500 MB Nyheder Direkte fra Internet 10/500 MB nyheder direkte fra internet CD 10.iso/start/progs/text/96snap03.txt

Text File | 1996-02-12 | 141KB | 2,615 lines

==================================================================
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 [e-mail]
==================================================================

DISTRIBUTE FREELY

                        '96 ELECTION SNAPSHOT
                               VOL.1 #3


SUBSCRIPTION INFO/GENERAL INFO - [e-mail]
TO REACH EDITOR ---------------- [e-mail]


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: [e-mail]
   AOL: INEWS
   COMPUSERVE: 76725,3622
   --------------
   ***END OF FILE***