Molly Ivins May 11

AUSTIN — Bill Clinton, as Lyndon was fond of reminding us in his day, is the only president we've got. And Clinton is the Rodney Dangerfield of presidents.

He is so constantly and so casually abused, vilified, dismissed, mocked and generally treated as a punching bag by every snide little twerp with a press pass that it's a little startling to realize that his approval ratings continue to ride in the mid-50s. Wouldn't guess that from reading the papers, would you?

On the wilder shores of talk radio and the paranoid-right press, Clinton is regularly accused of murder, drug dealing and any number of lesser crimes. A substantial minority of the citizenry seems to prepared to believe he sucks eggs, runs on all fours and molests small children — which is especially odd in that his single most striking public attribute is his eternal niceness.

In the five years of his presidency — during which time he has had a Rocky Mountain range of abuse heaped on his head — we have seen him respond somewhat curtly exactly twice. The other day in Mexico, he answered two unpleasant questions about his wife by saying quietly, "No and no," and then he shut his mouth and tightened his lips. This titanic eruption of volcanic temper caused a great twittering in Washington.

That's pretty much how it goes for Clinton. If there is one single thing he has done or failed to do that has not been viciously criticized, I wish you would point it out to me. He has been criticized for dumping his friends when they get in trouble and for not dumping his friends when they get in trouble. First, he was accused of trying to do too much; now, he's accused of trying to do too little. He's criticized for bashing Republicans; he's criticized for working with Republicans. The man can't even promote volunteerism without being criticized.

All of which sets off my contrarian impulses. I frankly don't care about his sex life — I don't think it's any of my business. Nor do I care about the stupid land deal he got into in 1978. Have you ever seen so much fuss made about so little in your life? If Clinton were personally corrupt, he'd be rich by now. As Sid Richardson once said of John Connally, "We just put him in the way to make a little money." That's how it's done for politicians who are interested in acquiring wealth.

I'd say Clinton is not, and I'd say the proof is his bank account.

Politically corrupt? Yes, I think so. But then you get into thornier issues, such as: Compared to whom? Is the problem Clinton, or is it the system? They're all in hock to big contributors. Is it worse to let rich folks buy a night in the Lincoln Bedroom or to let them rewrite environmental regulations? If it is sleazy beyond redemption for Clinton to take money from a foreign businessman through a shell corporation, then it's just as sleazy for the Republicans, who did it as well.

Yeah, I'd like to kick 'em all out, but I think it would be more useful to completely change the campaign financing system — and put an end to paid political ads while we're at it. At least Clinton supports changing the campaign financing laws, which is more than can be said for the R's.

In many ways, Clinton is the most skilled politician I've ever watched work. I know it's ridiculous to complain about a politician behaving like a politician — fish gotta swim and politicians gotta deal — but my problem with him is simply that. Too much politician in him, not enough leader, not enough fighter. He's starting his end game now, and I believe that both Garry Kasparov and Deep Blue would tell him it's time to change tactics.

He's not going to get dog through a Republican Congress: Holy gopher, if hadn't been for Bob Dole, the Senate wouldn't even have ratified the chemical weapons ban. You can't make deals with people who don't want the government to work. They don't want it to work well; they don't want it to work at all. The Shiite Republicans aren't interested in fixing government — they want to destroy it.

Why let them make this country worse? Why let them abolish the tax credit for investing in low-income housing when we continue to subsidize housing for Donald Trump, who gets to write off the interest on his family mansion, his New York condo, his place in the country, his villa in Aspen, his townhouse in Miami and his vacation compound in Southern California? Why cut the capital gains tax and the estate tax (so rich folks will invest more, explain the R's) when the R's aren't willing to invest even $5 billion of the $112 billion needed to repair schools in this country? You tell me what's a better investment.

I think Clinton ought to give up on trying to make deals with these folks and just start raising Cain.

Veto every piece of tripe they send him. Kick rears. Cuss and ream them out.

***

Molly Ivins is a columnist for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

COPYRIGHT 1997 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.