The resignation of Dick Morris, the President's senior political advisor, will undoubtedly have ramifications for this falls election. To discuss what these might be, Jim Lehrer talks with Shields and Gigot.
JIM LEHRER: Now some words of analysis now from Shields & Gigot, syndicated columnist Mark Shields, Wall Street Journal columnist Paul Gigot. A serious hit for the President, Mark?
MARK SHIELDS, Syndicated Columnist: A serious hit, Jim, in a couple of respects. Susan Page was absolutely right. What ought to have been the most triumphant day of Bill Clinton's presidency, the acceptance of the unanimous nomination by his party for a second term, with a lead, his parade has been rained on, and this is a story that competes with it, diverts attention, energy, and beyond that, I think it's a reminder just as I was thinking of four years ago as Bill Clinton was getting ready to give his acceptance speech, he was blessed with another unexpected event that that time was good news. It was Ross Perot pulling out, and he went ahead 20 points in the polls. But I think what it does is it reminds people--there's been a widely held perception that the White House, the President have matured and stabilized. But I think this reminds people of other friends, associates of the President, have been the subject of scandal, even conviction, whether it's Jim and Susan McDougal, Web Hubbell, or Jim Guy Tucker, the former governor of Arkansas, so I think it is a problem.
JIM LEHRER: Yeah. Paul, what do you think?
PAUL GIGOT, Wall Street Journal: The problem raises questions about political judgment and political sincerity. The judgment is about who a President, any President, any candidate, surrounds himself with, and while you can't be responsible for everyone, it does, as Mark pointed out, remind voters of--that this particular President has had a string of unfortunate resignations and problems with key advisers. You know, the White House counsel, they've had an awful lot of them, Web Hubbell, some of the Arkansas people, that sort of thing. But I think the bigger opening for Republicans here, which they will try to find some way to exploit, is the question of political sincerity. If you are the architect of a family values message, if you have remade this President, as Morris has helped to do, into what essentially is a cultural conservative, talking about family values, urging him to--the President to sign a welfare bill, all of that language which has been so effective for the President, then you have to ask the question if he is now in the trouble he is, was it all sincere. Did he mean it? Can you believe him?
JIM LEHRER: Mark, what is the word within the, the political world, the non-partisan professional political world about Dick Morris? Was he, in fact, a, a legitimate genius at this kind of thing, whether he was working for a Republican or whether he was working for a Democrat, he just knew how to do it? Did he deserve that title?
MR. SHIELDS: You'll get, you'll get varying opinions, Jim. Within the political community, itself, he was widely reviled.
JIM LEHRER: Reviled?
MR. SHIELDS: Reviled. There was great distrust of his numbers, whether in fact his polls are real or whatever, but he had an unerring instinct for a relationship with a constituency of one, whether that one was Sen. Jesse Helms, the most conservative member of the Senate and for whom he worked, Sen. Trent Lott, the Republican leader, or Bill Clinton, uh, for whom he worked. He showed a remarkable flexibility, uh, ideologically. Most people in politics work for just one side. They don't--they don't jump back--
JIM LEHRER: That is seen--has been perceived at least--that shows how terrific he was, that he was so good everybody wanted him--wanted him to work for.
MR. SHIELDS: I think what he did, I think even his critics would have to acknowledge that he played great political defense. He took the vulnerabilities of President Bill Clinton, particularly those on crime and welfare, and he shored them up, I mean, to the point where Bill Clinton is even, in every measurement public opinion couldn't be better on the subject, that's not been the case with Democrats against Republicans over the past generation, but I think if there's been a soft spot in the Morris strategy, it's been apparent in the sense that there's no offensive strategy. It's almost been a nuke the differences between the two parties' strategy, and the vision thing I don't think has been part of his plan.
JIM LEHRER: Paul, on the streets where you walk, what have you heard about Dick Morris before today, and his, his level of competence?
MR. GIGOT: Well, I agree with Mark he's widely reviled, but that's true of most political consultants in the business who don't like each other.
JIM LEHRER: And most of them--go ahead--I'm not going to answer the question.
MR. SHIELDS: I think most professionals have a respect for each other, and, if not an affection.
JIM LEHRER: Yeah.
MR. GIGOT: I think he did something else for the President. I mean, after 1994, Bill Clinton, the election pasting he took, he was adrift. He lost confidence in his own judgment to some extent and in the judgment of his advisers, a lot of whom were veterans of Democratic politics only, and of Capitol Hill politics, in particular. Remember, a lot of people thought, and I think the President came to believe, that he had made his own agenda and his own presidency subservient to the Democrats on Capitol Hill. Morris kind of brought him out into a bigger new you. He said--he had been out working for Republicans, seeing the way other themes work, seeing the way the country responded, and he tried to incorporate those into the President's message.
JIM LEHRER: Yeah.
MR. GIGOT: I think it's worked beautifully. I do agree, though, with Mark that it--there's a certain ideological ruthlessness to it. It's, it's we'll pick one from column A, one from column B, what does it all add up to?
JIM LEHRER: Got you. All right. We'll talk to you again in a few moments.
