Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: WEDNESDAY, March 3, 1993 TAG: 9303030386
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A7 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: CAL THOMAS
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
CLINTON'S FEEDING US A LINE
PRESIDENT Clinton is being favorably described by some TV critics as a great communicator. Some claim he is better than Ronald Reagan.There is no question that Clinton is a talented speaker. His address to Congress was an example of excellent elocution. His ability to respond to all generations, talking (and listening) to children and adults with deftness, may be unmatched by anyone now in the political arena.
There is no comparison, however, between Clinton and Ronald Reagan. There is a contrast.
The difference is that Reagan used his speaking skills to communicate deeply held conservative convictions. President Clinton, by contrast, uses his communications skills to mask liberal convictions he wants to hide from the public in order to push ideas and programs of the type that were overwhelmingly rejected in recent presidential elections.
Taxes are the most obvious example of Clinton's disingenuousness, but there are other topics on which the president plays the snake-oil salesman, skillfully bobbing and weaving in order to make his statements seem as plausible as possible. "Yes sir and yes ma'm, what I've got in this bottle will cure every one of your ills, from dandruff to athlete's foot."
Writing in The New Republic, Fred Barnes says the Clinton people have discovered memos from the Reagan transition in 1980-81 that included proposals by pollster Richard Wirthlin and David Gergen on Reagan's schedule of activities during his first 100 days in office. Barnes reports the Clinton people have "freely lifted" from those memos. They have borrowed the style of Reagan. What they lack is his substance.
An example of the conflict between perception and reality occurred at Clinton's town meeting a few days ago in Chillicothe, Ohio. A Continuing his answer to a question he wasn't asked, the president said he had worked hard to reduce the number of abortions when he was governor of Arkansas. "I don't like abortion," he said. He signed a bill that makes third-trimester abortions illegal, except for life and "health" exceptions. Yet the Freedom of Choice Act, which Clinton supports, would negate even third-trimester limitations, as well as parental-notification and full-disclosure laws. And Clinton supports funding through the United Nations that promotes abortion worldwide under the guise of "family planning" and birth control.
According to The Wall Street Journal, Clinton has directed Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala to do everything possible to persuade the drug company that manufactures the abortion pill known as RU486 to test and market it in America. Following the election, according to The Journal, Clinton wrote the drug's European manufacturer, urging him to bring RU486 to the states. It's not the kind of behavior one would expect from a person who says he doesn't like abortion.
Last August, Clinton wrote a fund-raising letter for the Democratic National Committee in which he promised, if elected, to "fight to protect every woman's right to choose. I will make passage of the Freedom of Choice Act one of my top priorities, and I will instruct the Department of Justice to advocate privacy rights in the federal courts."
Nothing here about unease over too many abortions or a feeling that viable fetuses ought to be protected.
So far, Clinton has used television and his communications skills to keep his popularity ratings high. But those ratings are like clouds: pretty to look at, but fluffy and lacking in substance.
When voters awaken to the fact that they have been duped - that they voted for a man whose promises they believed, and instead got the reincarnated big-government spirits of Hubert Humphrey, George McGovern, Walter Mondale, Jimmy Carter and Michael Dukakis - perhaps they will be outraged enough to act. Their first opportunity will be in 1994 against members of Congress who go along with this charade, and then in 1996 against the president if he keeps it up. If the anger is strong enough, not even a conversation with children will be able to save him.
Bill Clinton may be a great communicator, but he is no Ronald Reagan. He is communicator lite. Los Angeles Times Syndicate