Funding Flap Fails to Pierce Clinton’s Aura

Visions of the Lincoln Bedroom as hotel room tickle cartoonists, disclosures about Democratic fund-raising dominate the news and calls for an independent counsel resound on Capitol Hill.

Yet until now, at least, President Clinton’s standing with the public has been little affected by the barrage of embarrassments. If the scent of scandal puts Washington in a tizzy, the mood has hardly swept the nation, according to public opinion polls that only underscore the chasm in attitudes between the capital and the world beyond the Beltway.

Clinton’s 60% approval ratings amid the ongoing controversy lift his polls up to the level of “Reagan territory,” says Democratic pollster Mark Mellman.

“It’s a fascinating fact,” Mellman says of the contrast between attitudes that permeate much of Washington and public judgments to date about the president’s performance. “If it proves anything, it proves how out of it the political community and the pundits are, as far as the public is concerned.”

Why have Americans so far rewarded the president with healthy approval ratings even as Washington insiders focus intensely on a range of fund-raising controversies? Here are some explanations offered by political analysts and experts on public opinion:

* People believe “they all do it.” More than six out of 10 respondents view Clinton’s fund-raising practices as typical of both parties, according to a USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll last week. In a Los Angeles Times Poll last month, 56% rated Clinton’s ethics as typical of White House occupants, and 16% said his conduct is superior. “The perception is that both sides are sleazy,” said Benjamin Ginsberg, director of the Center for the Study of American Government at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore.

* Clinton benefits from high grades on other, key aspects of leadership. Even though poll respondents remain deeply divided over his honesty, 62% agree that “he cares about people like you,” 60% say he can get things done, and 59% rate him an effective world leader, the USA Today/CNN/Gallup survey found.

* The U.S. economy is strong, and the nation remains at peace, a state of affairs that almost always buoys a president’s stature. The percentage of Americans who believe that the nation is moving in the “right direction”--now 41%, according to The Times Poll--is more than double the share near the end of George Bush’s term. “There’s little question in my mind that these two facts [peace and economic growth] more than any others account for his current level of popularity,” Mellman said.

To be sure, an array of potentially damaging inquiries is grinding forward as investigators review evidence about campaign donations from overseas, the use of White House invitations as a way to court and reward donors and questions about whether political contributions influenced policy decisions in the Oval Office.

*

On top of all that, the Senate is gearing up for highly visible hearings this year that could hammer the whole affair into the nation’s consciousness, featuring vivid tales of the Chinese arms dealer who got invited to the White House; donors who slept in the Lincoln Bedroom; Indonesian financiers with links to Little Rock, Ark.; the fund-raiser held in a Buddhist temple in Southern California and other embarrassing disclosures.

The public’s verdict on Clinton, in other words, could shift.

“I guess the finger-in-the-dike works for a long time, but does it work forever when the water gets higher and higher?” asked Charles E. Cook Jr., a political analyst in Washington. “And the water certainly seems to be getting higher.”

All agree that if a firm, cause-and-effect relationship were established between political donations from overseas and Clinton administration policy decisions, the controversy could take on new urgency for the public.

“It hasn’t yet been tied together in a way that crystallizes in the voters’ minds,” said Ed Goeas, a Republican pollster. “But at some point, I have to believe that the various stories in the papers all do come together.”

Unless such a point is reached, however, some believe Clinton could emerge from today’s fund-raising woes surprisingly unscathed.

The president is particularly boosted by the broad perception that he sympathizes with the concerns of regular folks--people who have many items on their minds besides political fund-raising, surveys suggest. Clinton has further sought to deflect the damage by presenting himself as a champion of campaign finance reforms, even as he continues to raise large sums of cash for Democrats.

The White House, keenly aware of household priorities, has taken to emphasizing matters that strike chords with families who seem to yawn about campaign finance. Adopting children, combating youth gangs, elevating school standards and protecting children from tobacco all have been themes of recent presidential appearances and pronouncements.

*

For some, the lack of damage to Clinton amid a flood of embarrassments recalls the “Teflon” quality of Ronald Reagan, another president who withstood a highly critical White House press corps and a partisan climate in Congress. Indeed, Clinton’s recent approval ratings in the range of 60% are similar to those enjoyed by Reagan for much of his term. (Bush exceeded 80% during the Persian Gulf War, before plunging toward 35% by the end of his term.)

“What do Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan have in common?” asked Cook. “They are both truly superior politicians.”

And each won a second term in office. By now, the Clinton administration has had plenty of experience in dealing with accusations, including those from the failed Whitewater real estate venture, and Americans have had plenty of time to assess his strengths and weaknesses.

Republican presidential candidate Bob Dole struggled last year to find a way to challenge Clinton on issues of character but never discovered a formula that captured a majority of voters.

“The public has had a chance to pretty much know all they want to know about President Clinton,” said Ginsberg of Johns Hopkins. By now, he said, questions about the president’s character “have been discounted in the marketplace.”

For their part, White House officials contend that the media’s focus on fund-raising controversies only underlines a cultural gulf dividing Washington’s press corps and everyday Americans. Public opinion, they maintain, reflects Clinton’s efforts on things people care more about, such as school standards, expanding family and medical leave and balancing the federal budget.

“You guys always underestimate the connection between the president and the American people,” said Rahm Emanuel, a senior advisor to the president. “They know he gets up in the morning, rolls up his sleeves and goes to work.”

The public senses a “shrillness” and lack of balance in news coverage, Emanuel said. “At a certain point, not everything is a scandal, and not all Washington-manufactured scandals are equal. At a certain point, everybody hits the mute button.”

(Not that the White House can escape the glare. The administration has sought to contain its investigation-related activity within the White House counsel’s office. But some days--such as last Tuesday, with disclosures linking Clinton to plans to woo donors inside the White House--high-level aides expend considerable time fielding media inquiries instead of promoting the second-term agenda.)

Clinton himself has shown flashes of frustration with the ongoing controversies.

Last week, he startled Senate Democrats with late-night phone calls complaining about demands for an independent counsel to investigate fund-raising, the Wall Street Journal reported. He has assailed reports that the White House “sold” stays in the Lincoln Bedroom to donors as “one more false story we have had to endure,” and he appeared visibly angered during an interview with the Boston Globe when fund-raising was brought up.

But the story continues to unfold, raising uncertainty about the president’s ability to preserve his recent levels of public approval.

If it were to come out, for instance, that Clinton knew about improper donations to the Democratic Party from foreign citizens, 72% of respondents told The Times Poll that they would view it as a “serious” problem.

*

Richard Brody, professor emeritus of political science at Stanford University agreed, saying, “The foreign side of this has the most potential danger for him.”

Others, meanwhile, anticipate a new chapter of woe for the White House once a date is set for Senate hearings that will be run by Fred Thompson, a telegenic Tennessee Republican.

Yet, even the significance of highly visible hearings is impossible to predict, given the gap in perceptions between Washington insiders and many Americans. One Democrat recalled the unexpected effects of widely followed hearings into the Iran-Contra controversy in the 1980s.

For all the drama, “it might have taken a few points off Ronald Reagan--but not a lot--and it produced a ‘victim’--Ollie North--who almost became a senator,” the Democrat said.