Clinton address shocks students

The crossfire was so heavy last night when the College Democrats and College Republicans gathered to watch President Clinton's State of the Union Address in Houston Hall, that barely a donkey or an elephant could escape the verbal bullets. Or, that is the way it could have been. In what could be seen as a reflection of the nation's newly elected Republican Congress, the dominating student Republican ratio of 20 to five was responsible for most of the commentary during the speech. While the right-wingers reveled in comedy-club wit and laughter, their Democrat opponents folded their arms, rubbed their chins and occasionally mumbled to each other. Despite the unbalanced attendance -- which also included three Independents and one Libertarian -- the majority of students said they felt Clinton's words were moderate and motivated by his political aspirations. "He's pandering to the new conservative majority," said College sophomore Chris Monte, a Democrat. "He's not stating his principles flat out." Another Democrat, College and Engineering sophomore and Daily Pennsylvanian Senior Photographer Ashley Roach, said he recognized Clinton's address as an effort by a minority President to successfully maintain the "intricate" balance between his own Democratic party's views, with the opposing views of the new Republican Congress. Several students expressed disbelief that the Democratic President was actually the author and deliverer of the address he delivered last night to the nation. "I feel like Newt Gingrich is winning," said Blake Mills, a sophomore Engineering student who describes himself as a Libertarian. "I thought this speech was supposed to be given by Bill, not Newt." Before the president had completed half of his 121 minute outline, College junior and University Assembly Member Lance Rogers, had laughed many times. "A Republican wrote this," the Republican student said. Rogers was not the only student who said he was surprised at the Clinton's list of "Republican" goals. As Clinton articulated the words "Family Values," the bottom jaws of both Democrats and Republicans dropped. "This is better than watching T.V." UA member and College junior Christian Hemsley said. "I wonder if he had a brain transplant somewhere around election time," the Republican added. "I actually heard Clinton say 'Family Values.'" Adrienne Frangakis said she agreed Clinton's address was in the middle of the political spectrum, but thought his statements were genuine. "I think he's actually going to go through with what he says," said the Republican. "I think he believes that Americans have spoken and want a change. He is not only saying what Americans want." Frangakis added that she saw President Clinton's move to the middle as an effort to work with the new Congress, but acknowledged that the speech could have been a ploy for re-election. In addition to students' criticism of Clinton's rightward shift, Republicans said the President's speech exemplified his fickle views. According to Wharton freshman and Republican Dan Silvers, the Clinton's move explains his unpopularity. "People can't stand him because he wavers," Silvers said. "It doesn't matter what the financial state is. People can't stand him because each time he has a different stance." Another Republican looked beyond his party's lines in his evaluation of the address. He said the President's inconsistency characterized his opinions. "It sounds like a speech that the President has to make after the Republican victory in the '94 elections," Rogers said. "I might have had more Respect for him -- even though I don't believe in his party beliefs if he stayed there "He didn't say very much for an hour and 21 minutes," he added.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.