to
enforce the laws against spouse abuse, or do you think the police
tend to look the other way? (Times Mirror Center)
10/94
Tn hard
54%
Look the other way
26
Don't know
10
A good deal
Some
Not much
Doin't know, no answer
!
-r "r"'i""i""i""i"- i
0
10 20 30 40 SO 60
70
Generally, the new* media do not reveal the names of rape victims. Do you think the news media should offer the same right
of privacy to victims of spouse abuse as it offers to victims of
rape, or not? (Times Mirror Center)
10/94
Yes
78%.
No
14
Don't know
S
NATIONAL JOURNAL l l / W M
2747
�THE
NATION
Mbre Americans say Ihey are planning to vote for a raoe, a USATC)DAY/CNN/Qallup Pollfound.But, lN;r*pbhdent8 (»nsldi^
mmmmmmm
MM/y^Sr'"likelihoodc
Democrat
Republican
49%
K
43%
:85%;flS
;
most u
Anti-incumbency sentiments
Clinton upturn
�•;i/(i7.'i)4
10:03
© 2 0 2 293 2569
TIMES MTRROR
IglOdJ/Ci.jr)
5 % lo 48% Current Republican Murgiti
3
CDP LEADS /MONG UKELY VOTERS, BtJT DEMOCRATS MAKING GAINS
Going irro the fmal days cf the campaign, a nitionwide Times Mirroi survey finds
tli; Republican party with about enough pojiulzr support to capture cortrol (.:'rhc H:»usc of
Representatives, but not enough to guaranteti such an outcome. Furthct, the licuds obseived
in the survey suggest tliat the Democrats m;iy na-rrow the mmgrn ever, more Mos:
.importantly, the GOP edge in support aver the Democrats lias coftsistonl ly diniiniiihed in
p<:H<; conducted over ti e course o ftlie pjist four weeks. Secondly, the jxirceriiii je of
ur divided voten; has increased in each survey, which is unusual and suggests a a iraj-cttkd
cluctorate. Third, the percentage cf voters saying they would like to se* their iicumbent re
jlnclec has. also improved since e:irly October.
For the first time since early September, we find the two particrK statistically lied
W.ien. registered' voters are questioned about their congressional voting intentions. The
Timss Mirror poll conducted Nov 3-5 among 1468 registered voters found AWc itclined to
vcte for Republican caididates fo:- the House of Repnisentatives, vs, 41% disposed to
Dijmocrats, and 12%.iuidecided. Ten days earlier, a Times Mirror survey frund a 47% tc
4-'% Republican margia, and in e.irly October the GOP led by as much as a
tc 40FA.
As in tb: earlier poll, when the current survey is narrowed to the 922 respondents
mist likely to vote on election day based on expressed intentions to vet:, ar.d voting!
history, the Repablican party holds a 43% to 43% margin of support. There is no indication
in the new survey that the level of voter turnout will be any greater in 1994 thin it 'vas in
1^90 end 1986, as previously reported.
VU7M6 m&VTms
Damocretic Republican
Ukaty Vattrx
November 3-5, 1994
October 20-24, 1994
%
%
43
43
48
51
Regssttim' Votvt
November 3-5, 1994
October 20-24, 1994
October 5-9, 1994
SeptemtiT, 1994
July, 19&4
43
44
40
4(5
47
45
47^
5:;
48
45
OtherWrtdiotded
K
9
6
12
9
8
6
6
�... the U.S. Congress is doing its job?
... your own representative in Congress is doing his or her job?
Approve of the job:
It
JI
10/n
1990
li
il-
|S-
!n
6/2 10/21 12/15
1991
3/18
2/2
1992
4/9
1/17
1993
3/27
1994
6/26
9/11
10/23
[% Overall, which party, the Democrats or the Republicans, do you
Wntrust to do a better job in coping with the main problems the
nation faces over the next few years?
it-
ion
ob.! in
60%
B Democrats
[ J Republicans
50
1
'•-o'i-ij; :*?
401
ein>23.
r for
ninus
20
ji the
lijti
MM-
10
tmay
Jemocnth's
30
O
10/21 12/15
1991
2/2 3/S
19S2
3/11
6,7
7/3
1/17 11/14
1993
2/27 6/26
1994
9/11
10/23
C
—said
/a con.pposed
lid they
:porter,
month,
rided on
:lier this
oters fa•essional
c for the
s
Post-ABC
.ic Demo
;atistically
io 47 periikely vot•oard, liow•hat Repubie gains at
•rats as the
NOIL": Figures mav not aco lo ! 0 0 J because "uiiCecicled" is noi mcluGed. The most recent
figure* are irom a V/ashirgton Posi-ASC News telephone poll of a national random sample- o;
! .0'. 1 M'jlis, conducted Oct. 20-23 Other figures are troir, Washinglon Post-ABC News
polls with samoles ol Similar si:o. I.largin of samoling error tor all potls is plus or minus 3
fjc-rcentage points overall. Samolmg •-••.'Cr is. nowevt-r. only one of many ootertial sources of
error :» this or any public opinion poil Interviewing was condtietec) by Chilton Researcn ol
Kaonor. Pa.
—Compiled by Sharon Warden
According to the survey, 40 percent of those questioned said they
trusted Republicans, while 39 percent preferred Democrats in
charge. As recently as February,
Democrats enjoyed a 46 percent to
32 percent advantage with Americans polled as the party best able to
deal with the country's problems.
The survey found that Republicans were viewed as superior to
Democrats in maintaining a strong
defense, handling the nation's economy, handling foreign affairs, holding taxes down, keeping the United
States comnptitiv? '••r\.h
nnd
t
Democrats were viewed as better able to improve public schools,
help the middle class and the poor,
provide affordable health care and
create jobs.
Respondents divided equally between the two parties over their
ability to deal with crime, reduce
the budget deficit or keep the United States out of war. But on each of
these issues, the survey suggests
that the Democrats have lost significant ground to the GOP since the
first of the year.
lei
�wiuugniigiicis ouwn even
more distrust, according
to new TIME surveys
By JON D.HULL DAYTON
T
HE S C E SERVICE WOULD S R L
ERT
UEY
have had a fit if President Clinton
had attempted to address the
35,000 voters assembled in a field
just off the Dayton Intemationai
Airport last week. It's not that: the crowd
was especially dangerous, just that everyone carried at least one gun, a whole lot of
shells and often several grudges against
Clinton's attempts to run the country. Of
course, it's unlikely that the Grand American TVapshoot Tournament would invite
Clinton in the first place. "We need someone like George Patton for President,
that'll cut crime," said Bill Dirr, 69, a retired service manager with Pitney Bowes.
Jim Holian, 55, a gunstock manufacturer,
grumbled that "instead of paying for kids
to play basketball at 2 a.m., we should be
building more prisons." Friends nodded
furiously as Holian lambasted Clinton over
the din of 500 shooters standing in a row
1.5 mi
long and blasting away, part of a
10-dayJong ritual slaughter of 4.5 million
clay pigeons. The only thing thicker than
the gunpowder that laced the air was the
cynicism directed toward both Clinton and
Congress. Said Bob Walden, 52, a retired
suj»riTspr:i"It's not that I've lost faith in
our^naidon's principles. It's just that I've
lost all faith in our leaders."
^ Good thing Clinton isn't made of clay.
.Or is he? That question perplexes even
many of his supporters in the rolling hills of
southwestern Ohio's Montgomery County.
TIME first profiled the region two months
before the 1992 election, when both the
Bush and Clirton cartfpaigns were battling
for this key svhng cotinty in a critical state.
Angst over the economy won out over the
county's latent conservatism, and Clinton
1 : Bush 41% to 40%, with Ross Perot
taking 18%. TVo months into the Clinton
p
lency, when campaign pledges were
evolving into a flurry of presidential proppsals and Executive Orders, TIME retut
to the regiontofindvoters eager for
change yiet squirming like patients in a
' list's waiting room.
really 1 i t done anything good or oau,"
shrugs Karen Harris-Heidenreich, 32,
sitting in the emergency room at the
Good Samaritan Hospital last week with
her six-year-old daughter, who hurt her
arm jumping off a couch. A Clinton supporter who also backs universal coverage,
Harris-Heidenreich couldn't care less
about the President's personal and legal
scandals—so long as he gets results.
"Look, if Clinton can change this country,
then he can have all the affairs he
wants and he can even run his own
savings and loan," she says. Notes
Dayton's Republican Mayor Mike
Himer: " I don't think the character
issue would be such a problem if
Clinton were more effective."
Clinton's difficulties have divided those who voted for him into two
camps: those who are disappointed
with what the President has done in
Washington and those who are disappointed by what Washington has
done to the President. Back in February 1993, Steve Cordow, a 34year-old furniture repairer, boasted
that he voted for Clinton because " I
figured he'd stick it to the fat cats."
Now, says Cordow, "it looks like the
fat cats are sticking it to Clinton;
I mean it's getting embarrassing.
Sure the guy means well, but don't
we all?" Even Montgomery County
Democratic Party chairman Dennis
Lieberman concedes that "Clinton's
position in Montgomery County is j
not as strong as it was."
On a national level, Americans
still blame Congress more than the
President for the aimlessness of the Federal Govemment. Indeed, a new TIME poll
shows that 48% believe Republicans in
Congress are more responsible for gridlock, against 32% who fault the Administration. However, the President's support
continues to erode. The same poll shows
that only 40% are "very likely" or "somewhat likely" to vote for CUnton in 1996. The
figure was 57% just seven months ago, and
43% of voters actually cast their ballots for
him in 1992.
In Dayton,forexample, Clinton ought
to be coasting about now. Like many cities,
it has grappled with a shrinking industrial
base since the 1970s, when the NCR
Frigidaire and Dayton Press all pulled out
or closed down. But lately the economy has
stabilized, anchored by the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, which supports local
high-tech industries, and General Motors,
which employs 20,000 workers at eight
plants. Since 1992 unemployment has
dropped a full point, to 5.4%, in contrast to
6.1% nationwide. Next month Victoria's
Secret will open a catalog center, creating
^ _
_
hire more police, but otherwise crime is a
local problem," says Matt Wring, 38, a
#
painter. "It's parents not raising their kids
right and neighbors not looking out for
each other. If we wait for Washington to
solve our problems, then we might as well
just kiss our butts goodbye."
In the fall of 1992, health-care reform
was a major vote getter in Montgomery
County. Now it's more of a brain teaser.
"To tell the truth, I'mtotallyconfused
on the health-care stuff, and that's
why I voted for Clinton," says construction worker Bill Wright, 37. I
still want refonn, but now I'm not
sure whose reform I want. Which bill
is Clinton's anyway?" That land of
talk delights staterepresentativeJeff
Jacobson, who heads the county's Republican Party. "There was a whole
group of people who hadn't had any
^hopefora long time, and they came
put of the woodwork to vote for the
first time in 20 years, which really
[killed us," says Jacobson. "Now they
are back in the woodwork, and they
won't vote again for another 20
years."
Yet for all the frustration, many
voters are quick to credit Clinton for
at least trying to tackle the big issues.
He is addressing all the major problems we care about. It's just a matter
of whether he can do anything about
them," says truck driver Michael
Matthews, 34, who. voted for Perot
"for the hell of it" Mathews is not
optimistic. " I blame Congress," he
says. "That place has become a joke."
Lieberman says that "Clinton's biggest
achievement is bringing the question of
health care to the forefront of American
politics, and that is a major accomplishment even if nothing gets completed in his
term and even if he is not re-elected."
For Dayton Democrats, that is quite a
comedown from the heady days of 1992.
"Clinton won't bere-electedunless he gets
a grip on things," says James Sullivan, assistant director of the county board of elections. "The guy is just being nibbled , to
death by his enemies. The nuns taught nie
that you had to get them before they got
you. He needs to stand.and fight." Or stay,
out of Montgomery County come I996.^B ^
411
r
m
more than 1,000 jobs, while both Best Buy
and Kohl's are expected to open local outlets by year's end. Says Bill Odorizzi of the
Dayton Development Council: "Retail is
really exploding, and that's not just Chamber of Commerce talk."
All of which seems to do Clinton absolutely no good. "People just don't see that
anything he has done has made much of
a difference with the economy," says
"Rimer. Yet not much is expected of him in
dealing with problems like crime, even
though homicides in Dayton have risen
from 27 in 1984 to 47 so far this year.
Numbed by apathy, many voters view
Washington not as a force for good br evil
TIME, AUGUST 29,1994
33
�The Revolt Against Politics
Table 1
The Mess in Washington
Open-ended Responses
|
48 percent
Politicians, too much partisan politics, parties don't work
together, no cooperation gridlock
Washington insulated, out of touch, don't listen to the
people
21
12
Corruption, too much money, crooked politicians, no
honesty, themselves, not the people
12
Lobbyists, special interests
3
19 percent
Overspending, too much spending, wasteful spending,
government waste
9
Too much government, too much bureaucracy, too much
red tape, not run like a business
8
National debt, budget
2
lll^ftiliiMIl
Clinton, Clinton lacks direction, Clinton leadership,
White House
8
�7. Midterm Debacle: Catalyst II - The 30-Second TV Bombings
Just before Congress adjourned for the '94 midterm election, some Congressional
Democrats had expressed hope that by returning to their districts and states to
campaign, they might be able to regain the upper hand against the GOP. "Once we
get home to campaign to remind voters of our service on their behalf, things will
get better," they stated. "Once Congress adjourns and voters no longer have to hear
and see the partisan squabbling in Washington, things we'll look up," they also said.
But, alas, some extremely critical facts were being ignored. As already noted, many
voters were terribly incensed or disappointed with the legislative breakdown that
had occurred prior to the campaign, and were thus hardly in a forgetful or forgiving
mood.
Moreover, just as some Democratic legislators were expressing hope that a vigorous
campaign might be able to induce their constituents to forget the summer's
legislative wars, they, quite ironically, were gearing up TV media campaigns that
effectively had the opposite effect. From Labor Day to election eve, an angry,
depressed public — still seething from the summer's legislative mess - was literally
bombarded (in the middle of their favorite prime-time programs, mind you) with
highly negative, partisan ads. Those ads certainly did not help the voters forget
about the summer's legislative wars. On the contrary, they were perceived by the
voters, and quite rightly, as an unwelcome sequel to those wars!
(Perhaps the
equivalent of Police Academy XX.)
Every time one of these ads ran, an unintended but still perverse message was being
transmitted -- "remember the excessive partisanship and bickering this past
legislative session, well, here's some more for you to swallow!" It was a very sorry
sight indeed. I recall hearing, on a talk radio show, a self-described Democrat
blasting her party for running such ads. "I'm not going to vote," she said. "My ears
hurt from the screaming."
Going into the election campaign, the newspapers were filled with stories about
how the legislative session had degenerated into an unproductive, highly partisan,
negative session. The public had a similar view. Hence, everyone knew that the
public was baking. But still, the Democrats, individually and as a party, went
negative at full speed. They decided to embrace a negative campaign by attacking
the GOP's preposterous "Contract," rather than offer a positive reform agenda of
their own.
Both parties, by going hyper-negative, were effectively throwing tons of salt onto a
wounded body politic. It was, absolutely, the worst thing the Democrats could have
done.
But the very shrewd GOP knew that they would gain much from such a campaign.
They probably sensed that the more people were reminded of the awful state of
�Washington politics, the more likely they would hold accountable those perceived
to be in control -- the Democrats. And certainly they understood that a negative
campaign would only serve to depress turnout, particularly among those already
more likely to be predisposed not to vote - Democratic voters.
Yes, the negative TV campaign served the GOP's intentions remarkably well.
Democratic voters who were already deeply depressed ~ by their party's inability to
pass such programs as health reform and other legislation, to end gridlock and
change Washington — were only made more depressed by the fall media campaign.
Since their party was already in charge, and little had changed in Washington,
many wondered what was the point in voting. The negative media campaign with its unwitting but still incessant politics-as-usual message ~ may have
ultimately convinced many that there really was no point in voting.
Republican voters, it seemed, were more angry than depressed. And they were
more predisposed to vote than Democrats because they knew that because their
party was not in charge, they could still change things. For them, there was a point
in voting. And the negative media campaign, by both parties, likely raised these
GOP voters' blood pressure to very high levels. It gave them even more motivation
to vote. In the end, sadly, Democratic attack ads may have actually done more to
motivate Republicans to vote than Democrats!
Independents, more likely to be straddling the fence than others, may have been
most affected by the negative ads. If they had any doubt over whether everything
they despised about Washington politics had changed under the Democrats, these
30-second bombings fully jettisoned such doubts. Some stayed home. Many helped
give the party in power the boot.
(It is important to remember that most voters get all their information about an
election campaign from TV. They don't go to rallies or have meetings with their
Senators. Many, in fact, barely know their representatives' names.)
During the campaign, a few Democrats were arguing that the negative media
campaign was a necessary evil. It was necessary to stay competitive, they asserted.
Certainly, by raising the negatives of their opponents thorough these ads, some
noteworthy Democrats did become more competitive in their respective races, and
eventually secure a victory. But for others, and much more critically, for the party
as a whole, it was a classic case of winning a battle or two only to lose the war badly
in the end. Yes, many Democratic candidates did raise the negatives of their
opponents through these negative ads, and some jumped into the lead in the preelection polls. But ultimately, through their tactics, too many may also have
depressed the turnout of the very voters that they needed to prevail in the only poll
that mattered -- the one on election day.
In the week right before the election, it became apparent that Democrats were not
only risking being hurt by negative campaigns in their respective district and states.
�they were now endangered by the consequences of the public's perception that the
entire national campaign had become overwhelmingly negative. The negative
campaign had now, not surprisingly, become a major media issue. The media did
not invent this issue! They were merely picking up, and somewhat belatedly at that,
the loud complaints of the voters. The voters had become absolutely disgusted with
the campaign. In fact, days before the election, a "backlash" against the ads was
being reported on the national TV networks and in the printed press. Reporters
were being told by voters that, quite remarkably, they would not vote November 8
precisely because of the negative ads (see appendix ahead). The editorial cartoonists,
the op-ed writers and the literate public were all weighing in with deep indignation
(see appendix ahead).
On November 3, the New York Times reported that the "last two months of
campaigning have clearly soured the electorate; the number of those who
disapprove of their own representatives has doubled to 33 percent since September.
At no time since The Times and CBS News started asking the question in 1977 have
voters registered greater complaints about their own representatives" (see attached).
In the election's wake, a TV Guide poll (see attached) reported that "[f]ully 75 percent
of those who voted said they were "turned off" by the negative ads. More shocking,
however, was the poll's finding that "58 percent of those who did not vote said that
negative advertising influenced their decision not to cast a ballot. " As already
mentioned, a disproportionate share of those non-voters were Democrats. Turnout
was certainly not a minor matter in this election. Many of the House seats that the
GOP won were settled by small margins. Thus, any factor that served to depress
turnout was, correspondingly, a major matter!
Estimated partisan turnout rates (as compiled by the Committee for the Study of the
American Electorate) for the 94 midterm election, as well as for those elections
since 1970, are provided below.
N
�Partisan Turnout for Midterm Elections: 1970-1994
Ye^r
Democrats
GOP
1994
19.4%
20.9%
1990
20.2
18.9
1986
20.7
19.2
1982
22.7
21.5
1978
20.7
19.6
1974
22.1
19.9
1970
24.9
25.1
Source: Committee for the Study of the American Electorate (November 10 Press
Release)
Note: 1994 figures based on unofficial results.
The public was apparently so dismayed by the nature of the midterm campaign that
the DLC's post-election survey found that large numbers of voters were now
ranking campaign finance reform as a very high priority (see attached).
Perhaps the most insightful comments on the midterm media campaign came from
the head of the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate, respected
political analyst Curtis Gans. Complaining that attack-ads were "driving down
turnout," he further stated that "[t]hey are also destroying any semblance of political
dialogue, undermining the comity needed for the conduct of politics, eroding
respect for both our leaders and the political process, closing the political
marketplace to all but the rich and foolhardy, and foreclosing options in the
important business of government."
Gans offers a solution to this problem: "The most important reform that is needed is
not campaign finance reform, but campaign conduct reform"; "reform that begins
with the United States ceasing to be the only democracy which does not regulate
televised ads by either time or format." I am most sympathetic to Cans' proposal,
but, even if it could overcome the Constitutional hurdles, which is a dubious
prospect at best, the regulatory approach to proscribing negative ads should be the
last resort. And setting up boards to screen all commercials is not the optimal route
either. We should first give the completely voluntary approach a try, where both
parties agree to conform to a simple standard for all ads (see attached Positive
�Politics). Besides, would not a partisan-weary electorate have more respect for the
two parties if they agreed to halt these miserable attack-ad campaigns voluntarily?
�' vX--
• • • •!
TV UPDATE
WASHINGTONBALTIMORE
EDITION
GUIDE
Late-breaking news & views
November 26,1994
Post-Election Poll: 'Nasty' TV Ads a Massive Tomoff
•I
•I
•i
m
m
m
m
m
Has negative political advertising finally conservative New York Times columnist
gone too fax? Election results aside, voters William Satire. He believes that broadand commentators continue to voice dis- casters, as a condition of license renewal,
gust over the tidal wave of high-priced should be required to providefreetimeto
mudslinging that washed through TV in this candidates, presumably reducing the need
fall's campaign (estimated media spending: for paid ads.
more than $200 million, a new record).
TV attack ads are nothing new, but this
Punditsfromboth therightand the left year's races had more than their share.
are calling for reforms. "Money is becoming This was the most vigorously negative
too great a force in our politics," laments campaign of the TV age," says Larry
Sabato, a University of Virginia
political scientist. "Hie American
public was in a surly mood, and
very receptivetotrash appeals." - ^
Voters expressed stroHgTHS^'
taste for the negative tone of the
campaign. In a new TV GUIDE/EVItertainment Tonight poll taken
shortly after the election, 92 percent of eligible voters said that
half or more of the political ads
they'd seen on TV. were negative.
Fully 75 percent of those who votr
ed said they .were "tamed, ofF by
the ads, and 68 percent of those
who dig hot vote mid that nega- ffiffl
Bve advertising influenced their M
decision not to cast a ballot The If
depth of popular cynicism is M
shown by the 63 percent who tend
to believe politicians use negative
ads because "most people really
vote against something rather than
for something." * y •
Uesplte the obvious, conflicts \
with the First Amendment, which '
protects political free speech, some are calling for imaginative
Mb B)Agree.8omewhat~32^;|Mrcentr'
ways to clear up the airwaves. One
''•C-jy
Wuhington-BalUmor* Edition
TvauiDE/49 .
�IUPDATE
ISTVG/ET poll said negasuggestion is to allow any
jutive ads were "sometimes
negative ad as long as it
"useful" in informing them
is the candidate, not an
about candidates, though
anonymous off-camera
Just 32 percent admitted
voice, who shows up onJ & i Career Politician'
A
the ads "influenced" their
screen to denounce his
^ WWSay or O
i
r
vote. But given public
(or her) opponent's inRn>1linj:4D'Slaynn Office doubts about government
tegrity, brains, business
and pols, there is a grow- %
practices, or character.
ing readiness to hear—
Another proposal requirand believe—the worst
ing longer ads, to force
A whopping 63 percent
candidates to go beyond
ads.
30-second scare attacks. Viewers cast a no vote on negativebf those polled tended to 4
Columnist Peter Bart of Variety suggest- agree that "most politicians are really out
ed, tongue only partly in cheek, that all for themselves" and can't be trusted. That
political trash talk be clustered onto a sin- suggests that while negative ads may be efgle channel—"The Nasty Channel"
fective, they also tamish everyone in the 4
Ad mogul Jerry Delia Femina of game and deepen public distrust
—Peter Ross Range, Reane Rudolph
Ketchum Advertising, a national agency,
took out a full-page ad in The Wall Street
Survey Nixes Smith Flick
Journal denouncing "political filth." He
called for a bipartisan board to screen all
Do we want to see a TV-movie based
political ads using the same ethical stan- on the story of the Susan Smith
dards now required for commercial adver- murder case? In another TVG/ETpoll,
tising—a scheme that Syracuse University the results of which were released
last week, 78 percent said no. Sixty-six
political scientist Thomas E. Patterson
percent say they won't watch if it airs.
calls an "administrative nightmare" in Ithe
(Unreleased footnote: A staggering
heat of a Castmoving campaign.
'
99 percent had heard of the case.)
Conservative strategist Charles Black;
denounces allreformproposals as "elitist argumentjs]."
CABLE
He believes the current sysi
tem of mutual maligning Basic Rates: Bad News/Good News
worksfinebecause with follow-up watchdog reports, Cable rates just came down last year, and now they ,
"the press plays the role of could be going back up. Hie Federal Communications x
referee." Yet fonner broad- Commission will allow cable companies to raise rates
caster Marvin Kalb, now a up to $1.50 per month for basic service—in exchange
visiting professor at George for six new channels. Look for such expanded offerWashington University, feels ings ias Court TV, The History Channel, Sd-Fl Channel,
that traditional TV news was Cartoon Network, and Comedy Central Loosening the
"marginalized" in 1994 by recent rate caps is supposed to revive new cable procampaign commercials.
grammers, who had gotten a big chill after rate cuts.
What drives negative ads, "There had been a lot of consumer interest in new
say political pros, is a simple channels, but the industry hadn't been able to get them
fact They work More than to the public," said an FCC spokesman. Increases can
—P.R.R.
50 percent of the voters in the begin after Jan. 1.
^
?
Feinsteir
Ee lie
vn
1
i
i
ll
ir
!:
11
l
50/TV GUIDE
WashlngtorvBaltimore Edtloh
�n o w l y i V " ! I * " i i . Ton»>'r»». «">
••
'",
;
/
rt to Prun
....No.4V.M9
M
J;:W
<•'—'•
VOKK. -n/uffSDAV.
NQVEMUI'M
VTR DGSE
OES I UTD
S
WH P L I I N
T OI C S
I
TA
A EET N NAS
S LCI ER
O
fcy LAURENCE ZUCKERMAN
no) u bit
ita S n » p ^ B « r M f Conwra-
M «s flaoibojnnl
te ukeoven u c
niMUiooMflAe
MMUMlncfelo
.IW4ltoniracmio
L n.
to
HII
tO CENTS
X m*
es of the Go-Go SO's:
covers in a Comeback
-
) m 41 l»-l«ll< W
A FEELING O PESSIMISM
F
w o u l d
billvn. « <le«l
'?""
ihe lhln»-l»rg«« Unll«J Sule«
uft^rnk concern. |P«1« 1
D 1
poll Show the Ms Poo n
ot r f u d
S ne o Ai n to A og
e s f le ai n mn
tbe Public Sn e 1 7
i c 99
trmt imketrm m the foodM»
^ ^
eluding the por^rfBonkol^brJe^
»enia«j« firm K c M K t . K r o w Roberu * Componr. Brt «her
r
• y KATHAMNt Q. SEEL Y E
nmTtM kao TBeodor'i etectlm.
M m a n prahaaaDy aMaotn)
boot ftetr ekoad npreaenuihra
»ah». -Wle tt* cairtlrtwtnn ot
the •aawy •oJ • " " " • " " i ;
^Mrteo M » tnbfced eoow ^ the
tadpueer
MklMd R. MOken.
bu »l«o reuimed. Neoriy • l"'
oat of the ukaivera thb jar
HOaiy RadbKB
„
RcJ^eocoporrt w l * l
"
-Ipm^tatheeBlyWWt
,
^ • ^ BM
the meiser «cthr*r
^ J ^ , .j.tode^-hWiw^*™*^ ^ 2 .
S i »
^ 7
" « »
t
a
cooo lonhuily Bntowm "»»•
Mr
«" PoM <• «» -
MIa
™''
h M H t * IliWlrtnn tbe cunml
w
^ g, a,.
H
U r
mugtc om-WDM you MCtt>d«yore »>
c a ^ m e * pojrkx a
10 oojolre other ™«=d
dooP«».DaXl*»-»l
vwlfc Loses LibelSuit
ntt a New Yorker Reporter
• y DATIDIIARCOCICK tv
•'
I I I I W I ^ II ITI I
ijiil'iliMl'iiilVii aw'the ftaan
< » aolka. accorhoi to t h e j y a
M n Yaet T l ^ a ^ B S Nem PoO.
DtopM
t m v t m b oear the
itcorM M A
awre than M
p r o a , o< ihooe p o M a m —Me
aadecKdeOlctaltherad-
Perot to Help
Golisano'sBid
For Govemi r
•y DAVID FIRESTONE
Wbea the can freo Ron
taatay to Haa; Haa petpte lay ibey
a n fnauaud aad eyakal aod led
M We M i wend oat of their COB^ j T d i - t fed the i w * * of £ £ "
oMOy b««« "W ootnl a n r
|
ErLnthrr
tapb"
i
S^amiMaoamydrmtlc^
M c y o f B.TtaMS —
to » wtprlK IBOVC, the
« ( r « d to cunpoKa wt* Mr.
M O O O Sunnlar. to ippwronfw
a >atat a m UMileraKa « • * M
^ r ^ — ~ . oa suunmr la ManMnai
airfuoraiqrMertotedayk
Mn. Fteher aa> taw of the re-
utomi oi»i i|iiii<iiiiifnn—r
poO of l.Of
aMU, takea Oa. J» thraufh No». L
I M poll hoi a natita of a a ^ t
Ho one w u uftm the *ord tD-\ m m ot f t a » aawiUine pematt but corona i joy otwr
w-r-—mi.. •••••
�. VMOA ecu c^su i iisnc ana rower less, foil Indicates
Contuturd F r w n Pajt*
Sjc Kcto Dork Smc*|CR> NEWS Poll
Al
e a c f « r d s i c k l e a tear by • q u a n t r
af A n w n c i m lhal s o w d O M r r i a Uve w i n t a v b n job la ibe next year,
and a concern by 4 of 10 about their
s a f a y . u y m x there is an area within
a mile of t h o r hofnes m-here they
would be afraid to walk at n i g h t
C o n f o u K b i g p o t H a k e n . n n u vote n c a n t i n j e to how A d t l e i f not
c o n t r a d i c u r y oocions about COoBm thetr overall regard for
ute muitutioK o o n t i a w s l o plummet,
with Ihe number wbo d j u p p r a v e up
a f u l l \% pettcaiace poials since Sepmuber.
T h r w - f o t i n b s of the people m r w y e d dis«,ppnmd o f the job Congress as a inbote is dotag. just about
the same fcvel as disapproved m
July 1991. ahea d i s p m with Conp e a k i d a l news d the House
t a n k scandal Only 20 peroenl a i d
they a p p n n a d of tbe Job Congress
was doing.
One Public, Many Frustrations
Do y o u m i r k mat five years b o m
now things in the UnaeO Sftoes
w * b e beoer. worsa or ffie sama
astieyarakxtay?
50%
4 0 j a lhaaaaaitiCK
~ \
wflhaw.
30
\
20
ooctehxe w f i l i * *
In • year when many poHitrtiiw,
t n d u d t a t Pretidert CUouo. have
blamed tfaeir poitticaj woes oo the
presx^ raoa at those u r v c y e d n l d
they had at k a s HKDe oaofldenoe ta
the newt tfaey t e l . wttether f r o a
i d e v U a a . radio a r n m p a p e n . But
most people a i d they thought the
media " g r u in the w a y " o l sofvtng
the c o w x r y * ! problems and usually
makes t h m s f appear worse than
they really axe.
t
"
10
0
30 "62 B4 W eB
'9?-94
By a m a r g i n o l nearfy 3 to 1, those
w r v e y v d said tbey usually get most
of their newt f r o a television and
about hatf said they tune into potidcal t a f t A o n on televtsfan o r radio
sometime* o r frequently. Bat the
poO s h o w r f ao f r t u h r o h ^ b e t w e n
w t e n - s o v e c s o f news and their
level of cynfcssm. prsslnrtOT o r
abenstke f r o m the poitticaj process.
O c n l k n o w l 3%
Trart
H o w m u c h of t i e bme d o you
t a r * y o u c a n Ousl Ihe
G c N u n i i u t f in W a s f a i ^ o n to
doafolishgM?
V o f c n s t a J » V T their o w n reprv-
« j i break, o o o p a r e d with
tne rest of Congress, b * anger at
their eiectioa o f f K i i b is a b o moual1 dramatically.
-TguFS*
" ^ ^ ^
Do you ihink me k a m of me
ntad Qeneratcn of Americans
wdl b e belter, or a c n e , or a b o u
•he same as Ha today?
.
Hoar m u c h say d o you t a r *
people I k e youraef t w e a b o u t
vrfiflA tfw gGwyrvnef t dues?
Instead, two-thtnts of those surveyed said thai i f Americans were
w h a p p y with their elected tdTiciah^
tbey - h a v e themselves to btame:By a margin o l 5 percentage
potux. registered v o t e n said they
expected to vote more Repubticaa
than Oeaocratic Hits year. This Is
statisticaOy inngniftcant. g h m the
G o o d deal
Some
^ ^ r - A i i n b m e s n o e Tbe T i m e *
and C g T K i ^ n U J i i w J MSEf&This
que«UM wx 1^7 ftavr v o t f n r f p s i«ieaftreJtci HklipUmuabout t M r
Donmnow
aairra
poQ's m a r g i n ot u m p t r n g e r r o r
D o n l know I 1 %
a t h i r d i h m l , tf»nr o w n
trvw
cJ«rr»^
athed
about
CongrrK
at
onJy I 2 p e r c c n i i h i n k m o s i
of
Congrcu.
deservt
w h i l e 82 p e r r e n t
s u n
about
want
c i 1races. But t h e r e a r e other indications
Do you happen | k n o * rr*e
name ot tne Representatn* n
Congress from y o u dts:rcT'
When
a
0
wttole,
members
?
rr-elecltoo,
CorgrriS
Yes.
ple.
Yei
more
i f »JI n t *
ihjn
half
iaid
in
Chii j ^ ' f
holds
ih«-
sum*-
mnifjrv
is
(urrm-T
uf
VK-WS
D^n
o(
surveyed
jny
1^*1
^immt-i
ul
. i.iMipinKi
th^rK'-s
*«i
SrHHlIU
" t i H j n r
lil<-*J
M r
I""
'
• M.-
S <(f lflK
M i
M . H
f
m-
H i v k n
k^Kl
h l i t 11 h n n
.i H i * ' f i M I . i n
io
-rnl
ffir
iru-
( fin
lln-V
U K - ILIIH-I
Iw- i t i k i i n K
ifi'-.f
("it
In-
i<-f Miin
favored
middle
hrlicve
(.ovrmnv-ni
ihouk) br
it
|t«-nerally
the
less
In I m l
.
llw-V
I'.il
h.f.l
.
Mull, r
71
.mint;
M .|.„„t-
" - .,^J
f..-.
IT
l-ll
Mi-
ll
.ill
A n * r . .
- O N
sj, .l
»
> O l d fi * r_i*T- /nil-
(
h
l n • » ^ fur i h e
|fi-nifii
of
"The whole world U
•
a good Job. bat k i h a r d l o r h i
make « . The more he makes,
more it takes. He can't seem l i
On the Trail
Developments yesferttey ^ c a m p a ^ n s across the country
WASMMCTOM
ejection
rnng
ST ATI
ol Gov
Sp<*ar>e.
aga^isi
Ross
Ann
Wasn
Pefot.
W. RcTiaros
. on Fnday
is m a oec*
saO
partr
and
Mr
and
Perot
a putM;
who on Tuesoay
of Te«as.
K> soppod
Hepresentatrv*
Fo*cv
aKjes
Tom Foley,
nee*
'ace
wou*d
ptans
ftepuWcan
George
on Froay
the
re
lo be m
caodtdate
the Speaker
against
appea/
endorsed
a Demoaat.
ihe
fun-
of ihe House
Nieihccuti.
at a luryj
Mi
wnose
faising
cockiaii
t**f
problems,
think
havr
lir-.ir i( u t i l K - i r m i x h p r u / n o l i - d
ii.i.i
th'iih
Anicrtra."
fur
In
.it < u i i i l i l i s h
tin-
i>
CtmHi'-ss.
in
slki*ltd
rht-
whj(
parly.
nt-vrr'
"( o n |»IIIIV'H
it w ; « f i i « i o
fWKl
(tw
Ihr
M-nbliNi
'if
H c j H l t i l u tld*.
Ii
i->lt
tniH'tl i
">fti
i h < . ' G i o f » e a n d T h e B o s t o n M f * a i d . p u l h i s t c M o * * h.4 R e p o b l c a n
c h u v . ' i t s . af>d i h e w x i
va/'fqfw.'
-'t
1
A » W M .
.Ml
li.lVf
!»•
i Mllirtl
I I H »
I
in
„ .
!r*e G l o b e e d i t o
" T - ^ H<?faid e n O t x v x i M '
KKnney on Sun
rr^jtev.-nis a O J i ' i c e ' o * ^ i".*si'-^A'l
Mf
n o m r ^ c ^ irM-,
t
1
" . . w * ! . - i - s " r*»a h ^ s
t.j c * ' " ^
' K w i n t l * f ; i « i ' i n " a n d reVjaVHj «
f
1
n f * tf.-fw.i^-i 1 c i f ^ " . f r , . a ( o ^ ( ' i a v / ' ' K J thai if^/rnc
W
WAtMHMTM.D.C.
l
ijam
Mj'KX
S * r j < 4 C.f**-.!!
jirtni-.l
1
l i H * » f y J ' . wf»0 . i » t m o » l c e r t a i n t o <U
tt-" r ^ ' t u t i ^<.d\*i:ti
M» r i r f ' r , l y ^ - s c d l o f f - j . i j M
t o o * I t * ufcrctgo y ^ t i 1
I I N - * » « . t a r K i ro (Jn/f; ,
rfiKl rt'i u i i . - i ri.^it i - h f ' U u r f f i - « i ' ' f X t ' ' j ' t " ' ' ! n i i . U M f ) H . i ! 1 W ; A v . . x . > : i l
'I'.ii)'.^'n
W ^ S l -
H i k . .
»Spc*ct-nf
K e n n e d y ' ••nil cX> e v d T K W O lo» M a s s a
* « • • • MX.-'it n - ^ i . 1 ^ ^ - c a r n ^ - ; t . f i y H I t h f . t l f j c a , " - g J ' t M r t n c t g h t x *
- 1 1 - a . ! . . . .1.-1 V .
'«
K e n n e d y o c ^ e d ^ it»een-
chaite^gn.Mili R o ^ r * / . a ' a t o m l ^ i a W c
nai s a * j t h a i .n a n o r r t e i i c » r r
fl.ly I I.i-
Senator E d ^ f d M
c K ) ' V r v r ^ t o < The B o v c x i G-oOe y e s i e r d a y a s 1 * 0 o r * polls, p u b l i s h e d
KrpuMitins,
voif-rv
ft I.I i n i i l u ' - p u n r
m-
Republican
57 p e r r e n i
((»untry fn-rdt J new p o l i d c ^ l
i ihink
lo«
be-
Roocevelt,
ihe
Mtiidi
»IIh
nni'-ni."
I hose
divided
D.
v o l w d m solving n a t i o n i l
(i.
J * - . - * . .t
r ;.,%.-i
Franklin
^ [ • ( I K J . K h. Hut
I . . .
.1 I . i '
ItM'Ki^'h
owa> raise Iheae DOS
i n d keep them oat of IraoMe.
fa-
view
alienation.
were equally
rvmocrais
iti.ii
MiiM*tik'jk^tki
.,r f i M ' . i k s
said she was vastly O M I T
CAMPAWNMCCST
t u U A O t u s r m
Ifivkt,
ffJllJI 'wj
Ameri-
| t v d 2-it>-| m a r n i n . p w j p l e
SJVI-T^I
I n ! fx' t*.tnr*
voter
p a r t y of
ih<-
s j t d h«- lfK*u**hl I h j l i r » r f f i i i i < - C t m ^l>-S%
Asked bow she felt a b o u the
c * . Shbtey RaaoDs. H oT S u i t
r l . i N s DT t h e p o o r .
*.iy».
Mr
all
U v m e d the n c h and those w h o s a i d
ihcsf-
.ind M«Mns (.-•/mmiini-. wfrn w j s
tlHtt-d
of
twi-en those w h o sJKj the D e m o c r a t s .
HPS rf[»(tv
percent
m e a s u r e of
H<»sr»-nk(Hkski.
(h-tnnun
Tues-
the D e m o c r a l s favorabty. In another
H i v k n . 74 j r r l i J » T 3 p n o l f - r
(••M-ni^iw-
hold
into
v o r a b l y , w h i t e o n l y 44 p e r c e n t
ih(
•^•min^lv
may
going
cans view the Reputrikran P a r t y
res.
f>nrrr
J w p h
Republicans
Ftfty-four
people wi-re elected,
i h e G o v e m m e n i w o u l d run w o r h
advantages
day's halkxing.
COrreel 2 6 %
ihji
thai
some
Trur* aoout al' o*
e<ecJeo
o«c«ats loday. is there any
one ejected puOlic o f l o a i
today thai you a d m r e
7
to
f r o m « r a i r t i w i t h alt n e w peo-
r\en
tbe fiscal year that ended ta Se
ber I t n . the deficit was at a b
S2904 bBhoo l a the fiscal y e a
ended to September l « H Bis i
had faBea l o P O . 4 bflboa. M r j
. ten t o t * office h i J a a u a r y I H J
not a c c u r a t e l y p r e d i c t r e s u l t s of lo-
rvpmenu-
re-eleciiort.
and
I r a n " said T o m I ravers. Se. who
a e m d a i the A i r F o r c e a d was a
donimrorxeaaiaf worker k i A a n r
„ . Cbio. t a d U s m a t tayofl. - A a d
oa RaW. he « d tta rtgbt i M a c . Y « tke paWk •cauJas l a r j e f y
- a a e a s y - o n e r M r . OtstOB-s-ahOky
todtal w t s d y w k k a dOTkaOl k a e r aaUcnal o l s l s . - a a d v o l e t s s t g da
apt give b u a c i edit l a r l i n w i w b i g d i e
economy, v
nf l i i i l i m i t u nf Hn
wtUle aearty O m .
(btak tbe u i a a a a j i s p e i l u i i a k i g
weflMore pi mik r t r k ^ . wiuugly. that
his budget actually raised the d e f k *
than thinfc he reduoed the deficit, lo'
because such a general question can-
TTty-su p«rceM appravr of their
o w n r r p r c s c n u i f v Y s , but onjy
How the Poll Was Conducted
Rocs P * n * d e i r v t r r d a biaw to Cfce
N r w York n i m p d ^ r * o f C c o r f * EL
Pwafc / o r c o v t m o r
ffivtnf
Jke
would campatgn w»t> fi TV>nias
Co/uano. o i i n d t p m d m L P a j * B&
tl-.M, I I I ^ r - k - J
l - l l ' ' * !
FiJi-f.
i./i-.i '.Ml.-' V ' , . .
ll'.H f)*' * . ^ , l ' ) f . , '
•>
h.i
. m l r . - . t ^ - s
Hon!
.H(4
(
l
ii.fti
r.it.«!'.|M l,-ri
« « t
(
. i . t f i l i - i l •'< i t
l«(^- J '— > V ' - * " " )
t
t
I:II>
r.n
llll 1 l i . K h r i
II*-HIII
in
MI...I
h.
{.I.i
siim** l i n n -
»j.i.i .»
r
i f use Mf
tu
f - w . i l . * r, m t ^ l e . i t t | j t . v i ) f i ^
H i t f f j ' » x t «*».-• «•() t o
O i * i m ' . t r;,.,,, .,-.1
i v ?
ttdiM t n * i n
"
�1
32 '
DLC.Q1: Frequency Questionnaire, November 8-9, 1994
APPENDIX
Total Sample
(Priorities Ranked by Combined Single/Top Few)
Single
Highest
Top
Few
Near
Top
Mid Toward (Don't Single/
List Bottom know) Top Few
13
9
12
49
51
41
21
22
19
12
13
17
4
4
9
1
2
2
62
60
53
46
44
38
20
19
22
15
18
22
6
13
9
5
2
2
53
48
46
34
35
18
20
19
24
15
10
1
1
46
45
35
40
21
25
17
17
14
9
2
3
45
45
38
38
20
19
19
18
9
17
8
3
44
43
37
18
20
19
3
41
5
4
5
6
35
31
28
24
24
24
21
20
20
27
26
25
15
13
18
17
2
2
1
8
40
35
33
30
3
1
24
25
16
20
28
32
25
17
4
5
27
26
1
1
1
20
17
15
20
16
15
33
27
33
21
32
34
5
7
2
21
18
16
62.119. Protect Medicare and Social
67. Cut the size of the federal
7
bureaucracy
4
61. Limit campaign spending
58. Cut taxes for the middle class
8
72. Ensure that everyone has health
12
insurance
10
52769. Cut taxes
60./77. Pass a constitutional amendment
10
to balance the budget
. 63./80. Impose a two year limit on welfare. . 6
59. Limit govemment spending on
6
entitlements
5
78. Limit lobbyists
64781. Limit the number of terms for
4
Members of Congress
54771. Expand job training for every worker
51768. Give the President the line item veto.
76. Limit government spending on Medicare,
51.HA. Create a new world
trade agreement
84. Abolish federal programs and agencies. .
56./73 Increase defense spending
�8. The GOP's Vulnerabilities
Someone once said that in every election victory are sown the seeds for the next
election defeat. And so it may be the case with the GOP -- if the Democrats recognize
the GOP's vulnerabilities and exploit them p r o p e r l y .
conspicuous vulnerabilities are listed below.
The GOP's most
o Believe They Have An Ideological Mandate
Many i n the GOP are clearly interpreting their massive electoral victory as an
endorsement of a rigidly conservative ideology. Undeniably, there was an
ideological element in the election, particularly among those concerned about social
issues. But the GOP seems to be ignoring, or discounting, more significant factors.
First, many voters apparently did not so much vote for them and their agenda (only
25 percent were even aware of the "Contract") but against the political status quo,
against politics as usual, and against those perceived to be in charge, the Democrats.
Second, apparently, the only voices the GOP seems to be listening to these days ~
and not too well at that ~ are the voices of those who actually voted November 8.
But only about 38 percent of the voting age population bothered to vote, and the
GOP garnered only a little more than half of that share. Clearly, in this case, it
would seem to be the height of wisdom to make an effort to also hear the voices of
those huge throngs of non-voters. But the GOP, and too many Democrats, don't
seem to be making such an effort.
The GOP, and once again too many Democrats, are convinced that the public wants
first and foremost, to see government cut substantially.
They do want cuts. Most
definitely.
But that does not seem to be first and foremost on their minds.
What
voters seem to want, first and foremost, is a government that works effectively, and
yes efficiently, on their behalf. That's the essence of it. Citizens seem to know that
while cutting government may make it more efficient, that can only represent part
of the equation. Such cuts may do little to put into effect the other parts of the
equation: a government that works effectively on the people's behalf.
The polling data offers clear proof that the public is hardly foaming at the mouth to
scuttle the national government. A just-released Times Mirror survey queried
citizens on their level of support for 14 government programs and reported that
although down from the past, "support for increased spending, plus support for
keeping spending at the same level, add up to very impressive majorities, ranging
form 63% to 94%, for every one of the 14 government programs asked about...."
Recent surveys have also shown that the voter's views on welfare reform more
closely match the President's than the GOP's. Most striking, perhaps, is data from a
September Times Mirror survey on voter blocs with heavy concentrations of Perot
and independent voters. As the attached numbers illustrate, such voters (placed
under the "New Economy Independents" and "Embittered" headings), who voted
heavily Republican November 8, have surprisingly high levels of support for some
�government social and economic programs/policies, and in some instances, levels
similar to that of Democratic voters.
0 Not Addressing Primary Factor Behind Election Victory
1 could imagine a Ripley's Believe It Or Not headline on the midterm election -"Believe it or not, the Republican Party, after winning one of the most decisive
midterm elections in history, failed to sufficiently address the primary factor behind
their victory -- the public's collapse of confidence in the legislative process." Yes
indeed, the primary cause of the GOP's stunning midterm victory was the public's
loss of confidence in the ability of a Democratically controlled Congress to work
together effectively on the people's behalf. Yet, with the exception of proposing
term limits and engineering cuts in committees, the GOP has given short shrift to
reforming the legislative process. And those proposals will, of course, not
adequately deal with what the public perceives to be the critical deficiencies in that
process — excessive partisanship and negativism, too much special interest group
activity, and a body of elected representatives too out-of-touch with their
constituents. (Term limits, in fact, might only serve to increase the power of special
interest groups. There is also little reason to believe that they would preclude the
partisanship and negativism that the public so dislikes.)
Newt Gingrich said recently on Nightline that he expected most of 1995 to be a
period of bipartisanship, but he also indicated, rather matter-of-factly, that the end of
the year would probably bring a "breakdown." I waited to hear an additional
comment, such as "that would be too bad," or something like that. But no. Newt,
for all his shrewdness (and he is shrewd), for all his street-smarts, has apparently yet
to understand that such breakdowns go to the heart of why Americans have been so
turned-off with Congress and Washington.
They don't want their Congress to
function only during non-election years, for just two of every four years! And
Americans certainly don't want to give up their hard-earned tax dollars to pay the
salaries of a full-time Congress only to get a productive one every other year! For
all his talk of "reforms," the new House leader has apparently lost sight of
something incredibly obvious, something that must be understood if we are to
engender true political reform. That's his and his party's vulnerability. But it
shouldn't be yours.
o Feeling Cocky
In politics, as in sports, one of the worst things that can happen to you is when you
actually get a big lead, go way ahead in the polls. You stop worrying about your
opponent (s) or tend to discount them, not to expect much from them. As a longtime Chicago Cubs fan, I know all too well the inherent dangers of sitting
comfortably on your lead. There may a shocking surprise right around the corner,
and if you're caught unprepared, you'll be passed by right quick. The GOP also
seems to be sitting comfortably with its new "mandate." Now, it's up to the
Democrats.
�VIEWS ON THE ISSUES BY TYPOLOGY GROUP
(Percent Who FAVOR)
si/
Total
Enterprisers
Moralists
Foreign Policy:
Using U.S. military force
to prevent N. Korea
from obtaining nuclear
weapons
71
70
77
70
70
70
71
63
73
78
68
Using U.S. military force
to restore democracy
in Haiti
43
33
45
44
40
34
40
40
52
50
51
Crime:
Restricting sale of
hand guns
58
40
53
56
64
59
62
75
63
54
58
Three-strikes and your
out policy
85
87
89
88
89
80
83
75
85
84
76
Economics:
Increasing income tax
to reduce deficit
26
16
24
24
24
21
25
41
36
24
33
Free trade agreements
between U.S. and other
countries (like NAFTA)
62
75
55
73
62
55
57
75
68
49
51
Uber- New Econ. Embittarians
Indeps.
tered Bystanders Seculars
83
New
Dems.
New
Partisan
Dealers
Poor
�Total
- > New federal spending
for education and job
training for displaced
American workers
Reducing capital gains
tax to encourage investment in U.S. companies
Social Policy:
_>> Allowing Medicaid to
help pay for abortions
—> Health care reform
requiring employer
mandate
Allowing gays to serve
openly in the military
Two-year limit on
welfare benefits
Eliminating welfare and
other benefits for illegal
immigrants
Enterprisers
Moralists
88
70
89
80
95
86
90
69
83
71
82
72
69
43
28
26
66
51
62
25
55
38
52
34
30
76
85
83
69
Uber- New Econ. Embittarians
Indeps.
tered Bystanders Seculars
N
Dems.
New
Dealers
Partisan
Poor
96
89
86
89
60
69
65
61
54
37
45
79
41
38
39
73
65
72
72
76
68
72
66
71
44
51
88
54
46
43
85
84
75
70
68
69
73
79
58
75
86
72
65
58
63
57
72
55
84
i.i.
ew
�THE DETACHED CENTER
NEW ECONOMY INDEPENDENTS
ORIGINAL TYPOLOGY COUNTERPART: None
18% OF ADULT POPULATION
19% OF REGISTERED VOTERS
PARTY ED: 52% Independent, 27% Democrai, 17% Republican
COMMENTS: Not anchored in either major party, these are the most important swing voters in the new
electorate. While most of them have jobs, their middle class status seems precarious in the post-industrial
economy, and the future uncertain, at best. Unreceptive to traditional partisan appeals. New Economy
Independenu were one of Perot's two best groups in 1992. Today it is the group most supportive of a third
major party.
DEFINING VALUES: Characterized by conflicting values. Not believers in govemmentregulationbut
strongly environmentalist. Pro-social welfare but not especially sympathetic to the problems of blacks.
Somewhat xenophobic, but with a very low militancy level. Associate themselves with fundamental
religious beliefs, yet are highly tolerant of homosexuality.
TOTAL
NEW ECONOMY INDEPENDENTS
Most elected officials don't care
what people like me think.
64
84
Govemment regulation of business
usually does more harm than good.
54
68
Stricter environmental regulations
are worth the cost.
62
79
Kev Beliefs:
WHO THEY ARE: Mostly female, young to middle aged, and employed. Less likely to own their homes;
more likely to be divorced. Despite an average income level, it is a very financially pressured group. Four
in ten are working women; 11 % are single mothers. Includes some white collar professionals as well as low-tomid-level service workers.
WHERE THEY LIVE: Widely dispersed, but somewhat less prevalent in the South.
MEDIA HABITS: Average in newspaperreadership,TV and radio news consumption.
LIFESTYLE NOTES: Somewhat more likely toreadbooks for pleasure, go out to nightclubs.
POLITICAL ACTIVISM: Slightly below average rates of interest in public affairs, political knowledge and
vocalization. Only about a third claimtoalways vote.
1992 VOTE: 45% Clinton. 29% Perot. 24% Bush
KEY ISSUES: Split its vote in 1992, but endorses much of the Clinton political agenda. Solidly supports health
care refonn with employer mandates, stricter gun control laws, new govemment spending for job training
programs and gay rights to serve in the military. Also favors federal funding of abortions, mandatory
sentencing for violent criminals and Congressional term limitations.
HEROES: Norealpolitical heroes, but gives above average ratings to Jesse Jackson, Ross Perot and Al Gore.
HIGH NEGATIVES: Jerry Falwell
�THE EMBITTERED
ORIGINAL TYPOLOGY COUNTERPART: None
7% OF ADULT POPULATION
7% OF REGISTERED VOTERS
PARTY ID: 39% Independent; 36% Democrat; 16% Republican
COMMENTS: This very poor group with family ties to the Democratic Party lacks the Partisan Poor's faith
in the party to better their lives. Many of the Embittered also have doubts about the competence of Bill Clinton
and the Democrats and feel estrangedfromthe party on moral issues. Few of these struggling people, however,
feel welcome in the GOP, the party associated with therichand powerful.
DEFINING VALUES: Distrusts govemment, politicians and corporations. Religious and socially intolerant.
Believes strongly that discrimination is the major barrier to black progress, but is not a strong proponent of
social welfare programs.
TOTAL
THE EMBITTERED
Government is almost always
wasteful & inefficient.
66
73
Most elected officials don't care
what people like me think.
64
86
Hard work & determination are no
guarantee of success for most
people.
30
44
Business corporations make too
much profit.
52
60
Kev Beliefs:
WHO THEY ARE: A low-income, very financially pressured group with low levels of education. About onefourth are African-American. Middle aged, with familyresponsibilities.Four in ten have children under 18;
11 % are single mothers. Although more likely to be labor union members, the Embittered tend to work at lowskill, low-wage jobs.
WHERE THEY LIVE: Most live in the Midwest and Southernregions,and in small cities, towns or rural
areas.
MEDIA HABITS: Average readership of newspapers; average viewership of TV news.
LIFESTYLE NOTES: One of the groups most likely to attend Bible study or prayer group meetings and attend
religious services on a regular basis. Gospel music and jazz have special appeal.
POLITICAL ACTIVISM: Registers to vote at average rates, but rates below average in voter turnout, political
knowledge and vocalization.
1992 VOTE: 51% Clinton, 27% Bush, 21% Perot,
KEY ISSUES: Solidly favors a school prayer amendment; opposes govemment funding of abortions. Divided
on the issue of gays in the military.
HEROES: JFK
HIGH NEGATIVES: Insurance companies, MTV, Rush Limbaugh
17
�9. Political Reform & Two Distinct Agendas
Seeing the Forest for the Trees
I believe that progressives -- i.e., those who still believe in the efficacy of the
national government — have two routes toward political reform. They can define it
relatively narrowly as simply another major goal of their agenda. That is the
conventional approach. Unfortunately, three problems emerge with this approach:
1) it is not attuned to the existing political environment of widespread public
distrust of government institutions and functions; 2) it seemingly ignores the
difficulty in getting any agenda through an often hostile, indifferent or slowmoving Congress; and 3) it denies progressive Democrats a golden opportunity to
outflank the GOP in a positive, constructive manner by being seen as taking the lead
with specific proposals, to try to mitigate those first two problems. This first
approach would be presented as follows:
"Our agenda will accelerate our country's movement in the fast lane of the
superhighway of growth and progress.
It includes a series of new tax benefits for
middle class citizens, a Middle Class Bill of Rights, that will help them strengthen
their finances, upgrade their work skills, minimize their college education costs, and
help them reduce catastrophic health costs. We plan to pay for this by sharply
cutting the size of the federal bureaucracy and by continuing to squeeze out federal
waste and inefficiency. Also on our plate is a welfare reform plan that will make
welfare a way station, not a permanent home. And campaign finance and lobbying
refortns are also necessary to keep special interest groups from blocking our travel
on that superhighway of growth and progress."
The second approach to political reform is the route that is not only best for the
county but also -- by far - the most politically astute path. It recognizes that
political reform must be defined broadly, be all-encompassing, affecting not just
policies and institutions, but all processes and players. It recognizes that political
reform should not be viewed as merely another component of a larger agenda, but
as the effective vehicle for delivering that agenda, for facilitating its enactment, and
for convincing the voters of the agenda's merits. For this approach is truly sensitive
to all aspects of the public's deep distrust of Washington: the widespread belief that
the national government, and particularly Congress, can't get anything done, and
whatever is done is likely not to work for average people. The broad approach to
political reform recognizes that no matter how many worthy 10-point programs or
policies you propose for the middle class, you still may have a terribly difficult time
getting any of them passed, not to mention persuading voters that you will get any
passed; and you'll probably have an equally hard time convincing voters that such
programs and policies (including tax cuts) will work as advertised and are really in
the voters' interest - rather than in your interest, your party's interest, or just
another a goody for the special interests.
�Only by accepting these fundamentals of political reform can you then craft a series
of proposals designed to make such reform a reality. Proposals that target all aspects
of the principal sources of fuel for voter disaffection — the legislative process, the
electoral process and, of course, the very institutions of government. That's the
route toward real political reform - toward a Political New Deal. And if you do
take that route, you may secure a golden opportunity to seize from the GOP the
"change" and "reform" mantles that they have taken from you. The GOP,
ironically, has also yet to grasp the true meaning of political reform.
The second political reform approach should be presented as follows:
"Without sweeping political reform, we'll have great difficulty enacting our agenda
-- an agenda that will accelerate our country's movement on the superhighway of
growth and progress.
Sweeping political refonn means a code of
bipartisanship
designed to induce the two parties to work together tirelessly for the people's
interest and to constantly remind them that country must always come before party.
Sweeping political reform means minimizing the influence of special interests —
through campaign finance and lobbying reforms — to ensure that all new legislation
and policy reflects not special interests but the people's interests. And sweeping
political refonn means the adoption of new, innovative mechanisms -- such as a
Citizens' Legislative Commission — intended to make the people feel less alienated
from their own govemment by allowing non-politicians
to more closely monitor
the work we are charged to do on the people's behalf. And we certainly have critical
work ahead!
We have proposed a series of new tax benefits for middle class citizens, a Middle
Class Bill of Rights, that will help them strengthen their finances, upgrade their
work skills, minimize
their college education costs, and help them reduce
catastrophic health costs. We plan to pay for this by sharply cutting the size of the
federal bureaucracy and by continuing to squeeze out federal waste and inefficiency.
Also on our plate is a welfare refonn plan that will make welfare a way station, not
a pennanent home. But again, absent sweeping political reform, all this may end up
as nothing more than another Washington pipe dream."
�10. Choosing Headlines
Below are three distinct newspaper headlines with comments following.
o "President Speaks Up For Middle Class"
Comment: Just looking at the surface, this is the kind of headline you want to see.
But you certainly can't just look at the surface these days. Any way you slice it, the
above message seems predicated on the assumption that the voters will trust
Washington's legislative process to actually get things done for the benefit of the
middle class ~ that the President will propose, and the Congress, putting aside
partisanship and special interest group pressure, will then act accordingly. And the
product, naturally, will be fine and dandy. But as you know, the voters have quite a
different view. One poll is etched in my mind: Weeks before Congressional
partisans tried to kill the President's noble crime bill, a Wall Street Journal poll
reported that only 15 percent of those surveyed thought that a new crime bill would
be effective. Fifteen percent!!
Unless you address this cynicism head-on, you will not be dealing with the core of
the problem you face. You will not be seeing the forest for the trees. And words are
not enough! You need an agenda! An analogy from the auto industry comes to
mind. People, to a considerable extent, didn't become comfortable about buying U.S
cars again until they believed that not only had U.S. cars changed, not only had the
products changed, but so had the automakers that produce the products.
o "President Advocates Cutting Govemment"
Comment: Once again, on the surface a good headline. The people do want their
government slimmed down. But they also want, and seemingly to a greater degree,
for their government ~ by putting aside partisanship, factionalism, and special
interest pressure -- to work better for them the citizens, to get things done for them,
to be an effective problem-solver on their behalf. Certainly, a slimmer government
will help ~ and that is part of the rationale for the highly meritorious reinventing
government initiative — but it's not enough. It doesn't address excessive
partisanship and factionalism, special interest activity, and the people's sense of
alienation from their own elected representatives.
No government-cutting
program adequately can. Government - particularly the legislative aspect of it must be changed as much as it must be cut! That appears to be the people's view.
And it's certainly a view that's in the country's best interest.
o "President Says ^Change Everything About Washington' To Better Average Folk"
C m e t That's the ticket!
o m n:
�11. Principles Of Broad Political Reform
o Broad Political Reform Means Comprehensive Reform
The public, for good reason, now has diminished faith in virtually all aspects of the
national political system. They have expressed deep dissatisfaction with the
legislative process and Congress, the campaign process and the actors involved, the
policymaking process and the federal bureaucracy, and the criminal justice system.
It is no wonder that a May '94 Washington Post poll found that 75 percent of
citizens believe that there should be "major changes" in the way the federal
government operates. The breadth and depth of the public's loss of faith in their
own government is truly a problem of epic proportions. Yet, amazingly, no one has
yet to address this problem in a fashion that is commensurate with its nature. (One
would think that just the prospect of gaining at the ballot box would be ample
motivation.) The Americans do want fundamental change in the national political
structure. Undeniably, therefore, it is in the national interest to attempt to deliver
it; for a national representative government that has lost public legitimacy is no
longer a legitimate representative government.
o Political Reform Must Be Presented To The Public As Comprehensive
The more you present publicly your political reform agenda as sweeping, as
comprehensive, the more you will align yourself to the public's thinking -- and thus
the greater your chances of securing subsequent electoral benefits.
o Broad Political Reform Requires A Broad, Intense Selling Effort
To convince a cynical public that you really want fundamental political change, you
have to be seen as making an intense, prolonged effort to effect it. And unless the
Democratic Party as a whole unites behind such an effort, it will be difficult to
convince the public that the effort will produce any lasting results. At the very
least, the more the party does strive for broad political reform, the greater its chances
of creating a positive record in the public's mind in time for the '96 election. By
now being seen as carrying the banner of broad political reform — and never
dropping it — the Democratic Party could, in time, become the powerhouse it once
was, forging a new coalition that combines the traditional core elements with vast
numbers of the politically dissatisfied and alienated.
o Democrats Need To Both Talk The Talk And Walk The Walk Of Broad Political
Reform
Getting to the very essence of the matter, the American public wants, first and
foremost, for those in Washington to change their behavior. That's the real heart
of it. They want their officials to legislate differently, by putting the national interest
above party and special interests, and above all, by striving to get things done for the
�greater good; to campaign differently, by eschewing attack tactics; to make policy
differently, by empowering citizens not dictating to them; and by implementing
policy differently, by keeping red tape to a minimum. In fact, to engender broad
political reform, all players in the national political arena must be prepared to
modify their behavior ~ whether they be legislators or lobbyists, campaign
consultants or bureaucrats. Ultimately, embracing such reform means that all
Democrats should not just urge an end to politics-as-usual, they must strive to
practice what they preach, as much as possible, as often as possible. Otherwise, in
the very weary public's eyes, it's just more of the same wretched game — more
politics-as-usual.
�12. A Political New Deal - Blueprint For Victory In '96
Presenting A Broad Political Reform Agenda
The Components:
I. Institutional Reforms
A. Expanded Reinventing Government Initiative
B. Congressional Reform (Requiring Congress To Abide By All Laws It Enacts)
II. Process Reforms Requiring Legislation
A. Campaign Finance Reform
B. Lobbying Reform
III. Process Reforms Not Requiring Legislation
Rationale: 1) By embracing these reforms, you will be addressing the very matters
that seem to most upset the voters about Washington ~ excessive partisanship,
negativism, gridlock and officials seemingly disconnected from their constituents and that no major political player has yet to fully address; 2) by innovatively
addressing matters, therefore, that no major reform agenda has fully addressed, you
then have a real chance of being perceived as leading the charge to change
Washington, instead of being derided as just reacting to the GOP, or being pale
imitators; 3) and by addressing the same matters (partisanship, etc.) that have been
particularly troubling to Perot, independent and marginal voters, you will have a
solid opportunity to impress without having to abandon your core principles.
A. Voluntary Code of Bipartisanship
Description/Rationale: The Code is described in the attached excerpt from the
Positive Politics strategy (which I inked in April '93). The Code is really only a
model, though I think a good one. Its intent would not be to try in some way to
legislate bipartisanship,
but to further legitimize and formalize it. Of course,
Washington politicians don't need to legitimize bipartisanship in the public's mind
- it already has been — but need to show the public that it's been legitimized in their
minds. Pushing for the Code, I stress pushing for the Code, might be as critical as
actually getting it accepted by the other party. You don't have to get the GOP to
accept it to potentially benefit from the proposal. The harder and louder the
Democratic Party does push for it, the more it will be seen as embracing the very
ethic that the voters want embedded in the legislative process -- cooperation,
compromise and consensus. Not only may Democrats gain more political capital as
a consequence, but the GOP may feel public pressure to follow the Democrats' lead
�(that certainly has a nice ring to it) to honor that same ethic. And since GOP
moderates are more predisposed toward compromise, the center of ideological
gravity could then be pushed from the right to the center, in the
Democrats'
direction.
There other strategies Democrats could employ. They could let the GOP have their
legislative way in the hope that they'll hang themselves, but if that didn't happen.
Democrats could appear completely irrelevant and ineffectual. Or, they could wage
total war with the Republicans and risk being damned, perhaps along with the GOP,
as practitioners of politics-as-usual. (A Perot-financed independent party, perhaps
nominating Colin Powell, could then pick up the pieces.) Under either scenario, the
Democrats could be severely hurt publicly and end up with even less capital. Then,
they might have little choice but to surrender even more ideological ground to the
GOP to be a legislative player, or be still more strident to please a dwindling base.
But maybe, the GOP could still hang themselves by appearing too extreme. That, I
recall most vividly, zvas the hope of Democrats during the 1981-82 period as Reagan
was enacting his agenda. The GOP did have some problems in 1982, but retained
the Senate until '86 and the White House until '92.
But what about a strategy of going along part of the time, challenging the GOP the
rest? That would not violate the Code if the following conditions were met: 1) the
debate was engaged in a constructive manner with negativism minimized; and 2) a
concerted effort was made by both parties to reach eventual consensus on all matters
of manifest importance to the entire nation.
Of course, in the end, the Code would not require Democrats to do anything, since it
would be strictly voluntary.
And far from forcing Democrats to sacrifice their basic
principles, it might, along with the other process reform proposals made here,
greatly increase their chances of protecting the integrity of those principles. When I
made the Code proposal last spring, I recognized that, if implemented,
it would
likely increase the power of the centrists in both parties, those most willing to
compromise. I decided that breaking gridlock once and for all and restoring faith in
Congress as a representative
body should be afforded a higher priority
than
ideological purity. I still believe that. But today, the Code proposal may also serve
another purpose: enhancing the ability of Democrats to guard their most sacred
tenets by giving them a mechanism to marginalize those on the hard right whose
dogmatic viexvs are most at odds with such Democratic tenets.
B. Citizens' Legislative Commission
Description/Rationale: See attached Positive Politics strategy. The Citizens'
Legislative Commission is intended to give average citizens a few more ears and
eyes in the legislative process, as well as an opportunity to help reform it. Citizens
regularly complain that Washington politicians seem too distant from them, and
too unconcerned about average folk. Although it was not mentioned in the original
description, the three independents on the Commission would have to be non-
�politicians, with average incomes. Needless to say, this proposal might have some
appeal to Perotistas, independents and the disaffected.
C. Voluntary Ban On Negative TV & Radio Ads for '96 Campaign
Description/Rationale: See attached Positive Politics strategy. Making this proposal
would be like saying that you're for Mom and apple pie. It has now become trite for
media pundits to say, in referring to the midterm results, that the "voices of the
voters have been heard." Make this proposal and the voters themselves will
believe that you've heard their voices. It would be stressed, in making the proposal,
that the rationale would not simply be to make campaigns less offensive to voters,
but to try to preclude the return of full-fledged partisan warfare. For it can surely be
argued that just the anticipation of a negative election campaign spills over to the
legislative process to create a more tense, divisive atmosphere.
D. Institutionalization of Televised Town Meetings
Description/Rationale: The President would propose that every time that the
White House and the Congress are considering sweeping budgetary, tax, or other
policy changes that will affect the entire nation, as they will in '95, a series of
nationally televised town meetings would be held. Such meetings would allow
average citizens to discuss the ramifications of the issues involved directly with
legislators from both parties and Administration representatives. The citizens
actually attending the meetings (more than one site, linked by satellite, would have
to be involved for each meeting) would be a scientific sample representing a cross
section of the nation. Independent, non-partisan groups would be asked to sponsor
the meetings. Those attending the meetings would be polled afterwards on their
opinions of the matters discussed. The results would, of course, not be binding on
anything. This would not be a referendum. It would not be designed to replace the
legislative process, but to enhance it, to make citizens feel more connected to the
process. As the Citizens' Legislative Commission would be intended to give
average people more eyes and ears in that process, this proposal would be designed
to give them a chance to have their voices heard, at least for a couple of nights,
above the usual din of special interest pleadings.
Obviously, part of the rationale here is to appeal to the vast numbers of the
politically disaffected. But there's more to it than that. Right now, more than
anything, perhaps, you need to expose the GOP's proposals as being a threat to
average Americans, among other things. But if you resort to simply attacking them,
you will likely only come across as negative defenders of the status quo. Besides,
Democrats have precious little credibility left on these issues anyway. But the fact
does remain that the thrust of many of the GOP's proposals are at odds with what
the majority of Americans believe. So you still must find a way to turn the spotlight
on them. The televised town meeting approach is clearly the best way to go.
Through this approach — assuming you can get the GOP and at least one of the
major networks to go along — you can be seen as engaging the GOP in a positive
�constructive way on these matters. And, hopefully, you may also get average
citizens to effectively play the role of surrogates for you in attacking the GOP
proposals. You probably won't gain much with headlines like these — "Democrats
Attack GOP Budget." But you might gain much more with headlines like these -"Citizens At TV Town Meeting Worry About GOP's Proposed Cuts."
�II. Positive Politics: The Specific Proposals
Ground Rgi pgr Partisanship
e§
As already indicated, the proposals discussed below are absolutely critical to the
success of the Positive Politics strategy, even if some lack intricate details. By
offering specific proposals, designed to fundamentally change the nature of partisan
politics^ you would be doing something virtually unprecedented — going well
beyond the usual opining about the evils of unbridled partisanship by presenting
specific ideas for minimizing it. You would, in simple terms, be offering action, not
just more tired words. After all, voters now probably expect to hear all politicians even the most stridently partisan ones -- bemoan excess partisanship, and in
particular its byproducts, negativism and obstructionism. And when you hear the
likes of Phil Gramm register such complaints, you know they've become little more
than political platitudes.
What voters probably don't expect to hear from politicians, nor have really ever
heard from them, are real ideas to convert partisanship into something more
benign. And that's precisely why these proposals, i f properly presented and
forcefully pushed, have the potential to impress large numbers of voters.
Moreover, they are, I believe, what's right for the country.
To the best of my knowledge, no major political figure in recent years has offered a
set of proposals designed exclusively to minimize partisanship i n both the
legislative and political processes. (If anyone has, a major selling effort was certainly
not mounted.) The goal of campaign finance reform and lobbying reform has
essentially been to reduce the pernicious powers of special interest groups, but not
really to control partisanship. Even Ross Perot, for all his verbal jabs at the two
parties, never offered specific ideas to limit partisanship, although his concept of
electronic town halls may have been conceived with that in mind.
The three proposals below are obviously not brimming with detail. Not being
legislative proposals, they need not be full of fine print. And the proposal for a
voluntary ban on negative campaign commercials certainly need not be complex.
The remaining two proposals are not overly detailed by design - so as to invite
negotiations between the two parties on the fine print. By giving the GOP the
opportunity to negotiate the proposals' details, in contrast to a "take it or leave it"
offer, the Democrats would be better able to convey to voters the seriousness with
which they view the proposals. Should the negotiations fail, which is probably
inevitable, an out is proposed.
o Voluntary Ban on Negative TV/Radio Commercials
The Democratic Party would propose a voluntary ban on negative TV ads for all
Congressional races this fall. Obviously, determining what precisely is a negative ad
could be terriblv difficult. Who ever admits to running a negative ad anyway? To
�avoid this problem, the Party would propose that all Congressional candidates and
both parties agree not to make any critical direct or indirect reference in their ads
(applying to both words and pictures) to either their respective opponents or the
opposing party. A very simple standard would apply: In their ads, the two parties
and their respective Congressional candidates could only make reference to
themselves or their respective parties; even the use of terms like the "other party"
or the "other candidate" would be forbidden. However, references to the opposing
candidate or party that were manifestly positive or neutral in tone would be
allowed. For example. Candidate X could state in an ad: " I've asked Congressman Y
to endorse my gun control proposal." But Candidate X could not add — "but
Congressman Y has not responded to my gun control proposal." The latter
statement could be construed as criticism and thus would violate the negative ad
ban.
This simple standard would make it nearly impossible to run a negative ad. Since
the two parties would only agree to the proposal voluntarily, legal issues would
almost certainly not arise. Probably, however, some renegade candidates ~ the
marginally sane Robert Doman comes to mind — might still want to defy their
party's wishes and still air attack ads. The Democratic Party would suggest at the
outset that each party choose its own course for handling the deviants.
Should the GOP spurn this proposal, the Democrats would then suggest that the two
party chairs and a representative from a leading non-partisan group — the League of
Woman Voters, for example — participate in a national town meeting (see more
below) in order to reach an agreement. A national representative sample of 1,000
citizens would be invited to participate in the meeting, both in-person and via
satellite hookup. At the meeting, after both parties had an opportunity to present
their respective cases regarding the negative ad ban, the non-partisan group would
then ask the citizen participants to vote electronically on whether they approve or
disapprove of the proposed negative ad ban. The two parties would then agree to
abide by the vote.
Should the GOP reject this proposal too, they would find themselves in a tenuous
position: not only would they have rejected a proposed ban on negative political
advertising, but they would have spurned an effort to allow the American people to
decide on such a proposal.
o Voluntary Code of Pipartisanship
The two-part voluntary Code of Bipartisanship would not be intended to penalize
partisanship but simply designed to bring a measure of discipline to it through the
establishment of a set of ground rules. The hope would be that such rules, nonbinding as they might be, might preclude the manifestation of the clear and
injurious excesses of uncontrolled partisanship - negativism and obstructionism. If
that is too much to hope for, the Code would likely, at least, raise the political costs
�for those who do exhibit such excesses — hence, it would be hoped, making that
behavior less frequent.
Part 1 -- Reducing Obstructionism
Bv accepting the first part of the voluntary Code, both parties would agree publicly to
subordinate their partisan interests to the national interest regarding any matter that
clearly affected the nation as a whole. This could apply to virtually all of the prime
pieces of President Clinton's agenda -- health reform, welfare reform, crime,
technology promotion, etc. To fully conform with this part of the Code, both parties
would agree to resolve their differences on any major legislation of national
importance during the Congress in which the legislation was introduced, unless it
was introduced six months or less before the term's end. For legislation to be
defined as "major," it would, at a minimum, have to be introduced in both
chambers. Both parties at the beginning of each Congress, before specific bills were
introduced, would draw up a list of matters perceived as affecting the nation as a
whole expected to be addressed through legislation during the term. A non-binding
deadline for passage of each bill during the term would then be agreed upon, to
insure compliance with the code. The input of a Citizens' Legislative Commission
(see ahead) would also be solicited.
Frankly, I'm not entirely sure whether this particular proposal, even if presented as
being non-binding, could be legally implemented without legislation. But if even
legislation were required, the proposal should still be made. It might just offer the
right antidote for lingering gridlock. And then there are the potential political
benefits. Besides, in contrast to Lamar Alexander's notion of turning Congress into
a part-time body, the proposal made here is certainly on the modest side.
Part 2 - CpPtrollipg Negativism
This part of the code would be undeniably vague, but no less important. Accepting
that partisan warfare has demoralized large numbers of Americans, members of
both political parties would simply agree to try to tone down their criticisms of one
another, particularly while being on the electronic media. They would agree to
refrain totally from personal attacks, and instead keep the focus on explaining their
philosophical and policy differences.
The Democratic Party would offer to negotiate the details of the Code with the GOP,
but would insist that its basic intent not be changed. Should the GOP refuse such
negotiations or should they transpire and fail, the Democrats would then ask the
GOP to agree to bring the dispute before the aforementioned national town meeting,
during which the meeting participants would vote on their preferences for the code.
Both parties would then be expected to honor that decision.
�o Citizens' Legislative Commission
The non-governmental Citizens' Legislative Commission would essentially
monitor adherence to the Code of Bipartisanship, attending legislative sessions,
party functions, and so on. It would also issue reports at the end of every Congress.
In addition to assessing how Congress and the Executive Branch had performed in
honoring the Code (of course. Congress would likely be the bad boy), the reports
would offer recommendations on improving such conformance. The Commission
would be composed of five individuals (each serving a two-year term): two would
be representatives from the two parties and the remaining three would be
independents selected by three different non-partisan groups (it would make
political sense to designate United We Stand as one of those groups). Commission
members would have a small full-time staff, which would allow members to limit
their Commission work to a part-time basis. The two parties would spilt the
expenses of the Commission equally.
As with the preceding proposals, the
Democratic Party would agree to negotiate the details of this proposal with the GOP;
and, similarly, should negotiations fail, it would ask the GOP to put the proposal
(and any counter proposals) before a binding vote at the aforementioned national
town meeting.
Although the Commission would really only possess symbolic power, it could still
have a significant effect. The hope would be that its mere existence would force the
practitioners of negativism and obstructionism to think twice before they engage in
their behavior, perhaps making such actions less frequent or, at least, less intense.
�13. Excerpts From The President's State-of-the-Union Speech. January 1995
"...a government of the people, by the people, and for the people..."
"For too long, Americans have viewed their national government as representing
nothing more than a mockery of Lincoln's conception of a "government of the
people, by the people, and for the people'. That must now change! I ask all those
here tonight, and all who are watching or listening, to join me in a great crusade to
make that noble conception, once and for all, an unassailable fact! We have
certainly made a good start. Vice President Gore's praised reinventing government
initiative has been successfully ferreting waste and inefficiency out of our
government. And we plan to go further by cutting the size of bureaucracy much
more, transferring some federal functions to the states and localities, and ultimately
shrinking our government to a size not seen in well over a generation. We're
turning big government into a much smaller and better government!
But merely cutting the size of our government and making it more efficient will not
by itself make it a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. It
will help, but much more must be done! The people already knozu that!
No, a government of the people, by the people, and for the people will require all
officials, elected or appointed, to fundamentally
change their behavior, to model
that behavior day in and day out -- whether legislating, making regulations or out
campaigning -- on the way average citizens act: in which cooperation,
compromise
and consensus are the norms, not the exceptions, zvhere people don't shake fists at
one another, but hands with one another!
[President turns around from podium and walks toward Speaker Gingrich and
shakes his hand.]
[Great Applause.]
Now that wasn't so hard, was it? [More Applause.]
But that's the way average Americans behave every day, is it not? Despite all their
problems, they usually find a way to work with their neighbors, their school mates,
and/or their co-workers for the greater good. And that more than anything else, I
stress, more than anything else is what the people want from us! A l l the time!
Yes indeed, cooperation, compromise and consensus must first become the norms
of Washington behavior if we are truly going to make this a government of the
people, by the people, and for the people.
Yes, absolutely, creating a government of the people, by the people, and for the
people requires replacing ideological battle lines with communication
lines, and
making sure that all officials waste far less time taking sides while spending far
more time working
side-by-side!
�Creating a government of the people, by the people, and for the people means
campaigning
the way the people want us to campaign for elected offices ~ in which
the people have the chance to hear the substantive issues that affect them properly
debated on their airwaves, instead of them being forced to see their
airwaves
misused to offend their senses, to damage their political morale, through
the
political pornography of 30-second TV attack-ads!
Creating a government of the people, by the people, and for the people demands
that all officials put country before party - and yes, also country before factions of
party ~ day in and day out, during both election and non-election years! No citizen
wants to see his nation's top legislative body function effectively only during nonelection years, for just two of every four years! No one wants to see gridlock return
every other year! No American wants to give up his hard-earned tax dollars to pay
the salaries of a full-time Congress only to get a part-time one in return! No citizen
wants that! And we should not allow it!
Creating a government of the people, by the people, and for the people means
accepting the fact - and supporting new policies accordingly - that the national
interest does not equal, has never equaled, and never will equal the sum total of all
Washington special interest groups!
Creating a government of the people, by the people, and for the people necessitates
new opportunities, such as my proposal to institutionalize televised national town
meetings, for average people -- a people grown to feel terribly disconnected from
their government — to engage their government officials, both elected and
appointed, in regular discussions about all proposed laws or policies that will affect
their future.
In short, creating a government of the people, by the people, and for the people
means just that -- a government that always fully mirrors the people's values; a
government that understands the people's fears, feels their pain, and not only hears
their voices, but listens to their words; and most profoundly,
a government
that
unceasingly works for the betterment of its masters - the people.
[Turns to speak directly into camera.]
But of course, ultimately, all this will likely not happen without your help, my
fellow citizens.
I need you, my fellow citizens, to speak out for these reforms, to speak out so loudly
that your voices reverberate in every building, in every office of this city!
In my office!
In every bureaucrat's office!
�In every Congressional office!
In the offices of the two parties!
And yes, in the office of every lobbyist of every special interest group!
Yes, my fellow citizens, I need you to raise your voices loud and clear for sweeping
political reform!
And, my fellow citizens, if you do speak out, loud and clear, you the people will
help write golden words in the history books of your children, grandchildren and
great grandchildren. For those books will say that it was this generation of
Americans that turned their government, once and for all, into a government of the
people, by the people, and for the people. "
�PRESIDENT CALLS FOR
"SWEEPING" POLITICAL REFORM
OFFERS NEW PROPOSALS
Seeks To Discipline Partisanship And Create "Citizen Friendly"
Politics
Special to the York New Times
Washington, January 11 — In his State-of-the-Union speech last night. President Bill Clinton
called on Congress and all members of both political parties to embrace a sweeping agenda of
political reform that "brings clear change to virtually every aspect of the national political process."
The President emphasized that political reform has been "far too narrowly defined by both the
Democrats and the Republicans." And "that, in no small measure, explains why the two-party
system is in such a state of public disrepute," the President said. "Political reform is usually
defined as campaign finance and lobbying reforms and the purging of waste and inefficiency out of
govemment, but as highly important as those reforms are, they still don't add up to broad political
reform, not the sweepingreformthat you the people manifestly want," he added.
The President defined such sweepingrefonnas that which "will induce fundamental changes in the
way both appointed and elected officials in Washington think and act, whether they're legislating,
promulgatingregulationsor hitting the campaign trail." According to the President, this means "a
legislative process facilitated by a formal code of bipartisanship that induces elected officials to
make cooperation, consensus and compromise the norms of their behavior, not the exceptions"; a
policymaking process that "engenders new policies that fortify not Washington bureaucracies but
the work ethic, the family unit, and the community"; and "an electoral process in which candidates
substantively debate the people's issues, rather than shock the people's senses through the political
pornography of 30-second TV attack ads."
The President stated that the "American people are ahead of the politicians on broad political
reform, because they almost intuitivelyrecognizethe essential nature of it, that everything else we
hope to do is dependent on it, not the other way around; and absent it, we'll have more partisan
bickering, more gridlock and more wasted tax dollars." To illustrate this point, the President said
that while it is obviously possible to induce political reform without health reform or welfare
reform, "it may be impossible, as this past year starkly demonstrated, to enact welfare and health
reforms without truly comprehensive political reform." He then posed a rhetorical question: "If we
don't try to come up with ground rules for partisanship, if we don't restrain the special interests, if
we don't try to bring an ethic of pragmatic problem-solving to Washington, do you really think
we'll make serious progress in attacking the problems that concern you so deeply?"
In specific terms, the President said his political reform agenda will include: the reinventing
govemment initiative (which may be broadened to encompass a devolution to states and localities
of certain federal programs); campaign finance and lobbyingreforms;the aforementioned voluntary
code of bipartisanship and "a non-governmental Citizens' Legislative Commission" to monitor
conformance to the code; a proposed voluntary ban on negative TV and radio ads for the 1996
campaign; and "the institutionalization of national town meetings to ensure that legislators and
policymakers truly hear the voices of average citizens during both election and non-election years."
�In offering the last proposal, the President praised Ross Perot for joining with him in 1992 to give
"legitimacy" to the concept of national town meetings. The President said that "the time has come
to make these meetings a permanent, regular fixture of the national political process." This doesn't
mean replacing the existing legislative process, he explained, but "enhancing it, making it more
citizen-friendly." He continued: "When the Congress is considering any comprehensive proposals
that will profoundly affect most citizens, as it surely will this year, representatives from the
Administration and both political parties in Congress should hold a series of nationally televised
town meetings, attended by a representative sample of voters, to debate the merits of such
proposals. Then those attending the meetings would be polled on their opinions of the proposals.
Of course, the results would not be binding on the Congress; the meetings would not be a
referendum. But they would give members of Congress and the Administration alike an
opportunity, before they make far-reaching policy and legislative decisions, to look into the eyes of
a national cross section of citizens and hear, and hopefully understand, their deepest hopes and
fears. That is precisely what our representative government must now be about."
�APPENDIX:
PARTISANSHIP & NEGATIVISM - THE PEOPLE SPEAK (TULY - NOVEMBER
12241
��'A
tTl»j*MIIM;TO!
A8 SimDAY,Juu3,1994
Familiarity Is Breeding dbmei
impression of the productivity o( Democrats and Republic ans Ixlnn
Congress and of its members' moti- the most critical of the DinD" i |ic
disapproval—is right in line with vations.
controlled Congress. £
that.
It found large gaps in the public
Among the best-infori&id D'
The disapproval number is down 5 knowledge of what this Congress hat crats in the survey, about J thin
percentage points from the level done, but discovered that those who. 35 percent—approve of tb(? jdb t
when the 103rd Congress began in know more actually think less of the • Congress is doing, while & p.:rr(lit
January 1993, but it is 26 poinU legislators' performance.
disapprove. Even informed Den >higher than it was 20 years ago,
According to the survey, 67 per- •jcrats in districts with a Don* rat in)
when Congress was confronting cent of those who are most aware of ''the House gave Congress ! negative
President Richard M. Nixon in the Congress's accomplishments during rating.
!
impeachment proceedings that led the past 17 months said they disap' The principal reason, as tlx yill
to his resignation. Unlike many oth- prove, compared with 51 percent of
results and interviews make cle.ir. «
er political attitudes, this one does those with little or no knowledge.
that the public sees Congresi
not split on partisan lines. Six out of
Only 31 percent of the knowl- through a lens of deep suspibm. 0
10 Democrats and an equal percent- edgeable approve, compared with 40
a aeries al questions relating to u ha
age of Republicans say they disap- percent of the least informed. This
makes members of Congress tick
prove of the job Congress is doing.
relationship between high informa- theiublic is notably more neyatrv*
In an effort to dig behind the per- tion and low approval held up even tharfjl was a decade ago.
sistent low regard for Capitol Hill,' when theresultswere broken down
Overwhelming majorities'say they
the survey asked about the public's by party, with the most informed
thinli'(that members of Congress
care.'inore about special mterests j
than about "people ate youTind cjre y
more'about keeping power.'ttan I
about tbe best interests of the na- V
tion. Few think most membere teve
.. a high personal moral code. Lnge j
numbers^say most candidates for ;
• Congress .make campaign proimses
..they have'ico intention erf fulfilfing
PHYLLIS BAGNELL, 37, a;
and quickly lose touch with the 'ijeohomemaker and part-time radiology
ple after coming to WashmgtooX;
technician in San Jacinto, Calif. :"What has
Not surprisingly, the public favors
Congress done to help me? What have tbey
term limits for members of .Con
done that has really benefited the country? I
gress by 3 to 1.
^
don't see a lot of stuff, I just don't see it I can't
say that they've reduced my taxes. Did they try
More than a third of those intei •
to clean up the welfare system? No. Are they
viewed—37 percent—consistently;
helping the elderly on Medicare? No. It's like. .
offered the most negative evahiatia^
Tm sorry guys, I don't see any benefits.
when asked their perceptions of the
work habits, honesty and integrity of;,
. Congress. Less .than one-fifth ex-rj
] pressed few reseryatkns.
f -,
"I see Congress as upper-class people to
Among the cynical third of the
begin with, who arent used to us lower- and
public, only one in four plans to vote
middle-class, working-class people's lives. So in Congress they are dealing
) to reelect the incumbent, even
with a lot of special interests, lobbyists, etcetera and it seems the things that
- though 46 percent said they apget done aren't really things that ire good for us.
proved of the job he or she is doing.
"My idea is that you need to find a mean income average of America. I
In contrast, three out of four of
personally think that whoever gets elected into office, before he gets to
those with the least cynical views of
serve in Congress, has to live on that amount of money for a year. Make him
Congress approve of the job their
see what it's really like for most of America because I think they've lost
representative is doing and half say
touch with reality, and the longer they stay in Congress, the more reality
they plan to vote for the incumbent.
they lose touch of."
Asked to judge how much Congress has accomplished since January 1993, only 4 percent said a great
TOM GERAGHTY, 77, a retired,
deal, and 20 percent a good amount.
machinery salesperson in West Palm
An overwhelming 65 percent said
Beach, Ha.:
.
.\
not too much and 9 percent said it
"Congress has accomplished a great deal,
has done nothing at all.
rvaUy, but they have done it in such a totally ; ^
jr
The bhme for this perceived inacscrewed up manner they drive meg
— K^tion rests largely on nartisanshm
could hayaUQe it I
More than half of those who liS3Wt
CQESMP Ms Hodp Uttie of notfang
"-jffiTBiTjggeslreasoiiilor j n ^ c k
hSHRPIdoirt think t
the iMbdity of KepubbcanfVid
scoundrels."fte*areL__.._,_ ,
riemocrata to WOT together One
do IhflicJbttt: Tl^^t*1nil3Mte<i the
otlT 61 hve lays the problem on Presipeople who can help them and will compete
dent Clinton's failure to provide ade.iir.-iiri';! each oihrrfnr sum'ss. Thrre is nnlhine
POLL, From A)
1
VOICES OF AMERICA
Seven People Speak Out About Congress
*
1
;
�Jegidatibn of
time raising money t h ^ r ^ e r ^ ? W m (ft legislating ai»4 jwfery piea'dfj^pfe
legislation that they dci^^igj)^^
the.&ctiba( it has been.'
bought and paid t o r ^ - " ' •
|
•' •' '
•^.five-day deliy and background check
on anyone trying to buy a handgun is
now law.. Nearly?:as many know
BEVERLY LUCAS, 40, a factory worker in Pulaski, Va. '
about the family leave lawrreouiring
"They talk a lot about bringing in more jobs. And really. I mean if you look 4 employers to give workers unpaid
around, there are no more than what it was. And they say they are going to 1 time off when there is an jiUness or
bring in more of this and more of that to help the low income person and the
new baby in the family. '
•$
people that are on unemployment, and they say they are goingtohelp and
Half the people know that .Conthey haven't helped anything. Thev hist more or less get up there and argue;
gress approved the North American
Q^j hiVlfor wiih nr\\ fhi»r ingfoart ni pptfincrinwnand rlninfrjUMnpthing
Free Trade Agreement (NPAI TA)
about it."
eliminating trade barriers with lexico and Canada. But major econ mic
legislation that was the center < f an
DeLEON WILLIAMS, 54, retired from Eastman Kodak, in
epic struggle in 1993 has vani(hed
Dallas:
from public consciousness.
Only one voter in three cr*its
"Special privileges, favors, kickbacks and things like that—those are
Congress vwith raising taxes bnlhe
things I don't agree with. I don't like Republicans trying to stop deals that
veryrichand reducoig .taxes for' '
DemrtrraN an» tryingtoget mrough-tbonfirpss anrt tne uemqcraLs. nght '
llppi/vrat
lions of workmg pfor. EtiE& fegtrer
•a^jic thatrt»»tfrrciMjcans try to get through instead of woridng together
acknowledge that Congre^'^cut
and trying to come upwitii solutions for the country as a wnoie.
annual budget deficit by billions. |'
As many believe Congress passed
a purely mythical Ml to contrd immigration as the real deficit reduc- .
RIK SAWYER, 42, an antique dealer,
v, tion, measure. Yet another^ oddity:).!'.J
in Georgetown, Maine:
;<;,
^ Although theHouse afid^nateW il
„ . . ,' •
'
t ••
•
deadtpeked <HI going fofro
• •' There is too much party politics. I think that
Democrats and Republicans ootn areclones of
.onftriorseparate and conflic . ^ ^
their own systems and neither ol me two groups
- j. ; sions of , <^paigri ;finMC«|^orm,
really seeniS to care about the neejiithe
r heariy four out of 10 (rf.th^jwUed f-i
desires, the concerns ol the average person.
{think Congress already^ hasi p a s ^ ^ I
Th^y say they do. I hey pay tip service. They by ;
changes in the law {to restrict speto get themselves elected but I think when push
dal-interest contributkH^ .
y
«\
comes to shove you can't reaDy count on them.; V.
House Majority LeaderjRichard
\ i
A. Gephardt (D-Mo.)*wtien told of•'
v Therefaa party political partisansliip thaty
jenguftslheffllntl^LAs a maiiCT.bfjzk&.I would • ?
'.• ' >R°so tar.ai to say you can't getya^farm a t o . ? : ; J ^ M M B B M B H ^ |
•
\ r . 'ofthetwopartiesunlessyouplaylianwithv
j
S ^ ' ^ i ^ /what he sak].:was,flie negative ttkie •1
' everybody else in the partyi Kind of like^e cfiqu^f^^ifyotiare aotimefitk*„;
t i£ff
diem, you can t even make it m the group.< You can*become; a cpngressnian fe.1
unless you play ball with therestof thefRepubGcais or ther^i if t h e : | f ? 4
' br-^
"
Democrats: They won't back vou; they won't help'jrou, they wpnt s i ^ p o r t ^
you. Then you become an independent, and independents
I independents don't do well&if
IglS ir^L
this country."
lliseriotis' "
1
^iS^litireplS^"
i
0
n
?
|
J
v
;
;
0k
A
A
^f^'^ie^fl^-
m
;. 'DOLORES HUIHJEY; 33,3 ficfe r r i ' p ^ S ^ ^ + f i ^^'congressional CMnsKleration'iaf major
h ' Thg only tfring theyVe passed that has been of anymterest to me is ithe:>,» A
^ five<fay waiYforgutis7i ne rest ot me stufl isroundand "round, bat^and-," '-'^
jipiih. petty arguiQg. Democrat-Republican crap. To me, they remind me of : > Retired Senatervmajbritycleadfer
Howard H.}Baker Jr. (R|i;ennj),
two groups of Idas in the schoolyara.
~ ,. '•' .
77^
!*,''.whose'fathtt.fand!:inother?*farveddo
Capitol m,; said. "I really $cwe for
the Congress," but blamedf its low
reputation on the increasiji^n the ^
\ ARTHUR SQUIRE, 39, a "struggling" artist, musician and 5
"number "career pditiaanifcin the ij
% handyman in South Burlington, Vt.:
-d. > •
/.
House and Senate, perodved>s li^ ;
\:\ '"I share, with a lot of Americans, a borderline indifference to what the
ing in a different world from their
' " i Congress does. I've heard that most people don't know who their /
constituents and driven tyvtffierent
^representatives and senators are. I'm not surprised. It seems so detached
. needs. . -^V
from what we do in regular life.
' ,
>>
-.! : ! ,
f) Two pditical sdentistswiiib ha ve, [
V , "(President Clinton] doesn't seemtohave any power. He doesnt seem to
written <a Longyfesa^t.harl<»s p;M
t
V: be able to talk clearly enough to convince them to follow his way. He even
T n n P R j j f fFiP R n ^ l r i n y . M l n i r f i h i t i ^ i
' % has trouble with some of his own Democrats. I don't suspect he is going to
'
and lamM A. ThurhftrVnf AineriMn | |
.s '^je able to do a lot with Congress in the next two years.
i
nniwrrify^saif) that thApuhlir. per-. 1
'<!' ^TEach party has lost a lot of the influential old boys. Those people were
.;; , able to strike deals with each other. Maybe it was a little more back-patting
'\ thntiit is now, but they realized they had to worK witn each OUWr, not
am
:aiTist edili Mliui.T
T
wmi
mwrity nf^ppj^licans^
!
j
t
J':
'I
V
�ats
nring
..'
> " 'arall'
D IA MON
t
OlthOMthK !>« imaMuiml, i M d k b th« M a t * ! ! w o n tturt Co«fftM
den* monT l i b t a d a* t h a n M t a i M ^ i i N M p ^
ataUl
feHaol
Ar Affmmtmtut
onzn
A)
fxnic
an
ed
fits
he
lil-
•lti.li!iMre;^ii^F(*o»ld»
ai*i^. leid«^lpR
ty:
ue
56%
E fforts of Republicans to block programs
tnat the Democrats want to pass
11
.HovrdUkayoatsMM
wMtiv or not Confresa hn dm an? of tt»
• kOowfaif tMiifs la the »asi IS months f/fems in boM are things
••' Congress has done):
June 26
Haa Not
Dona
R N i a M a ffvMlair (May aad a bacfcpvand chack
on m t o M M m to buy a l i w i t p i n
7%
1
13%
51
17
,,26
t U t f t taxes on tha m y rfc* aod raduced taxas far
adHoMefthaimWncpoar
led
>ed
Nsaad a bodgst bffl that a * tha opactad M a n l
hilpBt cWktt by b t t c r a of d s f a n
48
ml
pe-
ird
of
uren
me
nd
ilk
arrelaus
ise
Ghaa fadarW wofkafs the S M M ricM* ta cat bnoivsd
kiinCbcs that private anployMa have
21
Made it easier for everyone to buy health insurance
11
77
-
NOTi;: Figures may no! add to 100% when -no opinion * not included. June figures are from a
wasiangton Post-ABC News telephone poll of 1,531 randomly selected adults ininviewed June
23-26. Othef results are from Wasiiington Post-ABC News polls with samples ot similar v u .
Margta of sampling error tor all of the polls is plus or minus 3 percentage points overall. Sampling
error b, however, only one ot many potential sources of error in these or any polls. Interviewing
was iBnducted by Chilton Research of Radnor, Pa.
-Compiled b Sharon Warden
r
!'>hy
! . . [ WASHINGTON POSI
KIT
er
.).
:;n
ur
n
v
ie
take ilie opposite stand from the
loritv '.iDjemocrats.
Jones said the tendency of House
Demix-rits to "freeze Republicans out
of the .iction" has provoked a countcrreacliu.i from GOP leaders to "bash
the institution," heightening the.p(;ri^ptinn of constant Quarreling.
Tfm.'tJer said that " h y p e r p l u r a l ism," the proliferation of organized
inten si groups, is a greater barrier
to acii' n than partisan divisions, but
;I|9O nr.ted that the public hears a
'lrumlx-at of criticism of Congress,
not JM:-.' from outsiders, IJUI from
lawmakers themselves, " R u i m i n g
^igainMi 'he institution is increasingly
IJopul.ir," he said.
Thi: 'iiscrepancy between- broad
<luap|)r<''val of Congress and equally
liroad support for its individual mem-
s
n o ,
a
n
e
w
The Prices a p p e a r i n g Foi
Pressure Treated Landscape Timb»
F i b e r g l a s Shingles a n d I
Spectrocide Bag-o-Bug Beetle Tt
kit shown on the cover of our Jul;
circular are effective only during'
25% off promotion thru July
1994.
Due to lite manufacturer's inab'
ship the 3 0 pint dehumidified''
on the cover of our July 3 /
will not be available foe t h i i '
# D G 4 0 G or #DJ40G
dehumifier will be :
some p r i c e . W e
inconvenience this may f
•our customers.
r! I: (In IN
With the righ2tJ«
49
33
ice
erm,
.Ur,
m
;
riamtaltnda
the Unttsd Ststtt n d Hodco
Wd
im-'
uc-
(My!' Fmamii^
June 26
The inability of Republicans and Democrats to work together
I is
bw
ing
aid
'
-WaaMnolon FlocKvffo
202457.5683 301-984-9090
'
one—and it may
not be as great as the numbers first
suggest or as positive (or the incumbents' reelection chances.
Even among those who approved
of Ihe job their House member is doing, barely half—55 percent—say
they would vote for Ihe incumbent in
November, while the remainder are
inclined to look around for someone
else.
While the news is not good for incuinhents nf either parly, Ihe survey
suggests that Mouse Ueinocrats may
be more vulnerable than ( i O I * members. According In the survey, .'t7
percent of volers represented hy a
DenKxrrat said they plan to reelect
him or her, compared with 42 perof t
represented by a Republican.
an OFC
s
,
U
The Lab School i « * ' "
5
i n t e r n a t i o n a l l y r^
nf
leading force in the ' ^ ( J L " < >
disabilities.unders i ^ S l a x
ing of the learning!
to graduate from |
to go on to c o l l e g ^ J
Working In j ^ f c ]
Mount Vemon
four-year libaraCi
w o m e n . The l,j
designed a prog'
gap between hlf
lege This "thlrt
ductory c o l l e g e v v i
Intensive remefi
Individualized
and a structure
ronment to h e t ^ J "
abled woman
transition into
nuuD
Jon«<J»«rwJ. AJOiered
J >,ilili'/i/W
i >
For lurther Ind
ANNAPOLIS
B r i d g i n g the I
IMJ Wtf.&ttL
47W Reservoir.
IMHWO-:
WashingVDn, D.; ( ( !
202-96?-«6i
164-110I
�WatafHufVWawaw.
• Flarwv'CAaalnQ
•
y . Sal»nB*l«Niijtnai1»..
. '
•Pow«t»a«14M27tl
Bt4-SO(«L
• Ra^allona Aowplau
fmn. oc. S M M T
1-800-535-BOA1
WHAT THE PUBLIC THINKS OF CONGRESS
RESULTS OFftWASHINGTON POST-ABC NEWS POLL
• IN ARUNQTON, VA. ONLY
•SECURITY SYSTEMS
• PHONES
' •CD PLAYERS
•CASSETTES
SAVE UP TO 50%
O* ymt •pprm* or i h a n n m tt th* wty C o n p n t k M n g »»JofcT
80°i
70
MTZCUBUIO I7D3) S7»5244l
60
50
40
30
20
QUARAIMTEED
10
0
74 75
7 7 7
7 8 9
81
S3
65
87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94
QoalilT Kua> Al I M T M P r i m
\
• AVTIQt;!. •
• Gallup W I for results from 1974 ttirougti 1988
CORRECTION
I
.
• * « to nad a i m i
• jnatand taacrMord
L For each, caa J M pkaaa M • * H
a with R, or M, periiapa, yoa have ne opMon
June 26
Agrta Dttasraa
Most memben of Congress care more about
keeping power than they do about the.
best interests erf the nation
:
83%
14%
is
washer
reodas
Moytog large Capacily Washer
• Lasts longer than any other
brand
• Heavy duty :
Model LAT5004
U39
The price for the 15.2 cu. ft.
Maytag upright freezer model
RFU15&*oSldbe$499.
i .
s p ^ M i ^ ; ^ ' t h 9 . c m < l ^ - i n i ^ i i a like you v;
Generally spealiing, those we elect to Congress in
Washington lose touch with the people pretty quickly
.12
I
78
To win dectioni, most camtidates for Congress make '
campaign promises they have no intentions of fuHIHing : 76
Most members of Congress are doing their best
r a difficult job
48
f he Congress ii r ^ wbad as'it's r n ^ ^ t o ' b e ; ; ^ ;
30
20
48
43
Vost members of Congress have a high personal
n oral code
17
MtttlmnititorfCanintocmdetptifaboutf\"f treitfot^
60
'j^ii.,^'
t- v 26 • Tv 69;
"
CORRECTION
;
Wi vatatfz*. Dw la tka rteeat h4
n n . nr stack at S m a Fut,/
a mr
Dahaimdlfltn A Mr Candltleoan 4s
law ar sail aol DM ts tba M«eJ "
aatara al tkata Baan, ralDcftecks'
eamnt la luott W ixlaglza i C
a
MT lacaanalaaca tUs may eaou^
r
Diamonds
Great deal/good amount
| — " 2 % , Don't know/no opinion
Not
friucfVnothing —
at all
Ames
a
k . Ovaral, hew mueh do you tMah Convaaa haa accoapllahad In tha past
Fa 18a
l
.
N«4xKly |)iy> rcuil inymorc!
Why thould yoitf
JIKIlVIi*
I O W N that I've n
meraTIMwdei
Hatha
xd
UiatCaairaM
" I m a * "'
D IA M O N
noe*vi»301.9M-I
Si
�lorchbearer in '91
Struggling to Win
Senate Reelection
*ow the IKX twl at M pouol for each.
In a aoae. m m arc CMB tafnei now. and
KI am I." uid WoOord doriat a campaign ittp
m ttw rural central IN ia»j I lanil town. 'As
Uiinfia haw gotten better (eeDocmcallrl. poBtidans hm gotten aene."
The denaae d heakh care refcrm. Woffonfi
tagfeM caaae. a opif part d Ihe probtem. The
more aerena otatade ia the whoteaale <tmlbwamM d people alio *o(ed ior change, beteted an ootader cotdd a t e a dflerenoe and
now are cuuvujed Warfangton ii Brercnib^r
captne lo aetf^atmit and ertrtndwi power.
Some Ud WcAad reapt^ile and acme adl a l M l H a n f e a W M a aalLS.
m Um iv tqrag to tght the •yitem no matter vtat the nadtai Bat U nteniewi anm)
the state, ther arid omiAehBB«|r dot it oo
with
their party tfam with the people.- aaid Wiafred
: at the
i-aartvtanFittata* (fctrict Ther
>*eydart<
mta met la fmrn+Hmd, a M . aaa^atpi M Maa
Mawhall I llmi»anaa«t»ata^tamatialaraha
BATHE RM
THE SENATE
•lu 1994tUtiiomwai
I tduAtrDtmoomhaUmdtlmr
•coninlfpuSmattVtisktmff
anomrntmalitruijeTtidatxawBm
.Tkafart
BtdldorttaeMh
Tm ««nmad. Iter doot cm
Democrats • —
56
nma. Ifawhat they want. Wbt
docataMttrlqwIaater
•Whr dart Iter ahv aaa* each other far
loiets and giw Mfaadea goad idea d what
ther alandfcrTariadShdft* Keener, a ra-~ UMnom
woAer and iigidi i l l Demoaat wWcha^ Ite . Demooatt -f^ r 22 ; , i -.6 .
Cda^tnaDyyaafcrnBttat^Lfe A f e "
• Bdoodod bctwooi WcSonl aod SHtfcran..
For a week now. Ae IMbri aauBVi has
been noanv adii waomc Jot Sartonm and!';
theyiTirfframwMh)tatethecoantryhack
. .
to tncUt^an SBMPBOMC^" the tfctm toot" ^jAji^iflj" J ^ loie^ JM
cd^theDemooj^l^aaatictotoaictonovdead. ^ b e tand. ftrmMimtlr
ry. Here t has Bade aodBrrcnce m the race.
Thetwo
,;. • .'.^^ T | ; i ' ^ ,
a^mfaoL S^m«aooaaea Wofiord
Om f t * * * . * waa ^ n g tba t n d 4o*m* wfctm wtt |kaa that fate
weektobar a
m.hmeWrMaalheB.^mMthediot
^ ^ S ^ ^ ^ S S t t mt+cm*k d
• 199L Alter Wof- the AsMncn tcoooay
the
{
lrt
am) was an ardatetl Ui party't wetat sefcrm pnpoaal he deridea Wrford aa an ool^
dne Hnal, "io kx± Mtf with Omton. aechkg
^ He ia a deficit hawk who acted a
. Jetef fa£fe IGdweal hecM it wo^d •>ge»ethedadt.ari«ia1i^ijMd—Jfcaac; aqn« k wodd r
't ada pottny theae a
•fcfcatfftWnJ
otddrtCav^af
l»-mioriff
Tke m d « u t mood here ia teSsg B a a
that mvnn the ntfon—with i
:
e
rt
aDj dunked ha doaestic poiky to pacify
Bwhflc<im AII|U( both putiu mfanccd
iormqrrd.
m . ^ " ^
an the
Bargg dweaKl
•oamrhoebrahheartbehaamgertoportk.rfthi.amtmme.A.-rfnrfkalDemo.
^ ^ l * ^ ! ^ ! . ? ^ * ? '
"
P O ^ t h g ^ h ^ A m i q m o n l . more
oopapriarheRlbananrakacaitheNathcmt.
,
1
5
0
1
with onkr 30 penm apprara! in a recent pot
. Wflfiard atts Snttraa's
k pnwidea jay and
ol*
fti Mft to iludeuli B RCmtf for pitfc ttnkt.'
fteadBsnrafSiae.-Hedtta
W(dtod aaid k eaotad the.«nl ct the New
ationtoo
iot«hheaco«.thero- ansmal»ecfbT- DedLJFK and Hete. " - >
-Be kaepa refcniag to the VOs and the
pocniyfaraaormigbaxfitl that falu
Jj" Comas, a^hmhtrftttammt bet moa^ •San* Saotoram shot tack. TVae t n dt aohL ^ T ^ T p ^
bona and ttay dont wok. Someoaei gah« to
I V g o d r f ^ S h t e B t o ^ r t ^ r t h e pick np t n * k a paA aad v g l U a r a
cchrr as aa ideoiof{icai cztTTtnnt. and hanaett anxmd a camfCre and joo're goiag to gne
« . modoate-an health cue. fan* leaw. then 90 pennt td tbe (benefits < thr| Gl BC
d
t
^
M I , ^ a-fc^) r**.-.™
TKT'a a
in fhr farr In r \ » ^ - nerwm
�A2i
Observer
kUBSKI.I.IIAKKK
Time to Fear and Hate
v t v d u W to be away 'rnm home
r*\ i.u^iion Dmy, I have juti waled
• r - mmtlcd my mbmerrt+t Nafta.
wf
My vote for •enaior went to A. I
jtAihtr
Ii wtpairtotr and poMlbty
a child mofectrr I gleaned ihts from
H 'a com merela)i Of courae A. Adm i n nothinf.
Nrvenheteu. A.'i apin doctors
t j y (ha( A. « e u U •iforomly dftry ai!
if II were pracitcal lo do 10 wtthout
diirupfinfi h a vtctoua tekvtsian aauult on B i diaracur.
I once meam to we for B, lor be
haa a mafntficcnt jaw ai wHl aa
imh ao glonoua that ihey would do
our suce'f dncWry greaf credit
A.'a comiueiciaH, however, o^poaed
fhxneful OMral dendncy
brtM
B »ihowy imw.
T h a t UHUimuUlM d t d m i B. i s
be • bopetm Bar. Tke «caJt» fen
frofn my eyra wtaca I bewd I t e . 1
U d toval B 'f cnmDerdal
him n r M l a t » t n o e h i B y (braugh
Why I voted
for A, X and K
mlafil make • new man o< A I M t u
Ule only p e r w u l v t rr«Mjn I ran aMlor t n d t n t anytotfy « I V t r a a i r
anymof*. now thai the only ihmc
Ihey do there la noihtng.
Had Falhrr Flanafan gcK A. 10
Boy'a Town when he wai a merr lad.
A. might long ago have brcomr a
decent cltuen. I decldrd to uae my
rale lo do Ihe )ab Falhrr Ranagan
never got lo.
For Congrtaa my vote w w i ia X
e v m though Y i awnnierclali aaid
X. waa a llrelefta womanlaer.
Let me aaaure you I » » | not
awayed by X ' l beautlhilly made.
magnJiKxaMIr poaannma commrrctala. Theae dwett heavily on ihe tact
(hat Y.'a lortiaw l a d been made by
oergtag aad a e q ^ t i g orpftanagei.
t h e n off to novte amdloa wtikh apeciahie tn tow^udga orphan movte*.
In fact, die > » i laiHj lhal went
mto V s rtameM limaii i i M i me
convinced that Y. wai aKh
tf^tfXLa a m ha w
content aort M ' t j a i f l g l
conecdagHi
(rentt
On the other hand a tbckaa a
anber Ike X wartd be ao I
Knd by Vaatdogaaa's c
eager in be a aMii ilwHh,!
could be comed on to do i
erptated dan B. wss a Bar. I realtarik.
Bane B T aae lor X
lad B-Ti LOiarrLhl » a t he a Me
potkica atooa alwrnva c o n a
(ramnantolkd* —aOMaeandi A n l o l b e c M z a r i h e l e i a e r e v a .
of 1 1 oneroJ to bet people l k « the «nd thh baa neaer been traer d m
Irtd aetter was oot B'a dog and. hi a n , year nhen a l c a n p a ^ a s era
tact want even Irfcfc
stsu at "Mzaca" commerciati be* rhild <ndd tell B. w a n t wafcmenteihvrMoa.
aigihedagihraatfinrBatlTChenihSo tor Major I was taced whh a
er becaoae ao- ataae doeanl have choicr In l ami B. aad K. H.'s <nmnatht heather, fm. native laat^ood merelab aw
ill M he was
nonBy anpertor aa K, nha bad « wroadhtoatnlaBagWi toaany
Lin a I t i n a r a l l f a
nnn
hli
HheanantocntgoaanBeaa^pend- aowlvty la Mscra
Ing an everjfcaty hat aae. Beaag a UcalaradBeadtaadiirj a i l ban to
Uoaa. street l^ta. gafhage |
The aeodadaa awtoe!
wmnUog to farritahm and a
•ufcner. aaadtag lata to ihe I
would beep M B ader aoch a paUMty apohghl Mat he wovU be krocd
•ocurbfctsi
In abort. 11
�THB
NEW
YORK
TIMES
NATIONAL
WBPNESDAV,
OCTOBER
W, 19*4
-i,
Families Look at Failure on Health Care and I^mfe
TheMcLaughtos
•yFETtR T. KJLBORN
^theraar.cwtaliltaboaihem.
V ^ l v o H t * a y J a A P " >hclr pohsfcaF]
raB
a(
aaid Defcra O T C m r . 31. of L h t a i . 1
ta^Vlach^.i
-nhaTOj
Itw faimhea (ault Mr. Cluitun (or puihinR
^ pint lhal a r e m n l i umlirraomr, tunfuw^l
j n d n a w i < ihrTtftrnmg Ihnr lira to cher• OM-O dorlura, fur raamplr Hul iht-y \ j | u i r
tiim lor tjitkllni an laaur no prt-vwua MrealWil » n u l j Inuih. and haind ..n.Hiah in h n
l-lan lu hfl Ihrir Nn^-k Ih^l JI Idtl. uruwlnil
1'l.f. ralllnii ill «ir belnK Injured rvvsl nt* drlvr*
'iH-in ml., [arvfily
Itiev J r r (|MI'k.-M
In
lil.tmr
I
ti. .iljr Ih. i rm. » h . . f«ifi|>>il up IIHMI nlirn
• mi
ihrtr
irl..vi«l.*i
wrr<-n«.
hull
lltilr
nl
For Chflord and Valerie McLM^hlin, i
are both O , diia has bean a largely t r o u M o - ^ l f l
free year in terms of heahh. B u H haa h e e n ^ l
a wrriatiaae year la term* a t heahh a n ^ J
coverage. They p r i g ihe b w d o m B u y h a W f t g l
had to choose their doctor*. S o d s n j e M T
wary of Ihe PreaMenfa | d a ^ . W I M « q F j !
tboughl would force them l a o
tfvp around tor die nasi
cal c»re imd (heeyetfcMaf
(Mr
l*y<*r>*
old daughter. Amber. After m M i t y n n ,
delayed treauneoc aod one doctor's l e U *
them to siinpty accept his promuala thai
"tmm a t f i Barbara J o Mataon and her companion, G a r y B a k e r , left, Ihte at the poverty
Amber would soon be btiod. M r x M c U H « b lewd with ber c t d d r o i . E l y and B o d y , a n d find that meana h a v i n c medical coverage.
lin found Imlr A r t t o e r . a a apthMmoto&L .
She and her husband say that he foumJ the
raoi of Amber's (ttaemae - f u r a f t e arthrtda
— then removed a cataract and cnffitcd
s p e o a l u u to treat wfcat be could not
Ht-»NS«nu at a tluuri*hinjt Mrrtih uf cornIvll and induury in ra^tem Iowa and wrM.-in lllint.4t lhal ia humr lo ihr L'nivcrviiy ol
Iowa, tnual of these pi-ople are [Vmocrats
who. like the rvgion in senrral. lend luward
mudrraliun and tMket apltlting.
iiil|irH«
—
\ n t u r d docMn covmd bf
tt ocgaiiUtt wttk ihe infan.
The families m * t e u a a broad spectrum.
They ai<e j n a ^ and old. workm* and not
w o r t ^ . heahhy and chronicajly side, middle d a a t aad poor, ridlly kuured and iviin.
tared. C a r tmcrriewed earlier, an impovrrt ^ e d s l a ^ e mocher who waa lichung cancer, could not be reached. A year ago she
u r i riM would be n u r r y i n c a soldier and
r a p c c l a l the Army lo provide her coverage.
Another imgle mother In ill-health and
cquaUy |Wor. Barbara Jo Malson. waa interv * w e d io her place.
t u n | i M ^ * i . r f u l K . | K J I I I I . . i n * . i n d I.I j m r
—
,
Now that his plan has fafladl Ibey fearS
. l i n t thetr dadcea may fee O f t c d t J M "
means: that the contianh« rise A h e a B ^
er. and J«fcd. Why did the heahh c a r e
lOKbtalka C a n - B i g h a l o e B a a i d - B O . ' - h e
aaid. A a d C t a p c a a ? r l h a t ' a b « I
, * ™ ^ ftew X l k U m a had already haerU e a ^ n o e l i d A f (amiUes ki moreoiidmia14 U a o . O m h i May 1M1 aa the health
o r e K t b t a t l a a a a d Ka attendant dehale
i b a l L m i v e and ^ a t a ta Sept. I « n . nhen the
P M A a l M i n d e d Ma piaa to the puMk.
Mow. fei the a A e n n a l h af the plan'a deralae,
d i e h - ^ n r p i i h r n i r a l l a t h e d with unease
over wtial a ham of cancer or a heart attack
could d i l o t b e * flnandal heaHh.
llw
_ ^}
Doctor's Caring .•K./;
Spurs Support
J^^'M
I01VA C I T Y . O o . U - l a the rutm ol
P i a i i t u * r — i n f i promise of affordaMe
c r a d k M o ^ r a w taealxb care, five lamUies in
Madde A m n have l a n d I b d r I v p e s lor
rh am ine the taeakb c a r t systern Irans• r a t d kmt o M e a t i i lor a waritfogun thai
'
Dr. Arttsaer also won thnr hearts After
an oprraiion at the U m v e r u y at Iowa four
y e a n *&>. Amber received a lar^e bouquet
in hrr room " l l had a leddy bear with tt,"
Mrs McLaughlin said "It waa from Dr.
Arhisscr."
Mr. Mc[jiu|thlin adJnl. He's provrd to
mr ihji hi» pjiicnti mran more lo him than
money. •'
Amber's eyeslxhi U now sUbte, bul her
(uniinumK rare ia ctnily. The Drere plan
paid thr f I M M 10 tn bills for her six months
uf t r r a i m m i . and the McLaughlins wonder
huw much kmgrr Ucere will tool such Mils
when most rmpluyers do noi.
UTM- family im-mber is m aurh a bind.
Mrs. Mel.aufthtin'a daughter by a previous
in.tiri.tKr-. Kiihly. 21. l i (hr IUIKIT m<Mhrr uf
j 4 y.-kif tiki Iwy She had been ftrtting by on
wi'lf.iii', fiHHl hfjrnpc and Mi^lMaid.
I IM II Utr wrul Ut BThuul in Ijrromr a
(ii ui ut ii\ n u i v Mini Umli a |<4i in u (ledlalrli i.in « offitv All tit-i aid priim|rfly Slufipetl.
and tJtt- M I i-ivra IHI brnrills.
Sha- I. . I* liki-. "I BhuuM have *iay«d Ihr
wuv '
" Mf» Mrl^ughlin BMid. "I'm
n<ii ir,11 liai[i|iy Mmitwi hain'i Iw-lptJ ihew
(wa^ilr wliu wiinl ID help (hcmwlvra Bul I
ijoo'i kmtw if tl'shla faull CangtrBft — W nw
ii s moir ilwir fault lhan C'Uniun's "
Hul ahr i h i n U l h a i Wathlngum might Hill
rtimr aiound "I'm o p l l f f l l i t k s h e said "I
aay they have hope.
• happen.' Mra. Paahen *aid.>.
people ta W a * m « u n have ae |
that petty a u d i T h a i ' s ael w h a
llohedsh*.-
Already Cover©
And Still Gainin
William Coen. H . Iowa Q e y i
maatrr. and Ms wife, Certnadr
wed off la terms of d M r haw
•Ms year Ihe C m w m a w m r a f t
their biggem hagerSog bwrdan
Under a changa bl OM M a t s
Heakh Benefit Pregrama. ma
payanytMaglorpraao
a
aavMg ao far this yaar «a R .
hava to do." Mr Caen aaid. pharmacy and ptrfc up OWT
all paid lor."
l ike at perrew of tha papal
and older, the r n m a haw* h
rover the l a p brtwaan Mada
buraemema to dnctora and heap
actual rhargea. ihey pay I I M
Inauranre. On an Income ef a n
tliH' *«'" al.*lR fine In linra CNi
Cadar hapida. lawai I'.IIII.I .m.l l^on I'jtten have hrnltli |Holilrma anil are ujiaet nlmut
lite (nlnical maiiriivriniK thai |irevmte<1 a tliaiiKe in the hralth care ayatrm.
K v e r y y v a r . I h e y l a y . WMiyeih
go awiy with their healih. It
legally klkid In her tight ey» I
bar M l
aa
oraMd t r
saw, "I c a i u n i M d d M f
�Jini Nnw Yt,HK riMr.s NATIONAL WHIMHSI.AV. oi vn/.r* ,o. w.
119
ok at Failure on Health Care and Lament Politics
Th^McUu^hlln*
win. h will . l . . , wh. „
i,,,,,, n; | | „ «, .lr
haa I'^Wai In •nviny*
lbi.1, Mr oml M K . I ' a i i m cpialllKvl
M . ^ I I , I I . i.irlif r ll.^ii mn«l t*n(,k- Irtmtnr
l l v y hnvr f-'.-n dift^lilnt Inr nwirr llian Iwtf'
y.ar» h.ii Hi. n prr .-ammK rnnditama a n j
liiKh m.ur^ni.. ...imfiany (ircmiuma pre.
ilud. • i n . , in „ l i , , ihai » , „ | d „ „ „
a n y l r r u i m . n l thai Medu are df^-m not. 7hry
pay Inr IS. I, mrdii Inea. whlrh rurrenlly
. m i a t o n 12.000 a year. They paid 1700 o<
the ro*i or hrr pneumonia treatment, they'
have ma yel reserved htlli for Ihe parrmak
er.
r
r
Doctor's Caring
Spurs Support
niiru of
airorlabta
/ (•mlliea In
* u hop. a lor
•mens i r u a - s
nftaiUut i
F « Clifford and Valerie McLaughHn. «tio
about U i m
7 • ' " " ^ ^ . • h l a h a . b e e n . l . n e t y iroubk.
oui l h e i r n o l » l e . l 4
»~
" " " w a f healih BM H has been
—thki. •BOilwmSl ' " " " " " a
m terms of health care
r
/ « « and s t ^ l e p u m t f
^
'
1 0
1
f * " " " " " - ^ "oclor. So they - e r r
" T
^
P r « m e n f . plan. * * * the,
thought would force them to uae designated
doctora
* h h n . a <I year-old fac
n Eaat Motlne. III., wai
Now that hla plan has failed, they fear
i Why did the health care
that their cTtoKea may be curbed by other
tig bualoeaa aaid 'no.' - he
meana: lhal the continuing rtoe to heahh
a ? " T h a r e big buaimraa."
care cosla wtll perauade Deere and CompaT l m m had already btteroy. for whom Mr. McLaughHn works as a
SfamffleahnnoreopOml**4S.0OS*-year preaa operator, lo reatrtd the
M«r
aa Ihe hralth
roster of dooora covered by the heahh plan
• d k a attaaalaat debate
a negotlatea with the union.
italgdiit
when the
The McLaoghllns believe ihelr abOHy to
I Ma jlaa lo the pn
ibBc.
^ "hop a n w d t o r the a m apprcprhue merB•a^afthaplaa'adeni
' ^ « « " » a d l h e e y e a l g l i l of ihelr l^year•f>'**od
wtOt mx
" . ^ '
old daughter. Amber. Alter mMiagnoaea.
taihT
• d ^ y e d treaunea
one d o S o r V V r i l ^
.
TabSd^ctrom.
•JaSd, - u r U u g ^ d «
'
r
, n
0
h i
t
Whilr they are angrirst with Mr. Unle and
Ihe ll.puhlKan> for Ihe drmla* ol hragh
lesnlaimn. Ihry faull Ihe l-rraldenl. loo
" ' think he', nilve.'- M n patien aaid.
"He ranw in u y s i g he could do all I hear
thin);, and didn't nerd help."
As Inr Hillary Rodham Clinlon she "thd.'
n t put ll together lor people.'' Mrs Pauen'
aaid. "li was ton complicated."
-- —
• ~— • ^ • • • f a w b s m a .
Mr. Patten added: 'They tried lo nai Oi?
Govemment like Arkansas. Ii wasn't a gni
JIULZ
M
— ™
w w
Tw.n.
Slin. like the McLaughlins. Ihe P a l l m
say ihry have hope -Something's got i s
happen." Mrs. Patien said "I just thfc*
people
("M-e in Washinglon have to get away from
waanmgino navwto
awi
that' petty stuff T h a i ' s not what our G o v e r n
• h " P™)' stuff. That's
(
.
h
J ^ J
'"ff* " f "
•
"
A r n i e r - « i l d « w , be blind. Mrx McLauglv
k
Iwwa O r Barbara Jo Mataon and ber companion. Gary Baker, left, bve at the poverty •
level witb ber d a l d r c n . E l y and E m f l y . and find that meana having medical c o v n a e c . i
thAlready Covered^fc
-AndStflrGmnlr^:^
„
•
V r
-*
V - > , '.tr
W l l b u . Coen.ga.lowa C K y n e U r e d t
v.
I * Ms year die
„
T-J »elr biggest g 4 HfeafftfdWtf-^t
„
I
Ihdrr a chance ta the
Faar^dr&KUlCed
^ Heahh Benrt
P ™ , ^
• e f S ' S S
pay anything tor pRaotpthal
andkhie?}
• uvlng so tar dds year
an*.
"All-4
have lo do," Mr. Chen raid. -|a 'goTo the
Pharmacy «ul pkh ^.a-'preact^don.
tt?
aO paid tor ?ao • TvT
.
n
L l k e B p e r c e « c t the pqailatlon age <B
and older, the OBena h a w Medicare. To
cover the gap h t i a m i Medicare's m m i
f
C o d w ^ j j i l a , l a w a & n i a anid L e o n Fatten have health ^. w m . mnu are ^ n .
the iinbta al iiiauuiaetiut that p t t a u r t i d a change m the health care syattm.
*
c
c
a
l
^ T r * . they p^r r t l a montt far
On a n taco«ne of a r o a s a l W M t *
<hey get along f t a e t a i u w a d t y .
. ^ T *
Every year, they aay. eorncthtg seems l a
go awry with d M r heahh. M n . Chen It
legally blind in ber r%N eye. The vision hi
her lefl had ao dcterlarated by last v r t v .
tdte said. "I coubhit read Bne print wtthou
bifocals aad a i n ^ n l T j a ^ g l L u !
In June she had a cataract resmmd The
c a u r a c t grew bach, aa la September the
. returned to the hotpttaL The two procedure.
« ~ J » W a n e a ^ b, h u u r i c T ^
ft
kaOty't
icSenrode
KWerr hea
lleienire*
td«F*da*
whma. ih
Hhr ef 11
mibl
k Howrprr
ed'
lotthe pa^t
of k hav»
nafen Mad
ll a and h o
of I pay t i t
re bme of a
n w Iowa Ci
• ay. anme
aa. hralth.
•ndighl rye
r tvioralad I
�are restless once again and appear surprisingly willing to dump
even the newly minted representatives they embraced on election day
two years ago.
Frank Cacioli, a building contractor on Long Island, N.Y., said he
doesn't know whether he will vote to
reelect freshman Rep. Peter T. King
(R).
"He hasn't proven anything to me
yet." Cacioli said. He added that he
is frustrated by the fact that "the
people we put in there are not doing
the job for us. We need to give them
a little change. We're not putting
_jou in there with a crown on your
head. You're there to work for us
and you're not doing it."
, Barely a third of voters in these
so-called "change" districts said they
planned to vote to give their freshman House member a second term;
52 percent said they are "inclined to
look around for someone else." The
remainder were undecided.
Those numbers are virtually identical to the proportion of voters planning to support the incumbent in
congressional districts where incumbents won two years ago.
The survey found that even those
J voters who said they supported the
successful challenger—now the incumbent—in 1992 are lukewarm toward the man or woman they voted
for two years ago. According to the
poll, fewer than half—47 percent—
of those who voted for a successful
challenger in 1992 say they plan to
vote a second time for him or her.
. These findings are no guarantee
that any of these incumbents are
destined to lose in November, but
ithey are a sign of the continuing disaffection with Congress that under'lies the fall campaigns and that voters believe one election hardly
represents real change in Washington.
" I think it's worse," said Russell
Soffredine. a teacher in Gaylord,
•Mich. "This last Congress really
bothered me. It got to be that anything Clinton wanted to do, all of a
sudden the Republicans didn't want
him to do. [But] it's not just Republicans. The Democrats did it to Bush.
Jush.
™ That' ignorance extends to their
own representative. In the latest
Post survey, inore;than three out of
.'four voters interviewed could not
name their House member. At the
same time, nine out of 10 voters interviewed felt they knew enough
about their representative to evaluate his or her performance in Congress.
Judith Boone, who lives north of
Philadelphia, visited Washington recently and came away more disillusioned than before.
"From what we judged," she said,
"not too many things get done and
there's a lot of wasted time." Boone
BV 6ILL SIOVEP FOR THE WA&UMTOH POST
said she would like Congress to "at
"We need to realize that politicians
are not capable of changing tt any
least complete one task that they
more than the rest of u s , " s a y s S t .
promise."
Louis businessman Charles Hawkins.
Not everyone was totally negative. Carrie Fontaine, a Los Angeles
It seems that's the game they play. paralegal, said she was heartened'by
passage of the crime bill. The mothThey give lip service to what's good
for the country, but they do what's er of a young daughter, she worries
good for their party."
about crime and especially juvenile
violence.
Eric Ridgeway, a Chicago painter,
said the divisiveness of the political
"They do seem to have gotten
debate in Washington has gotten
more done," she said.
worse.
But that hasn't made Fontaine
"They were splintered before,
certain to vote for either of the two
they are really splintered now," he congressional freshmen on the ballot
said. "Moral majority, conservative
in her area: Sen. Dianne Feinstein
Republicans, liberal Republicans and
(D) and Rep. Jane Harman (D).
then you get to the Democrats, into
She voted for Feinstein in a speliberal-liberal and moderate-liberal cial election in 1992, but aifter
and all that mess. That needs to watching millions of dollars in negachange. They need to work togeth- tive ads by Feinstein's opponent.
er."
Rep. Michael Huffington (R), she
The disgust with partisan bicker- doesn't know whether to vote for
ing makes it more difficult for Re- her again.
publicans to make much headway
"I kind of liked her when she was
with a straight "give Republicans a
chance to control Congress mes- elected, but now 1 don't know what
to think," Fontaine said.
sage." At the same time, the public
In Yakima, Wash., Hoff is similarly
mood does appear more receptive to
perplexed about freshman Sen. Patmany of the conservative themes
ty Murray (D), who is not. running
Republicans are sounding on issues
ranging from crime to taxes to fami- for reelection this year, and freshman Rep. Jay Inslee (D), for whom
ly values.
Hoff voted in 1992 and who is in a
Even when Congress does act,
tight race this fall.
voters are often unaware. Although
"They had good ideas, they made
voters say they're angry with Congress and its perceived inability to good speeches, but 1 don't see anything that has drastically changed,"
deal with the country's biggest problems, surveys suggest that many she said. "Their hands are lied in the
voters are either ignorant or misin- long run. |Inslee] does have our in-.
formed about the real accomplish- terests at heart, but the longer he is ;
menis of the House and Senate. Re- in there, the less'ooncemed they all
mems
in there
wun meir newly eiected'representa'• Omgress in 1992. Vic results suggcshlini
find mistrust a/their legislators may fthf'cli
tives. Maxie Hutchins, a service
incumbents (ire ilefeated next minith'^.'.
technician from Inman, S.C., said
freshman Rep. Bob Inglis (R) has
"done a pretty good job" but that
In the next election, are
overall little gets accomplished.
iyou inclined to vote to:
"Maybe I expect too much," he
said. "Rome wasn't built in a day, but
we need to make progress on some. . . reelect my representative
thing instead of going around in cir. . . look foi someone else
cles."
Overall, voters in districts that
had thrown out incumbents were.no
Do you approve or disapprove of ttltiway,y
ahandling his or her job?
-yj/i.
more—or less—satisfied with their
House members' performances than
Sliongly/soniewhat approve
?-'j||jpE
were voters in districts that reelectSirongly/somewhat disajipiove
''Jjjpjji
ed incumbents in 1992. Likewise,
more than seven out of 10 voters in
Overall, how much do you think CMj§c|s^
both types of districts said Congress
• two years?
has accomplished little or nothing in
A grea! deal/good amount
the past two years.
Not too muclVnothing at all
And voters in both types of districts agreed that the govemment in
Does your representative care more about-.Washington was not working better
now than it was two years ago—a
sentiment expressed by six out of 10
. . . special interests
-^fe?
voters interviewed.
. . . or people like you
fllS'i
"I don't really see them doing any. . keeping power
|p||$
thing," said Ridgeway, the Chicago
. . . oi the hesl interests of the nation j5<§j|?
painter. "They aren't listening to the
people. . . . I can look out my winHas your representative pretty much lost.toi'
dow and see crime every day. They
• congressional district, or not?
?>f^^
need to go back into their districts,
Has lost touch
have open forums, walk the street."
Has not lost touch
Ridgeway said too many politicians are remote from the people.
Considering everything, do you think thaithe
"They need to start talking to the
•working better now than in 1992, or.mt?;^.
people, not this supercommunications kind of thing where you see
Working better
him on television but they're 10,000
Not woiliing better
miles away," he said. "I want them in
my neighborhood, on my street."
MOTt: Fipires may not add to 100 peicont because "undd
iiom a Wiishinr.ten Pnr.t tol.iohontj noil ot two randOTi.satrij
The partisanship of Washington is
s.'HnDi,: ot .too is iioin coiigtesstonol districts v.-here ah iftci
a significant source of the dissatiswell as ciiitnns in WHICH no mcumbeni sought reelection tii;
faction expressed by voters, and
seat changed, for compaiative putposes, mo other .random
there is a sense among many of
interviewed in congressional districts thai reeiected'ttteir iric
error tor each sample 'S Dins or minus 5 percentage points,
them that simply changing the peoone ot many pnlentiai soii'Ces of error in this or anyr.olhWnple in Congress won't necessarily
conuueted by Penn & Schnen of New York City. r&'#*Tf.
change the institution.
Many of them talk about "their, belief that the process of legislating is
out of control.
"We need to realize that politiveyed, favors term limits and other people h
cians are not capable of changing it
structural changes, and many voters mcumt}<
any more than the rest of us are,"
said Charles Hawkins, a St. Louis say the culture has io be changed to knbw.th;
businessman. "It's like asking a make it easier for members of Con- mdreipo
plumber to dp..something that would gress to work for the common good, he'll brii
rather than their own good.That's v
niake leM-wofk' for him."
^Hawkins, like most bf those sur"The way the Congress is set up. from."
|
v
t
l
�D M C A S M K GAINS
E ORT AE
B t Republicini Lead of Ait
u
E e in 9 O e SeatJ, *nd.
vn
pn
Incumbenti S e Safe
em
ByglCHABDI-BEBU
Altrr a lumuKuoua wash af cam
paignma in which Demoerati pro
claimed lhal they were » . l » l n i
„ , . . ...lewtde polls P J * * " '
yeaierday ahowed lhal the h ^ r l o r
control ol the Senate was SUB aert
and-netfc.
Illdr»d. Ihe two Kepubhcan Sena
i n n whom the Demoerati aav Ihev
have the heal chance o( pldtaig a "
William V Roth Jr. of Delaware
Cnnrad Bumi ol Montana - "
opened wide leads over their C
crallc challengers.accordhgy po"'
conducted lor major
thoae two atatei
.
t v e n more ducouraging/or Dem
octalt. after weeks of a vt*uot dead
heat tn Pennsylvania,
t m R K * Santorum. a I tpubhcaa
haa pulled ahead of Ihe c
'—
Democrat. Senator H a m
fei that s u t e s laleat poO.' henarvey
of Uhely v o w s •tatearlde.tomhaaod
lor-IheMttshurghPoat'-J
dr. IOBV T A E - T V . ahowed (hi
tonnn had « percent and Mr. W«f
lord 15 percent- Tbe pod h a a marm
^ l u r d j y at the Whrtr Houar.
rfcrly conduo Ht aerved rlirre
, Mlf y e a n al a mllllary prison
LeavenworUi. K a n . and moal
rtly had worted a l an upholslerI M Broadmoor Howl In Colora.
{rings.
tf i M u l k l n f al a B . - aaid Cart
eft,, a apedal a f m t of ihe Se.Servtoe, - h o tfeacribed Mr.
, u -compfcarfyOai."
k taat aha dtera and a> of last
, noold noc dlaena anythin*
, ,1, kidudM hb naaae," Mr.
'J^ad^ihtfhlaldenUfl
««aaaUblM»lbriakh«hi<
gta cd sampUog error a
Paradoxof'94:
Gloomy Voters
In Good Times
•ylSABEtWlLKEItSON
LORAIN, Ohio, Oct » - Hie ornery and UWempered voters who
. f t SH hi judgment en Election Day
enanot exactly pal a ttager an why
(MT are ao dlaguslad mih Washing
Ihey baow that Miatloofetowand
tl»do»s.1hayknow
ttal fte ctamoy Is'act at war. that
oaaihedhva^edeapadWoa Into
M I M n e d out beaerjhn many of
I
e
2SStortS toS? cK'pUn
_ a Maed an. But ethers
ther did not want to
« along with the
Afnxddhaxgr
MdMletathecMtB
. ^ m l a g e n c t o r t d de effort
orpayany
vice e r a H a i Al Core a f a t
ye«erday,i
pectsaafce.
^ New Cardinals
Named by the Pope
Gore said oo ihe ABC New prw«rmm
"ThisWee*.--especially hoKWho
have the csnrage to v le * r a
change In our.
To drtve '
Mr.
> p John Paul II appointed JO
ae
r cardlnala. todudlag two from
: United Stale*. .
Ibe appomiiMla cemented hla
t hence on the tap raaka td the
B M Catholic Chart* and broadal the Held of poeaMe auooeaaora.
Ibe Pepe. 74. has begv to afiow
pi of frailty and IBfaaahh,and In
mt months then have been wlde«ad reports of maneuvering In
, Vatican o«er the succeaalon.
ArddtpageAM
- f h k a a y be a -nearly Impossible
d £ « t o campaign agaknt. the vegue
• a d B that ao matter what anybody
does, things mlgbi get worse B u
itoaa la exactly what politicians a r e
r n m a meratrial and bored
l a h s t e a to voters hi two Midwest
i m e d towaa where thmgs a n
r thM they o n e lo the I M P a
Til*h* linn
1—-••
""-
i.lawa itaaitmi rr
tm River Rouge. Mich, a dty of
A M IIJM Just south of Detroit, a
rethne suodtng In Hne at a dragi
J
, v
umi isW •-ntTrr--^ -ii*'~ "" '
B r r r la Lorain, about I t
GontlnMdonF*grANt
mites
C M f n M d on Page A l l , C a h m u J
�« » MdmiMd. H i MMM mJ«
7
l l u n • i p M n W r t gf d w r t t . '
In raram )».ri. M hit. g<
I
iMhtauMt
u
wunMglnn antf polll
m
(mrtl.
WMhB ih. Ud
am*,
from
: «ll«i.ltan. IfmraiKo.
Indlflortncoor
; "did not-dld loo"
umpalfMni
, hard io Ml.
*
Hul all of ihla h a i madr l h l n « i
harder lor p n r l n c l c a p u i n a M u M l
r h a r l Koury. an otd^lme Democrat
who l< a real e i l a l r a|enl when he la
O M p a u m i i oui PDIIIICOI llteralure
He h a . not bem thrown .off _
r
been i h , ™ ^ - « porches
;
I t y Ihe hard aell lhalI mJuht have
m l i h l have
«orked a nenerallon ago
"Everyhody la a IrerMhInker nowadaya." Mr Koury l a i d "Nobody
likea to be told how to vote. They
want to (o their own w a y "
The problem now. he laid. Is lhal
people may have It loo good. "They
(or^el where Ihey came f r o m . " Mr
Koury said "Business Is good The
people are working. It's a great lime
•o live In A m e n t a . They got H good
and Ihey want It beoer Mayor A lea Olejko of Lorain, a
Democrat, aaid be could not figure a
out. The Ford plant in Ibis d t y of
TI^OO cannot churn out m t n l v a m
' and Thunderbtrds fast enough, the
steel m i l l started hiring this year for
the first time s h x c U B . a n d a n e m * « ° n o l o f percent now
i nay muooy ine WBtrr in pur-',
camfuaa I ha m t a r . " said Mr.
(j
. who w o r t s for an I m h H i r i t
al g a i company. " B v e n If li s m t ?
true, it's wha I you rartwmbor
you pull Ihe lever."
With an many races involving oan-*
dldalea whom v o t e n do m t krvrw or*
do not r a r e sboul, people are h a v i n g
a hard lime d i a l l n g u l i h l n i thr play :
ers
;
in Ihe fihlo Senate rare. In which'
Joel Hyatt, a Demorral. It r u n m n g '
agalnil l.lrul. Oov. Mike DrWlnr. r
Republican, only two thinga a t r ^ d
oui in Ruth Wilhelm. a I j i r a l n steelworker. Thla Is what she gleaned
from the gaury DeWlne adventae
menla that palm the uaually darksoiled pollllrlan as a down-home,'
family man
;
Lorain, Ohio
A
' .
K
>
^ " U ' * ' * " — ' * * * votera aeem l o alternate between cyniciam
c
o
n
M
V
^ "
' * " ^•'•"y. • karate achool owner " l l a n o t h t n more
t l u n a spider w e b of d e c e i t " R u t h W i l h e l m . a rteelworker. could
r ^ h e r only t w j o t f c , . about the Republican candidate for S c n t r t *
" D e W i n e ? Plaid a h t n . L o u a) ^
r
irom JA percenl a decade ago
Idea ol a iniro p a n y or lerm limits,
but not with any particular fervor.
"We re doing a t good as we did
The only thing clear was thetr lack of
with Truman." Ihe Mayor
d
mlere^t.
"Vour son is w o r k i n g Your daugh"Politics Is like life Insurance."
ter is working. You-re worttaig.
said Boh LaForesl. president of LoYou-re get i ing your pension. What
cal 1299 ol Ihe Untied Slrelworkera
more can you ask f o r ? "
union in River Rouge. " I l ' s someHe caught his breath n d ihouehl
thing I got to have, bul I don't want
of something else. "HouUng H g o b u
lo know nothing about I L "
u p . " he said "What more t f e y o u
Whereas bad news bounced off
want?"
Presldeni Ronald Reagan Hbe oil on
The answer from wolen In both
Teflon, bad news seems to be stickLorain and River Rouge was as
ing lo President a t n l o n , at least in
vague and onformed as their general
the minds of many voters biterthe
vlewed, like lint lo V e k m
To bear the InipiesHuus of voters
hi the last week Is to be transported
tee* lo 1992. as If the last two y e a n
u
l
Cemtifer Ftowera, II
at'e
t that h e a
na but did not fahalr. his abaenoe
f r o m the Vietnam War. aB aeem t o
be as fresh hi v o t e n * minds as they
were srheo M r . —
the bus across t
A i r Force One.
- H e f l i p f l o p * , - "aaid Nancy Sabath, a program eootdiaattr at Bead
Start hi Lorain. " B e Just doesnt stay
w i t b thlogs. A n d a n d e r l y h * that, he
d h f a l serve hi the nrihlary. T h a f a
p a n of bebig A m e r i c a n . F o r aome people; nhatever Teflon
President O t n u n may have
to w o r t only with good news. Many
v o t e n aeem to look past the law
hrtlatbai anil t l i n i b
*IJ
and give U m no credit l o r a [aver
<
T h e economy Is cydKaL** said
Boh Ortowski. a sales repnaentative
"DeWlne?" she asked
"Plaid
shirt, l-ots of kids."
Mayor Ole)ko of Lorain said he
mlased the old daya " Y e a r s ago
you'd see Kennedy and Nlaon debate." he aaid "They'd shake hands
and talk about the Issues. Now
they're talking about families and
acandals l l a strkenlog I've been m
politics since 1937, and I've never
eeen such crappy ads."
Rick C r u m . a s u e h n r l t e r hi R l v e i *
Rouge, said poWidans could not bat
believed a n y w i y . " T h e y ' r e aB a
bunch of leechea,- aaid M r . C r u m ,
who added that politicians n a s i
have been lookbtg a l dtfferenl easnomic ngures than he waa. " I f h r f l *
tion Is ao low. bow come c e n a l M
U . n a boat?"
He Is tough on a n p o d t l d a a ea^
ceptlilsown.HisClo«
Bart»r»-Roae Coffins, a I
He said A e waa dotag a goad Jot; a
beat as he could letL " I get a lot t
m a i l f r o m h e r . " M r . Crum sahC
Some voters said ibey thd i n a
• o b e bothered w t d i h a v t a g u s
every step made by their m e a
of C o o g r e « " Y o u put iheae gwys I
cfllee oo you dtart have to keep i
eye on t h e m . - said Fraak :
lea maaagl i at a Mol i
Bat M r .
He shook his h t n d . - T h e r e ' s t o a l
much p e W c a la politics,- he s a K f j
Yogi B e r n could aal have said w h a t j
ever waa meam any better.
1
But some v o t e n are nal ao h a r d oa*
polhicians. Elected officials are. af-1
t e r aB. pes^Se tnu. M r . F l a y cm>3.
•
"vkhmlbasmd^
of t h e a i c e s l p e o ^
want to meet.- he)
life •nmiraiiLL. i t ' a aoaaethaag I g o t t o b m . bnt I d o n t t
;«Amt«bo«iL-BobOri»«rfriw».
puri
q M
i|yanh wi
ro
W
Kw
ifa
Zr^'!r^^^*. ?^ ^^^ ° '''
o n e . a a w h a t y o u l u u u u h e i w h e n y o u puB the lever.**
Ortowski aaid he had not d > >
d d e d who would get h b vme hi the
Tartans Michigan races, bm he said
he waa getting Bttle help I r a n i f -
we s > »
know how low t h e y l l amepw
standard Aaserlcaa Is J o s f
t i r e d of e
�I
In the Mfhwest, A'uiOomy'W'W
Cumimitt
Fftm
Paft
Ai
t d O m U m i Al F l n y . the owne r a t « k u m u i d a «JC u i d be did not
i know wtoeiter l a b e l i m the
- W e d H l roaBi' know wkat'a gol o t aa hi Wadthkpon at a h , - Mr.
F t s y laid. - T h e r e i r e ao many tacts
" L T h e r d e a l tne a b a -
»,mMferw».MiH>
«ot»y.an
wta> ts a reel estate
when he Is
not pnssa« ant political •lermtnre.
He has oot been tfcrowe c f l porches
n r a n j r t l m . b a b e l a i d be knew act
sa t r j
M i d aeO ihat adgbt have
Aa Eiectioa Day appnacbea.Toten
aeem to akemate between cymdsm
•sdimmcrenc&'WedontrcallykiaowitlBt'act^onmWaahinroa
at aQ.- compiaioed A l P u z y . a karate acfaool owoer. H ' a nothing more
Bcpnbliren. paly two tMngs
tua6
am m R a h WOKha. a U n d a steetf
worker. TMs b what she ^ m n *
than a apider arefa o l d e c e i t - Until W a h e h n . a etcehrorfcer. cotdd
r n n e m b e r o n l y t w o t h m p ^ i o m the R e p t l b t c a n c a n A d a t e i c r S e s m t t
- D e W m e ? P l a i d Shirt L o t s a t kxta."
S S L ' ^ ^ S . ' S I ^ L S r S a
nbnsa a « pabt tte mnflly d a r k *
a d a y a . - Mr. Kansy aaid. Tiobody
H e a 10 be told hear to aett. They
to go dwlr o n way."
i n e probtco now. ke aaid. b thai - u i a u 24 percent a dtsath ago.
. -We're doing aa good as we thd
pnegde a a y have It ton ( a o d . - I h e y
artlh Truman.- the Mayor said.
larset where they came f n o . ' Mr.
- Y o u r eon b worting. Your daughKoury s a i d —BuahwH b good The
ter b worting You're working.
people are working. Ins a great time
You're getting your pensioa What
in hve la America. T i e y got h good,
more can you ask f o r t a n d they waaa H b c l l i y Be caught h b breath and thought
Mayor A M Oiejfci af L o r a b . a
of something dse.-Housing b going
Democrai. aaid be omdd oot flgnre K
c*i," he said. "What more do you
o w . The Ford ptam b thb ehy ol
want?"
rds l a a enough, the
I Tha
steel null started h M r g thb year (or
the first time since IIK2, and unemploysnent haa gone lo I percent now
In * e Ohio Senate race, b whicb.
. Jael Hyatt, a Demooal. b n a a * ^
Lorakl. O M e
The answer from voters to both
Lorain and River Rouge waa as
vague and unformed as their general
dbconient People mentioned the
Idea of a nnrd party or term
but not with any particular
The only thing d e a r was their
s
bnerest
-Polillcs b like We
said Bob L a F o r e s l . preskjem
cal 12*9 of the United Steelw
union m River Rouge. "It's
thing I got to have, but I don't
lo know nothing about it ~
Whereas bad news bounced off
PresUent Ronald Reagan like oil on
Teflon, bad news seems lo be sticking to Presidenl Clinton, at leaat In
the minds of many voters interviewed, like lint lo Vricro
To hear Ihe Impressions of voters
in Ihe last week n to be transported
back to IM2. aa if the last two yeare
r Ofejko of Larnhi said bej
mbaed Ibe old day*. -Yeare ago
you'd aae Kennedy and HBxon <*-'
bme." he s a i d 'They'd shake h a n d *
and t a b about the issues Now!
Rouge said politicians could not I M !
believed anyway. "They're all a bunch of leeches." said Mr Crum.4
who added that politicians must]
have been baking at diffrrmt eco^
nomic rtgurrs than he was "If infla^
tlon is so low. how come cereal b
$4.71 a boa?"
He is lough on all polluctans eaccpt his own. His Congressanman U
Gmnifer Flowers, the President't
Barbara Rose Cofltm, a Democrat'
slslemenl lhal he smoked marijuaHe said she was doing a good Job. as!
na bul did not Inhale, h b absence
beat as he could led. "I get a lot o C
frem the Vietnam War. all aeem to
mall from her." Mr. Cram said
•
be aa fresh In voters' minds aa Ihey
Some voters said ihey ahd oot w a n C
were vrhen Mr. Clinlon was riding
10 he bothered with having lo walcfcj
the bus across the country instead of
every step made hy their member* i
Air Force One.
of Congress "You put Iheae guya k j ]
"He fllp-flope." said Nancy Sa
office so you don't have lo keep
bath, a program coordinator al Head eye on ihem." said Frank
Stan In l-oraln. " H r |ust doean'l stay barger. saba manager al s tool
with thinga And underlying that, he
pair d a p b) Lorala
didn't serve in Ihe military, l h a l ' l
BtU Mr. thonebargrr haa nollcec
pan of being American."
the gndlork and grandatandmg. and
For aome profile, whalever Teftof
It angers him. "As long aa there's
Prealdent Cltnlun may have aeemi
Republlrana and Democrats golnfl
10 work only wlih good news Many al each other on both sides ef t N
voters aeem lo b a t past the low street, nothing gets done," ha aaid
Infbiknn and drop hi unemploi
Ht dieot his head "There's loa
and give him no
ror a r a m ,„ poiiiir,," ha eakC
able economy
Barra could aot have aaid wfial
" I h e economy la cycltcat.'
inyhwiar
,
Bob Orfciwakl, a sake represerriall
"ail**"—-mn
miera are n n an hard nn
m
l
l
r
t
�S t . L o u t * VotCTl « a p o l l i n g place i d u p at a floriat a h o p caat their b a l l o u under a n a r r a y o l l l o r a l a r r a n g r m e n u
T H E VOTERS
C A M P A W N FINANCINC
In Chicago (Chicago!),
Many Just Stay Home
On the Money Traill
seems an eeno cnambcr or tfisconlent.
In Imervicws loday. voters told
CHICAGO. Nov. I - Preclnci capwhy they were silling out this r t r c
l a k n auod ouume nearly empty
lion, srhy they were drinking esprespolling place*. They looked a l their
so or running errands or headtng to
Ifaa aad checked o i l n a m e s They
Ihe g y m instead o l going to ihe polls
/ f t people rtdea lo the poth. They got
in one ef the Ughtcsl. meanest midM > y d t l e n ier v o t e n ' d i i l d r a n .
t e r m d e o l o n s hi years.
U r y ihpped m n l n d e n on people't
They spofcc k i the venomous lones
I n m porches and paibn c a r * , lo
that have characterized the camthrir
hands. T h q h . got
doon
paign. " P o l k i c i a n s are f i n a g l e n . l i s u m m e d In their I j f e s and weak
ars, j t t g g l e n and seat-holders,*" said
p n m i a e s I r a m v o t e r * trho vowed
U o y d Jackson, a welder explaining
they would vole hut (Ud notwhy he was not voting. " A t election
• . By the end c i Election Day tn a
time, u n g n c s w a g both ways. Poll• chy sAere poitltcs Is a Hood sport
t k s have done absolutely nothing (or
mcless than hah of the v o t e n had cast
Socne said they were simply too
haOots lor U l e and Congresslona]
busy. - I just graduated f n m school.
n r e s thai politicians said could
I tvork CS. 70 hours a week. I've got
ckange the face of Washington.
student b a n s l o pay b a c k . said
' - I h e y r e really not huereaied t h b
Keith Frainey. a
psydiolagisL
"What raahily interests me ts t r y i n g
time, to tell you the l rath." aaid John
Ameria. a Democratic p r e d n c l t i p |o make a I n r i n f . "
tam on Chicago's Northwest Side, v — g u i m U U Ificy could not stomach
i
.' •There are many reasons. Two
I he ballot choices. " T h e candidaies
COttrcsxmcn on the O n r a g o ballot
are umaonhy because Ihey r u n simply by aitacfchig each other htslcad
m * under Indict ment - Dan Rostentawskl mi charges of f r a a d and e m of saying w h a l Ihey w i l l do.** said
bbsiement.
Ud
Reynolds
o n ' Boh Makey. a r e a l estate developer
trynig to d e d d e t o d r a g himartf to
d b i r e a d sexual assault c f a minor.
the polls. - I d o n t even know m o a of
.
M M I i a y negative advertising nas
' respect they had h b e candidaies. The press has thacandidaies A n d t h b year.
V
^
¥ V o o l " and " p o l i l ^ i a n " ha>l(' UTetl
Cowlinurd on Pafr B4
u<cd imrrrhaoecwbly I n ' w h a t now
By ISABEL WILKERSON
-
1
a
By S T E P H E N LABATON
If money could have voted, m a i m
betta trould have had far less l o
w o r r y about In yesterday's d e c i n o s .
ihe most expensive mid Lerm conlest
« American h b l o r y . Although I h r
oratory around the nation railed
against Washington Insiders, tacumhems continued to vastly omraise
and oucspend challengers
Despite l h a l trend, which levered
the Democrats, contribution figures
i l the Federal Election f o m m b d o n
showed d i a l aome Republican challengers had e k h e r n a m m e d o r eUmmated die financial advantages thai
hislortcaily attach to Incumbency.
I n particular, t w o D e m o c n t i c b>
cumbewu k i tbe Senate — Harris
Woftord e f Perrts>-tvania and Jfan
Sasser o f Tennesaee — found opponents d r a w i n g v m u a l l y even w h h
them i n fund raising. T w o other
Democratic Senators — Charles S.
Robb of Virginia and Diaanc Feinstein of California - 1 railed their
Republican opponents by ratios o f
in 2 to I.
With ihe emergence of dtaBecigwho had poured tens of milbons
d o l b r s f r o m their personal forkaa their campaigns. House
S c n a u races t h b year d b e c t l y
j retard morc d a m (MO m l l b n . fa
contrast to B « J million In 1 B 2 and
' t i a u n a B b n l o 1*90. a n e r t b g t o
the d e c t i a n c o m m b s b a
The mnnbers generally slamed
lhal a l bast k i terms of fund raising.
and conirary I
it was easier t
veteran lhan I
A new s t u d y !
public-affairs •
Washington,
cumbents s
average, a
their challe
reaourres, a IS;
lions by politi '
and an g-lo-l 3
tagegnngkUoJ
campaign.
The study 1
oimbents h a d j
and indirect <
Sept. 30: chalt
And ctiallc
raised more I
nents k i o n l y 1
In c o n t r a s t , |
S2 disthcts
showed v i r t u
with [
through :
raising SI9.I I
Still, there I
monev
trail|
changed lor I
that the large I
had yielded i
�I ML N A I
ION
TENNESSEE
BjeSctefiorkgmtslCBSMEWSlHill
THE V O T K R S
Ih Chicago (Chicago!), Many People
Decide They're Really Not Interested
CouinMl From Pafr Bl
rauragcd i w frera m t m c because k
knks like n's (Oing 10 be a Retaiblican landslide and there is nothing I
can do about tL People are frastreted. emascsilaKd and there s no hope
anymore."
. Joseph fauhis. a store n
training, said he voted lor
Clinton, bta was loo turned
vote this i une. " I r t tbe
garbage." Mr. Paubtstaid . —
changes. T m j t m so frustrated
ledup."
He said he wants radical change.
"We need lu do away with Congress." he s a i d "It should be a lot
•ery just like jury duly. You should
be drafted logo to Washington. That
way - t T w o u k l get reporters and
t e a s e r s and larmers and business,
men. II would be a better representa-
Even people who decided to vole
had a hard lime deciding what lo do
once they got thetr ballot- "I know 1
should vote, but I'm not cached or
u y t h i t v . " said Charlsse Landise, a
Ihtalsu praatUoner . '
3 * sat srith a cup of coffee, studying the Irom page of The Chicago
Tribune before dalking to Ihe voting
booth "I'm looking for tome type of
reference point of who Is declaring
what," M s Landise said. "I'm ki the
dark. I'm kmUng for who 1 should
vote for. Just dues.'';
This lime of year In C h k a g u a city
where people really do can their
alderman's office when their trash Is
ma picked i * . there should be a
forest of yard aigna aad argumenu
~ — Candidates M e w y dhner la-
Voters and Nonvoters Compared
Poroortagewfio...
38%
8%
AreiatdarMynnreolago
66
51
Hwetwtadondedccdege
Republican
Wins the Si
Gore Vacat
IntheSenat
By RONALD SMOTHER
ngpoftad annual houaaliokl
n c c m e Lnder S30.CXX)
N A S H V I L L E . Nov. I - F
Thompson, a Republican I
lobbyist and sometime
e n d a stiagaigdefeat u a e
crats today by wianiag * e
seat formerly held by A l C a
. T h i r m a l l y Chicago Is a h n a this
Pme of year," said Rjchard Mefl, an
Side. "This ts a strange aae. I (ust
. T O , time
people d k h i l even
signs bke they nsnaDy
• mo m e
T m in tht dark. Tm looking for
who 1 should vote for. Just cluea."
Ruaa Cibba
Marhetinf Eaecutive
"11 doesn t seem like there are lhal
many issues penment lo me. If
you're not m any particular pain,
you're not gomg lo vole, ll a going to
go on without me."
TALLY
Getting Out the Vote
ymrs * »*•(* n*™ w r
oe
l-urcnnt igo of vcmng ago p.jpt*ilion
voli'ni nat^nanr
eu?ct<jns
[fee.
iticws
Jtl
.;.
atl
M
M
n — o — - " -
M
8? W
n
74
7»
«
«— - - * — « — — • — * - '
M
HO
•*~*
«-»-••*•« • i
m wort a Utile hardex. "We're dragging everyixxly out to vote and bopg ' ^ e y ^ . ^ f h r t l r . - Mr_M«a
-We drtve them « t h e y need s
maj babysh lor them H they
_J«babysltler.'
Things staned slowly and stayed
slow. 0( the t M reflstered Democrals ao the hit td one Northwest
Side precinct captain. Bobett Pieiryka. only M had diown ap hy » ^ »
A l C the end of the morning r u t h
-Right now. I'm naming 9* percent
of my normal pace." Mr. Pietryka
said "Your morning rush b your big
voting period. We're looking at maybe JS percent luraout by 7 P M '
An election lodge al a South Side
polling place said. "There hasn l
been Ihe stream of people that usually come out before work."
"Stream?" asked Craig Jeffreys,
another election (udge' li s been
more like a drip. You know how you
turn off Ihe faucet and all that's left
Is lhal slow drip lhal comes qui?
Thai s how H's been."
Corrlls IreUnd, anolher etedlon
(udge on Chlcago'B South Side, said
•he apent all day Sunday trymg lo
get p n * * ki her perdommantly
Uacb dtatrlct eaclled about voting
"I paaaed out llteralure about Nel
son Mandela and Ihe hwmry ol whal
ll took lor Africans lo vole." Ma.
I,eland aakl. "The llleretarehad piclures of muthera wlih chlldrm on
ihelr backs and shoulders walking
for Ihrea days i s vola. And theas
i aearhr half of
l i s and
all voters ar*
I so u r as l a
RapuhUcans have i
In
i & ^ l » O ^ » l « 0 i n t * » i b t o P ^ ^ - 9 W
r ,
. Say c o w d ^ n e e d * d n w r p t d h i a l p * *
tocampMadtiOaniocnllcand
;J
Hgptibicanpdrtlw
' •
- f • •' •
Daaate«ienatf»«*«*
OtkiuuM
Republican
kKiepandeni
5
'.
61
0
36
3*
H »
.
33
29
31
. t h l . a » adJta nadonawle kum Oct » * * > « .
l.Tha-vowiOPUt>«c-and-nonvot«>gi»*>c « « a ) a iia e o o i uang whathw
are " e i « M Or
olvotngon
or not ttw ivscondon • mgoared » - n a and wnat a w ^ *
Elacux Oa» a . aa waa as whathw Of not may sat »>ar w » d
commertials (Cov. Jim Edgar, a
Republican, si liny did Ms own rap In
a radio spot "Well, my name ia Jim
and I've |ual been disaediSo I've got
to respond cause my point waa
missed")
Velma Rivera, a nursklg assistant
who Is black, said ll waa a lurther
Insult In an elect mn year "hen Issues
like crime and welfare errmcd to br
assaults on Ihem. "I'm U years old."
Ms. Rivera said. " R a p Is lor my I*yror-old eon. ll |usl ahwws whal Ihey
think of us "
She says she is nut vmlng. "Black
people are on their own.-Ma. Rivera
said, remembering whh some sadness ihe e s r l M M M * * M when
Harald WsihkigUm wag M i U m
mayoral race. - T h e e * pohtlrtana
now don't even rompsre I s Harold
Washinglon."
I h * apathy craataa
ar
Patricia C M k v u s i . an alderman on
Chlcaaa's NesiliwcB! Sde. "They're
sayhig their Wves are loo busy to
rate. They Iret polillciani don't help
them anyway, ao n doesn't mailer."
Russ Gdfes. a marketing executive who vwMd lor Ross Perot in Ihe
ISM P r e i n h m i a l ehMUn. aakl he
sawnoreawmlago. " l l doesn't aeem
like there are * a t many Issues pertlnent to me " Mr. Olhba aaid "The
m n o m y la dalng pretty good I'm
not really adlenad by crime. If
you're not • aay parliruUr pabt.
you're not gamg to vole, li s going to
go s n wlthom m r . " .
Itevr Joslya was beyond apathetic
sboul the c t M i o n . "I don't even
know when • la." aaid Mr. Joslyn. a
chef a t l N a n h (Ida resliuranl. whs
sioppsd lor cWIea at . North tide
u a r i a i r k i hut aaid he did not
M VOM, -M l
said early ladlcaiiaaa frem I
pods suggested thai die Dem
candidaies lo the Iwo Sens*
had been ought lo a "Batan
march."
Mr. Nolao said Ibe Dem
"especially Cooper, got c m *
the four great 'anil's' thta yea
Congresa. antl-Clmton. ami
crat and antMncumbem."
He said Mr. Cooper, a tt
educated lawyer and Rhode
ar. had tned lo rush lo ihe r
champsonkw the death pena
A 'Bataan death
march'for two
Democratic
candidates.
ilon.lalhepraoaa.Mr
N*
�explosion. (Article on fage BlUj
tm: power io directly affect events hitting
*
* *
"very close to home. This lesson has
StrongyComeliuson's president,
enormous ramifications. Already it is in- Andrew Ziegler, is leaving the comA fonner Navy lieutenant was awarded I 0
spiring a few Republicans to ponder a
$5 million in'punitive damages, bringing to ' I'
proposal to require a national referendum pany, as is his wife, Carlene Murphy S6.7 million the amount Hilton Hotels has s
to approve any federal tax increases. GOP Ziegler, a well-known fund manager. been ordered to pay the former helicopter
House Whip Newt Gingrich, for one. is They plan to start their own firm.
pilot, Paula Coughlin, in connection with the p.
(Article on Page BID
intrigued by the radical notion, advisers
1991 Tailhook convention in Las Vegas. ri
* * *
say.
(Article on Page A4)
* * #
Magim Power urged holders to reTravels around the state this year, and
Air emissions from pleasure boats face si
talks with its leading political figures, ject California Energy's sweetened
possible regulation by the EPA. A proposed E:
suggest that this is but one of several
S924 million acquisition offer.
rule would curb emissions from gasoline and Pi
potentially far-reachirig'Iessohs about poli(Article on Page A4)
c
diesel engines and would'cover some small S
tic; in the 1990s to be learned from
* * *
al
fishing boats. (Article on Page B9)
California - a state that native-son politiYounkers directors adopted a poifo
* # *
cal consultant Edward Rollins says is
son-pill plan to stall Carson Pirie
l
A Mexican judge sentenced the confessed w
always "two years ahead of the country."
Scott's takeover bid for the retailer.
r
assassin of presidential candidate Colosio to a
Thiy include:
(Article on Page A4)
42 years in prison. The defendant, Mario SI
' • More of the same shouting won't get
* * *
Aburto, was seized by police immediately
thriugh. California was the first state to
Dime Bancorp and Anchor Bancorp after the March 23 shooting in Tijuana.
marry TV and politics. But for candidates
dt
all year long, the problem has been to cut said James Large, chairman of An'
More than 175 teenagers were arrested | M
through a rising amount of clutter on the chor, will head the combined company
»
in Detroit for curfew violations Sunday night P
airwaves to get through to voters. It has when the companies merge next year.
C
o
onl.v gotten harder and harder. There are Dime's president, Richard Parsons, is as the city's annual Devil's Night arson m
spree erupted into the worst outbreak of
more cable channels to penetrate, more to become president of Time Warner.
Tt
fires in at least seven years.
noisy talk-radio outlets with which to com(Articleon Page B i t )
* # »
pete, more O.J. Simpson stories distract* * #
As many as 92 Inmates remained at large pa
ing the public, less and less local TV news
PaineWebber offered bonuses to after tunneling through the wall of Haiti's mi
covt?rage to help spread the word.
Kidder Peabody brokers to keep them main prison. Sunday's jailbreak in Port-au- ss;
:>o campaigns have responded by siman
from defecting before PaineWebber's Prince may have involved complicity by lit
ply buying more ads, and making them
Haitian guards, officials said.
more harshly negative to be heard above planned purchase of Kidder closes.
N
o
* * »
(Article on Page A5)
the din. But the louder the racket, the more
pu
Algerian leader Zeroual said a presiden» * #
voters seem to be tuning it out. "It's sort of
tial election will be held before the end of iss
like the application of pesticide in agriculLaidlaw will acquire U.S. Pollution 1995, a year earlier than expected. The Si'
ture," says Democratic analyst William Control, a waste-management firm, move seemed to be an attempt to address to
Bradley. "Bugs develop a resistance to from Union Pacific for $225 million.
concerns of Muslim fundamentalists whose TP
pesticide. So the farmers have to bomb
(Article on Page A5)
1992 election victory was thrown out.
sp
them with more and more pesticide.
* * *
I Voters! have developed a resistance to the Markets•* * *
The MMM Investment Arm's head won a wt
pesticide, which is politics." Democrat
Stocks: Volume 302,756,950 shares. Dow
Kathleen Brown, who is challenging Re- Jones industrials 3908.12, off 22.54; transpor- seat in Parliament just two weeks after his llti
publican incumbent Pete Wilson in the tation 1526.99, off 9.78; utilities 181.39, off release from jail. Sergei Mavrodi is accused tin
of masterminding a. massive pyramid pl>
governor's race, puts it more succinctly: 0.26.
"Thuy don't believe anything any more
sai
Bonds: Lehman Brothers Treasury index scheme. (Article on Page A16)
* * *
that's on their TV."
stc
4985.19, up 1.99.
Indeed, there seem to have-been two
Commodities: Oil $18.19 a barrel, off four
Brazil's President Franco ordered a mili- pi
main responses to the campaign-ad on- cents. Dow Jones futures index 153.82, off tary-led crackdown on drug gangs that have Gf
slaught in California. First, voters have 0.48; spot index 144.63, off 1.02.
been blamed for a wave of violence in Mi
developed a negative view of all the major
Dollar: 96.85 yen, off 0.40; 1.5038 marks, Rio de Janeiro. Military commanders will clc
candidates. California holds the nation's off 0.0047.
oversee the crime-fighting efforts.
hottest Senate race, between Democratic
Sen. Dianne Feinstein and her challenger,
GOP congressman and oil heir Michael
THE INDEX TO BUSINESSES APPEARS ON PAGE B2
Huffington. Remarkably, whoever wins
will do so with a negative rating from more
THREE SECTIONS
than half the voters.
Abreast of the Market C Leisure & Arts
2
A18
.1
NEW DIRECTION:
Second; California voters have stayed
Amex Stocks
C12 Listed Options
C16
I
V
China's big state
away from the polls in disgust. In the
Bond Data Bank
CM Maritettng & Media Bl,4,6
June primary, just 19% -of the state's
airlines seek ties with t
CBOE Int. Options C20 Money Rates
(23
eligible voters turned out, near a record
Commodities
C18.19 Mutual Funds
CS
2
foreign carriers in
ft
Corrections
A2 Nasdaq Stocks
C7
low, and a full quarter below the rate seen
bid to escape shabby
Credit Markets
C23 New Securities Issues CIS
in 1966. If not for the excitement generated
I)
image of nation's air
Dividend News
A12 NYSE/Amex Bonds C20
by Proposition 187, many analysts think
DJ US Indstry Groups C7 NYSE HlKtU * Lows C6
system. Page B4.
there would be a record low turnout next
DJ World Stock Index CH NYSE Stocks
CJ
Tuesday.
Eamings Digest
AID Odd-Lot Tradliv
a HEARD ON THE STREET: GM's
"I'm not going to vote," declares Mark
Economy
A! PoUUcs & PoUcy
A22
turnaround story loses luster, Cl.
Avila, & clerk in an athletic shoe store in
Editorials
A20.21 Small Stock Focus
C7
Los Angeles. "It's a no-win situation.
Enterprise
B2 Stock Data Bank
a ECONOMY: Oversupply of grain and
88,9
They're all losers." His boss, Steve Rodri- Foreign Exchange Cli Technotogy
hogs slows U.S. farm rebound, A2.
Heard on the Street Cl Treas./Govt. Issues a i
guez, chimes in: "I've never seen such
Index Options
CIS Who's News
B10.ll
ugly campaigns... I'm only going to vote
International News AIM? World Markets
C14 MANAGEMENT: How companies deal
to see Proposition 187 pass."
Uw
B10 Your Money Matters Cl with a substance-abusing CEO, B l .
• To connect with voters, political mesDirectory of Services/Subscription Information W
sages are getting even simpler. "We didn't
Gasified: The Hart BINS
Ple^ Turn to Page AH)^Column 1
1
TODAY'S CONTENTS
I D SR
N UT Y
5
�•tit o l ^
iroyide
n who
r
snot a
ne de, most
death
7 luuuuiuuayiyua^.iiHi
t'onthe
MaljLetten'to ttw, Editor to 1000
'. V/llsdnBivo.; "^T/an] Vflf22229:Tax 1-703-2765513. Or 1Indude your
addressand
and night phone numbers lor verIfcation. Concise, timelyil'tetters have the best
Ciance of being puttished.'Letters will be edited.
itif?.
and that Is with the assistance of federal ^ can. families. The problem is^they- have
grants. As 1 said, at'
16,000 Afrl- . hundreds of African-Ameri children on
can-American children need pennanent iv their lists.
families, and that is after African-AmeriCarol Statute Bevan, director for Public
can families are already adopting at a
Policy, National Council For Adoption
higher rate than whites.
Washington, D.C
No pace — or prize — without justice
Honoring Yasser Arafat for
peace efforts makes a
mockery of Nobel Prize.
case a criminal whose
paramilitary units even
served with Saddam
Hussein's forces in occupied Kuwait — makes a
mockery of both the No"No crime without a punishment" is a
bel Prize and of essenmajor principle of intemationai law, essential world legal order.
tial to civilized intemationai relations. It
We all know of the
obligates all nations to seek out and prose- By Louis
multiple, egregious
cute the perpetrators of war crimes, Rene Beres,
crimes committed over
crimes against peace and crimes against professor of
the years by the Paleshumanity. And this obligation extends to intemationai
tine Liberation Organithose responsible for crimes of terrorism. law at Purdue zation, always under the
It is thus more than a little ironic that University.
direct authority of AraYasser Arafat, together with the prime
fat These crimes were
minister andforeignminister of Israel, no different from what may be permissible
less, has now been awarded the Nobel forms of violence directed toward self-deP«ace Prize.
termination because of the PLO's persis: Though the Nobel committee doubtless tent and deliberate targeting of civilian
concluded that Arafat's presumed efforts populations. We recall the extraordinary
to ward "peace" were great enough to out- horror and ferocity of Palestine Liberation
" weigh his prior disregard for justice, its Army crimes agpinst Kuwaiti women and.
calculations woe altogether misguided.
children just four years ago.
As recognized by intemationai law,
And Arafat's own senior adviser rethere can never be an authentic peace minded us as recently as July 13 that the
without justice. Presenting humanity's chainnan accepts responsibility for all
highest/award tor peace to criminals who such crimes. Speaking in a dispute over
wtirrant substantial punishment — in this four PLO men who planned a massacre of
Israeli schoolchildren by slitting their
throats, Ahmad Tibi described Arafat as
"responsible on behalf of the Palestinian
people for everything that was done in the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict"
What about the obligation established at
Nuremberg after World War II, and reaffirmed since, to bring those responsible for
intemationai crimes to justice?
The Nobel Peace Prize honors the very
greatest achievements on this endangered
planet When it is bestowed upon an individual whose entire life has been dedicated to terrorist war directed almost exclusively at non-combatants, the honor can no
longer be acknowledged.
Standing in stark opposition to the most
elementary legal principles of peace and
justice, the prize has now become discredited, a grotesquely ironic badge of dishonor. It must also be a sad reminder that the
ongoing expectations of intemationai law
cannot be overruled by even the best-intentioned whims of the political moment
Louts Rene Beres is author of 14 books
on international law.
• Mideast, 6A
| Voices: Are attack ads and negative campaigning good ways to seek election?
.^V. . As elections draw near, candidates across the country are buying air timetobroadcast negative messages about their
as ;i i k -y.''-S^opponents. For example, the Virginia Senate race pitting Republican Oliver North against Incumbent Democrat Chuck
V
^ .s§&$&i#
Robb has turned Into an attack on character. USA TODAY asked readers their views on negative campaigning.
<\1'
f
-•
,.
-
lib
EBori Warren, 50
Rait-time teacher
Bethesda, Md.
Octavio Nuiry, 34
Public relations mgr.
Long Beach, Calif.
E. Tonya Greenwood
51, sr. contract spec.
Neptune, N.J.
David Larwa, 46
Science consultant
Brighton, Mich.
Pablo Zavala Jr., 39
Home-school liaison
Florida City, Fla.
fio. We ought to focus
on the positive. We want
to Inow what the candidates can do, not what
the opposition cant do.
Attack ads are a
waste of time and energy. Candidates should
stick to the issues. Unfortunately, politics has
become an attack on
personalities. Voters
aren't interested in that
I'm interested in the issues and how they affect me economically.
Attack ads are totally
unprofessional. Any
type of negative campaigning does not benefit either party that's
running. The political
arena should be more
professional. They
should deal with issues
instead of slinging mud.
I tend to listen to the
language a lot in the ads.
I'm not impressed when
ads are used that are
very flagrant and not
substantiated by any
facts. That tends to turn
me off. It makes me
want tofindout whether
they're telling the truth.
I look at what a candi-:
date has done and the
way he has done his
work. I dont look at the
a^s. They are kind of
deceiving. I dont really
trust them. I'd rather
look at a candidate's history and what he has accomplished.
v-
�S v V t W n o (unWim need not te MiDy r u i, l e a l l workl In "datinilion"
like
: I M V e u But M auino p m U m faet local—
iht
io build more eMbwi In
muca thii evolution ioevh*He — tl U jiat at Ukdv to oomume the loo t eoanom/and lool residenti the wiy i
hyena caU itt young.
tntSniy nicfcflsooeyfromdie
Perhapt the lohition u for itatet lo oooof
f u U e n , Mod 20% or
fofadxlf thetr casino intrrcstt in n p a
M D M m n O o n , tadnot (fi»oastcn. That would enshle Ihe fUtei lo
dare the weahh. control the trouble, comOther m a d l o w f n w diaoovtnJ otfvpete whh Las Vcgu uid other tunUini
typca c f amao t r w U c CSntol C t y .
dcMinitiom, and limit ovcrciposure to ca«daBtio Mibfaifail99l.
sino pmbbng'i seductiom.
Bna
hrtrr. property ttx Yiiu»faa dK giuiuGm dflmct tott to faigb But the better solution a tor voten lo ic-fa
(endrTHor^SoniJiOOOijtar ject casino gsmbtingwharver possible. AA
t43/^jU) — nut g«ny u i c i i l i i B l n n i c Ier aD, when did you last invite a hyena lo
m i OOL A y a t Idcr, residenti acre diuner and not regret it?
>
do*
OvtoiaH
»» a mat m w*™. •Mam. ay—om a
wtnbtcoak^t
Maffrntadlaa
CM M. Prank. EAtnbon. Pa
W a Congreufliink*of roten r v ae
ht
e e ld
Rap. F M Ommy ttomtd m what Uw pollUdani iwlly Ititmi
or ua w o n turn/ w U M pandertnf lo us lor our votta
m m wtaao (bay are Ml p n w m
- To Iba d-a n a Ibat we a n supW mutfi lo beHm anyOiint
tu
i
DiaidMylijaalbayheldaalnii uoar csnKmpt lor our tbpldHy,
aetUtaM tnaiA la be suapldoia
and lo the darae ttat we ara (at
of Own. dwy bodi faar and loathe ua tor ourTnielllrnce.
Grandy Aoaad bow Ibe rattag eUte haa user coitfemta for the
people o/oe UaMad Sales, aad yft wblle hi oflc* mis comeimaMe Itnle nan taatf blmadl anaMe k> arfben lo Ihe prtnctpla o«
Ua owapHdcal party, thenby waakenlnt ibe very twoiauty ay»
Maybe now Grandy can fa back lo ptayW* the pan ot an h t p
Id dale tmtt on aometaaneMcom. a role Dial he lafcrbeoer
autud d m lo I M of arapraeealallvcof Ibe people of die United
SttesorAaerfca.
Ron Yorke. Reseda. Catlf.
Stop playing U.S. nanny
snt>-^2Suio crowd, one inigbt ctpcel tbcxn
to rfww up i t the potts dted in fosnmer,
w A wiopi sod hjtffl ss BfTTMonft
Sure, there arefcgitiiMtecoooerm: (Kplllotato.rfifea.|> ancd crime n d petty tfuctviy,
Tahm. jofca. 'adefactiem-" And t
ooooc^vs thst d o he jiddfcuodt
rDaaWferoafced
> r • Q i n i c V i i i t o o walk the
^
To G c o «
Vegas, day and nght, canyiag backets af
J O B B O "money-Ask ttefcaftfa in V<
fkpv Apf IDOOVUKC" cnniiuBh to b t p a
Uil'HIiU'lHBaSg
I all In p«
Tlxvotwi
thev
tha taiiibaauu m r s atornet
'Nd only art
lflnlTj|Wilii
T
o
a or oearloplcs M USA TODAY. Mnd
Mnri lor aaara t> tm waa a i ID laaaM^eoMuwi on t a
Fai 1-7nM7M»tl I M Lsam to t» banr lo 1000 Mton »
taV *
22ZS. Or erf i a 0 M 2 B « 0 a
mop
nu^hL Ihelr prlaon a t v. it any, Ihe hands a K f M M a . loo.
nui of wilt b e * o r l
ican hclpkaep
ths NaUooal Rita
Ttw
baclipouna
Hon tuppnni can halp prenm crlimnak tram
Irtanni ihrou^i laglumair nitlau. Howaw.
re)tci ihls propraH] becawr ll haa Ihe NRA tump of approval.
Anyone who ihtnkt thai acroaaOwboard
rttMna
»IU reduce crime It klddlnf (ilmaeM and Mepptng on my
Sfcond Amendment rlfhu at Die • m e Ume. I have dona
twnhlnK wronn In luaUty contacaimn of my gum. twl lhal la
USA TOIMV and othen are prapoalng. Plcaae don'l
punM me lor (he fallurae ol 10 yean of Uberallm.
R. fhenrood VelUi, Howes O r e , N Y.
Rigid controls, punishment both needed
I alway* Ind n amislr* wtien the NRA or olbar Ukrminded gun lovers are queaUoned about ipjn controla You
c u count on thetr ttandard. hackneyed rtapniae being a
tail lor •Tong pnnUhmem when t m are aaed la ertmea
Vby mu» H be one or die other? Strong puotttve mea.
tures wtlh rigid pin cononl teem like logical •otulioar
t ised to live In Engtand. a country of 99 rntflhm people
where Itt almoat ImpiHlble lo own a pm. In IW1 then
were attxalof J2 pm homlddea, while for the aame period
la the USA, p n deaUa exceeded 13.000.
irt obvious there Is a detidle rdaOoaablp baween p a
proliferation and pm deaths 1 mual tay Ifs a small oonaola.
boo io thoae vlctlma and Ibdr lamllto lhal Ibnae people
died while Ihelr Second Amendment -ripmr woe b a d
IRudd."
Voicas: Are fou an angry voter this yaar? Why?
s n s m knlgn ribta. podt Mtata M vowra am
OM/USA T4OAY/OWM> fot * a m t a racerd 73* wa
"utifH tmx Cavaaa. USA TOOAY aakad n a d n »IwiTra lad 1 1 and unyftayla* M <wy.
4
vataecZknA'k&'^krobwishofaldbe
^
toTuH^pcfi aod MdStiJoMlitodp
propmrttro ^"p*^
-
rJbmJrf be f A t e d . EiltJb duuciffofcaiipfli
fdoesnt n t e r 4 e aet 1 or demiDd f r
ffxxkand aernccs lhal ifaeady
^ • • "Addictioo": Nov r s can'be far^
. v a n e d . flxH t a i aiine ,
tipQ in flnart'vaBenn ttnlcpca.. .That
ooold be provided vnhii^nity by pro- and
MtKcasmo groapa.
P w wijfrinalnng and nrifrfilrinK are tfie
fli^oe of the daSy gaxoe v e "^^^ A ^ D Q ^
cans. So they sfauldn ! be ^ept bom a Bole
kuuitly gaming by a few
' wonywarts, e^jeLiaBy when ihe naoialnrn
- are pcfatiaaos — and the wui^ywarts are
Music tldso producer
Topenoa Canyon, Ca»
Dn angry fee- Yeai The eteetloas
dnl Be ae areaoBBriyaow.lnall
Ibe yean Ite Bved, I
SS^BringmAftS"-
(«ta? Tha r u b e kind o T ^ b r
liinal U b f t e hand of a pm.
Whataboaltbelixilimatei«blofAmcTns to tt; Wbtttr a i d A e punoit cfhaprrfShooldn'twcityrdwoukMxgro. rrfiliwial I H U I I K '
fiboty
bafiauLia as naiifiliiog . ^.
nr than dtCDO MVCI?
! An fVanrn^brdaacaiumiaa
Ac iaaabn« from tbe JToday in MtAoumc. Flo.
1
Amerton.1 belim that
we're being cheated
wbaTs due m We dont
.aBfed
ic^ar iridation. Bnt penpie have ded 10 ps« me
tbe right to volt; so rn
T
I
VSn
1 iSmyon - v s n a • AVOOI vsn
AaaaM
N O I N I d O
bdng so coosMeady
nasty. I caeft beBeve
politicians are going
aboaHbls the way Ihey
are. I cant n u ail tier
their mesapes became
the negattve campaigntagdMSlbkCL
�•
THE » »»HIV:THV POST
SUNDAY,NOVEMBER6,1^4 A29
VOTE '94
Tlie Nation
Polls: Young Tuned-Out Voters Feel
'Party Stuff Is Getting in the Way'
ment, saying that Clinton seems to
No. 1 concern, which has surpassed
be squandering his presidency on • worries about the economy and emmissteps. They do not seem sympaptoyment in the last year.
thetic to his claims it is all the ReAUSTIN, Tex —Here in this sunLipsky of MTV and others say it
publicans' (ault. They also generally
ny mecca of youth, where bodyia simply a matter of the young votview the president as something of a ers reacting to the media onslaught
pierced young voten tote Powerphony, a politician who donned
Books and quote Kurt Cobain and
on violent crime.
shades and played the sax and anRu&h Limbaugh, the Generation
"We're the victima. said Walker,
swered questions about his underthey call X ia watching the 1994
the English major drinking a beer at
elections witb a bemused and some- wear to get the youth vote, but who
the Cactus Cafe. Other young voters
did so for political expediency.'
times bitter^ryn^-'C"'
_
agreed, saying they really were wor• " 1 reiDBglKrough tbe coffee housesS
1 don't think anybody ia fooled ried about crime—and that few of
cocnputer bulletin boardi and muffler \ any longer " said Mstt Rundle, a 25them have escaped being robbed or
shops oi Austin offrrs i glimpse of the year-old mechanic Itn South Austin,
knowing someone who was a victim
young voter, who beyond all else is who voted for'CUnton i n s t i l l conof more violent cnme. Two highly
'completely, utterly, totally* sick of
siders himself more Democrat than
publicized rapes at the University ol
traditional partisan party pnlitir* yrf * Republican. "Meet the new boss," he
Texaa were also mentioned.
io whom ine red-laced Newt Lnhgnch said, "same as the old boss."
But many young voters, whether
(R-Ga.) and portly Ted Kennedy (D"The only thing that comes out of
they identified themselves as DemoMass.) have become self-parodying
crat or Republican, said they could
foils in A gridlocked world that fails to
solve real problems.
not understand why the country
does not approach crime as a social
"Even if a lot of young people
problem as well.
wouldn't say it out loud, we're just
waiting, we're just watching the
Polling by MTV found that although
whole American experiment and
very few young people would identify
wondering. "Can this go on?* ' said
themselves as "liberal" and most wantJennifer Young. 23. an English major
ed to see tougher measures, many
at the University of Texas who
agreed with so-called liberal BoluUora
helped jump-start the formerly deto crime, including banning automatic
funct Capital City Young Democrats,
weapons, waiting periods for gun puronly to leave after the "professional
chases and more prevention progrsihs
politicians" look it over.
and rehahiiiuUon. Many young voters
'Young people think of problems
said they were turning their attention
as being solvable. They don't think
to local issues, following the national
of political parties." said her friend,
focua on the 1992 campaign. Health
John Walker, 21, an engineering stu. care definitely Is not topic-A in the cofdent turned English major, as Ihe
fee shops, malls, fraternity houses and
two sat drinking Bass Ales at the
computer nets—even though young
Cutus Cafe in the late afternoon
^
* -GwenLipsky, people are often without insurance,
sun, skipping Frenchjjinsr
, MTV vice president they are mostly healthy. They rarely
~wc mink tne uamctricaUy opdiscuss entitlements like Social Securiposed political party system is an ab- Washington is bad newfc" said Dave
ty, except to worry that there will Ixsurd joke ' said Walker, who added
Cranor, 22, an aerospace engineering
no money lor them gheu Qwy are old.
student and columnist foPtlie studenti-flc/jWTiThey beliewTheTederal governthat anybody who believed anything
ncwsi>apcr, the
a politician said during a campaign
ment should balance its checkbook,
.tdnunisu-jtii^ .mil reit- was hr.ulrd for tlisiniiMon
as Individuals are expected to do.
' LUe feefeigs ofrnany young voten women In elenton?
.innr.v •]•..!; \\w K.ci>uiii*Most appear to be fiscally conservaMariaol Eapinosa, 22, a }
. i With America" would in'Austin are mirrored by national
tive and socially moderate.. Many,
major and another Daily Texan col- even the more conservative, are
p cuts in Social Security polling by MTV, the music network
;>etit programs in order that is perhaps the most relentless umnist, described Waahington "as nervous about government involvesampler of young thinking and trends. another world . . . we don't have
',e premised combination
ment in "family values," which they
"We asked them who's at fault for much connection to it." -••;:?';..!.
,
,
,
•d budget and increased
the gridlock and the vast majority
Cranor said, I t ' s hard^tb.'get en- ••. believe in. Federal and state politicians, they say, are the last people
.it the time for America said the system just seems broken," raged about dental care reform."
When MTV asked young;people., .who should be telling them about
from the future, to turn said Gwen Lipsky, senior vice presieasv promises of the" dent for research 'and planning at
about their heroes;' fewSpollUdans how to conduct their personal lives,
a said.
^-'v^i-MTV.
national
made the.list, with Senate,MihSrity . V-MTV pollsters said they contin-^.r.uuna sampling of 16 to 29 year olds Leader ^Robert J. Dole (R-Kan.), ued to see a drift by young voters
pubbvan response.
eariy September.
. Roaa Pei^iind Clinton each getting •„ ftari Democrat to Republican, parUMJ.-T Kobert.J.;
. us<\i the
^ l i p s k y said that in MTV p o l l s . - . ^ t j e t ^ ^ l ^ l ^ r t h i i i t , amaig white maka in their
democrats of
jjwmg people continue to believe • J ^ ^ . t o list rgood guys'and - ^ twenties. In the September pollTmiTKTit on the
rtlat probfems-from building, m o r f A - ^ l ^ t M I young peopk polled by „, , 34
IXiie ponraytM t he
bicycle paths 10 paying off the naMTV listed the military, whose ven,
„
a m ot' .-h.ingt'.
uu.,-. « : u . ^ » . uc ~.v«».. k podtir. t r a s into
BteuSft i i peace„ opposed to 41 percent in
ol near panic, P M
s f e W » ^ X ^ . . ^ ^
. -.a99fciJkewi«. there were more
Vice President
scare tactics.'
ing Republicans c i secut Social
f .and
w f i u aa wen as student
p. But the pollsters were surprised
- aomethmg •arprising. Lipsky and send 20
n pebgnms." M e
"how ]
j voters—after thev
nunv tWitiral iiuhntf* tnwrlMl that
I think Waahinirtnn I
By William Booth
-
"...the vast
majority said the
system just seems
broken."
;oposal
rvices
M
Spur Turnout
**)»~.*g:W....,
<
w h i c h
l a s t
a
;
t
c
i
m
n
g
e
M
d
t
h
e
m
s
e
l
v
o f
e
B
v o t e r 9
D
e
r
o
o
c
r
i n
��mowers, average people "shake ihcir
head and say, 'What's going on'.'" " And
there is the persistent belief that government is helping someone else - Haitians,
immigrants, welfare recipients-and not
ordinary, tax-paying voters.
Talcs of government corruption have
always been popular, but they now seem
to dominate news coverage of Washington. The check-bouncing scandal, congressional junkets, the indictment of Illinois Rep. Dan Rostenkowski —they've
all accentuated the idea that Congress
is out of touch and out of control.
As political strategist Tony Podesta
notes: "People get
indicted on the
'Today' show, tried
MCAUM ,
on CNN and senMMLTmUMS
tenced on 'NightAMDKUNINa.
line.' " The result is
the view expressed
by Sandra Ross,
wife of an electrician in Springfield, Mass.: "People start out fine when they go into politics, hut Itnijy believe they get corrupt."
^
"Cbngiress's reputation has been further soiled by the sort of partisan bickering that brought legislative action to a
standstill last month. "They fight like
children," said Fred Noday Sr., a retired union official in Youngstown^.
WasFSngiun haa piuviddJltsenemies
with a lot of ammunition, but the ills of
the capital have been amplified and exaggerated by what Democratic strategist
Bob Shrum describes as "the grievance
network," a wide-ranging system of radio
talk shows, fax machines and computer
bulletin boards that are constantly exploiting the antipolitician mood. Political
consultant Cathy Allen in Seattle notes
that "anger has become entertainment,"
the main source of material for talk show
hosts like Rush Limbaugh and political
critics like Ross Perot, who has just started his own radio show.
As a result, the political world has been
"institutionalizing cynicism and alienation," says poll taker Bill Hamilton. A
vicious cycle has taken over: Voters are
unhappy with Washington, candidates
run by trashing the institution they want
to join, confidence in government spirals
downward. "That's a scary feeling," says
Hamilton. And it means that whoever
wins the fall elections will have to govern
a country that believes its leaders "have
no idea what's going on" in the homes
and lives of ordinary people.
•
BV SlEVEN V. ROHEKTS WITH KATIA
HKTTKK. JIM IMIIXJO IN SAN FRANCISCO AND
SCOIT MLNEKBROOK IN NHW YORK
:«;
CLINTON, MD.
•j->
A reliable Demibc^ mm
D.C;; suburb -that-is home,to many •<.'
black professionals; He can afford t o ^
send fraci to college and 16-year^old^
Tamara to a private (^Uiolk school. /,
• But -suburban life is n6t';all Baker;/
had hoped. His wife's old D.C. neighborhood, 8 miles away, is overrun with
&ot
Bkl hing makes Ernest Baker an^ • w g r i e r than the memoty of the
i'^sunny day last year when his daughter
'fscalled home in tears. Traci Baker, a
•^college'freshman, had volunteered
with a friend to work at a local day
care center. But when they got there,
1
r
^ ^ t t a e t t t y S f o s p a i r is
j£-contagious:;}Tamara re-'^
-dsntfy tola Hear'' mother^
that . police searched a #
^boVfa^school for a guii.4
'^W^sfiOTildn't even b e t
1
:
1
i ^ B a k e ^ i i d i d e s have ? v
!
^8ie;jwbrld|around him:
^ i ^ a i w - v b t e s ;Rei>ubli-jJ
ip^^Ukes^heGOP'
g^diditei^rhe|days
'"'haveitq be^gjpne^whOT,
intofthie'
..youvjusf'^
^ .
.^booth and vote forCorie^g
party," he says. Tliat is
what worries DemocratSic leaders-bymg'.^tuni ••'/
IT out i dependable iyoters • v
5
ina^
the h ^ n ^ ^ t h j b l a c k , say they were/;; ^ t h personal
brusquely fold they neededpipof they- c on the needs:of the whole < » m f r j ^ r : l
did npt,have,.tuberculosis—a state're-^ 'Such;«thedth'-c^ reforinT^^thfe^
quiremrafc^Despite denials by the federal debt. "There is one thing I will
iidLcenter,-college officials say. it was not : not give my fkids, and that's my .bflls-f j
- strictly; enforcedfor.white.volunteers.., I'd rather pay^taxes now and.take .care^
: It remmcled Bi^er.iwho.isJtH'e son of a"
sharecropper and manages a staff of "is at least doing the best he can." But
20 at the Potomac Electric Power Co., he worries abwit America's economic
the breakare issues of
"^rMnal: re^onsibility," he says.';.'
^ BtitBakeris losing confidence that
national politicians of eithjbr party can
is that my
no'-in'dobr plu&£«n^'i^tUa(l''to sit in • do'muditp^lMggest
the bMk qf.th^i'cbl Gatilblic church. : daughtere:win not be jdble.to find deAfter^oinihgilhe^wer company in. cxnt yoimg'men and have close-knit
1969 withahigh schoordegree, he put families of their 6wn,".he sayt^There
himself through a'oommunity^college have been spjnMycasualdes ^ dnigs
and by 19S9 WaS'manager of computer and violencejso many young men who
operat ions.-He now liyes'in a comfort- wiirnever'rosch their 'potentiaL*"'
able red-brick' house i.^Prince
Georges County, Md.i a Washington,
BY GARETH G. COOK IN CUNTON
r
rr
r
c
.'vi- si.
U.S.NKW-S 4 WfJKIJi REIViKT. NWEMKFR 7. WM
�• U.S. NW
ES
to dcmonizc him. Jack Wi.iodyard. 71,
who owns an industrial supply shop in
Pittsburg. Calif., about an hour from San
Francisco, voted Democratic all his
life —until Clinton ran for president. "It
was a trust thing with me." says Woodyard. " I just felt he was lying about the
draft ami about the pot smoking." Drew
Porter, an insurance broker in Montcornen. Ala., sums up the feelings ot
many Clinton detractors: "bad rumors
don't lend to follow good people."
Colleen Casey, a 34-ycar-old San
Francisco lawyer and Republican, is dis-
• WHAT BOTHERS TOU MOST ABOUT
CUNTONT , .
LACK OF MORAL LEADERSHIP
14%;
HEALTH CARE PROPOSAL • >
^
i
TOO LIBERALif-..:.v 'f ' . V
NOT ACCOMPLISHED ENOUGH
ALL TALK AND NO ACTION .:
NOT KEPT PROMISES
-
appointed that Clinton does noi act more
presidemial. "Me doesn't respect the office of the presidency and if lie doesn't
respect it. then how are world leaders
expected to do so?" she asks. "He has to
slop eating at McDonald's and idling
interviewers what kind of underpants
he's got on. I want a president I can
respect." Adds Evan Davis, a bartender
in Akron. Ohio: " I don't think anyone in
the world respects us because of him."
" I he visceral opposition to Bill Clinlon is free-floating, not moored in ideology." says political scientist Stephen
I less of the Brookings Institution. "People who dislike him may actually agree
with him on issues if Ihey bothered to
listen to him. It has lo do with lifestyle
issues, with the vibes he gives off."
Even good-natured comics such as Jay
!
Itcause o^m^
'• gyess,xompared witK; 22 RejS
'iflftlama.qnv^
GHmbn aJsq 3Tbe.;(K)P;B^jping 'it'°ran "
^Kaslcome^tO' represent' the! one ttiirig ihalf a dozen br soCoJ/--- "*'
i^LaPorte^i
fef p f f i f i ^ f l f f l v f t ^
the GOP may havea chaiii
v
2
fl vthouj^^^e'in^fiyUlSli^mll!
:
^i5'!inMw)b^&i^^ °i»c»^lei]kIt!s the^
^laidrteckiC^pmia IifM^lej;BiJt|f6r
I'tum^and pothers, California are am ing
^ h ^ beea replaced by-economic insom-:
§ wfL Defeh^budget^ts, falling.r^a^.*
|; estiate values and-an brigbing' fcca(cri&
^•^i«nM Ain«'2H>H't^e Golden State into
I it^ wrstvdpwnturn since^the Great
^Depression. Despite signs that a regcbveiy is near, unemployment remains:.
|t'3:;petcentage points higher than the
^natibiid'-aveAfee'of-5:9 pfe'reent.-f?-^V' fit's haW'ii'bt to place blartie;" Laf-'
Porte saySrin'"Californiaj-'Demo'CTats^
* • TV.
fort
f
-part-time^ob
:
when. J-.jget"«
!
. publicans coniedoKsest.
1
, j
:,, -
. . ,« ,
_;|i^^gj.~.v.Ttt-mc,
BYJIM'
,,
Vj "
St'Ol
I .S.Ni:»S \ U . WJi Kl-h WT. Ni TOfrKK ;. I".»l
�iin:
NIMI
'OHH rntiis
OP-ED
MONDAY, NIIVHMIMK
A19
I IVM
Abroad at Home
ider tfeer
ectoral
olcano
" ANTHONY LKWIS
On Madison s Grave
v r n n r m e n l , iMkK we*p«n nt Ihe
mwlr-rn Ameriran fmlMKal ttrrr
palltn. Ift Inrompallble wtlh Ihe republltan form at novfrnmenl ituri
iamea Madlwm and htt cadeajiue*
tfrunnrd for chu country In 1717. to
ihe IM4 campawn h a i ahown ut.
The FramerA nt the CMiafilutlMi
wanted a dellberailve lyaiem of govemmenl. They re|«ci*d a pnpulm
democracy, in wtiich the puMK
would directly decide every ti u e .
becauae they ihoufhl it would m k
maiority tyranny and demaftoguery.
instead, a t Madtion wrote in Federallft No. Id. ihry chtnr ~u> enlarce
ihe public viewn. by paaamg them
Ihraugh the mednim ef a choicn
body orcttuens.
not their
best dtacem the true t
couniry. and wtnae pairtotbm and
k m ol tuatloe will be leaat U e l y to
•acrrtlce tt to tempormry or panial
(panlaanl eamlderatkaa.Not many A m e n c a m today t h b *
of iheir repntematlve body, Coogreaa. In thooe lerma: tWaltngiiHtiod
by wladom. patrtouam aad love of
juatlec. Repreaemaiivea and aaeato be cor
nqn.baiafu^evU.
The Jg aririaill apos h a p r l n u d a a
d a r t Usage on tbe voter's n k s t It b
oot a device naaful far i
of Mdaa. l u ucOfry — t u
powerfd otittty - Is lo tfeatray a a
opponotbyoegatlva.
Hie point b not a porttsan aae.
Candidates af bodi pwties have uaed
negative T V s p o u t a Otis yenr't c a m -
y Kevin PhDUp*
B E - m u w . Md
T u n d a y . the iinnry
vottino a a h the
Amerton elmorate
i n n rumble. The
ctupitaa win he only
r
ftnltltmOtcimMtr
• c a t t m y It a m o u m n t .
nf whether u gun vol mji In
MDwnptnawrAncfiaM
upheaval
%
•
•
M
loa problem dial H la hard lo ace
^ while a o o e conservative tticsB providing real a n a w e n E v m
t tta experts. Democrats tn (he House of Repre- Oliver Noah, for B D U s eflans to
alont w t t t t t p e m - i c n u t i v e s have met u dtaoaa the present himself a s an outsider, first
U b y l s u . (ourp o s s i b l y orhetpteg d e n a Republ I- • strode kuo Ihe hmeligM a a a cent tal
sawdoOier perc a n or axrservaove a s Speaker ol flgun ki the pi*«arincnl Washing.
•lofihelMD-a.
l>e_ p r t H c i s i h e House. F o r bis part. air. Ferot
If the Republicans do win control
m ttarv i s fel mntlwues to be a loose cannan —
Forsonedisendorsang Republicans for Congress otthe Senate, the House or (especialt to flic*- aod Detnocratlc goveraocs In Texas ly) both, that could aeem K> give the
* a p .
K d CBtorado. aad heipng Mario tw»party system renewed eaaanmg
> win CUonao IB New Yorll by endorsing an and vtuUty. Republicans would CDtitfiptaitiat wbo wfll tiehoo votes |oy tha chance lo pnpoa^ their own
away t n m the HefiMlcasi diala M
l e x e r . G a a r a e E . FiataU.
aome an Bill a m u n ' a desk far a
aaad
But M O m * desire lo strike a l die drdsjen. Ttae P i i i U m i . ki tura.
could reply w U i the aon of ringkig
vetoes H a r r y S T n i m a f l u s e d l o s u d i
advantage In 1M7-0 before altodtk « ihe -^donuhing" Republican
Congress — a strategy that re-eiected him and recaptured Congress tor
1
the Detnorrau.
B u ihls dtstaol pttcodeaa may be
ersudi
u
You think
SSSKS^S! ^ you're angry now?
ZS^^'-Z
WaittiU'Qe.
stalemale ai I g M g coukf b r a ka
harder an Ibe naUona
S
M r l t O . the public
lost fakh fci
stralgta Presidencies
of both ponies — even
Ranald Reagan's, after
the f r a - c o m r a scandal -I and now Including Mr. d n i lon'a Over the last decade, ctttzns
h a w b c g « lo enndude lhal our
lendefs a r e mtlng the American
sup away, putting ihe next
n g standards al r t s L
!• k aO. Ihey aee lhal e v w ki
I WaaMngiaa aad Ms b t r « n l t l k a l classes continue lo gel
C m h a n a ' t law s a y v had money
drives out good, ao the aegat/v* q «
lends to drive out other kinds af
i •ii>pai^tt4f^g it i f dtcfc, end very
few candidates can resist l u lure.
Moreover, truth Is H N a oecesaaiy
dement ki spot campaign ads. U e s
are effective, and tt to ao hard I s r
truth to catch up wlih thesn. '
But h a s n l potttical rampalgiiHi
lo the Dotted Stales heat slanderooo
I r o n the s u n ? Y e s . k haa. But ihe
of d s
year u a a o r l M a were v e r y dtttema
la dtelr effect on O K system.
word can hangy match. A a a n i i i h i
at OahnaMa U n l v c n l i r a Graduate
School of J o u r a a U n put It to a e I h r
other day: - I t s hanfcr l o filler television, in screes tt. With prim yoa
l*e that titirrm mmittl "trtvr (i, ti:i
tut " I d<. noi Ihmk ihry WMJM I H I
nl/r.
their irrallrHi, a polilH*!
priMi^s in irhHh rlrflUMM arr dr
clded hy Wdanvr irkviurm • ! « >
Mtxey inlrn>lfir» Ihe damaae. B r
c auar we have nr, effecltve limiu on
campaign ImanrmR. a candidair
empfynf (draft fir qiMlifiratinnft - »
MKharl Huffingltm — ran w e irlevi•Ion ad» wuhoul end lo make hlm^rll
a challeng':!.
No rther defmicracy allows «ich
corruption t the political proceu
W
Spot political adverltktng u general
ly prohibited. Instead, coumnes such
as Israel and ftnlain make m e n d e d
lime available lo pollllcal ponies on
lelevtslon to argue their caaes.
American campaigns woUd be far
kaa degrading If we Imposed such a
rule by law.
V
But we have a F l m Aawndmem.
guaranteeing freedom of tpoech.
and many aaaume lhal a rate aganst
spot pollUcal advenlslnt would vto-
N e g a t i v e
T
V
•
spots corrupt our
political process.
late k. I a m not ao s u n .
Any regnlatlan of potttical sp^ecti
would oartalnly come I D the SuCourt with heavy t m i l k o -
the old c a n of pu
neat far radt
c a l speech. It wool
rely regulate
tbe fannat.
Prof. Vincent Blast, a F l n t
hit at i
Amanda
H a U w School, was skepneal when
lbeldes<nuflntputlobim.IIis
judicial h e n Is Justice Brandeis.
who said thai the retac^r far bad
tptach to not alltnce but uaattetkig
f k c t k n . of good spevdi c o m c t l n g
had. may not wort with spot advertising lo the daya before a a i k r i k a i
Justice Brandeis wrote
I t T . believed that In i
- i h e deUberatlve forces should prevail over the a r h k r a r y - Tbey believed, be said, -to the power af
ppUed threath public dls-
�EDITORIAL
LETTERS
Americans headed for the poflt today ot govenuntnt, Call the offices of tbe congressional candidates. Adt them what
onffy
many dimtnfed witn the dtoica of tOaates they footj/nd their positioas are on the issues jna care about Ask them bow aod
o
turned otbv the meainpir- ' ^ arnpofn. Hve an vie why tbey w t d onfasuesthat seen to be tntoooed by loMiyias,
oe
views ota few readen an2
onsforwumivuituits. such as campaign reform and tnining^aw refonn.
Considering that there are tboasantb of lobbyists with ndmans
of doDais' worth of hduence in Wasbtagtoo, D-C, alone, tbe only
Politidans should be licensed, tested
way tbe candidates wiD bear and remember your voice is if you
make known to
that unless
for knowledge of histoiy and economics electedttthem, they tbembe thrown outtheyaserve the people wbo
will
in huny.
As I oy to evaluate tbe candidates for political offlce, I wish I I am sick and tired of bearing tbem M m the'totherpy." Get
a e
knew that tbey had •fldemonstraMd proidency in tbe study of
involved. America. If not, you turn only youraelf to Name.
— or at least have a huowtodge of — worid history, US history
Vidya Shasti^ Rentn^ MdL
J
Many odier pfofesiflos hsve estabBAed fK* ** wtiich n-There'syaloetolisteningtoboth sides
tyiife thai pcofcaataMlipag a writteocgaintlfiiifwUatiun a basic levd olcumicteucy. Why not fstaNMi aoch a license to practicc politics and ictjulie that a who wlsfa to nio for pnllflml oflfce IbyBiNM sun una 1 havefcxmdsomething positive in
D
' U9
pass a written exam?
these campaigns. I have taken him to as manyralbesas pcssfl)4e,
This would assure ttt candidatesfcrelected office have a hotttsregardiiig party lines.
sk level of corapeaency to
These have provedtobe of
pr&cticc politics
lading value to him in tbe abI propose three topics for the
nceofadvicscte.
exam. I believe world Ustory
It boot every day that one
would give candidates tbe percan sand within 10 feet of a
specttvc of tbe humao ooflmm*
United Slates senatortoBsteo
nfty. ABhough we need to aolve
to his views and values. Agreelocal praUemstat,we dmdd
roefli or disa^pree^pect astde^
always be aware of how those
fonnulatioo of opinioo Is a
SOllltkXB Impact tbe iiMfnate
powerful lesson for a I*yearold wbo In less than two years
goal of a otoplan worid society,
wiD be eligible to cast his int
lo addition, the study of past
secret vote.
and current worid dvilimtkns
should allow us to improve on
After these rallies, be and I
tbe successes and learn from
have tried to discus tbe issues.
tbe Whiles of other dvilbaI have been pleased with his intioos.
s^^t and tbou^itful o i A &
po o
Of course, political candiGod bless the USA.
dates should be coovetsant in
Steve Moore, Cookevilie. Tena
tbe principles and history of
11
JJU^OWB c u t r and g w n
o oq
D ev
eyMvgMSoolt
Measuring success
\
�government. If might be a g o ttme to ponder a change ki tt*
od
should be «wiire of the economictowsthai govenunens practice.
way
y
This Bceest to practice poiiOcs aod therefore to mo for politi- we do thlnp. Many Industries and profesdoos, Including m
own
cal office would be given only to those who can obtain a satisfac- — software — have been learning that quality Is much more
easily obtainable, and cheaper, if "desigDed In."
tory grade or a written exam. Tbe details of the procedure lo
admlaister this exam are oot important, other than It should be This applies to processes as well as products. f*rt at this, in
subsidized only (or those who cannot afford the cost
many cases, is "specifying the metrics." Thb means that before
Chariotte Geiger. Reading, Pa. proceeding with a plan, you must think about bow to measure its
success. If you decide a particular choice wiUresulttn particular
Polls intimidate voters
consequences, you decide as part of tbe design process bow to
Stop tbe poDs, at least In the days Just before an election. measure tbe consequences and what values of that measurement
will
people are intimidated by the dally public opinioo polls, indicate success or failure This helps In deciding early
whether the plan is working as Intended, and changes can be
especially those covering tbe last few days of a campaign. Voters
planning to vote for a particular candidate quite often may notmade if needed.
vote at an if die poth Indicate the opponent has a substantial lead Wouldot thb be a reasonable way to handle legislalioo? Imagoi
not v n U the candidate they hvor has runaway numbers. if tbe propooents of every bill had to s e out whal tbey were
oe
ine
pO
They
thai: " y lone vote wool affect the outcome anyway."
m
trying to achieve and how we would k o if they achieved IL
nw
I realise bij[ money is spent to get g o numben, and Ug dot- Gutxxxitral advocates might project« particular reductioo in
od
violent crime. Advocates hr the homeless might project a particIan are made by those providing the numbers, but many voters
are swayed coosidenbty during ibe bombardment of this dataularreductknin buunlejueaB. Ihx lefUiiueis mighl profect a
particular redbtribation of income.
from tbe press, Wevtsioo and radio.
It mlj^it be Interesting to compare numlif is voting to previous Thb b not a liberal vs. cooservative Issue; tbe point b that goals
if pofls were stopped oo Saturday night before a Tuesday spedllc and measurable, and the measures themselves should
be
electioo and not resumed until bte afternoon on Bectioo Day. be part of tbe debate. You wouldn't bear, I t was a failure - it
only
About 39ft of registered voten are expected to vote this year, achieved a 10ft ameUoradoo" or. I t was a SUCCCSB — we
were
%*
.
compared to Just under SO* in the last general election. LefS as- only ^^'Hg for at least 3 *
I winner gett 31« of tbe voce Tuesday. That equates to onty Pioponems would havetoidentify, at the time they are asking
18ft of an registered voten - obviously not a mandate at an. fflf mnnwrti b ^ Ibey ^ o l define s o e s Aod tbe ^ j f could be
ov
v ud
u o s^
. po
^
Roger Rkbanboo, LuHngoo, Mich.
iml pab would be deariy identlled as failures and coold be
Get involved or special interests prevail
killed rather than patcbed up forever.
Richard N. Preedman, Newton, Mass.
Are my IMIaw Americans as disgaated as I am with the 3>seoooa sound Mas?
'
To
•—rv ads are Ded with ne^dvetUngs about the other 0iy, not
anything positive a partknlar candidate would do. Sometimes you To eanmara on edkxWs, ooknra or topics ki USA TOOAY or nhfacti
tTport^>oyou,i«iid>-m«itorlBOeralD»Badtoor^lotfii1nrt^rii;lwtdoot
benr tbe name of tbe candidate tbey want you to vote
J I * on « • MOTM. F n WaWTMSti I M U a ntotm Edkrto1000
lor. they Jast «ant you to vole against the other guy.
Wteon BKd, AiWyon, Vk. 22229. Or a l l-aaXZWHB. kiduOi wltmz.
The ooiy wiy to make your elected oBdab beholden to youdwifMii J^^i^pnonamrtwotef ^ffMctfomni^M you'dfcB,^photo tor
pspeftri interestt bio get involved, as if yoor immediatepunlcafcn. OoopwifcwtfhttOT how thi bwt dMnco ot bafcip pubbhed.
LMnwIbaata^L
I
j
Voicsit: Whst would bo ths bestresultttwrationcoirid gotfromtMs oloctlon?
ilsRapuMcans puffedtomato slgnMcait gakw In Congress dirtig «» c a m p u s I M hous. Democralsfeugt*to
hang onto ttialr n^orty portions, ki a USA TOOAY/CNTVQalup Pt* 51% of n«»»*«(f w t M M*) twy moUd vote
RepublowL USA TOOAY ashadraadarsvrfiat thay hope vrfl n a A from M i jwar't mtdtorm tfacMoit.
JamnP. L M , 5 4
Vacation satosman
Farfiatd, Ohio
A change In tbe way
A better message
I would love to see
selection year has\ I would like to see the
from tbe voten. Those f more truth In what poli-Washington does lb Job, been extraordinary in emergence of a third
of us voting are people tidans have to say. It Including both parties terms of tbe amount of party because It seems
who are truly con
B they do more working together to negative campaigning, that the twopany sysceroed about our leftd- mudslinging and putting solve tbe nation's prob- which skews tbe issues., tem b not woridng It's
like a fpme for tbem. if
en Tbe mescage Coo-j each other d w than lems instead of being Discussions
o n
gress wui get Is that
talking abouttauesthat opposing teams in a oo should center on i one side wants somewill
changes If
are Important to us as game. I'd abo like to see didatoT platforms, thdl thing, the other side b
the end of opposition In stands on Issues anf against It. It doesn't
they're net doing citizens.
seem that either party
major reform efforts past records.
positive job fot us.
cares about what's g o
od
such as health care and
for the country.
welfare.
�I US. E S•A
W
..... N...... ^ M^ .M
pendent Thomas Duncan, who voted for
his ..Republican '.congressman, '; Newt
Gin^ch^in^Man^SG^^f^We need
more protection from the plains Clinton
oncy "
and his cronies hr ""
up
I ^ ^ o f ,fivievoters
disapprove of the A ^ Cbngress operates
and many say their leaders have.become
disconnected from the liv^ of ordinary
Americans. The exampfeof Dan Rostenkowski, the former chairawjof the pow-'1
1
tee who lost ^ ' s ^ ' a j ^ l b j e ^ ' i n d k i t ^ l
oh: fn^?dkianais^^
phunberRoger;Miedana:;>^They.get sos
—__A.I.H *U„.
1, jflevfregaboyejthe'
iica due how;,
tifa^ai^pfpi^
R IWOMlKMIglrtifv fca^s atretoed-De^
O
, behind I L ^ r ^ ^ ^ M e n f e m e i
BOB BUCKLEY, 42, Va^wljerevgtgsggre
I c«FYEDITOR,!";: ; ^ ^ o l t n n n r n f t h r
! SALEM, MASS. •• .'d year-s^nastrat^jaces,
•
i
" , • -t -, Repuplican Oliver
,. . .Norffifsfailedeffortlo
unseat Democratic a^n.:,tJliarles Robb.
"Tliey 've gotten away trom talking about
what theystand tor," saysLane. "They're.
juSTdigging up dirt, oTmaking up dirt?'
-irtte-liiveirt Mil Uinto*. TolBgeartont that
the voting was a referendum on Clinton,
fie was a huge burden for the Democratic
ticket: One fourth of voters said they
were voting against the president. Fiftyone percent disapproved of his performance in offlce and they split almost 5 to 1
for the Republicans. Roy Forbus, a rer
tired federal employee in Athens, Ga.,
blames the president's character, "plus
letting Hillary have so much to do."
. Still, Clinton is far from being a lame
duck and the Republicans have yet to
establish themselves as the new majority party. In such a volatile climate, the
party that understands the voters best is
likely to gain the upper hand.
•
1
W
BY STEVEN V. ROBERTS . .
.
:; -
Ccimtiamick U M * ROGUCUIZ Oaovai), MJSBY OANBL, ;
JtaeUN EDUNGS, DtftJAN PHEUUN, PAUL GUSTOS, KATIA
HKmat, sonr MiNUMmoc, jiu. JUUMN SUMS, jBonren
SETtH A D MIKE THAW
N
42
us
& WORLD REPORT. NOVEMBER 2 1 9
194
�Observer
RUSSELL BAKER
- From the
JC wasi't an dectian. It was an
ijawaulL
« yH was indecent and brutaL It
• .ifiaKUSttag and depressing. It made
dT***.
.
j^^t was the end of ctviUzaticn.
UnIt was cyeryttiiug falling down
p(t9ond in, evenrtUng we'd always
X beHewed in, all ef k crumbling into
»J<Hilu^ trampled cn, disgraced, de^Aroyed.
^. ^hoae *«rfUTT monstrous televtoominerdali — nothing of value
j. could survive the mega tonnage of'
kttHrdnbby vulgarity, their dwesy
r-.* gfeckuesa, their assassins' potson,
-.' fliHr bmiiandy-sUmy instnuationt,
- • aeb-Hp^macktaK satisfaction in the
• tatasbc ingenuity with which they
'.:••< peddled rot
; -tt was inevitable that even tbe
••" i p M resolute mftyietoast would end
op in the jungle howling for blood
It was useless lo try clinging to
orflity. As die last survivors dung
by fiogerWto tbe cliff-edge of civility, talented and highly paid techniCAMBRIDGE. Mass.
C
cians in tbe employ of savagery
he election campaign
di'cptied commercials on our heads
demonstrates again
add danced on our fingernails.
demo face a crisis of
that we
-• Once you gave in to it, the Jungle
thati
leadership. We perpetwas loathsomely satisfying All
Ic-Jn
uate this crisis be- ?
thoae yean of being so — so — so
uate
continue to
nice, so sweet, so tolerant, so dvicause
misconceive the leadership we
llnd. so liberal, so well bred, so
As a consequence, we scapegoat
undemanding, all those years ot
our politicians, attributing our pains
saying, "Oh come now, you mustn't
and dilemmas to them as if they
say that about our politicians becaused our predicament Although
cause they're Just as human as you elected officials may not be a ready
and I. you know" — all those years — source of answers, they are rarely
bat this campaign, tbis assault made wholly the source of our problems.
you see the light, see tbe light at last. "Throw Ihe bums out!" is the wrong
.Hate! That was Ihe way to go!
— even childish — mponse to the
Hatel Haiel Hale!
wrong problem
It felt marvelous to let it out down
At boilom. our crises are rooted In
In Ihe Jungle among the strangling,
the perceived uncontrollablliiy of
endlessly intertwining, tlcamlng.
modem economic and political life.
•Unking rommerculs. That's whal
F.very day we are nundaled with
Ihe cantfuign did to you: made- you news about Ihe complexity and ap(hmk you'd finally, aficr all (hose
parent inlractability of our probysars of siialficd dislike for capital
lems. The harder the problems, the
punishment, really likr 10 kill.
more desperately we look for simple
And whmi did u mailer that hair
and last remedies from our leaders,
as ihe history of thr n«< of demaguKUcs shows.
We get what we deserve when we
tell a legislator to tackle the deflcll ' .
bul to raise somebody dae'i t
to «
?
reap the
divtdtod but not to P
closa ih« local weapons fsctofy iftd 'I
:
(
J
r
T
1
he
e l
T
Hate was the
way to go in
�TALK ABOUT CRIME"
From remarks on the crash of
Eagle Flight 4184 by David Ht
of the Federal Aviation Ac
in an interview with Joan L
"Good Morning America"Nov.
Q: How does the FAA c
plane?
A: Any airplane that carries i
30 passengers in aulnie servioe in
ed States has to meet the same
turing standards and operating
that all large aircraft da This part
plane, the ATR 72, was certiSe
same standards as the Boeing 74
MD-11, for instance, and ifs ope
American Eagtetothe same high s
that a American atriineflightsan
B
ed
Q There has been much talk,
about tbe fact that there's a differe
standards issued for the smaller
Might we be looking at mote st
rules for these smaller planes in
ture?
. A: W O as a matter of fact, we
e,
secretary and I, early on this year, <
that one of the principal
when a passenger buys a ticket on
plane and he is required or she is re
to oonmyf between larger aircral
smaBer aircraft, that passenger a
to the same level of safety, and we:
fxt, in the process of redoing some
rules to ensure that that's the case.
$ . . . This plane was in a bokfinf
tern ior moretitan30 minutes wh
crashed. . . . Might a holding patter
looked at as one of the major problem!
crash?
A: Well, we wouldn't speculate
the cause oftinscrash, because not
really knows attinspoint, but I w
about holding patterns, they've been a
oess in air traffic control for years
years. There were numerous airpla
held on Monday afternoon just before
accident, and this is not an unusual oa
renceatal
t?
rose—the;
d—would
ifused to
I for tax
i refused
ie tough
. "That's
idded, - I
1
ew—refear of
jses out
lake the
came a
ndeach
"shortrow as
ie of it
igh ace comlowing
a $14
e than
in ting,
ccoun90 not
prob991 it
then
* how
3arry
hools
se in
ease
)ther
offs.
bevard
rars,
For the Record
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
They Said They'd Fight for the Environment
Education: A Pathf
It is true, as Jessica Mathews ists" like Sen. Robert Dole and his
writes ("Scorched Earth," op-ed, Oct. band of Master Gridlockers.
18], that the 103rd Congress botched
However, it's not fair to let the
nearly all of the environmental chal- Clinton administration off the hook
lenges that came before it. It failed to for its role in these failures. The
enact Superfund, despite almost total fights over Superfund, out-of-state
I would like to thank The Post for i
attention to the serious issue of low h
school completion in the Hispanic co
munity. Thefront-pagearticle on Oct.
was a useful look at the barriers 'I
success for Hispanics in education. Ho
�"1
•.t
CTON POST
LOOK mm mmm-w WO
THOSE wmEfmcNL mm
• .;
'
!
'-I c
-
I • s'.-.i&'-i'-i
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Michael Waldman
Description
An account of the resource
<p>Michael Waldman was Assistant to the President and Director of Speechwriting from 1995-1999. His responsibilities were writing and editing nearly 2,000 speeches, which included four State of the Union speeches and two Inaugural Addresses. From 1993 -1995 he served as Special Assistant to the President for Policy Coordination.</p>
<p>The collection generally consists of copies of speeches and speech drafts, talking points, memoranda, background material, correspondence, reports, handwritten notes, articles, clippings, and presidential schedules. A large volume of this collection was for the State of the Union speeches. Many of the speech drafts are heavily annotated with additions or deletions. There are a lot of articles and clippings in this collection.</p>
<p>Due to the size of this collection it has been divided into two segments. Use links below for access to the individual segments:<br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=43&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=2006-0469-F+Segment+1">Segment One</a><br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=43&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=2006-0469-F+Segment+2">Segment Two</a></p>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Michael Waldman
Office of Speechwriting
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1993-1999
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
2006-0469-F
Extent
The size or duration of the resource.
Segment One contains 1071 folders in 72 boxes.
Segment Two contains 868 folders in 66 boxes.
Provenance
A statement of any changes in ownership and custody of the resource since its creation that are significant for its authenticity, integrity, and interpretation. The statement may include a description of any changes successive custodians made to the resource.
Clinton Presidential Records: White House Staff and Office Files
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
William J. Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Adobe Acrobat Document
Still Image
A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
paper
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Strategic Scheduling: [Marc] Brailov Strategy Document
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Office of Speechwriting
Michael Waldman
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
Box 34
<a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/show/36403"> Collection Finding Aid</a>
<a href="https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7763296">National Archives Catalog Description</a>
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
2006-0469-F Segment 1
Provenance
A statement of any changes in ownership and custody of the resource since its creation that are significant for its authenticity, integrity, and interpretation. The statement may include a description of any changes successive custodians made to the resource.
White House Staff and Office Files
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
William J. Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Adobe Acrobat Document
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Preservation-Reproduction-Reference
Date Created
Date of creation of the resource.
6/3/2015
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
7763296
42-t-7763296-20060469F-Seg1-034-012-2015