================================================================== Published by INEWS. Freely distributable if unaltered and complete. See end of document for info on free E-mail trial of INEWS. INTERNATIONAL NEWS E-WIRE SERVICE All rights reserved. For information on receiving a free trial subscription to INEWS World News Daily via E-mail send E-mail to INEWS@AOL.COM ================================================================== DISTRIBUTE FREELY '96 ELECTION SNAPSHOT VOL.1 #3 SUBSCRIPTION INFO/GENERAL INFO - INEWS@AOL.COM TO REACH EDITOR ---------------- INEWSEDIT@AOL.COM CONTENTS: CLINTON ENDS IOWA VISIT IOWA CAUCUS PREVIEW IOWA POLLS CLINTON IOWA CAMPAIGNING IOWA CAUCUS PRIMER IOWA'S UNDECIDED '96 CAMPAIGN: CLINTON CHALLENGER BRUCE DANIELS MEDIA AND DEMOCRACY PRIMARY COLORS FILM DEAL CLINTON LAWSUIT INSURANCE CONTROVERSY INTERVIEW: THE BUDGET BATTLE AND THE FUTURE OF AMERICAN POLITICS THE EXPECTATIONS GAME LOUISIANA CAUCUS BACFIRES FOR GRAMM NEW HAMPSHIRE PRIMARY WANT-TO-BE'S OBSERVATION ON FORBES KEMP ON THE SIDELINES POLLS SHOW AMERICANS FAVOR STRONG ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS ANOTHER RETIRING MEMBER OF CONGRESS ORIGINS OF THE DEMOCRATIC DONKEY AND REPUBLICAN ELEPHANT THE DEBATE WITHIN THE GOP CAMPAIGN '96: LOUISIANA CAMPAIGN '96: THE ENVIRONMENT WHITEWATER: PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS, POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS PAT BUCHANAN WINS LOUISIANA REPUBLICAN CAUCUS CAMPAIGN '96: STEVE FORBES PHENOMENON CAMPAIGN '96: FORBES PROFILE CAMPAIGN '96: NEW HAMPSHIRE UPDATE CAMPAIGN '96: NEW HAMPSHIRE VOTERS CAMPAIGN '96: THE AD WAR CLINTON CAMPAIGN POLITICS THE REPUBLICAN LIBERTARIAN DEBATE ELECTRIC LIGHTS IN THE WHITE HOUSE 1889 HOUSE BACKS IMPEACHMENT COMMITTEE POWERS 1974 GEORGE WALLACE FOR PRESIDENT 1968 THE HOUSE ELECTS A PRESIDENT 1825 PRESIDENT-ELECT ABRAHAM LINCOLN LEAVES SPRINGFIELD 1861 ========================= --------------- CLINTON ENDS IOWA VISIT DAVID BORGIDA DES MOINES President Clinton has wrapped up a two-day campaign visit to the Midwest state of Iowa, where caucuses are to be held Monday. He does not have a challenger from within his own Democratic Party, but he went to the agricultural state to bolster support for the general election and to counter Republican attacks against him. The president who loves to campaign was back at it this weekend, explaining to Iowa voters why he came even though he has no Democratic Party challenger: "I want them to know that I would appreciate their support, I want them to know what I am trying to do, what I intend to do in the future." In two days he visited three cities, but never mentioned any Republican candidate by name. Sunday he was asked this hypothetical question, if the Republicans would let him, is there a candidate he wants to face. His answer? A presidential "no comment": "If they wrote me a letter and asked me to nominate someone I'd be happy to accommodate them, but since they're not going to do that I don't see that I should speculate." He goes back on the campaign trail soon, with two stops scheduled for the politically-vital state of California in four weeks. Last weekend, he visited New Hampshire, which holds a primary February twentieth. There and here in Iowa, the president has touted his accomplishments at campaign rallies, a stronger economy, safer world, and more. But he is appealing to voters to be involved in the election process and to congressional Republicans to end what he calls divisive rhetoric. He also is denouncing rising cynicism about politics and politicians in america. But at the same time he says he has much more to do. He vowed to keep the United States engaged in the world, saying that directly benefits Americans in the agriculture community. In fact, he came here Saturday well-equipped to appeal to the state's farmers and ranchers, signing legislation that makes it easier for them to get credit. To that end, he did more than deliver speeches, visiting a grain storage facility, having dinner with local farm families, and meeting with victims of the devastating 1993 floods here. Before he came, advertisements for Republican candidates dominated local media. With all his appearances around the state, the president got what he wanted, plenty of attention. --------------- --------------- IOWA CAUCUS PREVIEW PAUL FRANCUCH DES MOINES Registered voters in the Midwest state of Iowa take the first major step Monday in selecting this year's presidential candidates here in the United States, when they gather for what are known as "caucuses." A large number of still-undecided voters may produce an unanticipated result. Many of the voters remain undecided because the messages they're getting about the candidates is coming from commercial advertisements on radio and TV. Many of those ads have been decidedly negative, focusing on character flaws and other faults of opposing candidates, rather than touting the accomplishments of the person seeking the nomination. Republican candidate and former state of Tennessee Governor Lamar Alexander has improved his prospects in the Iowa caucus because of the mostly-positive tone of his advertisements. The ads, judged by many as the most negative, have been aired by front-running candidate Senator Bob Dole and his nearest rival, magazine publisher Steve Forbes. Mr. Alexander told a rally in Des Moines Sunday the negative ads could have a long-term effect: "This morning on a couple of national television shows, the reporters were saying "well why do you think the number of undecided voters is so high?" I think it's because, partly, because of the negative ads. I think people are put-off by it. And I think if senator Dole and Mr. Forbes keep this up right through to the end, that Iowans are going to begin to agree with them, in what they're saying about each other, that Forbes isn't prepared to be the president and Senator Dole, as much as we respect him, doesn't have the vision to lead us into the next century, and they're looking for somebody else." Some Iowans who plan to attend Republican caucuses Monday agree the negative ads may hurt their party's presidential prospects this year. While Senator Dole is predicted to win Monday's Iowa caucus, the negative ads by opponent Steve Forbes may end up hurting his chances of finishing second. Some analysts say former governor Alexander may finish far higher among the nine Republican candidates than many had earlier predicted, largely because of his campaign's more positive tone. --------------- --------------- IOWA POLLS JANE BERGER WASHINGTON Voters in Iowa go to the polls this Monday in the first key contest in the race for the Republican party's presidential nomination. Correspondent Jane Berger reports several politicians discussed the issue Sunday in a series of U.S. television interviews. Voters in the Midwest state of Iowa are holding party caucuses, the first step toward the selection of delegates for the party's national nominating convention later this year. The iowa outcome is expected to give a boost to top finishers as they head for the more important New Hampshire primary next week. The latest polls indicate Senate majority leader Bob Dole, the Republican front-runner, will easily win Iowa. But the race for second and third place is very close. Support for millionaire publisher Steve Forbes is apparently sinking and more voters are shifting to conservative TV commentator Pat Buchanan or former Tennessee Governor Lamar Alexander. Iowa Governor Terry Branstad said Mr. Forbes' negative advertising against his colleagues has backfired among Iowans: "Iowans are going to vote for the people who have spent time here, answered the questions, and have a stand on the issues that's in tune with our Midwestern values of hard work and faith in god and commitment to the family and those things that are right and good about America." Mr. Branstad said Iowa has many conservative Christian voters, who will either vote for Mr. Buchanan or Senator Dole. Mr. Buchanan, who finished first last week in Louisiana caucuses, said voters are just beginning to realize that he has a strong plan to strengthen the U.S. economy. The conservative commentator said he is the one Republican contender who can appeal to independent voters who voted in strong numbers four years ago for texas businessman Ross Perot: "I am the one Republican who can bring home the Perot voters: If my Republican colleagues do not address the issue of economic insecurity in the middle class and declining wages among working people, they're going to lose the country. I can bring it back." The latest polls in New Hampshire indicate Mr. Dole and Mr. Forbes are running about even, with Mr. Buchanan in third place. New Hampshire's Republican governor, Steve Merrill, said he believes Mr. Dole will easily win the New England state: "Why do so many people say 'we support Bob Dole?' Answer: He's produced the first balanced budget in a generation. He fought the Clinton tax increase. He's brought welfare back to the states. That's why, despite the millions and millions and millions of dollars Steve Forbes has spent portraying Bob Dole as something other than what he is, you still find 25 to 30 percent of the people in New Hampshire saying 'I'm going to vote for Bob Dole.' that is a substantial lead over the other candidates until recently. And it looks like now that Steve Forbes is moving down, it's going to go back to a lead again." The outcome in Iowa will likely influence the often unpredictable New Hampshire voters. But if Mr. Dole comes out on top in both states, it will be very hard for anyone else to stop him. --------------- --------------- CLINTON IOWA CAMPAIGNING DAVID BORGIDA MASON CITY, IOWA President Clinton is campaigning for re-election in the Midwest state of Iowa, which holds party caucuses Monday. He is not being challenged by any Democrat for his party's presidential nomination in this primary season. But he is making his case in the agricultural state anyway while Republican candidates battle each other. Someone among the Republican field will be his opponent in the general election, so the president came here ready for political battle, bringing voters something Republicans could not bring, presidential largesse. Before leaving Washington earlier, he signed legislation that would lower the cost of credit for farmers and ranchers. His first stop was Iowa city, where he appealed to congressional Republicans to work with him, called for continued U.S. engagement with the world, an end to nuclear testing, and better environmental protection, popular themes here. Then, in snowy north Iowa, he shed his business suit for casual attire to tour a grain storage facility, and later, he repeated his central message of optimism here: "For the United States of America, the best is yet to come. For the children in this audience, the age of possibility will give them more chances to live out their dreams than any generation of Americans has ever had. But it won't work unless we make sure everybody has a chance, unless we give our people the power to make the most of their own lives, and unless we remember that we cannot afford cynicism and we have to go forward together. A quiet dinner with local families at a corn and soybean farm wrapped up the first of his two days in the state. The families at the dinner represented a cross-section of grain, corn and soybean farmers and beef, hog and pork producers. Sunday, in the state capital of Des Moines, the president meets with victims of this state's devastating 1993 floods and then delivers another speech before returning to Washington. He is expected to continue to tout his administration's accomplishments, but at the same time avoid direct criticism of the Republican field. He has mentioned the nearly-constant political advertising in local media on behalf of the Republican candidates, but consistent with his political strategy, he has been careful not to engage in any partisan debate with specific Republican candidates until he knows his opponent in the general election. In fact, he has not yet officially declared his candidacy because he wants to enjoy the benefits of incumbency as long as he can. This is the second consecutive weekend the president has made what his spokesman shrewdly calls a "political trip", not a campaign one. Last week, the president was in New Hampshire, which holds the nation's first primary February 20th. More such travel lies ahead, with two trips to the politically-vital state of California scheduled in the next month. --------------- --------------- IOWA CAUCUS PRIMER PAUL FRANCUCH DES MOINES, IOWA The first big test of this year's presidential campaign season comes Monday in the Midwest state of Iowa, when thousands of state residents take part in a candidate selection process known as a "caucus." It is a vote by party faithful on candidates seeking their party's official nomination. Iowa is one of the few states in this country using the caucus method to select among party presidential candidates for the official nomination. The southern state of Louisiana is another which uses a caucus as opposed to the more popular "primary election" system, which is similar to general election voting. Louisiana this year moved its caucus date ahead of Iowa's, much to the chagrin of many in this flat, corn and soybean-growing state of about three million people. But it didn't matter much, because most of the presidential candidates ignored Louisiana, focusing attention, instead, on the traditional campaign starting point, the Iowa caucus. Professor Hugh Winebrenner of Drake University in Des Moines is a student of the caucus process. He's even written a book on the subject. Professor Winebrenner was asked what's likely to happen around Iowa this coming Monday night?: "Iowa has 2,142 different precincts which will caucus Monday evening. Groups of citizens will get together, generally in public buildings, but there may be a few in private homes. They will range in number from a handful in some rural areas to 200 to 300 in some urban areas. They will, as a first order of business, engage in a presidential preference poll and cast their written ballot, which will be immediately tabulated and sent to the state headquarters and after that is over, which is largely for the benefit of the press, they will get about the real business of a caucus, which is to discuss the issues, begin the (party position) platform development process, elect delegates to the county convention, elect people to serve on county committees. The press isn't interested in that, however, so it is the outcome of the poll that will be broadcast nationally." Democrats will caucus, too, however, little attention will be paid to their activity as President Clinton is running for reelection unopposed within his party. Anybody in the state can attend a caucus, and with the tightening race among the Republicans in Iowa, the gatherings are expected to be lively. Many of the candidates believe they must finish first or second, or at bare minimum, third, to keep their candidacy alive. But victory in the Iowa caucus is by no means a clear signal of a candidate's prospects for nomination. Four years ago, the winners of the Iowa caucus were Iowa democratic Senator Tom Harkin and then-Republican President George Bush. Mr. Harkin lost his party's nomination. Mr. Bush lost the general election. Eight years ago, however, Republican George Bush finished third in the Iowa caucus. He went on to win the presidency. --------------- --------------- IOWA'S UNDECIDED PAUL FRANCUCH DES MOINES, IOWA The first major test of support for this year's presidential candidates here in the United States comes Monday in the Midwest state of Iowa. At neighborhood gatherings, known as "caucuses", votes will be cast for democratic and Republican candidates. Democrat Bill Clinton is running unopposed, so the focus is on the field of nine Republicans. Many of those Republican candidates are courting the votes of social conservatives. At a spacious new church on the northwest side of Des Moines Iowa Saturday night, several Republican candidates hoping to win the hearts and minds of those conservative on social issues spoke to a rally of several thousand people. The candidates pledged to uphold concepts like "family values" and the sanctity of marriage, to make abortions illegal and to end federal government involvement in public school operations. Many in the audience will participate in Monday's Republican caucus, and many still have yet to decide who to support. Teresa Edwards was at the rally and remains among the undecided: "We are still kind of undecided about our vote at this point I don't know. We're going to go home, think about it and see what tomorrow brings." Winning this undecided block of socially-conservative voters may be key to respectable showings for candidates like Senator Phil Gramm and media commentator Patrick Buchanan in Monday's Iowa caucus. --------------- --------------- '96 CAMPAIGN: CLINTON CHALLENGER BRUCE DANIELS JOHN PITMAN WASHINGTON President Clinton has been spared the expense and stress of a major primary campaign for the Democratic Party's nomination. But just because he doesn't have a high profile democratic challenger doesn't mean the president is running unopposed for the nomination. Bruce Daniels is not your average presidential candidate. He does not have a campaign bus, or legions of young campaign workers to hand out buttons and balloons. He does have a campaign manager in New Hampshire, but don't stay up late watching the television for pricey (expensive) Bruce Daniels attack ads. While it is not unusual for lesser-known presidential candidates to operate on a shoe-string (small) budget, there is one thing that makes Mr. Daniels unique among all the other candidates. He is a Canadian citizen. Mr. Daniels is also an American, he has dual citizenship, and since he was born in the United States, he is eligible, under the constitution, to run for president. Bruce Daniels' campaign platform is simple. The first line of his declaration announcement says it all: "I wish to run," it says, "as a liberal Democrat." Hat kind of straightforward use of the "L" word has caused trouble for democratic candidates in New Hampshire in the past. In 1992, candidates like Bill Clinton tried hard to avoid being called liberal Democrats. Mr. Daniels, who is a professor of American history at the University of Winnipeg, believes the Democratic Party has turned its back on its traditional liberal roots, and shifted too far to the right: "In general, President Clinton and the Democratic Party are so anxious to win elections that they're really unhitching themselves from traditional values that have been at the heart of the party since 1933. We all know now that the (Republican's) 'contract with America' has really launched an attack on the very concept of government. I expected the Democratic Party and the democratic presidential administration to stand up stronger with the contract with America, and they really haven't." In his campaign literature, Mr. Daniels criticizes President Clinton for bowing to Republican pressure on issues like women's rights and the environment. And he says Democrats have not worked hard enough on behalf of traditional supporters, like labor unions. For its part, the Clinton-gore campaign office in new hampshire declined to comment on Mr. Daniels. A spokesman said the campaign is focusing its energies on the Republican challenge. Mr. Daniels says he knows he will not win in New Hampshire. But winning, he adds, is not why he's running: "What I want to do is appeal to the souls of the Democratic politicians. I want to appeal to their traditional values and try to get themselves to anchor themselves to these values. I have no doubt that President Clinton will be re-elected. I will vote for him. But I would like a President Clinton to be reelected who has anchored himself to these traditions and not tried to be all things to all people." One area where Mr. Daniels agrees with the Clinton Administration is foreign policy, especially trade. He supports GATT and NAFTA, but believes U.S. policy often overlooks moral considerations. On this point, he cites the recent decision to extend most favored nation trading status to China, despite continued reports of human rights violations by the Beijing government: "I think in some areas of the world now our diplomats are essentially advance commerce agents. Business is, of course, important internationally, the economy is important internationally. But I don't want to see us jump willy-nilly (recklessly) into an international commercial network without perceiving the moral considerations and acting on these moral considerations." Mr. Daniels also favors increased U.S. participation in united nations peacekeeping operations. And he supports the deployment of NATO troops to Bosnia. The Bruce Daniels for president campaign is currently on the road in New Hampshire, seeking out voters wherever it can. The candidate concedes that bewildered looks are common when he first introduces himself. But he maintains that while his campaign may not win many converts, he hopes it will at least get people to challenge mainstream Democrats to stand up for their beliefs. --------------- --------------- MEDIA AND DEMOCRACY NANCY SCHWALJE NEW YORK As the American election campaign continues, so does the debate about the role of the news media in a democracy. Participants in a recent forum at Columbia University in New York reviewed that topic. Jean Konner, dean of the Columbia University School of Journalism, said there is a special relationship between citizens, the political process, and the media in a democracy. The value of that relationship, she added, is sometimes better understood in comparison with other countries: "One seems to find the profound meaning of that relationship more easily in newly emerging democracies that have experienced what it means to be deprived of a free press." Journalism school dean Jean Konner spoke during a discussion held in connection with the annual broadcast journalism awards at Columbia University. Tom Rosenstiel (rosen-steel), congressional correspondent for Newsweek magazine, said the news media have a duty to inform the citizens who are the foundation of democracy: "A democratic society in this context simply implies that citizens are enabled to participate. What does that mean? It means they have reliable information that they need to be able to participate in democracy." Mr. Rosenstiel said the media have a "special burden" to remain impartial, avoid sensationalism and build a sense of community. He said the media's most important function, especially in the age of electronically disseminated information, is to put events in their proper perspective and guide society in setting its priorities: "The obligation of the mainstream press, that sacred and priestly calling, is to put things in their appropriate sort of order of importance." Jean Bethke Elshtain, (jeen beth-kee el-shtane) an ethics professor at the University of Chicago divinity school, said the press has a role to play in easing the divisions that plague American society and stimulating the kind of debate that brings people together: "What I want to do is to think about newspapers, the media, as helping to define and to create a sense of "we the people." Who are we in relation to one another?" Speakers at the Columbia University forum agreed that the American media are facing many challenges today. Increasing commercialization, they said, has meant that profit considerations are driving the news business more than ever before, with more sensational scoops (stories) obscuring more mundane, yet still important, topics. Says Elshtain: "I'm worried about the fact that the commercially driven dimensions of American life, including the media, as a sort of market enterprise responding to market forces, that that begins to squeeze out other kinds of possibilities and imperatives and principles." Several of the media experts, including Newsweek correspondent Tom Rosenstiel, suggested that news organizations must recognize that their special responsibility should be put above profits: "Owners of newspapers do need to say, as they once did, 'I'm not in this strictly for the money.'" The news experts also urged original and balanced reporting. Mr. Rosentiel pointed to the example of reporters on an election campaign bus who all wrote identical, very critical, interpretations of the same speech. He urged journalists to guard against what he called the bandwagon effect, everyone following the same popular idea or story, and excessive negativism. Lani Guinier (lah-nee gwin-ear), a professor at the University of Pennsylvania School of Law, was nominated as assistant attorney general for civil rights but was forced to withdraw after the publication of critical news stories and attacks by those opposed to some of her ideas. At the forum, Ms. Guinier discussed the perils of dealing with a press corps made up of what she described as attack dogs. Calling her experience a case study of journalists conducting democracy, Ms. Guinier described the first press conference after her nomination: "Here I was to learn the hard way that only one message, and not even the message I thought I was sending, was received by the press. At the time, journalists covering my nomination were not all that interested in the substance of my writing. They focused on the controversy, the fact that I was in the news, and then they both sensationalized and trivialized my ideas." The forum speakers urged journalists to bear in mind that they are engaged in a conversation with their public, and that this conversation must remain civil and informed if it is to be productive. They said journalists should take seriously their responsibility as shapers of perception, pursuing the truthful reporting of real news over sensational stories that grab the headlines. The media, they concluded, have played and will continue to play a vital role in American democracy. But, said ethics professor Jean Bethke Elshtain, the media will need to successfully face these challenges if they want that role to be positive: "It will take many years to rebuild communities where communities have fallen apart. It will take many years to diminish rather than to whet our appetite for scandal. If the media want to help rebuild democracy, they can start spreading this news." The media, concluded professor Elshtain, should see themselves as part of, rather than apart from, the American democratic experiment. --------------- --------------- PRIMARY COLORS FILM DEAL CHRIS SIMKINS NEW YORK The anonymous author of "Primary Colors," the unusual best selling book in the United States, has reportedly signed a film deal for more than one million dollars. The guessing goes on, as people try to figure out who wrote the current best-selling novel "Primary Colors." The book, a fictional account of what many believe is president Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign, will reportedly be turned into a film. The New York Times (newspaper) says producer and director Mike Nichols' bought the film rights apparently without learning the author's identity. Mr. Nichols is known for directing such films as "Wolf," "The Graduate" and "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?" The million dollar movie deal for "Primary Colors" comes amid increased speculation about the identity of the anonymous writer who sometimes portrays the fictional president and his wife in an unflattering light. Judith Platt, with the Association of American Publishers, says anonymously written novels are not common in the United States and she believes the book would not have generated so much attention if the author was known: "The initial reaction might have been "oh ho-hum another (not exciting) kiss and tell book." But the fact that it is such entertaining writing and it is such entertaining fiction. People must remember that it is fiction. Everybody has to remember that this is not a memoir of the campaign. The author has drawn obviously a lot from the Clinton primary campaign but it still a work of fiction. I do not think people are going to go on forever reading books by people when they do not know who wrote them." So far more than 550,000 copies of the book have been shipped to bookstores. Last week a publishing company paid one and one half million dollars for the paperback rights to "Primary Colors." The publisher of the novel says the anonymous author is only known to his or her literary agent and attorney. But many people believe the author is a former and present Clinton administration aide. According to reports, promoters for the upcoming film have not decided which stars will be cast for roles. They say "Primary Colors" will arrive at theaters in late 1997 or 1998. With the overwhelming success of the book, the movie will likely fuel even more gossip and speculation about the identity of the mysterious author. --------------- --------------- CLINTON LAWSUIT INSURANCE CONTROVERSY DAVID BORGIDA WHITE HOUSE President Clinton and first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton have recently faced separate challenges relating to a controversial issue that has hounded the president since he took office, the losing Clinton land deal known as Whitewater. The first lady testified before a federal grand jury about the surprising discovery in the White House of billing records from her former law firm. Those documents had long been sought by investigators looking into Whitewater and a failed Arkansas savings and loan. For his part,the president is poised to respond to a legal subpoena to testify as a witness in a criminal trial of a former Whitewater partner. Now there's another issue to manage, one that fairly or unfairly, highlights what has come to be called the "character issue." The Wall Street Journal newspaper first reported and the president's personal attorney confirms that President Clinton has been getting some much-needed financial help lately, not from any good-hearted contributors or political supporters but from two insurance policies. The two insurance policies have paid 900,000 dollars into a legal defense fund for the president, one he uses to pay the high legal bills incurred in defending him from a sexual harassment charge. A former Arkansas state employee named Paula Jones alleges Mr. Clinton, as Arkansas governor, made reckless and persistent sexual advances to her back in 1991. She is seeking 700,000 dollars in damages. The president, who strongly denies the allegations, is appealing a ruling that the case should proceed to trial. News of the existence of the insurance policies as the 1996 primary election season gets underway is not the kind of attention the president is seeking. Thursday, Clinton spokesman Mike McCurry acted quickly to minimize the impact of the disclosure of the two insurance policies, saying Bill Clinton bought the policies a few years ago to protect himself against lawsuits: "He bought these policies as did many people in professional life who are more susceptible to facing law suits, that happens to a lot of people who are prominent both in private sector and public sector." Beyond the issue of the sexual harassment suit, there's another aspect of the news of the insurance policies that the president's critics are embracing, that during a recent news conference in which he spoke of the high financial cost of mounting legal bills, he did not mention the insurance policies. This was the explanation from his spokesman, Mr. McCurry: "At the time of his press conference January eleventh he knew that he had policies that had that type of liability coverage. He understood that there might be some payments that would come pursuant to those policies, but he also knew that his legal bills would far and away exceed any coverage that those policies would render. So that he would face an additional million plus in legal fees that would still put him in the situation that he was asked about, you're facing the possibility of a very dire financial picture, financial insolvency." At that news conference, the president said he felt badly that twenty years of hard effort in saving money would be lost due to the high personal costs of fighting off what he believes to be irresponsible legal challenges. So far, the president is not being challenged by any Democrat for his party's nomination and public opinion polls show he remains comfortably ahead of the current front runner for the Republican presidential nomination, Senate majority leader Bob Dole. And there is no evidence of any rising public concern about his character as he responds to Republican charges of wrongdoing in the Whitewater controversy, all of which he denies. But one thing is sure, Whitewater and Paula Jones are not the most popular words inside a White House that has repeatedly found itself on the defensive at a time when it would rather be focusing on the president's achievements. --------------- --------------- INTERVIEW: THE BUDGET BATTLE AND THE FUTURE OF AMERICAN POLITICS ROBERT REILLY WASHINGTON Democratic President Bill Clinton and the Republican-controlled Congress have been engaged in an unprecedented struggle over the budget of the U.S. government. So far, the battle has resulted in the two longest government shutdowns in U.S. history. Parts of the government are operating today with temporary funding. But the fundamental issues are still undecided. They concern the size of the federal government and its role in American life. Sidney Blumenthal is the special political correspondent for the New Yorker magazine. Ben Wattenberg is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. His most recent book is Values Matter Most. Reilly: Sidney Blumenthal, what is the battle of the budget really about? Is it number crunching or are there some deep underlying political currents? Blumenthal: Well, it's as you said, Bob. It's about the size and scope of the federal government. Bill Clinton in his state of the union said the era of big government is over, but, and that's what the debate is about. And the Republicans have believed up until now that they could force the hand of the president whom they called irrelevant. But the presidency itself has inherent powers and Bill Clinton has discovered them as he's gone along holding to certain positions. And we reach various impasses, some involving the shutdown of the federal government. And now I think we've ended the phase of the shutdowns or at least I hope so. But we still have not resolved this question which I don't think will be resolved until election day. Reilly: Ben Wattenberg, do you agree with that? Wattenberg: Yes, I think particularly for your international viewers, I think there's a sort of a very interesting experiment going on. I mean all though the... Almost anything political post-World War II for thirty years or so, it was regarded that the role of government would get ever larger. Even the political scientists who may not have agreed with that said that because large government has its own interest groups and that these people vote, it was just an intractable process that was just going to go and go and go. And I've always felt that, you know, democracy is about shaping your own destiny. You shouldn't have things that are on automatic pilot. And what we're trying to do here in the United States, and I think it's probably the first industrial democracy that has made a serious stab at it this time around, is to say, "well, you know, we can stop that. It doesn't have to keep growing and growing." And I'm sort of, of mixed minds on the substance of it, but I must say, on the idea of controlling our own destiny, I think it is a very healthy exercise. And, what Clinton said, I think it's interesting. I also was stressing the "but." I mean it is truly Clintonesque, I mean it is to say, the era of big government is over. Next word, "but." Blumenthal: The key Clinton word there is the 'but." Reilly: Before we get to the "but," what did he mean by the first half of that sentence that the era of big government is over? Blumenthal: I think he offers a different definition than the Republicans would offer. He offers a definition something like: The cold war is over. We built up this very large structure over a very long period of time, including World War II, and now there are new realities that we have to face. And he argues that we have to make the government more effective. It may have to be smaller. He would point to, and has, to Vice President Al Gore's reinventing government project. He points to the number of government employees going down. But he always argues that we need government. He still is a government man. He thinks it's an important and essential instrument and that is where the "but" comes in. Reilly: Of course, the welfare state is not an emanation of the cold war. And I think the congress is making the case, somewhat as you did Ben wattenberg, that these entitlement programs have a life of their own. They're driving us to ever larger governments and we look to a country like France today, which is trying to rein those entitlements and finds itself in a politically impossible situation. So they're saying, "we've got to stop this before we reach the point of no return." Is that an accurate...? Wattenberg: I think there are two things going in the so-called big government argument. One is just arithmetic. I think we would all agree, you cannot keep increasing Medicare. At the rate it was going it would just break the bank. The money just isn't there. I think it's a good program. I worked for President Johnson. That's when it was initiated. I think it basically works well. Basically, social security works well. But if you factor in those increases, you either have to have a massive increase in taxes which is politically impossible, or you have to not cut it, but scale it back. That's one piece of it. The other piece of it is not big government but stupid government. And that is what serious conservatives, I think at least, want to get rid of the part of government that has either been wasteful or worse, counterproductive. The most important substantive legislation moving around this town, perhaps, is the welfare reform bill. That is, I think, conceded by most people, is not only wasteful, I mean I'm from "Johnson Land," a trillion dollars here, a trillion dollars there, it doesn't matter, but it is harming the people it's supposed to help, and some of the big government programs have done that. Reilly: But I think that would be President Clinton's view as well, and indeed, he campaigned as a candidate who would end welfare as we know it. But then the Republicans offered a version of doing that and the president vetoed it. Why? Blumenthal: I think what Ben pointed out about Medicare, just go back to Medicare for a minute, which is that the great society, you pointed out that this didn't all begin with the cold war, well the great society has proved remarkably sturdy and popular. People actually don't like to talk about Johnson, but in fact, the great society programs, as well as the new deal programs, are very popular. The Republicans have tried an experiment. And the experiment is: On a broad principle that they want limited government and most of the functions returned to the states. They even speak in favor of states' rights. Wattenberg: But the real budget line still goes up. Blumenthal: I understand. But they then pay the price of actually confronting, cutting these programs on those budget lines. They knocked down health care reform, which was Clinton's way of containing Medicare, initially. Having then knocked that down, the Republicans have to deal with that problem later. Welfare is a whole different situation. It's a situation of enormous political dimensions, as Ben points out, and there are questions about whether Clinton could have had different priorities in his first two years. But you know, it's hard to say now being an armchair quarterback. Reilly: But if we look at the Medicare issue, we know that this is a program that, as Ben wattenberg said, is growing at almost ten percent a year. It will be bankrupt unless there would be massive new taxes to fund it. The Republicans want a program that only grows at seven-and-a-half percent a year. President Clinton wants a program that grows at seven-point-nine percent a year. They're less than half a percentage away from each other. How can they be that close and yet so far? Wattenberg: Because there's a philosophical issue at hand, which is: Are you going to look to the government as the solution? And what the Republicans are insisting on are not just numbers changes, but changing the nature of the program so that it is more market oriented and it's less government driven. Is that about right? It's not just that half a percentage point. Blumenthal: There's certainly a principle difference, as you point out, but there's also a political difference. And the Republicans have made certain tactical and strategic decisions not to make an agreement on the president's numbers. And not simply on Medicare, but on the whole package, which could have been a balanced budget package, I believe, months ago. And they could have decided how to claim victory for that, which they did not do. Wattenberg: Well, except, when Bob Dole gave his rebuttal on the state of the union, he called the Clinton budget a fantasy, and if you look at what they did, not that the Republican budget was perfect, but this, I thought, took it to extreme measures, they put all their cuts, all their serious cuts, in the last two years, after Clinton, in theory, would be elected, and when a new president, and a lot of them were on these discretionary programs which are never going to get cut. I mean, those were not entitlements. So, you talk to Republican congressmen, they think, let's see if I can think of a polite word, they think the president dissembled. That he was stroking them. Blumenthal: You could decide that if you wanted, but you could also decide: Had the speaker, Newt Gingrich, decided otherwise, that he could have claimed victory, that there was a balanced budget. There could have been all kinds of movement, but Gingrich has decided to stick with this position and to allow himself to be buffeted by his freshmen. Reilly: Well, let me get to another point that you raised, sidney blumenthal, and that is that the welfare state perdures; it seems to be terribly popular. Put that remark up against the somewhat historic change from the '94 elections and a Republican Congress. If you talk to the Republican freshmen who were elected, they don't think this is politics as usual. They think there's been a sea change that at least has begun, that's going to change the political complexion of America every bit as much as did the sea change under President Roosevelt. Is that an exaggeration? Blumenthal: No, I think that's an accurate description of their mind-set. I think that they believe that they ushered in, as they call it, a revolution. That this is a profound reflection of deep change in the American mind, and that this is permanent and enduring and, no matter what the poll results, and no matter the damage that they seem to be taking, this is all temporary. And that once they do it, the American public will support what they do. That this is a kind of valley forge that tests their courage and they must go though it. Well, that's a point of view that will be tested in the election. I don't happen to believe that. Wattenberg: You think the rate that government absorbs its proportion of the gross national product will just keep growing? Blumenthal: I think that the debt has declined by almost half, the proportion to GDP since '92. Wattenberg: Look, the Republicans, I thought, made one mistake when they called it the "Republican revolution." They added one consonant. What they're really talking about is a Republican "evolution," not a Republican "revolution." That's a stupid word. This is a successful country; you don't need a revolution. It would be nice, I think, to have sort of a vigorous evolution that, as I read their budget, as they pointed out again and again and again, as you pointed out, they are not cutting Medicare, they are raising it at a somewhat lower level. I mean, it's going up a couple of thousand dollars per person per year. Reilly: On the other hand, were the Republican seven-year balanced budget to be passed, I believe it would bring down the share of federal government's take of the gross domestic product to about eighteen-and-a-half percent from over twenty percent today. So it is an effort to shrink the overall size of the federal government in what they hope is a growing economy. In absolute dollars, it would go up. Blumenthal: Well, there are two things. One is whether or not their point of view is realistic politically or whether it's hubris. We'll find out. And two is, whether or not this is an economic theory at all. The American economic association held a recent meeting and everyone from Herb Stein, who was Richard Nixon's chief economist, to those who'd served Democrats, said that there was no bearing on the health of the economy right now. Wattenberg: Herb thinks the deficit has a bearing on the economy. Blumenthal: He does, but he feels that right now, this is not a threatening deficit. Wattenberg; well, no. But he thinks that it doesn't take much to solve it now. It is not a big deal but if you wait five or ten years, it's going to be extremely difficult and near catastrophic because these lines just keep going up. See, let me make just one other point if we still have a moment, which is: This whole argument, coupled with the Steve Forbes flat tax, has taken our eye off the ball of America's serious problems. That's what my view is: That we ought to be talking about crime and welfare and affirmative action and how we're educating our children, sort of the social issues that I've written about. And instead, the Republicans have made a grievous error by getting back into the "green eyeshade" mode and sounding like accountants. And it's an important argument. Reilly: But isn't it curious with all of those issues and crime, as you mentioned, the greatest concern amongst the American voter. That the person in the Republican primary sweepstakes who vaunts ahead is concentrating, it seems, almost exclusively on tax issues. How do you account for that? Blumenthal: It's also interesting that he has, I would call it, a libertarian view on social issues. He's pro-choice, he's for gays in the military of all things. Wattenberg: Well, he's for "don't ask, don't tell." He's not for what Clinton was for. Blumenthal: This is not the standard Republican. Reilly: This is not what you'd call a social conservative. Wattenberg: And he's not exactly pro-choice, either. He's got a complicated position. Wattenberg: He comes from a family that is not renowned for its social conservatism, I think we can say that safely. Reilly: Okay, but where does this all leave the "Contract with America" on which the Republicans swept to control of the house of representatives. And you seem to indicate, sidney blumenthal, that the vote is still out on the "Contract with America", that we're not going to find out until 1996. Is that correct? Blumenthal: Ben has an excellent point about the "green eyeshade" politics of the Republicans. And they've reverted to type, in a way. I mean, they're speaking almost as herbert hoover: Worried about budgets and deficits and so on. And even though they also talk about values, all of that is overshadowed by these arithmetic numbers. Wattenberg: But for the moment, that's just the way the cards have fallen. The budget thing came up. Blumenthal: That's the way politics works. Wattenberg: We will see how it plays out. But, I think there's something else to say, and I would, I think, disagree with sidney on that. What the Republicans did bring in in 1994 is something that they won on, which is they got the Democrats, including the big honcho Democrat, the president, to say, "we are going to stop these lines from going up." The president started out with a budget, he's had five budgets, he started out with a budget that had a two hundred billion dollar per year deficit out as far as the eye can see. That's how he placated his left wing, his big-government wing. And in a series of ratcheted steps, he has come down [to], as sidney said, what the Republicans want: A seven-year balanced budget. They say there's a lot of phoney baloney in it, but at least he's done the arithmetic that way. Reilly: Well also, as much as both of you emphasized the "but" in the president's statement in the state of the union, rhetorically it's very significant that he began that statement by saying, "the era of big government is over." Don't you think? Blumenthal: Yeah, I think it's very significant and I also think it's a bow to current political reality. Clinton is nothing if not a keen politician. Reilly: And then how will that play into the upcoming election? This budget battle will be the issue as we approach the general election in 1996? Wattenberg: Not if the Republicans are smart, it won't. Blumenthal: Yeah, and it also depends on who the Republican nominee is, which is open to question right now. I mean, if nothing else, it's certainly open to question given these very unstable poll results in the United States. Reilly: But will the battle be over the size and role of the federal government in American life? Wattenberg: I don't know. I would like to hope it would be. If you want to put it in budget terms and government terms, it would be about the two things I talked about: Are these programs too big, and the answer is some [are], some aren't. Some of them are popular, as sidney said. And are some of them very stupid and counterproductive. And it's the stupid ones, some of the big stupid ones, like: We are hurting people who we are giving welfare to. It is a bizarre system. And, as I said at the beginning, this is something that every major industrial-social democracy is going to be going through and it's a very painful process, as sidney pointed out. =============== Sidney Blumenthal from the New Yorker magazine, Ben Wattenberg from the American Enterprise Institute. --------------- --------------- THE EXPECTATIONS GAME Journalist Yepsen says "if a candidate is expected to do well, then he or she better. If they don't do as well as they're expected, they can be seen as losers." The "expectations game," according to the Baltimore Sun, is what the presidential race is all about in Iowa, and "how it turns out will help determine who becomes the Republican nominee." Exceeding expectations, the Sun points out, "imparts priceless momentum." Here's the Sun's current outlook for some of the Republican contenders: -- Bob Dole: expectations lowered because of poorly received televised response to President Clinton's State of the Union address; now, a win is a win, it doesn't have to be a big one. -- Steve Forbes: expectations raised by television commercials and outsider credentials; must win New Hampshire to prove he is for real. -- Phil Gramm: may be an early casualty; going nowhere in New Hampshire; badly needs second place finish in Iowa to stay alive. -- Pat Buchanan: following his Louisiana upset victory, a strong third place finish in Iowa could keep him in the game in New Hampshire. -- Lamar Alexander: needs a total Dole collapse or a fast Forbes fade; even third place in Iowa might not be enough. -- Richard Lugar: not drawing the crowds or media attention; unlikely to survive beyond New Hampshire. LOUISIANA CAUCUS BACFIRES FOR GRAMM The Louisiana caucus is a prime example of a strategy that backfired on its prime mover -- Senator Phil Gramm. Gramm, from neighboring Texas, lobbied his Louisiana friends to create the state's first ever Republican caucus as a way to jump start his presidential bid in the South before the traditional opening campaign events in Iowa and New Hampshire -- states where he anticipated he would not be as strong. Focusing his efforts on Louisiana, Gramm was well organized and was expected by political observers to be the big winner. But in a battle of conservative candidates for the votes of conservative Southerners, television commentator Pat Buchanan pulled off an unexpected upset. Buchanan -- who now claims momentum in the race after winning the unofficial straw poll in Alaska and now the Louisiana caucus -- gained the support of 13 delegates to the Republican nominating convention in August, while Gramm won 8. Nine more delegates will be allocated based on the outcome of a March 12 primary election. For Gramm the setback is clear, and ominous. He needed Louisiana, not so much for the relatively small number of convention delegates, but for the media publicity that the event generated. Now, if Gramm does not finish at least third in the Iowa caucus, he says he will drop out of the race. The Louisiana Republican Party's decision to hold an early caucus caused resentment among Iowa Republican officials, leading the state party to ask the presidential candidates to boycott it. Most of them agreed, the notable exceptions being Gramm and Buchanan. Iowa even attempted to quash the effort through a court challenge but lost, and Louisiana party officials justified their action on the ground that the South, as a growing bastion of Republicanism, should have an early say in the choice of the party's presidential nominee. NEW HAMPSHIRE PRIMARY WANT-TO-BE'S While the major presidential contenders are the ones garnering all of the media publicity, in New Hampshire, site of the nation's first primary February 20, the political arena is literally packed with many more want-to-be's. State law says anyone who wants to run for president can have his or her name on the ballot simply by paying a $1,000 filing fee. This year the number is 45, of whom 22 are Republicans, 21 are Democrats and 2 are Libertarians. President Clinton has no serious Democratic challengers, but his party's ballot also lists activists for a variety of causes and even comedian Pat Paulson, who runs every term but changes party affiliation along the way. Among this year's Republican filers are an author, a public relations consultant and a teacher/nurse. OBSERVATION ON FORBES If businessman Steve Forbes does win the Republican presidential nomination, it would be "the political upset of the century," says San Francisco Examiner journalist Chris Matthews. And in that case, he adds, "Republican insiders can blame it on themselves" because of their plan to front-load the primary election season and have more than 70 percent of the convention delegates chosen by March 26. He says the plan was designed to make it "nearly impossible for an under-financed nobody -- a Republican Jimmy Carter -- to exploit a surprise early win in Iowa or New Hampshire. The newcomer would simply not have enough time to raise money and buy ads in larger-state contests down the road." But Matthews points out that "nobody foresaw the entry of a candidate like Forbes, who is ready and able to spend more money than any candidate in history and who threatens to turn the insiders' clever plot against them." KEMP ON THE SIDELINES Presidential contenders Bob Dole and Steve Forbes both seek the endorsement of the same major Republican figure. But for now, Jack Kemp says he is "going to keep my neutrality." Last year, many political observers expected Kemp to try again for the nomination -- his 1988 bid was short lived -- but the former professional football star, congressman and U.S. secretary of housing decided against it. Kemp has divided loyalties. He considers Forbes an old friend; both are associated with the citizens group known as Empower America. And Dole has named him as chairman of a Republican commission on tax reform. Dole aides have said they expected the gesture to "lead to an endorsement -- or to at least prevent Mr. Kemp from supporting someone else." Forbes officials said the businessman's decision to enter the race was "not only with Kemp's blessing -- but with an assurance last spring that he would get his endorsement." Says journalist Bill Kristol: "His heart is telling him to support Forbes; his head is telling him to support Dole....I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't support either." POLLS SHOW AMERICANS FAVOR STRONG ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS By Judy Aita Several leading U.S. environmentalists predict that anti-pollution issues will play a secondary role in the 1996 presidential and congressional elections, as they have in the past. Joining the environmentalists at a briefing in New York, Jeanne Fox, Northeast regional administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), said that while not a top political issue, the environment is as meaningful to Americans as are "mom and apple pie." "In fact, over the past couple of months the polls show that regardless of party -- Republican, Democrat or independent -- people overwhelmingly support more, even stronger environmental protection," she said. Fox noted that the Republican-controlled Congress elected in 1994 mounted a sustained, tough challenge to current environmental law and regulations. But she feels that the two-year battle between the Congress and President Clinton is at a turning point, and "environmental groups in this country are on the verge of a breakthrough...that will be good for the country." The EPA "has been a lightning rod for much of what's going on," she said, through proposed budget cuts of up to 34 percent -- the largest for any major government agency. The Republican attack has been on budget bills and not "normal legislation where there would be a hearing and people could comment on these subjects," Fox pointed out. Specific issues such as radon in drinking water, petro-chemical refineries, and cement kilns to burn hazardous waste were dealt with through "riders" on budget bills, she said. "So, clearly the intention of the leadership in both houses (of Congress)...is to stop any new regulations, even if it is a public health issue, through the budget process, not the other legislative processes which are the legitimate way to do it," Fox said. Jim Montavalli, managing editor of E: The Environmental Magazine, said polls show that the majority of Americans want tough environmental regulations. He argued that the Republicans "misread the national mood." "A significant majority of the American people -- all the most recent polls show -- consider themselves environmentalists. That does not mean these are social activists who attend demonstrations or who are very aware of developments of environmental science. These are people who go out and recycle, who care about littering and about some of the broader topics," he said. A Harris poll in December found that 86 percent of respondents believe the EPA is needed as much or more than when it was created 25 years ago; 82 percent said they believe there is a great deal of risk in living near a hazardous waste site. A Wall Street Journal poll found that 86 percent wanted environmental regulations maintained or made stronger. Lori Wallach, director of the Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, highlighted the results of Republican pollster Linda diVall on the environment. DiVall found that "the mainstream of the American public is highly committed to environmental protection," Wallach noted. Fifty-five percent of Republicans surveyed said they did not trust their party to protect the environment. "The numbers were pretty stark," Wallach said. Only 21 percent of those polled thought there was too much government environmental regulation, while 36 percent said they have not gone far enough. Of Republican respondents, 77 percent said they believe there is too much government regulation, but only 30 percent thought there was too much environmental regulation. Wallach also pointed to the recent election in Oregon to fill a vacated seat. It was won by a Democrat who made the environment an issue. "Contrary to what his Republican opponent thought, (the environment) was not baggage," she said. ANOTHER RETIRING MEMBER OF CONGRESS Lewis Payne, Virginia Democrat, became the 39th member of Congress to announce his retirement. The five-term congressman is a member of the Ways and Means Committee. ORIGINS OF THE DEMOCRATIC DONKEY AND REPUBLICAN ELEPHANT By Mike Davis American political culture is replete with artistic imagery, cartoon and caricature. Two of the most famous examples of this artistic history are the symbols which have come to represent the Democratic and Republican parties, respectively: the donkey and the elephant. The Democratic donkey, which is the older political mascot, appeared in various cartoons throughout the mid-1800s and was finally popularized in 1870 by Thomas Nast, the first modern American political cartoonist. He criticized the Democrats for their repeated attacks on Edwin Stanton, a Republican official who had died the previous year. Nast depicts the Democratic Party as a donkey savagely kicking a dead lion, meant to represent Stanton. This was not Nast's only contribution to political humor. In 1874, he created the Republican mascot. An impassioned Republican himself, Nast chose the elephant for the qualities which this animal is commonly thought to possess: intelligence, strength, wit and tranquility. The elephant's first appearance in Harper's Weekly magazine was intended to calm the fears of Republican voters who were concerned that President Ulysses S. Grant might run for a third term. The cartoon depicts a donkey with a lion's mane, growling at a pack of animals, including a poor, innocent elephant bearing the words, "The Republican Vote." The ferocious donkey, labeled "Caeserism," attempts to convince voters that the Democrats are really the party to fear. The elephant mascot gained instant popularity and now represents the Republican Party. Political cartoons are a useful medium for critiquing and exploring diverse and challenging political issues. The use of animals is a particularly effective method of expression. Republican elephants and Democratic donkeys will no doubt be part of American politics for many years to come. --------------- --------------- THE DEBATE WITHIN THE GOP GREG FLAKUS SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA The presidential election year is off to a start here in the United States. The Democrats have President Clinton running for re-election, but the Republican Party, emboldened by its capture of a majority of seats in both houses of Congress in 1994, is now beginning the process of selecting a candidate and a platform. The Grand Old Party, or GOP, must first resolve some conflicting currents within the party. In most public discourse on politics in recent years, Republicans have been linked with the word conservative. But what does that mean? During the cold war, conservatives were considered hawks who supported a strong military and a hardline attitude towards communist countries. Today, some conservatives appear to have lost their interest in foreign affairs and have favored cutbacks in both civilian and defense programs. The term conservative has been applied to current presidential candidate Pat Buchanan, who represents a populist agenda that calls for trade protectionism, severe limits on immigration and a return to traditional morality. But conservative is also a label attached to many libertarians, who defend immigration, advocate free trade and favor an overall reduction of government. There is also some tension between strict libertarians and so-called moral conservatives of the religious right. At a gathering here in Santa Barbara recently, some prominent libertarian Republicans discussed these conflicts and tried to establish a direction for the party as the election year gets underway. One participant, Walter Olson, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute in New York, says libertarian Republicans help keep Republican politicians focused on their principles: "I think the libertarians do have a tremendously important role to play this way because the Republicans often do talk a good game about not abusing government power themselves and about sticking to the bill of rights and the freedoms that the country was built on, but anyone in power is going to be tempted to abuse it and the libertarians can make for a standing reminder of the principles that many of the Republicans ran on. They can call them to account when they begin using the government for bad new reasons, as we have already seen some attempts to do." Concern over government intrusions into the rights of citizens and property owners has bolstered libertarian attitudes in the western states, where many citizens define their rights as the right to own firearms, the right to exploit mineral and grazing resources and the right to harvest timber from government lands. Tom Rawles is chairman of the board of supervisors for Maricopa County, Arizona. He says people in western states have a legitimate reason to feel smothered by excessive government control: "Only 13 per cent of the land in the state of Arizona is privately owned. Most of it is owned by the federal government, the state government or the Indian tribes, so that is a big issue for us. But I do not look at it the way some people do who say we have to get the federal government out of the picture, I think that is good, but local governments can be just as oppressive as the federal government and so my concern is to make sure that government at all levels does not overstep the bounds of individual liberties and responsibilities." Mr Rawles says a basic tenet of libertarian philosophy that Republican leaders need to embrace is that individual freedom increases in direct proportion to the decrease in government's role in society: "Fundamentally, there is just the simple recognition that for the last 40 to 60 years, we have traded in our freedom for security. I think we need to address that issue at a fundamental level. We need to stop corporate welfare just as much as we do the individual welfare programs. We need to get people to understand that every time we ask government to do something for us, every time we allow them to do something for us, a little bit of our freedom dies." While most Republicans are comfortable with the general libertarian notion of reducing governmental power and influence, some social conservatives, especially those of the Christian right, do favor laws that would limit individual freedoms in some areas. The most controversial such issue is abortion, something libertarian anne stone sees as a critical field of combat for the soul of the Republican party. Anne Stone is national chair of Republicans for Choice, a group that favors a woman's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion with no government interference. She says the hardline position taken by social conservatives on the abortion issue has blocked the path to dialogue and the search for common ground within the party: "In recent years, as you might have noticed, our party has been hijacked by people who do not necessarily hold individual rights in as high esteem as the historical fore fathers in the party did. "They have not wanted to budge and they have not wanted to talk about how we could bring the party together on the issue and how we could actually build common ground on programs that do not impede freedom, that do not introduce government into the equation, but, in fact, would actually reduce abortion. You look at that and you say, well, why would they continue to push for something that abridges freedom like a human life amendment instead of programs that do not involve government, which has been the traditional Republican approach to solving things, that would actually reduce abortion. The only thing I can say is that, obviously, they are more interested in pandering, politics and power than they are in solutions." This view is disputed by prominent California Republican commentator Hugh Hewitt, who sees very little conflict between his own libertarian leanings and his commitment to the moral positions of the religious right. In regard to the controversial subject of abortion, Mr Hewitt says those who are extreme in their views, on either side of the issue, form an insignificant minority: "The unifying theme regarding abortion is that abortion is almost always wrong and sometimes should be legal. That is what 95 percent of Republicans believe, that abortion is almost always wrong but sometimes should be legal. And you will find a great consensus that there ought to be parental notification when minors seek abortion, that there ought to be controls on abortion for sex selection, that there ought to be controls, if not outright bans, on abortions in the seventh, eighth and ninth month. Most libertarians that I know do not consider those to be at all offensive. they may object, in theory, to a constitutional amendment banning all abortions, but most Republicans do not insist upon that." In the end, the positions taken by the Republican Party will likely mirror, to a great extent, the positions favored by most American voters. At the same time, the Democrats will also define their positions to appeal to the great mass of voters. Both parties must struggle to balance conflicting ideologies and interests within while avoiding anything that might alienate the vast middle ground where most voters position themselves. --------------- --------------- CAMPAIGN '96: LOUISIANA JIM MALONE WASHINGTON Republican presidential candidate Pat Buchanan says his campaign is picking up momentum following his upset win in Tuesday's Louisiana caucus voting. While the Louisiana results were good news for the Buchanan campaign, they dealt a potentially crippling blow to the presidential aspirations of Texas senator Phil Gramm. Pat Buchanan says he won over conservative Republican voters in Louisiana with a message that targeted not only economic concerns but traditional social values as well: "This is the key to it. We are running on traditional values and also we are addressing the issue of economic insecurity and those working and middle class Americans who are losing their jobs as a consequence of trade deals done for the benefit of multinational corporations." Exit polling of some of those who took part in the Louisiana caucus indicated that Christian conservative activists within the Republican party delivered the crucial margin of victory for Mr. Buchanan. He defeated Senator Gramm by a 62-percent to 38-percent margin overall and won 13 of the 21 delegates at stake. Senator Gramm won eight delegates while the third candidate in the contest, former ambassador Alan Keyes, did not win any delegates. The remaining six Republican candidates stayed away out of deference to Iowa which traditionally has held the first presidential contest. Senator Gramm hails from neighboring Texas and many political analysts are predicting that his defeat in Louisiana could mark the beginning of the end for his presidential hopes. But Senator Gramm says he has a strong campaign organization in Iowa which holds its party caucuses next Monday: "I do not think there is any doubt about the fact that we have a strong grass roots organization in Iowa and I think what the party is looking for is someone who can put together conservative Republicans who are conservative on social issues and conservative Republicans who are conservative on economic issues. I think I am the candidate that can do that." The Iowa caucuses will be the first contest of the 1996 campaign in which all nine Republican presidential candidates are taking part. Senator Gramm says he needs to finish among the top three candidates in Iowa in order to remain a viable candidate. A University of Virginia professor of government, Larry Sabato, says Senator Gramm's worse than expected showing in Louisiana could prove fatal to his campaign: "It is difficult to see how he can go forward to win the presidential nomination absent a miracle. He is in terrible shape. Buchanan managed to do this to Gramm in Gramm's own backyard because, first of all, he was able to get the strong support of fundamentalist Christians, who supported him (Buchanan) overwhelmingly compared to Gramm." Senator Gramm has focused on economic issues in his presidential campaign, especially his insistence on a balanced budget. But all along Pat Buchanan has been targeting social conservatives in the Republican party, people who are strongly opposed to abortion and who yearn for a resurgence of traditional moral values in society. The Republican presidential campaign now moves on to Iowa next Monday where Senator Bob Dole is favored to win but where an intense battle is under way for second place among Steve Forbes, Senator Gramm, Mr. Buchanan and former Tennessee Governor Lamar Alexander. --------------- --------------- CAMPAIGN '96: THE ENVIRONMENT DON HENRY WASHINGTON The major candidates in this year's presidential race have responded to a survey on environmental and energy issues. The answers, publicized Wednesday, indicate only one of the nine Republican contenders approaches the generally pro-environment stance of incumbent democratic President Bill Clinton. But all the candidates, including the president, may be out of step with the environmental minded voting public on a number of environmental and energy policy issues. A nonpartisan New Hampshire organization called "The Energy American Education Fund" asked each candidate to reply to 16 questions on energy and environmental issues the past four weeks, and publicized the responses at a news conference here in Washington. The result, according to energy policy activist Bill Magavern, is that President Clinton and the nine Republicans, while showing differences among themselves, are also clearly at odds with the public at times: "The candidates positions on several sustainable energy issues put them closer to the polluting special interests than to the voters. The American people have repeatedly called for movement away from dirty nuclear and fossil fuels and toward cleaner renewable energy and energy efficiency technology. But the politicians continue to side with the big corporations who are blocking change." Mr. Magavern says all the candidates oppose raising the automobile fuel efficiency standard from its present 27 and a half miles per gallon to 45 miles per gallon, in metric, that would be an increase to 19 kilometers per liter from about 12 KM per liter now. Mr. Magavern says President Clinton four years ago campaigned in support of the higher fuel standard, but now has joined Republicans in opposing it. Mr. Magavern says the lobbying power of the big auto manufacturers apparently has persuaded the candidates that fuel efficiency improvements the past decade or two have gone far enough. Energy conservation advocate Magavern says a survey conducted last month by a Republican polling firm pointed up additional discrepancies between public and politicos. It found that a majority of voters would favor continued federal support for renewable energy and energy efficiency programs while trimming back on such conventional power sources as coal, oil and nuclear energy. Yet only President Clinton and Republican Senator Richard Lugar objected to the 25 per cent funding cut approved by congress last year for the U.S. Department of Energy programs on efficiency and renewable energy. Karl Gawell (pron: Gay-well) of the wilderness society said no candidate is a true environmentalist, but President Clinton comes closest, followed by Senator Lugar. Mr. Gawell believes the Republican candidates' positions on energy and environmental questions could change in a month or so if Senator Lugar gains backers during the early primary elections: "Senator Lugar gave some very good answers. I mean, if he turns out after the initial primaries to be a serious candidate, then you'll have a real environmental debate in the Republican party. Obviously, he is not there at the moment." A former Republican senate aide, Scott Sklar, predicts the Republican contenders will come to realize that energy and the environment may emerge as a tie-breaking concern in November: "Many of us believe that the presidential election will be very close and this could be one of the pivotal issues, and I happen to believe it will be." Mr. Sklar, now a solar energy industry executive, says there is what he calls immense public agreement that the government should play a role in protecting the environment, including through development and use of renewable energy and energy efficiency programs. --------------- --------------- WHITEWATER: PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS, POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS TOM MAHONEY WASHINGTON Hillary Rodham Clinton made political history last month as the first first lady compelled to testify before a federal grand jury. For more than four hours, Mrs. Clinton answered questions about the Whitewater controversy. Whitewater independent counsel Kenneth Starr wanted the grand jurors to know everything she knew about the discovery at the White House residence of long-sought documents relating the Arkansas real estate venture. A new page in American politics was written January 26th when Hillary Rodham Clinton testified before twenty three members of a grand jury. But it remains to be seen when the final chapter and verse of Whitewater will be written...And what they say about this long-festering controversy. Hillary Clinton and the president have repeatedly denied any wrongdoing in connection with the failed Whitewater land deal. They insist they lost money on that investment, back in the days when Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas. However, recent public opinion polls indicate that many Americans are questioning Mrs. Clinton's credibility on this issue. Rightly or wrongly, public perceptions matter in politics and that could provide an additional issue in this election year. John Dean was White House counsel from 1970 to 1973 and a key figure in the Watergate proceedings which ultimately led to President Richard Nixon's resignation [in August 1974]. Mr. Dean says he has changed his mind, first about how long the Whitwater controversy would last, and second about how it reminds him of a darker past: "I was back here in Washington in 1994 and a number of people asked me questions back then, 'did I think it would last and did I think it looked like Watergate?' My reaction was then 'I'm surprised that it lasted as long as it did at that point and I said it really doesn't look anything like Watergate to me at all.' "Only recently, with this specter of obstruction of justice, has it even taken a taint that looks a little bit like deja vu [already seen or experienced]." Elaine Povich of the Freedom Forum is completing a project on Congress and the media. As a reporter who covered Capitol Hill for "The Chicago Tribune" newspaper, she thinks there are several reasons why the Whitewate story has remained front page news: "One is the Republican takeover of the Congress. Once the Republicans were in a position to call the hearings rather than respond to them you knew that there was going to be a set of hearings that would elongate this investigative process. The independent counsel is the second factor. And the third factor, of course, is that other shoes seem to be dropping all the time. "And when documents mysteriously appear after having been disappeared for two years, when the grand jury compels the first lady to testify, other shoes just keep dropping. It does sort of become a relentless drip, drip, drip." Paul Greenberg, editorial page editor at the "Arkansas Democrat-Gazette" newspaper, will have a new book out in a few months based on twenty years of Clinton-watching. From his office in Little Rock, he talked about comparisons between Watergate and Whitewater: "The parallels between Whitewater and Watergate seem to have struck many of us [in the media] from the first, even though they may not turn out that way. This scandal could just go away... Sort of Peter out the way Iran-Contra did or it could mount up into another Watergate. "I think Elaine is right that a number of political changes have spurred various investigations. And here in Arkansas you have an independent counsel, a very independent counsel in the person of Kenneth Starr, who is relentless and thorough and professional and competent...And is more or less investigating all of Arkansas at this point." Mr. Starr and lawmakers on Capitol Hill, not to mention scores of reporters, continue to search for more answers and new information. But John Dean, who is now living in California, doesn't think most Americans care that much about Whitewater: "This story really has a greater intensity within the [Washington] beltway than it does outside. I don't know about Arkansas, where obviously the Clintons are based, but in California this is not something that the average fellow on the street or lady on the street is terribly interested in. You just don't hear much talk about it and it's just a passing item on the evening news." According to Elaine Povich, the Whitewater story ebbs and flows even in the politically-charged atmosphere of Washington. She says Republican Alfonse D'Amato, who chairs the Senate Whitewater inquiry, has had some success in sparking interest when the hearings dragged on. But on a potentially more important point: "I thought it was quite interesting that given the opportunity to call the first lady, he declined. That, to me, said more about how much there is in this investigation and how much of it is his [Sen. D'Amato] attempt to play it to the media than a lot of other things did. "But of course when she showed up for the grand jury, it was the biggest show. I mean, you remember that court house. That court house is the one where everybody goes when there is a federal investigation." All of which brings us back to personal and political perceptions about the significance of Whitewater. Last month, it was Hillary Clinton's unprecedented appearance before a federal grand jury. On Monday [2/5], White House officials said President Clinton will comply with a subpoena and provide testimony in connection with the Arkansas trial of his former partners in the failed land deal. What is unknown in this presidential election year is how Whitewater will play in the court of public opinion. The White House said on Monday [2-5] that President Clinton will comply with an order to testify as a defense witness at the Arkansas trial of his two partners in the failed Whitewater land deal. The announcement came less than two weeks after first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton's unprecedented appearance before a federal grand jury in Washington to answer questions about this long-simmering controversy. The Whitewater story, with all its twists, turns and intrigue, seems to have taken on a life of its own. Washington observers wonder about the gravity of this situation and debate its potential political implications for campaign '96. A federal judge in Little Rock, Arkansas, approved the subpoena ordering Mr. Clinton to testify at the trial of his former Whitewater partners, James and Susan McDougal. White House officials say Mr. Clinton will comply in an appropriate manner, probably by providing videotaped testimony. On January 26th, Hillary Clinton testified for more than four hours before 23 members of the grand jury. The president and the first lady have repeatedly denied any wrongdoing in connection with the failed Whitewater land deal. They insist they lost money on that investment, back in the days when Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas. But these very visible appearances by the Clintons, in person or on videotape, receive the extensive media coverage which keeps the Whitewater story squarely in front of the American public. It also fuels the debate over the significance of this controversy and the possible damage to Bill Clinton's chances to win reelection this November. Elaine Povich of the freedom forum, a former reporter who covered Capitol Hill for "The Chicago Tribune" newspaper says the continued drip, drip, drip of Whitewater is, at the least, disconcerting. In her view, Clinton campaign staffers may be worried about something more sinister: "A phrase that came out of the Iran-Contra situation, which is the October surprise. If Al D'Amato [Republican Alfonse D'Amato, chairman of the Senate Whitewater inquiry] is holding anything back, if he knows something that he's trying to wait to drop at some point, if the independent counsel uncovers something in the summer that doesn't surface until October, then it could be real trouble. But, failing that, I would say that it sort of comes into the clutter and the buzz that surrounds the campaign. It's just another one of those things that make people uneasy about Bill Clinton." Elaine Povich points out that if Bill Clinton fails to win reelection, it won't be because of what is presently known about Whitewater. Paul Greenberg, editorial page editor at the "Arkansas Democrat-gazette" newspaper, agrees with that view. His new book, "No Surprises," is the culmination of 20 years of Clinton watching. From his office in Little Rock, Mr. Greenberg pointed to Mr. Clinton's numerous comebacks and keen political instincts: "Unless, as Elaine said, some October surprise develops, it's hard to imagine that he would be seriously injured by the repercussions of Whitewater. And, if Mrs. Clinton is, I can also see her taking a less prominent role in the administration...That a differentiation can be made in the public mind, certainly, between the president and the first lady." John Dean, White House counsel from 1970 to 1973, says: "My antenna for this type of problem tells me that there's nothing really going on here. I haven't sensed anything. I know some people who do know things and they have sent no signals to me. I think it's going to dissipate. I think it's a political story right now. I think it's being played with, and will be played with, but in the long run it's not going to have any impact at all." Paul Greenberg of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette worries that the adversarial process in the nation's courts has been extended to our whole political system: "We work through these two opposing parties and we count on each on to do their darndest to get some political advantage out of it and we hope that the judge, namely the sovereign public, will judge rightly in the end. This system has a lot of dangers to it, including the fact that we will simply criminalize our politics, we will reduce everything to a matter of law courts, rather than political judgment." John Dean says that's a real concern when you get to something like obstruction of justice. He served four months in prison for conspiracy to obstruct justice and has experienced first hand how this can raise the stakes: "Now we have a potential obstruction of justice and that offense is so broad and so easy to commit. Somebody moving a box that was under subpoena, suddenly they elevated it to a crime that is a federal offense and is, indeed, an impeachable offensive if the president's prints are on that box." Elaine Povich cites the old axiom that has been around since Watergate days: It's not the crime, it's the coverup. She doesn't think the events that triggered Whitewater in the very beginning would be enough, either politically or legally, to bring down a presidency. But now is not the beginning and she wonders out loud if some of Watergate's lessons may have been lost on the Clinton Administration. --------------- --------------- PAT BUCHANAN WINS LOUISIANA REPUBLICAN CAUCUS JIM MALONE WASHINGTON Republican presidential candidate Pat Buchanan has pulled off an upset victory in the opening round of caucus voting in the 1996 presidential campaign. Mr. Buchanan defeated senator Phil Gramm and former ambassador Alan Keyes in Republican caucus voting in the southern U.S. state of Louisiana. Pat Buchanan and Phil Gramm competed hard for conservative Republican votes in Louisiana but, in the end, Mr. Buchanan pulled off a surprising victory, easily defeating Senator Gramm and winning most of the 21 delegates at stake. "This is a victory for a new conservatism of the heart," Buchanan said. "A conservative that cares for the right to life for the innocent unborn. A conservatism that cares for workers and what is happening to them when trade deals send their jobs abroad." Six of the nine Republican presidential candidates stayed away from the Louisiana caucus, out of deference to Iowa's traditional role as host of the first presidential contest. Mr. Buchanan now moves on to next Monday's Iowa caucus voting with a boost of momentum. He has been running back in the pack of the Republican field nationally which, at the moment, is being led by Senator Bob Dole and magazine publisher Steve Forbes. Senator Gramm had the most at stake in the Louisiana caucus and several political analysts are warning that the defeat may deal a crippling blow to his presidential hopes. University of Virginia professor of government Larry Sabato says: "The real humiliation for Gramm is that Louisiana is a southern state and a neighbor of Texas and this is exactly where Gramm insisted that his campaign would do best. At first, he claimed that he would carry all of Louisiana's delegates. He lowered his sights to hoping he could carry a majority. And, of course now it appears that at most he will get five or six (delegates) out of 21. And, he may not do that well. So, it is an absolute disaster for his campaign. It may be serious enough to dry up his money and force him out of the race." The Gramm campaign does remain competitive in Iowa but appears to be bogged down in New Hampshire, which holds the first presidential primary on February 20th. The Iowa party caucuses will be the first true test of the 1996 campaign season because all nine Republican candidates will be competing for delegates. --------------- --------------- CAMPAIGN 96: STEVE FORBES PHENOMENON JIM MALONE MANCHESTER, N.H. Republican Steve Forbes is the hottest commodity in the U.S. presidential race so far this year. If nothing else, the Forbes phenomenon has injected excitement into what had been a lackluster campaign season. His name is Steve Forbes. And his supporters in New Hampshire believe he can be the next president of the United States. Steve Forbes is a hot commodity. A virtual unknown just a few months ago, he has spent millions of dollars of his own money on television ads in Iowa and New Hampshire to become a household (well known) name. His call for a new flat tax system to change the current tax code to a single rate has caught fire in New Hampshire, a state long known for its opposition to taxes of any kind. During a recent campaign speech at a college in Manchester, Steve Forbes made his call for tax reform the centerpiece of his campaign for the White House: "This monstrosity is the principal reason, my friends, why two incomes in a family cannot do the job that one income could in previous generations. That is one of the principal villains. If we want quality of life in American families again, we have to start by removing this crushing (tax) burden." But more than his money and his tax cutting message, the voters are flocking to Steve Forbes because of what he is not. He is not a Washington politician. Again and again New Hampshire voters say they are leery of Senator Bob Dole's 35-years of experience in the congress and they want a fresh face and a new approach to deal with the country's problems. Although he is a political newcomer, Mr. Forbes handled himself well during a question and answer session with voters which covered a range of issues from abortion to foreign policy. At least one voter was impressed enough to make a public declaration of support: "It is the first time that I have seen anybody associated with politics that looked like he was thinking about what he was saying when he was speaking to people. And you actually look people in the eye. That does not happen much in Washington, I suspect." But not everyone is buying the Forbes message. One undecided Republican voter said she wants to hear more from Mr. Forbes about how he would cut the federal budget. Another New Hampshirite, Democrat Charlie Zoeller, says he intends to stick with President Clinton. He says Steve Forbes needs to go beyond his flat tax plan in order to convince voters that he has the leadership vision and governing skills necessary to be president: "I would like to hear about his heart and soul which comes across in (President) Clinton. Maybe he has it, but I did not hear it today." Several New Hampshire voters also say they like Mr. Forbes because he, more than any of the other Republican candidates, is offering a message of optimism, that big tax cuts will help grow the economy and spur prosperity for all. The only down note for the Forbes campaign is that some voters say they are turned off by his negative TV ads attacking Bob Dole and Lamar Alexander. And now the Forbes campaign is bracing for a counter-attack of negative TV ads from some of the other candidates who want to put an end to his surge in the public opinion polls in New Hampshire. --------------- --------------- CAMPAIGN 96: FORBES PROFILE NICK SIMEONE WASHINGTON One of the candidates hoping to be elected president of the United States next November is a man whose family name is already known around the world. He's Malcolm Forbes Junior, heir to the Forbes fortune and the man behind the empire that publishes the business magazine bearing his name. The richest Republican in the race for the White House, a candidate who is posing a surprisingly strong challenge to Senator Bob Dole, generally regarded as the Republican front-runner. The name Forbes has long been synonymous with success in business. Steve Forbes, as he likes to be called, is now hoping success in politics will follow. Just two weeks before the crucial New Hampshire primary, the Forbes candidacy is giving Senator Dole a real run for his money. Some surveys of New Hampshire voters are giving the political newcomer a significant lead over a man who has more than 30 years of experience in politics. The state of Iowa, which holds a Republican party caucus next week, could also turn into an uphill struggle for Senator Dole. And the picture is much the same in the western state of Arizona. With all this attention focused on the Forbes campaign, the candidate's Republican rivals are denouncing him as nothing more than the political flavor of the week, someone whose attraction they say, will fade over time and with added political scrutiny. His detractors say it's the amount of money he has spent on political advertisements, 15 million, that largely accounts for his political success. Not true according to the candidate, who believes his central campaign idea of a flax tax for all Americans earning more than 36,000 dollars a year has struck a chord among voters: "I had a message and in this information-age candidacy, I took it directly to the voters and they're responding positively to it." So far, Steve Forbes seems to have been able to tap into a feeling among many voters who want a leader from outside the Washington establishment, someone who is more interested in getting things done than getting re-elected. Such themes find resonance in New Hampshire, a state long considered a bastion of anti-Washington sentiment: "Let's face it, the Washington political class has been an obstacle for the past 30 years. The American people know when the election is not there, these people are back to business as usual." Steve Forbes, unlike other candidates, can truly claim outsider status: The 48-year-old head of the Forbes publishing empire has never held elected office. His chances of winning the Republican party's presidential nomination still appear to be a longshot despite his standing in the polls. Some analysts say he has peaked too soon. Many note that what happens in New Hampshire cannot be considered an accurate read for the mood of the rest of the nation, especially so many months before the November elections. Steve Forbes grew up among wealth and privilege, in a world where private jets are as common as private schools. He took over as head of the Forbes empire when his flamboyant father, Malcolm Forbes, senior died in 1990. He now runs the Forbes publishing group along with his three younger brothers. Until 1993, he served on the U.S. government's Board of International Broadcasting which in part oversees Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty. The Forbes empire is estimated to be worth as much as one billion dollars, making Steve Forbes by far the richest Republican running for president. Through the widely read business magazine he publishes, Steve Forbes has been able to articulate his economic and political views. If elected, he says his goal would be creating more growth in the American economy. He also backs term limits for elected politicians and has spoken out against President Clinton's decision to deploy troops to Bosnia. --------------- --------------- CAMPAIGN 96: NEW HAMPSHIRE UPDATE JIM MALONE MANCHESTER, N.H. The nine Republican presidential candidates will be criss-crossing the early contest states of Iowa and New Hampshire during the next several days in advance of the Iowa party caucuses on February 12th and the New Hampshire primary on February 20th. The race appears to be wide open. Weeks ago the battle for the New Hampshire primary was Bob Dole's to lose. Even some of his strongest supporters in new hampshire now say he may be doing just that. Senator Dole had an early lead in New Hampshire. He was the best known candidate, the best financed candidate and the candidate with the best state organization, thanks in large part to the endorsement of New Hampshire's popular governor, Steve Merrill. But recent public opinion polls show Senator Dole's early advantage has now all but disappeared. Newcomer Steve Forbes has taken center-stage with his calls for reform of the tax system and an optimistic approach about the future which the voters find refreshing. But Senator Dole is not giving up. On a recent campaign swing through New Hampshire, he reminded voters that he has 35-years experience as a member of Congress in Washington and is used to getting things done because he is willing to compromise: "They also understand that I am willing to listen. There is nothing worse than somebody in politics or any other business that I know of who will not listen and who does not have some flexibility. You do not want somebody so rigid in that office that they never had a second thought in their life." But in fact what you hear from many voters is that they find Senator Dole too willing to compromise on issues like balancing the budget. Some suggest he should remain in the Senate. Steve Forbes is riding his own wealth and his calls for tax reform into first place in some of the New Hampshire public opinion polls. His idea to scrap the current complicated tax code in favor of a single tax rate system known as the flat tax seems to be striking a chord with New Hampshire voters. Other candidates are hoping to take advantage of Senator Dole's drop in the polls. Former Tennessee Governor Lamar Alexander tried to position himself as a Washington outsider and a fresh face. But Steve Forbes has stolen much of Mr. Alexander's political thunder. Now the former Tennessee governor is on the attack against the political newcomer from New Jersey: "Mr. Forbes is a decent person but if his name were Forbes Malcom he would not even be a serious candidate for a mayor in New Jersey. I mean, we do not pick presidents this way. We just do not reach down into a grab bag and pick out someone who inherited 400-million dollars and who starts spending millions and millions and millions on negative (television) ads trying to buy the New Hampshire primary." Voters can choose from a total of nine Republican candidates. Some are better known than others in New Hampshire. Pat Buchanan did well here in 1992 against George Bush and still has a strong base of support. Like Steve Forbes, Buchanan is targeting what he calls the wealthy special interests who gain political leverage in Washington through their campaign contributions to members of Congress: "I think all of us, not (just) Republicans, Democrats and independents, we have got to concern ourselves with the working people of this country. Too many of our politicians of both parties and all parties down in Washington represent the people that fill up those envelopes with thousand dollar contributions and five-thousand dollar PAC (political action committee) contributions." Most New Hampshire voters say they enjoy the political show. Many say they will not make up their minds about whom to support until the last minute. They do not like the negative television ads which several candidates are running, but they do enjoy the national attention that comes with the tradition of holding the first in the nation presidential primary. --------------- --------------- CAMPAIGN 96: NEW HAMPSHIRE VOTERS JIM MALONE MANCHESTER, N.H. On February 20th, voters in the northeastern state of new hampshire will go to the polls in what is usually a crucial test in any presidential election year. What is on the minds of new hampshire voters this year? In 1992, New Hampshire's poor economy was the pivotal issue. It gave a huge boost to Republican Pat Buchanan's insurgent campaign against President Bush and also helped to propel Bill Clinton on his way to the White House with a strong second place finish in the New Hampshire primary. Four years later, the economy here is a bit better. But short term fears about losing jobs have been replaced by longterm worries about the region's economic future. Voters want to know if they can look forward to a better standard of living in the years ahead and they want to be reassured that the country is not headed for permanent social and economic decline. Many voters say they have not yet made up their minds about the nine Republicans running for president. But Phyllis Katsakiores has. She is a state legislator from southern New Hampshire who supports Bob Dole: "Because I think he is the best man for the job. I think he has the organization, the qualifications and the know-how." Malone: Is he too old? Katsakiores: Never. You are never too old for anything. He is just in his prime. But support for Senator Dole seems to be weakening under a relentless onslaught from political newcomer Steve Forbes. The magazine publisher turned presidential candidate is a fresh alternative for New Hampshire voters. Steve Forbes does not have any political experience but many voters say they like the fact that he is not just another politician from Washington. Republican Julie Brown serves in the state legislature in Concord. She says Steve Forbes gives New Hampshire voters something to hope for in an otherwise lackluster Republican field: "It is a breath of fresh wind blowing through and I think that he would be good for the country. I know he does not have any political experience, so to speak, in public office, but none of us did when we started." With only a few weeks before the primary, New Hampshire's voters are just beginning to focus on the election. At the Mall of New Hampshire south of the state's largest city, Manchester, Anita Gymond and her husband are having lunch. She likes Senator Phil Gramm, but quickly adds that voters are having a hard time making up their minds: "We really do not know them that well, so it is very hard, very hard to make a decision. All we know is what we hear them say on TV. We do not know anyone personally, of course." Another shopper, Marie from Manchester, finds none of the Republican candidates appealing. She says she will support President Clinton for re-election: "I think I would probably stick with Clinton. I think he needs another chance (laughter). He seems to have some ideas on how he wants to have our budget re-evaluated and I think he should have another chance." New Hampshire is a small state. Its population is just over one-million. Its cities are small and politically the state tends to be more conservative than the rest of the country. But historically the New Hampshire primary has been decisive in the presidential election process. Since 1952 no Republican has won the White House without first winning in New Hampshire. And New Hampshire voters say they are eager to once again flex their political muscle in the nation's first presidential primary on February 20th. --------------- --------------- CAMPAIGN 96: THE AD WAR JIM MALONE MANCHESTER, N.H. The U.S. presidential campaign is heating up as both the Iowa caucus (February 12) and the New Hampshire primary (February 20) draw near. The nine Republican candidates are fighting it out on the radio and television airwaves. Political experts used to say about New Hampshire that what really mattered was personal contact between the candidates and voters. The classic image is of small groups of citizens patiently questioning big-name candidates in small mountain hamlets and seacoast villages. But modern campaign techniques dictate the overriding use of television to get out a candidate's message and to go on the attack against your opponents. New Hampshire's airwaves are saturated with political advertisements. Some, like such as one offered by presidential candidate Pat Buchanan, emphasize a positive message: "Safe streets. Secure borders. Schools that work. A culture that promotes faith, family and freedom. That is the kind of America that I want. For your family, and mine." But many are negative in tone. Why? Simply, because they are effective. Voters tend to remember the negative ads and often regard their claims as fact. Newcomer Steve Forbes has been chipping away at Bob Dole's frontrunner status for weeks in New Hampshire. The Dole campaign is firing back with an ad which questions whether Steve Forbes is up to the job of being president: "The more we learn about Steve Forbes, the more questions we have. Steve Forbes. Untested. Just not ready for the job." But the Forbes campaign is firing right back, taking advantage of Steve Forbes enormous personal fortune. Their ads portray Senator Dole as a lifelong Washington politician out of touch with average Americans: "Bob Dole is quoting Bill Clinton's bureaucrats as experts on the deficit to attack Steve Forbes' flat tax. Does it not figure? Bob Dole, a Washington politician." Some candidates are trying to position themselves above the attack-ad battle. Former Tennessee Governor Lamar Alexander tries to separate himself from the other candidates who are lobbing what he calls mudballs at each other: "And I have helped us expect less from Washington and ask more of ourselves. I am Lamar Alexander and if you are looking for new Republican leadership instead of mudballs, I am your candidate." Many voters say they are turned off by the negative ads. But they also acknowledge that the only way they really get to know the candidates is through television news coverage and campaign ads. Many New Hampshire voters say they will breathe a sigh of relief on February 21st, that is the day after the New Hampshire primary when the TV campaign ads will vanish overnight like spring snow. --------------- --------------- CLINTON CAMPAIGN POLITICS DAVID BORGIDA WHITE HOUSE President Clinton does not face a challenger from within his own Democratic Party for its presidential nomination this year. But he is still campaigning in this primary season. This past weekend, he was in New Hampshire in advance of that state's February 20th primary. And this weekend, he travels to Iowa to campaign in advance of that state's party caucuses. With a sly, knowing smile on his face, Clinton spokesman Mike McCurry describes the upcoming trip to frigid Iowa as a "political trip", but he denies the president is in what he calls "campaign mode." What is the difference, he is asked. Well, he ponders briefly, his smile even wider, campaigning is "a state of mind." As he sees it, New Hampshire and Iowa represent opportunities for the president to make his case to explain his vision. Veteran political reporters know this effort to make a distinction between a political trip and campaign mode is in fact a distinction without a difference. Mr. McCurry knows they know, but he goes on anyway: "Voters want to know what these people will do when they get elected. They want to know where they're going to lead the country, and you have to go out and make the case on those grounds." Mr. McCurry says the president is in no hurry to formally declare his candidacy, this, to extend as long as possible the benefits of incumbency. President Clinton, says his shrewd spokesman, is busy being president. In Iowa, the president is anxious to continue to make his case and rebut what he sees as partisan charges from Republican presidential candidates. Spokesman McCurry says the president will tell voters he has acted to prevent the Republican-controlled Congress from hurting Americans: "We prevented them from doing bad things. Now we need to move forward and do good things for this country." The president will do this, says his spokesman, but not by dwelling on partisanship: "It's not enough just to say "we're Democrats, vote for us." What's important is to say, "here's what we will do. Here's why our vision counts, and here's where we would propose to lead," because that's what will win elections for the Democratic Party." Mr. McCurry also insists the president will work hard in the weeks and months ahead for Democratic Party congressional candidates. But for now, in this early phase of the primary season, president Clinton is focusing on a broad message of moderation and optimism not geared to the more politically-conservative voters in new hampshire and Iowa but to a national audience. It's the general election he is thinking about. --------------- --------------- THE REPUBLICAN LIBERTARIAN DEBATE GREG FLAKUS SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA The presidential election year is off to a start here in the United States. The Democrats have President Clinton running for re-election, but the Republican party, emboldened by its capture of a majority of seats in both houses of Congress in 1994, is now beginning the process of selecting a candidate and a platform. One of the driving intellectual forces with the Grand Old Party, or GOP, is libertarianism, basically the belief in reducing government to a minimal influence in people's lives. But Republicans may have a struggle ahead to balance this tendency against some conflicting currents within the party. In most public discourse on politics in recent years, Republicans have been linked with the word conservative. But what does that mean now? During the cold war, conservatives were considered hawks who supported a strong military and a hardline attitude towards communist countries. Today, some conservatives appear to have lost their interest in foreign affairs and have favored cutbacks in both civilian and defense programs. The term conservative has been applied to current presidential candidate Pat Buchanan, who represents a populist agenda that calls for trade protectionism, severe limits on immigration and a return to traditional morality. But conservative is also a label attached to many libertarians, who defend immigration, advocate free trade and favor an overall reduction of government. For a number of years, the strongest single current within the Republican party has been that of the so-called "Christian right," a coalition of conservatives who favor, among other things, prayer in public schools, a return to family values and an end to, or at least severe limits on, legalized abortion. But libertarian ideas have been driving most GOP actions in Washington of late. This can especially be seen in Republican attempts to scale back the social welfare system. While compatible on many points, the agendas of the moral conservatives and the libertarians are sometimes in direct conflict. At a gathering here in Santa Barbara recently, some prominent libertarian Republicans discussed these conflicts and tried to establish a direction for the party as the election year gets underway. One participant, Walter Olson, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute in New York, says libertarians have become ever more important as an intellectual touchstone for the Republican Party: "Ideas that start out among the libertarians years later will turn up among political journalists, sometimes elected officials. People won't quite know where they come from. Privatization, an idea that is really sweeping the world with enormous consequences, in my view mostly quite good, privatization was an idea that was being talked about only by the libertarians 15 or 20 years ago." The libertarians point of view can be expressed most simply as "the less government, the better." As government has grown larger and more complex at every level, the libertarian ideal has seemed to many people an antiquated notion that fit the time of the founding fathers better than it does the modern world. Walter Olson, however, argues that libertarian ideas are proving to be practical and effective all over the world: "Take the idea of privatizing pension schemes, which Chile has done with its Social Security system and there is increasing interest in other countries as well. This, at one time, would have been considered one of these libertarian ideas, "how do they come up with them, this is obviously impractical..", But now that Chile has shown how practical it can be, there is much more interest in it." Libertarian Republicans tend to be more pragmatic than do libertarians who affiliate themselves with the libertarian party, which selects its own candidates and proposals for the election. Many libertarian ideas that percolate through the Republican Party's internal machinery end up being modified and amended by the politicians who must craft ways of putting them into effect in Washington. Walter Olson says the libertarian Republicans provide an important restraint on political leaders who sometimes drift away from their principles as they engage in the game of politics: "I think the libertarians do have a tremendously important role to play this way because the Republicans often do talk a good game about not abusing government power themselves and about sticking to the bill of rights and the freedoms that the country was built on, but anyone in power is going to be tempted to abuse it and the libertarians can make for a standing reminder of the principles that many of the Republicans ran on. They can call them to account when they begin using the government for bad new reasons, as we have already seen some attempts to do. They can remind them of areas where Republicans ought to pay more attention to some of the objections from the liberal side or the civil liberties organizations. Law enforcement issues like forfeiture, where they (law enforcement authorities) come around and find a few marijuana plants growing around your property and they confiscate your property. This is full of terrible dangers from the traditional-bill-of-rights standpoint and the libertarians are very important in making sure that the Republicans do not run away on the hill with some sort of anti-crime mania and trash the Bill of Rights in the process." Concern over government intrusions into the rights of citizens and property owners has bolstered libertarian attitudes in the western states, where many citizens define their rights as the right to own firearms, the right to exploit mineral and grazing resources and the right to harvest timber from government lands. Tom Rawles is chairman of the board of supervisors for Maricopa county, Arizona. He says people in western states have a legitimate reason to feel smothered by excessive government control: "Only 13 per cent of the land in the state of Arizona is privately owned. Most of it is owned by the federal government, the state government or the Indian tribes, so that is a big issue for us. But I do not look at it the way some people do, who say we have to get the federal government out of the picture. I think that is good, but local governments can be just as oppressive as the federal government and so my concern is to make sure that government at all levels does not overstep the bounds of individual liberties and responsibilities." Mr Rawles says a basic tenet of libertarian philosophy that Republican leaders need to embrace is that individual freedom increases in direct proportion to the decrease in government's role in society: "Fundamentally, there is just the simple recognition that for the last 40 to 60 years, we have traded in our freedom for security. I think we need to address that issue at a fundamental level. We need to stop corporate welfare just as much as we do the individual welfare programs. We need to get people to understand that every time we ask government to do something for us, every time we allow them to do something for us, a little bit of our freedom dies. So, to me it is not each individual issue that is important, so much as it is the over-arching philosophical principles that are important. It does not matter if it is eliminating farm subsidies or cutting Medicare, it is a recognition that we are going to start taking back some of our freedom and stop being dependent on government." Tom Rawles says it is time for definitive action to begin weaning a large segment of the American people from their government dependency: "We have raised two generations of Americans now who look to government for everything. Until we change that psychological commitment to government, we are just going to be playing around the edges. I want presidential candidates, for example, to stop saying that Republicans can manage the economy better than the Democrats. We don't want to manage the economy at all. If we are a free people and we believe in a free market, let it happen." While most Republicans are comfortable with the general libertarian notion of reducing governmental power and influence, some social conservatives, especially those of the Christian right, do favor laws that would limit individual freedoms in some areas. The most controversial such issue is abortion, something libertarian Anne Stone sees as a critical field of combat for the soul of the Republican party: "In recent years, as you might have noticed, our party has been hijacked by people who do not necessarily hold individual rights in as high esteem as the historical forefathers in the party did." Anne Stone is national chair of Republicans for Choice, a group that favors a woman's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion, with no government interference. She says the hardline position taken by social conservatives on the abortion issue has blocked the path to dialogue and the search for common ground within the party: "They have not wanted to budge and they have not wanted to talk about how we could bring the party together on the issue and how we could actually build common ground on programs that do not impede freedom, that do not introduce government into the equation, but, in fact, would actually reduce abortion. You look at that and you say, well, why would they continue to push for something that abridges freedom like a human life amendment instead of programs that do not involve government, which has been the traditional Republican approach to solving things, that would actually reduce abortion. The only thing I can say is that, obviously, they are more interested in pandering, politics and power than they are in solutions." Ms Stone says the Republicans could pay a price at the polls if they ignore the concerns of those who see anti-abortion laws as an abridgement of individual freedom: "I think, at best, it means that they are going to sit it out. At worst, you are actually going to see a lot of them vote for (Bill) Clinton to make sure he does get in and we saw that happen. In 1992, the pro-choice votes in the large electoral states walked (did not vote). It is interesting because the pro-lifers (the anti-abortion forces) always tell you that they have the absolute numbers and the intensity and the larger absolute number of intense voters. My point would be, look at where they are. They are clustered. They are in states where Republicans carry those states even without those voters. Our votes are in northeastern and large state suburban areas like California, like new jersey. Look what happened last time, they walked, 28 per cent of Republican women walked and many of them went to Clinton." A different view is provided by Alexander Volokh, who emigrated to the United States from the Soviet Union when he was a child and who now serves as a policy analyst at the libertarian reason foundation in Los Angeles. He sees more common ground than friction between libertarians and the religious right: "I think the religious right and libertarians can come to, perhaps, a somewhat uneasy alliance, but a stable alliance. That is, (for example) the religious right has no inherent interest in free speech from its deep positions and yet, everyone on the religious right, more or less, believes in free speech because free speech is a value that has been ingrained into the political culture so that even people in the religious right are not going to go against free speech. In the same way, I think many people in the religious right can be brought about to realize that, basically, libertarianism is the best way for the religious right to gain certain victories. The religious right is losing power, it is just the general trend towards secularism. The religious right is not as strong as it once was and it is basically a losing battle to say, "well, let's control school districts to teach creationism" or "let's ban homosexuality." This is a losing battle and they realize it is a losing battle. What can be done is to realize that you cannot create a society of strict Christian ethics when this is the same society where everyone receives massive handouts from the government." This view is shared by prominent California Republican commentator Hugh Hewitt, who sees very little conflict between his own libertarian leanings and his commitment to the moral positions of the religious right: "Generally speaking, the common denominator of all shades of conservatives is a hostility to the size of the federal government and its reach. If you are a religious conservative, you do not like the fact that the Bill of Rights has been expanded everywhere except for the first amendment free exercise clause, which has been constricted. So, libertarians and religious conservatives agree that the free exercise clause has been almost whittled down to an almost meaningless afterthought." Mr. Hewitt notes, for example, that even a moment for silent prayer has been banned in public schools on the basis of court decisions that set aside the right to free exercise of religion in favor of the argument that to allow even the opportunity for prayer would be to impose religion on students. Most conservatives favor more emphasis on the right to choose prayer and even President Clinton and some other prominent Democrats have spoken in favor of allowing a moment of silence in schools each day. In regard to the controversial subject of abortion, Mr Hewitt dismisses the notion that this will divide Republicans in any significant way this year. He says those who are extreme in their views, on either side of the issue, form an insignificant minority: "The unifying theme regarding abortion is that abortion is almost always wrong and sometimes should be legal. That is what 95 percent of Republicans believe, that abortion is almost always wrong but sometimes should be legal. And you will find a great consensus that there ought to be parental notification when minors seek abortion, that there ought to be controls on abortion for sex selection, that there ought to be controls, if not outright bans, on abortions in the seventh, eighth and ninth month. Most libertarians that I know do not consider those to be at all offensive. They may object, in theory, to a constitutional amendment banning all abortions, but most Republicans do not insist upon that." What could be a problem for the Republican Party this year, according to Mr Hewitt, is the populist movement of candidate Pat Buchanan who blames trade liberalization, and in particular the North American free trade agreement, known as NAFTA, for the loss of U.S. jobs. According to Hewitt: "The repudiation of free trade, if it has its followers, is a problem. The Republican party is the party of free trade. We knew that, from smooth-Hawley forward, that trade barriers destroy American jobs and American opportunity. There is a populist sentiment in the country and abroad that Pat Buchanan is taping into. It is not a Republican sentiment. It has a lot, perhaps, to do with the Reagan Democrats, who we would like to keep in the Republican column, but it is not a traditional Republican position. It does not resonate, I do not believe. I believe that the platform will continue to call for free trade and will continue to endorse NAFTA. Nafta was a Republican idea. Free trade remains a Republican hallmark and it has got to. That is one of the core beliefs of the party." In the end, the positions taken by the Republican Party will likely mirror, to a great extent, the positions favored by most American voters. At the same time, the Democrats will also define their positions in a way they think will appeal to the great mass of voters. Both parties must struggle to balance conflicting ideologies and interests within, while avoiding anything that might alienate the vast middle ground where most voters position themselves. Stephen Wayne, professor of government at Georgetowne University and author of a prestigious guide to the 1996 election year, says that the balancing of political tendencies within each party is an important part of the U.S. political system: "One of the problems the Republicans face, and the Democrats have faced in the past, is that people who are activists within the Republican Party tend to be more ideological and more extreme than the average voter. Similarly, in the Democratic Party, the people who are activists have tended to be those who are more liberal and more extreme than the average voter, so the Republican candidate in 1996 is going to have to moderate his views in the general election. The democratic candidate may not have to as much because President Clinton is not going to have to run against any opposition, at least as far as we can see today, and he has pretty much staked himself out in the middle, following the debacle in 1994, when the Democrats lost control of both houses of Congress. So, I think, one of the issues of the election will be the Democrats trying to paint the Republican candidate, whoever that candidate is, as an extremist and the Republican candidate coming back and saying, "I am not extreme. I am in tune with mainstream America." In the months ahead, through caucuses and primaries, leading up to the convention in San Diego in August, the Republican party will seek a candidate and a set of positions to bring before the U.S. electorate in November. It will then be up to the voters to determine which party's positions are closer to their own. --------------- ---------------- ELECTRIC LIGHTS IN THE WHITE HOUSE 1889 On February 3, 1889, workers completed their installation of electric lights in the White House in Washington, D.C. However, President Benjamin Harrison and his family would not touch the on-off switches for fear of being shocked by the unfamiliar source of energy. Thus, White House staff members were given the job of turning off the lights before leaving for home every night and turning them on in the morning. The first family relied on candles, natural gas and lanterns that had been used before electricity was installed in the executive mansion. ROOSEVELT TRIES TO "PACK" THE FEDERAL COURTS 1937 On February 5, 1937, President Franklin D. Roosevelt submitted to Congress his judicial reorganization bill, a proposal that would raise a political storm he had not foreseen. He presented the plan as simple organizational reform of the federal court system that would add 50 new judges to the federal judiciary and eight new Supreme Court justices. However, the proposal was clearly motivated to deal with his frustration over federal court rulings, especially Supreme Court decisions, that overturned several of his economic recovery plans in the great depression. Mr. Roosevelt believed the aging members of the supreme Court were prejudiced against his programs: "We must have men worthy and equipped to carry out impartial justice; but at the same time we must have judges who will bring to the courts a present-day sense of the constitution: Judges who will retain in the courts the judicial functions of a court and reject the legislative powers which the courts have today assumed." The proposal was defeated by fiery opposition. Mr. Roosevelt, who was still widely popular, was seen by many Americans to have a personal political agenda in his attempt to "pack" the courts with his nominees. Americans saw the president's plan as an attempt to subjugate the independence of the federal judiciary. HOUSE BACKS IMPEACHMENT COMMITTEE POWERS 1974 On February 6, 1974, a vote by the House of Representatives approved a resolution supporting the judiciary committee's impeachment investigation of President Richard Nixon. The vote; 410 "for" and 4 "against" showed overwhelming congressional support for the investigation. It also gave the Judiciary Committee broad subpoena power to compel testimony or produce documents from any source, including President Nixon. Committee chairman, Peter Rodino told the legislators that the committee would, in his words, "...proceed with decency and thoroughness and honor." The call for impeachment stemmed from the June, 1972 arrests of workers for Richard Nixon's reelection committee in the headquarters office of the Democratic National Committee in the Watergate building in Washington. A series of lies and coverups to hide the connection followed, and exposed a large web of scandals that worked its way to the office of the president. On July 30, 1974 the Judiciary Committee approved three articles of impeachment against President Nixon. They charged Mr. Nixon with obstruction of justice in connection with the Watergate break in, abuse of presidential powers and attempting to impede the impeachment process by defying committee subpoenas for evidence. On August 9, 1974, Richard Nixon became the first president of the United States to resign from office. GEORGE WALLACE FOR PRESIDENT 1968 On February 8, 1968, former Alabama governor, George Wallace, proclaimed he was a candidate for president of the United States. He said he would run as the nominee of the American independent party, which he founded. Governor Wallace, who once declared his principle on race relations as: "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever," said if he was elected president he would change federal rules on racial integration. He angrily blamed urban riots of the era and anti-Vietnam War demonstrations on anarchists, revolutionaries and communists. He said they should be put in jail. Governor Wallace came in third in the November 5 election: Richard Nixon, the conservative Republican candidate, won a solid victory, defeating Mr. Wallace and his main opponent, Democrat, Hubert Humphrey. George Wallace ran for president again in 1972, campaigning on his segregationist, anti-crime, anti-government platform. However his candidacy abruptly ended moments after a tart speech about the government needing to do more to reduce crime. He stepped down from the platform at a shopping center in Maryland to mingle with voters when he was critically wounded in an assassination attempt. THE HOUSE ELECTS A PRESIDENT 1825 On February 9, 1825, the House of Representatives elected John Quincy Adams as the sixth president of the United States. Mr. Adams had received the largest number of electoral votes among the three presidential candidates, but he had failed to receive the majority required by the constitution. As mandated by the national charter, the House met to break the deadlock and gave Mr. Adams a strong majority. His rise to the presidency followed careers as a college professor and U.S. secretary of state. After his presidency, Mr. Adams later returned to Washington to serve in the house of representatives. John Quincy Adams is the only president who was later elected to public office and he was the only president who was the son of a president, John Adams, elected in 1796. PRESIDENT-ELECT ABRAHAM LINCOLN LEAVES SPRINGFIELD 1861 On February 11, 1861, president-elect Abraham Lincoln left his home town of Springfield, Illinois for Washington, DC where he was to be inaugurated as president of the United States. It was dark and raining when Mr. Lincoln boarded the train for the capital. His melancholy mood over leaving his home and friends matched the gloom of the overcast and raining weather as he said farewell to the people of springfield: "To this place, and to the kindness of these people, I owe everything. Here I have lived a quarter of a century, and have passed from a young man to an old man. I now leave, not knowing when or whether I may return." Abraham Lincoln did return to Springfield, to be buried, after being assassinated on April 15, 1865. ---------------- FREE OFFER FROM PUBLISHER "CLIP" NEWS SERVICE INEWS DAILY IS NOW AVAILABLE THROUGH E-MAIL FREE TRIAL LOW COST ROYALTY FREE REPRODUCTION RIGHTS AVAILABLE International News E-Wire Service (INEWS) is an English language daily, covering news of the world. INEWS provides up-to-date and accurate world news. It also includes many features and interviews covering such topics as current events, politics, economics, science, medicine, history, technology, agriculture, religion, and music. Low cost republication rights are available allowing articles to be used on BBSs, in newsletters, advertising, LANs, weeklies, community newspapers, school newspapers, brochures, media kits, presentations, church bulletins, and more. Every day, INEWS gathers reports filed by correspondents stationed at 26 news bureaus throughout the world. INEWS relates first-hand coverage of stories from news bureaus in Abidjan, Bangkok, Beijing, Berlin, Bonn, Cairo, Chicago, Geneva, Hong Kong, Islamabad, Jerusalem, Johannesburg, London, Los Angeles, Miami, Moscow, Nairobi, New Delhi, New York, Paris, Prague, Rio de Janeiro, San Jose, Tokyo, Vienna, and Washington, D.C. Daily INEWS service is available for less than $4.00 a month. Delivered through E-mail in one of two versions, plain text or a DOS/VGA version. The DOS/VGA version is sent either through E-mail, encoded, or through file transfer on America Online, Compuserve, or Prodigy. A free two week trial can be received by sending E-mail containing E-mail address, name and address to: INTERNET: INEWS@AOL.COM AOL: INEWS COMPUSERVE: 76725,3622 -------------- ***END OF FILE***