Online NewsHour: Lee Cullum and Cynthia Tucker on the State of the Union -- January 24, 1996

Regional commentators, Lee Cullum, of the Dallas Morning News, and Cynthia Tucker, of the Atlanta Constitution, discuss President Clinton's State of the Union speech and Bob Dole's response and try to discern substance from rhetoric.

Clinton vowed in 1992 to cut taxes, balance the budget, end welfare as we know it, and rein in the corrupt Washington establishment.

Gingrich promised the same things in his Contract with America in 1994. Gingrich has delivered on the first three, failing to implement substantial campaign finance reform or term limits.

Voters endorsed these ideas in both the 1992 Presidential election and the 1994 Congressional elections.

In light of the above observations, how do the two regional editors think the subject of credibility plays with voters in their areas?

There is no question that people in this part of the country place great stock in politicians doing what they say they will do. Truth- telling and keeping one's word are very important here. No doubt many in Dallas would assess the records of Gingrich and Clinton exactly as you do.

I hear much agitation on the subject of taxes, and if there is no reduction it will be a problem for both Clinton and the Republicans. Balancing the budget is considered critical, though I suspect that opinions vary on allocations for Medicare and Medicaid. Welfare Reform definitely is favored and expected. Campaign finance reform was enormously significant to Ross Perot's United We Stand America at the meeting in Dallas last August. It will figure in the Reform Party's platform if Perot gets this effort airborne.

So Dallas and Atlanta are on the same wavelength where these issues are concerned.

Many voters will focus on the specific issues you outlined and hold candidates accountable if they have not fulfilled their campaign promises. But, on the other hand, many voters do not assess credibility in the way editorial writers do, whether or not an official held to his promises. In Clinton's case, credibility has much more to do with the so-called character issues which have dogged him for so long, and whether or not he is seen as a man who can stick to his principles.

On Gingrich, credibility is assessed through a visceral lens, as well: Is he just being petty on the budget, a la his fit of pique over Air Force One? Is he too partisan? Is he too mean and too harsh? I think those more visceral notions affect many voters' judgments of credibility.

I was disappointed when (President Clinton) neglected to mention lack of economic opportunity in urban communities, and inner cities, as a major cause of crime and gangs. More police, more jails, and more fear will have little real impact on crime if it is not accompanied with better education and more opportunities. What's up with his one-strike deal and his plan to increase jail sentences?

Clinton's retreat from the inner cities is part of his advance to the middle ground of suburban America. If he holds fast to these tactics - - a centrist campaign - - then we can expect more tough talk about prison sentences and less about empowerment and enterprise zones.

However, he did mention consolidating 70 job training programs into a $2600 voucher to be used at community colleges and for other vocational offerings. Also he gave considerable attention to education: expanding work-study and Pell grants, allowing $10,000 for college tuition to be deducted from income taxes, connecting schools in California to the information superhighway right away and all schools and libraries around the country by the year 2,000, and giving a $1,000 merit scholarship to the top 5 percent of all public- graduates. These programs should have some impact on cities, though obviously the emphasis in not strictly urban.

That's easy enough. Nobody, NOBODY, Democrat or Republican, wants to be seen as soft on crime these days. While you are right about the root causes of crime, Clinton believes he must be seen as tough on crime in order to win over the crucial American center. Every politician in the South - Democrat and Republican - is grandstanding on the issue of crime.

With Clinton sounding more and more like a Republican every day, why is it that he cannot come to agreement on a budget proposed by the Republicans?

Clinton has indeed appropriated the Republican program in many respects. And, as you (and he) said, the administration and the Republicans certainly are not that far apart on the numbers. They could come to terms on Medicare and taxes and much else, I believe.

Philosophical differences do persist in the matter of Medicaid: should it be turned over entirely to the states as a bloc grant with no federal rules about who is covered and who is not? The president says no, the Republicans, yes.

Republicans continue to insist that merely cutting the rate of growth in both health-care programs is not enough. "Structural" changes must occur as well or they will continue in a straight path over the edge of a precipice. Perhaps so. But it seems to me that both sides should seize the sizable agreement that's possible now and resume the debate during the writing of next year's budget (there is always another budget, after all), and also in the election campaigns.

Will they? I doubt it. They're enjoying the impasse too much. And both parties believe apparently they are benefiting from it.

Again, Clinton is trying to claim the middle. Remember when he ran as a New Democrat? He is trying once again to position himself to attract the centrists whose votes he must have to win.

If he sounds so much like a Republican, why can't he get the Republicans to agree to a budget deal? That's easy. You have confused principle and politics. In principle, there is very little disagreement between Clinton and the Republicans on budget issues. They are very close on the numbers. But there are two factors at work: The freshmen Republicans are uncompromising. They don't want to give in at all. Besides that, the Republicans don't really want a budget deal. They are gambling that if there is no budget deal, the economy will decline, and voters will blame Clinton, thereby putting a Republican in the White House.

How resolute will Mr. Clinton be in the face of unexpected events, rhetoric by the opposition, and the ups and downs of public opinion. Will he hold the course?

Will Clinton hold the course? Only as long as it seems advantageous to him. A psychologist in California who has studied presidential temperaments told me four years ago that Clinton is a tactician, not a strategist, and he will do anything to get what he wants. Holding the course for its own sake holds no appeal for him. His nature expresses itself in rapid response to circumstances.

I can only hope that the President Clinton will stay the course. I do sometimes worry about his apparent lack of backbone.

Let's assume Bob Dole will be the Republican nominee for President. What do you predict will be the three main issues during the campaign, and what (in a few words) will be the main "sound bite" for each candidate in regards to those issues?

Dole vs. Clinton: the positions of each on the three main issues of 1996. A fascinating question, and challenging.

A. Clinton: "I commend Sen. Dole for his years and years of service, dating back to the 1940s."

B. Dole:"I've been tested. I know what sacrifice is. I've seen too much to leave the country in the hands of elites, some of them unelected."

A. Clinton: "The era of big government is over, but we cannot leave our elderly to fend for themselves."

A. Clinton: "The Republicans want to cut the taxes of the rich and leave ordinary Americans to fend for themselves."

B. Dole: "If the tax code is not made simpler, it will make simpletons of us all."

For Dole, the three main issues during the campaign will be family values, taxes, and Clinton. Clinton will concentrate on trying to convince the voters the Republicans are too extreme.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

To me, the only thing that matters in this whole issue is how well the government implements policies that will work for the good of the country. I agree with Mr. Clinton on almost all of the issues he discussed in Tuesday's speech. I hope he will focus on advancing the agenda he laid out, and try to minimize electioneering and political maneuvering.

However, I think the Republicans are a nasty bunch, mired in ad hominem attacks and incapable of compassion for less fortunate people. I'm afraid that they will be unwilling to vote for a responsible budget based on the common ground they now share with the President. We do not need a tax cut, and if they insist on it, they're hurting all of us.

The Conservatives have won! I just could not believe my ears. Clinton sounded like a conservative. However, I know who he is and this time, as he uses the words of conservatism, I know he means something else. He always could talk a good game, but now we have his record. It was one good campaign speech though. Hillary actually looked surprised when Bill praised her. The hypocrisy of these two is truly amazing but not as amazing as their audacity in saying they have moved to the right.

The address provided a welcome emphasis on education and the environment, but the most important message is unfortunately the one that freshmen/women Republicans seem to find most repulsive: bipartisan compromise.

Program
Support
From:

January 24, 1996 CLINTON'S STATE OF THE UNION

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

January 24, 1996
CLINTON'S
STATE OF THE UNION