Ethics Committee: More Time Needed On Ethics Case -- Dec. 31, 1996

Bogus Donations Raise More Fund-Raising Questions -- Dec. 31, 1996

Are Voters Seeing Cynical Side Of Clinton, Gingrich?

By Bill Schneider/CNN

WASHINGTON (Dec. 31) -- Next month, Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich are hoping to get a fresh start. Gingrich expects to be re-elected speaker on January 7th and President Clinton will be inaugurated for a second term on January 20th. Instead, the two men present tarnished images to a disillusioned public.

Ethics controversies have revealed something new and damaging about each of them. For years, Gingrich has minimized connections between his political action committee, GOPAC, and his so-called educational and charitable activities.

The ethics committee investigation found otherwise. Speaker Gingrich's violation of House rules looks like "a systematic pattern of Deception," in the words of an ethics committee report -- not the inadvertent error that he and his defenders claimed until 10-days ago.

The ethics scandal makes Gingrich look like a hypocrite. After all, he's the one who in 1988, when talking about Democratic Speaker Jim Wright, said that the rules should be different when the ethics committee investigates the speaker.

Gingrich has always presented himself as a true believer, a man who fights for a cause bigger than himself. While many have criticized the speaker for being outspoken and confrontational, few have doubted his sincerity. He believed what he said. Now few may buy his sincerity.

The revelations about President Clinton are no less damaging, and for the same reason: they contradict the president's public image. Doubts about Clinton's honesty are nothing new. Americans elected Clinton in 1992 and re-elected him in 1996 despite those doubts.

In both elections, the reasons to vote for Clinton -- essentially, the economy -- were more compelling than the reasons to vote against him. But the fund-raising stories reveal a side of Clinton that voters have never seen before. Not the naughty boy, but the cynic.

The president did let a whiff of cynicism slip out in 1995.

"Probably people in this room still mad at me for that budget 'cause you think I raised your taxes too much," he said. "It might surprise you to know that I think I raised 'em to much too."

The fact that he made the remark to an audience of wealthy contributors was a clue. Now we read stories about a man obsessed with money, willing to auction off access to the presidency and the Lincoln Bedroom to high-rolling contributors. And a White House that obscured the extent of the president's involvement until after the election.

Clinton's enemies have always seen him as full of false sincerity, his every move calculated for political advantage. And you have to look no further than Dick Morris, Clinton's double, to see Clinton's cynical side.

Morris was the architect of the president's "big money" strategy. It worked, but not without damaging both Clinton and Morris. Sadly, Clinton and Gingrich are beginning to sound more and more alike.

Both are using legalisms to defend themselves. Gingrich says "I did not intend to mislead the committee." Clinton says: "In the areas where we had more direct control, our campaign and the legal defense fund, as far as I know, the proper Decisions were made, because the proper scrutiny was applied. The Democratic Party case, they've already admitted they did not apply the proper review."

Gingrich says, "I was overconfident, and in some ways, naive." Clinton says, "American people ought to feel good about me. They spent $30 million or something, and there's been not a single, solitary shred of evidence of any wrongdoing on my part. I feel good about it."

If liberals had talk radio, Newt Gingrich would be toast. And if Republicans had put up a more aggressive ticket, they might have defeated President Clinton on the character issue. These two guys are shrewd, calculating figures who know how to survive. But one thing has changed: the voters may be getting wise to them.