Clinton getting points for trying // In Calif. city, reviews are mostly good

  Adam Nagourney; Jonathan Lovitt

  01/20/1994

  USA Today

  FINAL

  Page 04A

  (Copyright 1994)

  ONTARIO, Calif. - One year ago, as President Clinton was taking the oath of

  office in Washington, Gerald and Denise Goree were out of work in this

  working-class suburb near Los Angeles.

  As Clinton on Wednesday toured the earthquake epicenter 40 miles west of here

  - a reflection both of his concern for the area's well-being and a tip of the hat to

  California's political importance - the Gorees, neither of whom voted for him,

  were both working.

  The Gorees are the first to say they are beneficiaries of an economic recovery

  that was at least partly engineered by a Republican administration.

  No matter: Denise Goree, a lifelong Republican who voted for Ross Perot, and

  Gerald Goree, who found the field so distasteful he didn't bother to vote, have

  only good words about Clinton as he marks his first year in office.

  "Life is better for us now," Gerald Goree says. "We have more hours to enjoy

  things." Adds Denise Goree: "Clinton keeps putting his nose to the grindstone."

  As the president paid his ninth trip to California in 12 months, he had little time

  for politicking.

  He toured highways upended by the earthquake, swayed with everyone else to a

  rolling afternoon encore of aftershocks, and promised more federal assistance:

  "We will stay with you until the job is finished."

  But in Ontario, which USA TODAY has visited regularly over the past two

  years to measure how Clinton is playing, and which was hardly touched by the

  quake, the reviews are mostly good.

  While conversations with several dozen voters do not provide the scientific

  measurement of a poll, the sentiments found here reflect what pollsters are

  saying.

  More important, they provide an insight into the thinking of people in the kind of

  growing, independent-minded, mostly middle-class community that decides

  elections everywhere, particularly in this state, the anchor of Clinton's own

  electoral map.

  A few days in this community provides other suggestions about changes in the

  political scene. Perot won 21% of the vote here, and during the 1992 campaign,

  he was the object of interest and excitement. Now, he seems on the decline.

  "I voted for Perot because I was impressed with the man," said Jeannette Brown,

  46. "I realize he had some major egotistical problems. But he has made some

  major slips that shows that as much as he likes to say he's a man of the people,

  he's not."

  Further, most people here said they were neither concerned nor surprised about

  recurring stories about Clinton's marital life.

  Petra Waller, 20, a Republican who voted for George Bush, said she didn't trust

  or like Clinton, but "I don't care about his personal life. What is important is his

  policies."

  "Hey - that's cool if he did it," said William Chrisman, 53, a plastics mold maker.

  "He just shouldn't have gotten caught."

  His wife, Isabelle, who voted for Bush, shushed her husband: "No, I don't agree

  with that. But what they do in their personal life, I don't care."

  On another issue that has plagued the president, Whitewater, most people seem

  baffled by the specifics of the convoluted Arkansas thrift and land deal. The only

  aspect of it that drew comment was Clinton's reluctance to release information

  about the issue.

  "These things gather steam if you don't stamp them out," said Tim Peters, 29. "It

  certainly makes you raise an eyebrow."

  For all the words of encouragement, there lingers a strong, visceral dislike for

  Clinton, primarily among Republicans. That helps explain why Clinton seems

  unable to poke his head through an approval ceiling of 60%.

  "I hate the guy - I had expected the worst of him, and he fulfilled those

  expectations," says Mark Reinmuth, 21, a pilot. Adds retired grocer Charles

  Kunz, 67, who also voted for Bush: "I've got nothing good to say about this guy.

  I think the voters made a big mistake."

  But those are in the minority. Most give him high marks for trying; mediocre

  marks for accomplishment. They say his priorities are mostly correct - the

  economy and health care.

  A few suggest they thought they have seen signs of an end to gridlock in

  Washington, a remark that is particularly striking because in earlier visits here,

  the logjam was a regular target of complaints.

  And again and again, some people say the president is not being given enough

  time by his partisan opponents or the press to get things done.

  "He's only been in there a short time. It takes a long time to undo someone else's

  mistakes," says Laura Johnson, a fourth-grade teacher.

  Adds Michelle Hornsby, 23: "It takes a little while to get things done: If we give

  him a fair chance, he'll accomplish everything."

  Peaks and valleys of presidential approval

  Percentage of people who approve of the job Bill Clinton is doing as president:

  Jan. 26 58% Feb. 28 59% June 6 36% Sept. 26 56% Jan. 17 54% (1994)

  Major speeches on budget (February 1993) and health care (September 1993)

  pulled president's ratings to their highest level

  (June 1993)Approval hit low point in June amid bruising budget battles, reversal

  on Lani Guinier nomination, haircut stories and travel-office woes

  (January 1994) Slow climb in ratings, fueled by flow of good economic news, is

  capped by successful Russia/NATO trip

  GRAPHIC,b/w,Stephen Conley, USA TODAY (Map,California);

  GRAPHIC,b/w,Stephen Conley, USA TODAY ,Source: USA TODAY

  /CNN/Gallup polling(Line graph); PHOTO,b/w,Gamma-Liaison;

  PHOTO,b/w,Tim Dillon, USA TODAY ; PHOTO,b/w,Paul Whyte, USA

  TODAY ; PHOTO,b/w,AFP