The Electorate Speaks by DOUGLAS BARRICKLOW November 5, 1998 DALLAS, TX In the final week before Election Day '98, the Republicans unleashed, in a few key House districts, their now-notorious Clinton-Lewinsky ad blitz -- a risky move to say the least. But even now, upon reflection, what better option did the GOP have? Were Republicans supposed to stand up and say "Hurray! We defeated campaign finance reform this year!" Or maybe, "Hey! We bashed a few gays a couple of months ago!" And if the GOP was looking to offend an even larger segment of the population, it could have spent millions explaining why HMO's are really our friends. And so it went during the campaign season of 1998. Even today, though, the Republicans hold a majority in the House and the Senate, not because they are full of bright ideas, but because there still exists a widespread hesitance to give President Clinton a friendly Congress.

EXPLORE CST... Bad Poetry -- submissions welcome Toonage -- cyber toons Ask Jay Crew... -- an advice column Coffee Talk -- complete CST archive Total Linkage!!! -- perfect newsie homepage E-mail CST -- comments, complaints?     .

You see, for all his rhetoric, the president is just a tad more in touch with the American people on the above-mentioned issues than the Republicans. True, he's on firm ground on health care with his Patients' Bill of Rights. But given the legislative ineptitude he and Hillary exhibited while trying to champion a health care system overhaul during his first term, it's far too optimistic to assume President Clinton will convert the results of this election into health care success. In addition, his record on campaign finance reform is becoming more and more pathetic as each day of his presidency passes. While he seems to pay lots of lip-service to the campaign finance issue, the truth is that he is almost as beholden to corporate soft-money dollars as is the GOP. And where the president lacks a bit of corporate funding, he's perfectly willing to pick up the slack with Chinese campaign contributions. In his post-Election Day press conference, where were his congratulations for Senator Feingold's amazing triumph over soft-money? If President Clinton were truly as sincere an opponent of soft-money as his talk usually leads one to believe, then why not use his bully pulpit to that end on a day when so many Americans are focusing on the nuts and bolts of our political system? Instead, the president used the moment to hint at vindication on the impeachment front. It was subtle hinting, to be sure, but there was little doubt that his appearance had any other purpose. You'd think the president would have felt a bit indebted to the party that has blindly defended him throughout this political season, and thus would have devoted a few lines of eloquence to the issues that have served them so well. But for Clinton, it wasn't a day for issue and policy affirmation, it was a day to marvel at the scarcity of buckshot embedded in his own presidential hide. At the end of his statement, the president fielded only four questions from reporters! If he is so confident that the voters sent an impeachment message on Election Day, then why does he continue to flee from Q&A sessions with the media? I'd say it's a bad sign for Democracy when a president spends upwards of ten months in office effectively taking the "press" out of his press conferences. I think everyone agrees that President Clinton is no gay-basher. During his 1992 presidential bid, he loudly campaigned in favor of gays in the military. After winning the presidency, one might think he should have been able to convert that mandate into policy. But by its second year in existence, his "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy had resulted in a 43% rise in gay discharges from the military. With political friends like Clinton who needs Trent Lott? So it seems to me that the real losers in this election were the Capitol Hill Democrats. If it weren't for their "legally accurate" president, they might have control of Congress today. It's important to note that most Democrats are on the right side of history in their stances on health care, the environment and gay tolerance. Unfortunately, they're currently shackled to the most overtly corrupt politician since Nixon. They will do well for themselves and their party if they decide once more to come down on the right side of history. In the next few months, Congress will decide if, under certain circumstances, it will be acceptable for future presidents to lie under oath. The sooner the Democrats realize that they don't owe this year's Election Day success to President Clinton, the stronger our Constitutional form of government will likely remain. No, I can't say that I blame the Republicans for launching their late-campaign Lewinsky ad blitz. Their effort to push the impeachment process forward happens to be one of the few respectable items on their 1998 résumé.

Send your comments to Coffee Shop Times editor Douglas Barricklow.