The White House refrain: Whoops!
In this story:
October 10, 1997
- 'I'm sorry' for saying 'I'm sorry' again
- A category of errors
- There's no monopoly on political misjudgments
Web posted at: 1:46 p.m. EDT (1746 GMT)An essay by CNN Interactive writer Emily Looney
(CNN) -- Many voters have wondered about the competence of their elected leaders. But it doesn't help when the leaders themselves oblige by providing good reason to wonder.
Sen. Fred Thompson, who is overseeing Senate hearings into alleged fund-raising abuses, has been wondering aloud about the leader of the free world.
"The defense of incompetence is wearing a little thin," the Tennessee Republican declared this week, after President Clinton admitted the White House had botched the discovery and disclosure of several dozen videotapes of coffees attended by potential Democratic donors.
Thompson was clearly implying that there's more than meets the eye to the excuses offered by the White House for its mistakes. There's no evidence yet to support that conclusion, because no illegal behavior or motive has been linked to the Oval Office.
What does raise eyebrows is the way the White House repeatedly backs itself into corners, forcing it to come up with excuses for its behavior. This careless disregard for public opinion doesn't serve the president well.
And this pattern turns even credible reasons for mistakes into tiresome explanations that test the public's patience -- and undermine Clinton's influence.
'I'm sorry' for saying 'I'm sorry' again
Clinton, explaining his staff's failure to find the videos promptly, defended their motives.
"I think it was just an accident," he said this week.
But a federal grand jury wanted more of an explanation, and hauled in a White House lawyer for questioning about the months-long delay that appeared to defy subpoenas for information on campaign fund raising.
Clinton said the tapes show nobody acted illegally, and added that the administration's prior release to investigators of thousands of documents demonstrated good faith in trying to comply with subpoenas.
The videos may indeed prove irrelevant, showing nothing more incriminating than the president schmoozing with rich people. Senators and Justice Department lawyers may conclude that no laws were broken.
But even though there has been no proof that Clinton broke any laws, that, unfortunately, is not the whole story.
The fact is that public attention and resources are being diverted to an area that should be as invisible as good service: the White House style of internal management.
This staff is clumsy. The silver trays it drops clatter across the country, such as the mixed signals on the tapes' existence and the failure to show Attorney General Janet Reno the courtesy of telling her promptly about their discovery.
Reno showed notable restraint in handling her embarrassment and frustration with the poor service, by waiting several days to say the delay made her "mad" and had strained her agency's relations with the White House.
A category of errors
These are only the latest snafus presented as honest mix-ups that haven't helped Clinton's credibility.
Among others:
Vice President Gore's admission that he solicited campaign contributions using his White House phone. He insisted he did nothing illegal, but added he won't do it again. The Justice Department is examining whether the calls warrant an independent counsel's review.
Nominees left stranded by faulty background checks. For example, Surgeon General nominee Dr. Henry Foster was sunk in 1995, amid contradictory reports on the number of abortions he had performed as an obstetrician.
The White House's collection of sensitive FBI background files, some on high-ranking Republicans. A staffer took the blame and Clinton apologized, but at best, the incident implied poor supervision. Optimistic voters are ready to give their leaders some benefit of the doubt, but not indefinitely. And that says nothing of those who suspect cover-ups behind the excuses.
There's no monopoly on political misjudgments
The White House doesn't have a monopoly on misreading the public's tolerance. There's also been Republican misunderstanding on this front.
Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott blocked the chances for a campaign-finance reform bill this week. He asserted he was protecting free speech rights, but that may be hard for the GOP to explain to a public dismayed by fund-raising practices.
Earlier this year, Republicans delayed federal relief to flood victims by attaching unrelated amendments objectionable to Clinton, who prevailed in public opinion. And the public still blames the GOP for the two government shutdowns two years ago, during the party's budget standoff with Clinton.
Still, these GOP misjudgments are not the same as the White House mea culpas. The Republicans may have misread what the public wanted, while the White House may be misreading how much the public is willing to believe.
But just as ignorance of the law is said to be no excuse, incompetence -- though legal -- doesn't amount to much of an excuse, either.
Related sites:
Note: Pages will open in a new browser windowExternal sites are not endorsed by CNN Interactive.
Related stories
Previous Y's
