Clinton’s Fate and the Polls

* Re “Task of Gauging Punishment Begins,” Sept. 15: I was disturbed by this article regarding President Clinton’s fate. The article suggested that congressmen would decide what to do based more on the polls than on the evidence contained in the Starr report and the White House rebuttal.

This would be wrong--possibly the worst thing the members of the House could do. Last I checked, we didn’t decide important national questions by resorting to the bread and circuses of daily polls. Whether the president has committed an impeachable offense or not, the duty of the members of the House and Senate is to make their decision based solely on the evidence before them.

One lone senator ruined his political career by voting to acquit Andrew Johnson in 1868, but he served his country well by following his conscience, not polls. I hope our current Congress can follow his example.

ANTHONY RAGAN

Los Angeles

* It seems The Times has taken its cue from Bill Clinton in using its front-page headline to mislead the public (Sept. 14). Your poll shows that 52% of the public favors strong punishment for Clinton, either in the form of censure or impeachment. This is hardly the “strong support” to which you refer.

CARRIE MAHAN

Newbury Park

* It must kill those politicians and media people whose stomachs burn with hatred for Clinton that the majority of Americans still approve of the job he is doing. To many of us, the far greater obscenity is their willingness to shove salacious details of the affair in our and our children’s faces day after day.

CHARLENE KILROY

Fountain Valley

* Re “Why Struggle to Defend So Lame a Duck?” Commentary, Sept. 14: Wasn’t it Gerald Uelmen who was on the team of lawyers who defended O.J. Simpson? The evidence submitted against O.J. was overwhelming, yet by clever legal maneuvering, they won an acquittal. Are Clinton’s lawyers any worse? Uelmen should seek forgiveness and redemption, as a scholar of the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics.

BALDWIN T. ECKEL

Upland

* Confronted with a mountain of lies on just one subject from Bill Clinton, I cannot help but wonder what else he has lied to us about. Is tobacco really as dangerous as he claims? Is global warming really a threat to mankind? Are our policies in places like Bosnia and Iraq really successful? Or is the president being “legally accurate” when he makes these claims?

Could someone please tell me what the man isn’t lying about?

STEVE BELL

Woodland Hills

* I’ll take a deceitful Democrat over an honest Republican any day.

LaMARR McNAIRY

Long Beach

* For those who haven’t read the Starr report: Their eyes met. They had sex. They lied about it.

Get over it.

MICHAEL H. MILLER

La Canada

* Bruce J. Schulman (Opinion, Sept. 13) has it right: President Clinton has been the most effective conservative president in the 20th century. He has ended federal responsibility for the needy (“welfare reform”), globalized the economy through NAFTA and GATT (thus sending thousands of American jobs overseas), balanced the budget, reduced the number of federal workers and even pushed through the line-item veto, later struck down by the Supreme Court. All of these were stated goals of Ronald Reagan, who failed to enact any of them.

Yet conservatives hate Clinton and clamor for his impeachment on the grounds that he lied about his affair with Monica Lewinsky; liberals are (mostly) steadfast in his defense, though condemning his “sleazy” behavior. I am an unrepentant--and proud--liberal and I am divided over what should happen to President Clinton. On one hand, the charges against him are trivial. They certainly do not warrant resignation, let alone impeachment. On the other hand, Clinton has been a dreadful president and it would certainly be better to have Al Gore in the White House!

JON BILLIGMEIER

Santa Barbara

* Clinton blames Kenneth Starr for the sordid embarrassment that his own conduct has brought to the office of president. Now Schulman’s convoluted piece credits Clinton with the few useful things the Republican Congress has achieved. Achieved not because of the president’s leadership but in spite of his opposition.

People must not forget that the agenda that this man brought to office called for socialized medicine, gays in the military and other undesirable extensions of progressive activism. They must not forget that his administration has been characterized by arrogance, stonewalling and an amazing ability to lose and misplace documents in such sensitive matters as the Vince Foster investigation.

SIDNEY HATCHL

Santa Ana

* Lewinsky, of her own volition, thrust herself into the president’s life. She initiated their first contact, she chose to expose her intimate apparel with little or no prompting, she initiated the oral sex and repeatedly urged the president to have an orgasm, she broached the topic of all-out sexual intercourse (to no avail). Yes, the president’s a dirty dog. What is Monica?

SCOTT CHANDLER

Los Angeles

* Let’s not be too tough on Lewinsky; she is catching an inordinate amount of flak for being the cause of Clinton’s problems. Without waxing unduly metaphorical, Monica is us. She is the unfortunate product of our life and times: naive while playing the sophisticate, succumbing to emotion while trying so hard to be rational, and utterly confused by the signals her family, education and culture have provided her with which to deal with power. How many more Monicas are out there?

JOHN R. SCHNEIDER

Oak View

* After perusing Starr’s long-winded “expose,” I have come to the conclusion that Clinton is not so bad. After all, his interest in ladies has always been for very “down home” women. No Marilyn Monroe for him--no famous actresses--just simple, everyday, exceedingly intelligent, educated (usually) women. This, in my opinion, speaks well of him. At heart, he is a simple guy. His ego does not demand famous women. Just attractive (Lewinsky) types. My estimation of him has risen since all this hubris has begun. Can’t we please leave him alone at last to run our country?

GLORIA STRASSNER

Venice

* Because of political and popular pressure, Clinton has offered an apology to Lewinsky. But what about, finally, an apology to Paula Jones? A simple “I’m sorry” to her a long time ago would have prevented this entire sordid matter from coming to light. He underestimated Jones’ determination to seek truth and justice.

MARY CASSIDY DENIGAN

Cathedral City

* Susan Carpenter McMillan certainly knows how to stir up trouble. After reading her Sept. 13 article calling for Hillary Clinton’s resignation, I was so stunned I almost forgot why she no longer represents Jones. Oh yeah, bad advice. Had Susan had any real desire to help the feminist cause, she would have urged Hillary to get rid of Bill and run for president herself in 2000. Now, that would advance the feminist cause!

If McMillan is sincere aboutputting principle above politics, then she ought to head the call for Lewinsky’s apology to Hillary for the damage she did to the first lady and to the country. Something no one else seems to be clamoring for.

LOUISE O. MONTAGUE

El Monte

* Lying about it is the one decent thing our president did.

FRANK BOURGHOLTZER

Santa Monica

* In your Sept. 14 editorial, you state that “the president’s lawyer’s denials that Clinton committed perjury may be technically true, but they are an affront to common sense.” Perhaps it should say that Starr’s proof of Clinton’s perjury is technically correct, but spending $40 million to prove it is an affront to our common cents.

ANTONIO BLANCO

Chula Vista

* It is amusing to me to hear people talking about the president not having the “moral authority” to lead the nation when Jerry Springer is one of the most popular shows on television. It’s still the economy, stupid.

MARK BEDOL

Claremont

* Call me naive, but I feel that when the Republicans, led by Trent Lott and Newt Gingrich, tried to sneak a $50-billion tax break through for the tobacco companies (who contribute heavily to them), that is stealing from the American public and constitutes high crimes and misdemeanors--not some guy who gets caught cheating on his wife and then very clumsily tries to cover it up.

BERNARD RAPKIN

Los Angeles

* We have spent about 2,000 years getting the church out of our bedrooms. Now, I guess we are going to have to spend another 2,000 years getting the law out of our bedrooms. And probably, after that, we will have to spend another 2,000 years getting our neighbors out of our bedrooms.

GARY JOSSELYN

Los Angeles

* As a Republican, the only silver lining I find in the tragic cloud of the president’s scandal is the satisfaction of such public proof that my party doesn’t have the market cornered on sleaze and corruption. Now that we’re all in the same gutter, perhaps we can address the issues of the day on their merits, and not from the erroneous assumption that one party is more ethical or moral than another.

SAMUEL DOWNING

Chatsworth

* Your president has just concluded his visit to Ireland. His work on the Irish peace process is without precedent. Whatever happens, this must surely be noted as the work of a great statesman. I do not belong to any political party but I tell you this: If you allow such a great man to be brought down by others with hidden agendas, then the McCarthy era will seem like a picnic. Wake up before it is too late.

JOAN DORAN

Dublin, Ireland