Government Executive - Authors - James A. Barnes

Convention insiders: ‘It’s Hillary’s if she wants it’ in 2016

James A. Barnes — Thu, 06 Sep 2012 16:31:43 -0400

After former President Clinton’s bravura performance at the Time Warner Cable Arena on Wednesday night, Democrats in Charlotte are increasingly upbeat about the prospects that President Obama will be reelected in the fall. But what about four years from now? Who do they think will be carrying the party’s standard then?

At this point, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is the clear front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016, according to a National Journal Convention Insiders Poll, an anonymous survey of Democratic and Republican elected and party officials, grassroots activists, consultants, fundraisers, lobbyists, and allied interest-group leaders. The poll was conducted on Sept. 4 and 5.

Among the 151 Democrats who responded to the poll, 69 percent said that if Obama wins reelection, Clinton will be front-runner for the 2016 presidential nod. Clinton was a tireless presence at the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston in the run-up to her 2008 bid for the Democratic nomination. Ironically, while her husband was center stage in Charlotte this year, Clinton was wrapping up an 11-day Asian trip with stops in Brunei and East Timor.

Clinton’s tenure as Obama’s secretary of State is one of many reasons that Democratic Insiders give her a big edge over the rest of the party’s field of potential 2016 contenders. “Hillary’s time on the world stage gives her a leg up on VP [Joe] Biden,” said one Democratic Convention Insider. Another said, “She’s already a star, her reputation for tenacity and hard work has only been solidified, and now it’s hard to make the argument that the Clintons aren’t ‘team players.' ”

But the more common mantra from Democrats regarding their 2016 nomination is simply, “It’s Hillary’s if she wants it.” There is a sense among Democratic operatives that she may be better positioned to run in four years than she was in 2008—when she was also anointed front-runner by Democratic Insiders—and that some in the party are having “buyer’s remorse” that they didn’t nominate her four years ago.

But many Democrats are not convinced that she’ll mount another campaign for the White House, and if she does, she could wait to signal her intentions. “It is not at all clear that she will choose to run,” maintained a Democratic Convention Insider. “Look for frustration to build among the rest [of the field] as she contemplates,” added another.

One of those who probably won’t be waiting is Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley. Ten percent of the Democratic convention insiders said he may well be the front-runner for the 2016 nomination. “O’Malley wants it and he’s working it hard,” observed one Democratic Convention Insider. Another echoed, “O’Malley has the drive and the stomach for it.” As head of the Democratic Governors Association, O’Malley has been making political connections across the country, and in Charlotte he’s been meeting with key state delegations and party activists who could provide foot soldiers for a presidential campaign.

But his Tuesday night prime-time convention address did not give him much of a lift in pursuit of the Democrats’ brass ring. “On the strength of his speech, not O’Malley,” averred one Democratic Convention Insider assessing his chances.

Another governor, Andrew Cuomo of New York, was judged to be the likely 2016 front-runner by 6 percent of the Democrats in the poll. “[Vice President Joe] Biden and Clinton won’t be candidates,” maintained one Democratic Convention Insider. “Cuomo has a lot of national name recognition.”

And what about Biden, who has thrilled many Democrats lately with his “Bin Laden is dead, GM is alive” stump speech line? Only 5 percent in the survey said that he’d be the party’s 2016 front-runner after Obama is reelected. “As the current vice president, he’s the presumptive nominee until he says no,” asserted one Democratic Insider.

Virginia Democratic Sen. Mark Warner was seen by 3 percent of the Democratic Insiders as the heir apparent after Obama, followed by New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper,Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, and Bay State Democratic Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren, who each scored 1 percent in the survey.

Another 4 percent of the Democratic Convention Insiders listed “someone else” as the likely 2016 front-runner should Obama win reelection. As one Democrat sagely said, “It’s too early to predict.”

]]>

Democratic insiders to Hillary Clinton: Run in 2016!

James A. Barnes — Wed, 05 Sep 2012 16:24:43 -0400

National Journal Convention Insiders Poll Insiders apparently couldn’t care less -- they want Hillary Rodham Clinton to run for president again in 2016.

In the latest survey -- conducted Sept. 3-4 among Democratic and Republican elected and party officials, grassroots activists, consultants, fundraisers, lobbyists, and interest-group leaders -- 70 percent of the 155 Democratic Insiders who responded said that they would “like to see Hillary Clinton run for president in 2016.” Less than a third (30 percent) said “no” when asked if they wanted to see the secretary of State toss her hat into the ring once again.

“The party faithful -- including and especially the early Obama supporters -- are begging for Hillary in ’16,” said one Democratic Convention Insider. “Hillary would go into the primaries of 2016 as one of the most savvy, shrewd and prepared candidates in memory,” gushed another. And a third Democratic Insider declared, “Hell, I would have liked Hillary to be running this year.”

Another reason for Clinton’s appeal is the desire of many Democrats to see a woman in the White House. “It’s time for a woman president,” said one Democratic Insider. “She is the most prepared.” Echoed another, “The electorate and the party activists want to see a woman presidential nominee and Hillary Clinton is the best positioned.”

Some Democrats simply think Clinton is a surefire winner. “With the Republican field as it is, it would be a cakewalk with her at the top of the ticket,” insisted one Democratic Insider.

Then there’s the emotional hold that the Clintons seem to have on their party. “She deserves to [run], and we deserve to see her run again,” one Democratic Insider said. “Has paid her dues and is a great leader,” pronounced another.

But not all Democrats view another Clinton campaign with such enthusiasm. “Time for her to ride off into a very welcoming sunset,” said one Democratic Insider. “Hillary is still very polarizing,” maintained another. “That won’t change by ’16.”

And many Clinton skeptics simply think that Democrats will be best served by “new blood” four years from now. “Been there, done that,” said one Democratic Insider. “That boat has sailed,” echoed another.

Republican Convention Insiders had a somewhat different view of a Clinton 2016 candidacy: More than half (58 percent) of the 164 who responded said that they would not like to see her run. Roughly two-in-five (42 percent), said they would.

But many GOP Insiders who said “no” to a Clinton rerun apparently did so out fear and admiration. “She would be very tough to beat and would probably be a better candidate given the tough loss in 2008,” said one Republican Insider. “I’m a Republican,” said another. “She is scary good.”

At the same time, some Republicans said they would like to see Clinton run again out of respect. “She is qualified and would be a worthy adversary,” noted one GOP Insider. Others were less impressed. “Since I don’t view her as a great threat to Republicans in 2016, I would welcome her as a divisive distraction within the Democratic Party,” said another Republican Insider.

For a list of the Insiders, please click here.
]]>

Congressional insiders back boosting employee retirement contributions

Peter Bell and James A. Barnes — Thu, 26 May 2011 00:00:00 -0400

National Journal Congressional Insiders Poll.

When asked the question, "Should federal employees have to match the amount that the government contributes to their pensions?" 78 percent of Republicans said yes, but so did 36 percent of Democrats. Only 46 percent of Democratic respondents said employees shouldn't have to match contributions, along with 19 percent of Republicans.

A total of 22 Democrats and 27 Republicans responded to the survey.

Republicans felt that given the budget constraints, federal employees should be treated more like those who work in the private sector when it came to their retirement. "We're broke, and it's time for the federal government programs to better match up with the private sector," said one GOP Congressional Insider. Added another: "Really, it's only fair relative to everywhere else across the country."

Roughly a third of the Democrats agreed, but with some conditions. "The change should happen over time, not all at once, and it should be prospective only," said one Democratic Congressional Insider.

At the same time, a plurality of Democrats was opposed to simply forcing federal workers to take a cut in their paycheck to fund their pension. "It is tantamount to breaking a contract," declared a Democratic Congressional Insider. "Federal employees pay into the retirement system and do not 'vest' for several years," said another. "Any change in pension contributions should be accompanied by an examination of the 'vesting' rules."

Only a handful of Republicans agreed. "Our pension plan is key to retaining some of the most talented staff we have," noted a GOP Congressional Insider. Said another, "They shouldn't have to match the amount but they should contribute more than what they are currently contributing."

Democrats who didn't respond directly to the question seemed to be open to change, but not unilaterally. "Federal employees have various negotiated benefit packages, depending on their occupation and contract of employment," noted one Democratic Congressional Insider. "Any changes to those should be bargained and a matter of employer-employee negotiation." Another Democrat observed, "The policy should fit the circumstance. The key to pensions like tax is creating a fair, sustainable system."

But that kind of cautious and gradual approach probably won't appease many Republicans. Speaking of the federal workers and having them match for their retirement, one GOP Congressional Insider said bluntly, "Unless the Democrats get supermajorities back, that is the least that will happen."

The National Journal Congressional Insiders Poll is a regular survey of Democratic and Republican members of Congress.

]]>

Political insiders view shutdown as likely

James A. Barnes — Fri, 08 Apr 2011 00:00:00 -0400

National Journal Political Insiders Poll conducted Thursday afternoon before President Obama's meeting with congressional leaders in the evening.

The Political Insiders were asked: "On a scale of zero to 10 -- with zero being no chance at all -- what's the likelihood of a government shutdown starting this weekend?" Republican Insiders were slightly more pessimistic, with 53 percent putting the odds at "7" or greater, while 49 percent of the Democratic Insiders rated the chances of a government shutdown that high. Just over a fifth of both the Democratic and Republican Insiders thought there was a low likelihood of a shutdown, rating the chances at "3" out of 10, or lower.

The survey included 79 Republican Insiders and 78 Democrats.

Many Republicans think the two parties are bracing themselves for a confrontation, each believing they will gain from a government shutdown that will begin at midnight Friday if no spending agreement is reached. "Both sides believe they can politically benefit from one so the incentive to make a deal is less," said one GOP Insider. Another echoed: "Not enough reason to abandon built-in fortifications until the media chooses sides." A Democratic Insider concurred: "Both parties have strong political incentives to hold ground."

Some in both parties also felt that Republican House Speaker John Boehner, who has had to deal with his own divided caucus as he negotiates with President Obama and Senate Democrats over the continuing resolution, may need a shutdown in order to bring his hard-liners around to an eventual deal. "It'll be short," predicted one GOP insider. "Boehner will use the backlash to teach his hard-liners a lesson." A Democratic Insider observed that, "Boehner needs to give tea [party] people a shutdown as condition for subsequent compromise-this is why he sent the face CR. It gives them a fig leaf to say 'it wasn't our fault' and all but guarantees the shut down House tea party is demanding."

Still, some Insiders were predicting the two sides would step back from the precipice, in part because neither party can be sure who voters will hold responsible for a shutdown and the disruptions it would cause. "Both sides are concerned as to who gets blamed-the public is not in a forgiving mood," said a Democrat. "It's in everyone's interest to cut a deal," added a GOP Insider.

The National Journal Political Insiders Poll is a regular survey of political operatives, strategists, campaign consultants and lobbyists in both parties.

]]>

Political insiders say public uninformed about policy issues

James A. Barnes — Fri, 25 Mar 2011 00:00:00 -0400

National Journal Political Insiders Poll, a solid majority of political operatives -- 59 percent -- said the public didn't "know enough about the issues facing Washington to form wise opinions about what should be done." There was a sharp partisan difference between the two parties: By more than a 2-to-1 margin, Democratic Insiders believed the public didn't "know enough," while a slight majority of Republicans thought they did.

One reason for the skeptical attitudes of the Democrats and the relatively sanguine view of Republicans is that they reflect the outcome of the midterm elections. "The guys who just got turfed out know that the public doesn't know enough to make these decisions and the guys who got brought in know that it does," observed University of Wisconsin political scientist Byron Shafer. "There is a heavy shadow of the 2010 elections in these numbers."

Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg explained: "I think the backdrop [to the Democratic response] was the sense that voters didn't know what was accomplished in the historic Congress that just passed. It's a function of where you are in a cycle, not a theory of government or ideology. I think Republicans would say a something similar if they were in the same situation."

But some Democratic operatives are not so sure. "Though we claim to represent 'the people' we are much more likely to doubt their ability to understand public policy," said one party operative who requested anonymity to speak candidly. "Republicans don't represent the people's interests, but have more confidence in them."

To a point. Veteran GOP pollster Fred Steeper agreed that the high percentage of Democratic Insiders who said the public doesn't know enough to form wise opinions was a manifestation of their disappointing 2010 election results. But he noted that there was also a large share of Republican Insiders -- 47 percent -- who didn't think the public knew enough to form wise opinions. "They're right to be skeptical that 2010 meant people will be supporting the whole conservative agenda in 2011," said Steeper.

National Journal asked its 264 Political Insiders, who include former national party chairmen, current state party chairs, party strategists, pollsters, media consultants, lobbyists, political fundraisers, local elected officials, and interest group leaders to weigh in on this question; 103 Democrats and 100 Republicans responded.

]]>

Republicans signal delay on 'don't ask, don't tell' repeal

James A. Barnes — Mon, 15 Nov 2010 00:00:00 -0500

Two prominent Senate Republicans indicated Sunday that it is unlikely that the ban on gays serving openly in the military known as "don't ask, don't tell" will be overturned in the upcoming lame-duck session of Congress.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the ranking GOP member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said on the NBC News program Meet the Press that he opposes using the lame-duck session to debate a repeal of the law.

Referring to the Pentagon study on the imact of removing restrictions on gay military service, McCain said, "I think once this study comes out in the beginning of December, we should at least have a chance to review it and maybe have hearings on it."

Moreover, McCain said that he wants an additional study conducted on the impact that ending the ban would have on "battlefield effectiveness and morale" of the military.

On the CNN program State of the Union, Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, pointed out that the lame-duck session has to deal with pending appropriations bills for the current fiscal year and the decision on whether or not to extend the Bush tax cuts.

"I don't think there's a lot of time and a lot of appetite to jam things through," said Cornyn in response to a question about repealing DADT. "I expect we're going to have a continued debate about this when we see" the Defense report.

]]>

Obama team reaches new heights in diversity

James A. Barnes — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 00:00:00 -0400

A mere glance around Barack Obama's Cabinet table provides ample evidence of the president's philosophy that diversity is an important element of good government. Fewer than half of the 22 officials designated by Obama as having Cabinet rank are white men -- only nine in fact.

Likewise, fewer than half of the key personnel in the Obama White House are white males. (Cynics will correctly note that the most powerful West Wing aides are still mostly white men.) A National Journal survey of 366 of the president's Decision Makers -- people appointed or nominated to senior positions throughout the executive branch -- found that white men hold 52 percent of the jobs. But when 49 holdovers from the Bush era are excluded, white guys make up just under half -- 49 percent -- of the Obama team.

The new look of government is, in part, a generational story. From college campuses to corporate boardrooms to campaigns, society is increasingly tapping the professional talents of women and racial minorities. But the new look also embodies the commitment of the first nonwhite male to hold the nation's highest elective office.

"It reflects both the changing face of the nation and the overall changes in politics, as well as this president's very strong belief that different backgrounds do make for stronger decision-making," said White House Communications Director Anita Dunn, who was a key adviser to Obama's presidential campaign. Princeton University presidential scholar Fred Greenstein said that the Obama administration's diversity "suggests a true changing of the guard."

The impact of Obama's staffing of the government is likely to extend beyond the next four years of this administration. Should Obama seek and win another term, the number of women and minorities poised to assume even more senior positions will only grow.

"There's diversity in this crowd that nobody else has approached before," said Democratic lobbyist Marcia Hale, a veteran of Bill Clinton's White House. "Four and eight years from now, there will be an amazing array of people from different backgrounds," she predicted.

But many of the faces in this Democratic administration are familiar, having served in the executive branch when their party was last in power. Some parts of Obama's "change" administration actually look quite a bit like a restoration of the Clinton era. Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel served more than six years in the Clinton White House. And three of the top four Cabinet posts -- secretary of State, Treasury secretary, and attorney general -- are held by people who played influential roles in the Clinton administration. (The fourth -- Defense secretary -- is filled by Robert Gates, a holdover from the administration of George W. Bush.)

More than 40 percent of Obama's early appointments and nominations can claim some link to Bill Clinton, who entered the White House vowing that his administration would "look like America." The extent of the Obama administration's ties to the past is not surprising, given the opportunities that Clinton's two terms gave Democrats to develop their talent pool.

Clinton was much more reluctant to draw on the pool of his most recent Democratic predecessor. "It can be argued that Clinton's mistake was in not reaching back to the Carter administration both for lessons and personnel," Greenstein said. "There was something of a look-back-at-Carter phobia, with the result that rollout of the health program duplicated [Jimmy] Carter's failure on energy."

Part of Obama's reliance on Clintonites might stem from the fact that, unlike Clinton, Obama is not a legendary networker. Clinton populated key positions in his new administration with people he had met during his days at Oxford as a Rhodes scholar; his 12 years as governor of Arkansas; his stint as chairman of the National Governors Association; and his time as head of the Democratic Leadership Council. He also tapped the formidable network that his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton, had built as a prominent lawyer and children's advocate.

Unlike Bush, Obama did not have a father who had been president and gave him access to a small army of experienced White House advisers. Vice President Cheney, who headed the Bush transition in 2000, also had his own network for Bush to draw from. Two men whom Cheney had served with when he was Gerald Ford's White House chief of staff -- Paul O'Neill and Donald Rumsfeld -- were plucked for top Cabinet posts, Treasury and Defense, respectively.

Neither Obama nor his vice president, former Sen. Joe Biden, had ever spent much time courting the Washington establishment. During his brief tenure in the Senate, Obama lived in a one-bedroom apartment on Capitol Hill and usually returned home to Chicago on the weekends. Biden -- who has deep ties to fellow senators and knows a multitude of foreign leaders from his many years on the Foreign Relations Committee -- famously took the train home to Wilmington every night. He did not play a high-profile role in the Obama transition.

Before coming to the White House, Obama had served less than four years in the Senate, and two of those were largely consumed by his presidential bid. His adopted hometown of Chicago, where he learned to navigate the tribal politics of the city as an ambitious state legislator, provided a handful of key officials for his administration, including top White House aides such as Emanuel, senior advisers David Axelrod and Valerie Jarrett, and Education Secretary Arne Duncan. But, overall, only 22 of Obama's Decision Makers worked in Illinois immediately before joining his administration. That puts the Land of Lincoln behind the District of Columbia, Virginia, California, and New York. Only one Obama official came to the administration directly from Hawaii, the state where the president was born and raised.

Likewise, Obama didn't flood the top ranks of the executive branch with veterans of his presidential campaign. To be sure, plenty of his road-tested aides now hold senior positions in his White House, as is usually the case with a new president. But Obama has signed up fewer campaign veterans than his immediate predecessor did. About four-fifths of Bush's White House team had worked in the former Texas governor's 2000 campaign; for Obama, the figure is a little more than two-thirds. The number of campaign types whom Obama has sprinkled throughout the federal bureaucracy is relatively low: only about 25 percent, compared with 34 percent for Bush.

"In the last administration, the hack-to-wonk ratio was dangerously high," said Democratic Leadership Council CEO Bruce Reed, who was a chief domestic policy adviser in the Clinton White House. "In this one, wonks have the upper hand. And Obama has put a big premium on hiring people who know what they're doing."

Lending a best-and-brightest character to his team, more than one-third of Obama's top officials -- 37 percent -- have worked at a think tank or in academia at some point in their careers. Likewise, more than one-third, 37 percent, boast an undergraduate or graduate degree from an Ivy League school. Twelve percent are "double Ivy," holding undergraduate and graduate degrees from elite schools.

Critics say that one area where the Obama team lacks luster and diversity is in the realm of business. Few of his key people can point to significant business experience. In 2001, Bush had four former CEOs (including his vice president) in the Cabinet: career Texas oil man Donald Evans at Commerce; Treasury's O'Neill, who had run Alcoa for almost 15 years; and Defense's Rumsfeld, who had spent some 15 years at the helm of three businesses, including the international pharmaceutical firm G.D. Searle. Cheney had been CEO of the oil-services and construction giant Halliburton from 1995 to 2000. Even Bill Clinton recruited from business: Thomas (Mack) McLarty, CEO of the natural-gas company Arkla, became his chief of staff, and Hazel O'Leary, an executive vice president of a Minnesota utility firm, was his Energy secretary. (They failed to distinguish themselves in those posts, however.)

As with quite a few Democratic pols these days, a number of Obama's Cabinet members do have links to the world of finance. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has close -- some critics say too close -- ties to the heads of giant Wall Street investment houses from his days as president of the New York Federal Reserve Bank. Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan was a managing director at Prudential Mortgage Capital for affordable-housing investments and its Federal Housing Administration lending program. White House Chief of Staff Emanuel had a successful stint as an investment banker in the Chicago office of Wasserstein Perella after leaving the Clinton White House and before winning a House seat in 2002.

For more than six years, Education Secretary Duncan ran the Ariel Education Initiative, a nonprofit foundation with a small staff that helped to fund better educational opportunities for inner-city children in Chicago. The initiative is a program of Ariel Investments, the Chicago firm run by John Rogers Jr., the ex-husband of Obama senior adviser Jarrett.

But in terms of running a for-profit business, the Obama Cabinet member with the most experience is Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, who was Colorado's attorney general and served one term in the Senate. Salazar was a partner in a family-run ranch. He and his wife have also owned and operated small businesses, including a Dairy Queen in Westminster, Colo., as well as radio stations in Pueblo and Denver.

Overall, only 28 percent of Obama's top officials were business executives at some point in their careers, compared with 38 percent of Bush's top officials at the start of his first term.

Although Obama and his wife, Michelle, stress the importance of public service, only a small fraction of the president's team served in the military. Overall, just 12 percent were ever in the armed forces. Of the 82 top appointees who were young men during the Vietnam War (now ages 53 to 63), 20 (24 percent) were in the military and 16 of those currently hold jobs in the Pentagon or the Veterans Affairs Department. For the same age cohort in the Bush administration eight years ago (then ages 45 to 55), just 17 percent (15 out of 88) had served.

Of the 140 Obama officials who are age 48 or younger (the president himself will turn 48 in August), only four -- three men and one woman -- have been in the military. Only one member of Obama's Cabinet has worn a uniform: retired Army Gen. Eric Shinseki, the VA secretary.

The Vietnam War heated up just as another epochal moment in American society was beginning to take shape, the rise of the Baby Boom Generation. Those born at the start of the boom, 1946, were just turning 18 in 1964. And 45 years later, Baby Boomers dominate Obama's team. About two-thirds were born between 1946 and 1964 (making them 44 to 63 years old). Eight percent were born before the boom; 26 percent were born after.

The president often likes to position himself outside the Baby Boomer arguments that have long tied the country in knots, but even he cannot escape the power of a generation -- his own -- that has so dominated our political life. But of the Boomers he has asked to serve the nation, only 47 percent are white men.

This article originally appeared in National Journal's June 20, 2009 Decision Makers special issue. Click here for more information about the issue.

]]>

Plotting an Endgame

James A. Barnes and Richard E. Cohen — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 00:00:00 -0400

After back-to-back national conventions that captured the attention of much of the electorate, the presidential race between Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain remains a puzzle. Despite the public's deep dissatisfaction with President Bush, his party's standard-bearer remains very much in contention.

When Democratic operatives look at the national political environment, they behold a sea of polling indicators suggesting that Obama should be running away with this contest, including voters' economic worries; the public's extreme dissatisfaction with the direction of the country; and Bush's abysmal job-approval ratings. Yet Obama is still locked in a fairly close race, and Democrats are both fretful and at a loss to explain the situation.

"I think there are a lot of Democrats who think we should be up by 15 points in the current environment, and they're wondering why," said one Democratic strategist, who requested anonymity in order to be more candid.

At the same time, some Republicans worry that their convention did little to address the prime concerns of swing voters. Conservative activists applauded McCain's selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to be his running mate. Likewise, the Republican Right was happy that not only did the GOP platform remain thoroughly conservative, the convention's primetime program featured plenty of red meat.

Outside of opening-night remarks by Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, the independent Democrat who crossed party lines to endorse McCain, podium speakers included few moderate voices who could appeal to swing voters. When former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani spoke on Wednesday night, he didn't sound much like the moderate Republican who was twice elected in a Democratic stronghold. Rather, as he tore into Obama and ridiculed his resume, Giuliani came off as a snarling attack dog fixated on foreign policy. He barely touched on the economy, despite national polls showing that it long ago displaced the war in Iraq, terrorism, and national security as voters' top concern.

"I still think you don't win major campaigns if you don't talk about the number one issue, which is the economy," said a Republican pollster who asked not be identified. "The 'change' sentiment is still stronger than the 'experience' argument. And the issues that drive 'change' are helping the Democrats now. They haven't receded."

While McCain, Obama, and Democratic vice presidential candidate Joseph Biden of Delaware, have been endlessly vetted by the press and the public, Palin is new to the national spotlight and is likely to continue to draw intense scrutiny -- and interest -- throughout the two-month dash to Election Day. Whether the first woman on a major party's ticket since 1984 will end up being more of an asset than a liability might be clearer in a few weeks after she faces Biden on Oct. 2 in the sole vice presidential debate.

"I think it's quite possible she could move Macomb County Democrats," said public opinion analyst Karlyn Bowman, referring to the famous blue-collar territory outside of Detroit that is a bastion of the conservative whites who were "Reagan Democrats." Bowman, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, said that this voting bloc is still up for grabs but agreed that the economic downturn makes it more difficult for McCain to extend the GOP's lease on the White House: "I'm still not sure ordinary Joes think Obama gets their pain, but it's a bigger problem for McCain."

Although Republicans at their national convention in Minneapolis-St. Paul acknowledged that Palin will probably continue to draw fire from Democrats and the media, their mood after her feisty -- pit bull with lipstick -- acceptance speech was hopeful, if not quite confident. "There's a feeling within the party that the wind under which Obama has sailed is dying down," said former Reagan White House speechwriter Clark Judge. "With his money and turnout machine he may yet prevail, but a new wind is blowing. And they feel it's blowing McCain's way."

Republicans are feeling considerably less upbeat about their campaign to take back Congress -- or at least to hold their ground. Recent developments in the presidential contest have not significantly changed the outlook for the congressional contests. Democrats, who won control of the House and Senate in 2006, are expected to gain additional seats. It remains unclear whether their pickups will be minimal or enough to put them firmly in charge of one or both chambers.

Senate Democrats emphasized at their party's Denver convention that they have been stymied by filibusters led by the 49 GOP senators. "We have to communicate that there now aren't enough Democratic senators to pass Barack Obama's agenda," said Matt Miller, spokesman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

As for House Democrats, many safe incumbents traveled to Denver, but the many vulnerable freshmen who must try to defend swing seats were largely missing. "Our advice to the great majority of them is to be back home with their constituents," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. "Your voters are at home."

Congressional Republicans, meanwhile, contended that their prospects have turned around of late, although they don't go so far as to predict that they will win back either the House or the Senate. "We are in a much better position than people thought 12 or six months ago," said Rep. Tom Cole, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee.

Adding Palin to McCain's ticket has boosted the morale of the Republicans' socially conservative base, Cole noted. Moreover, GOP lawmakers -- who have been hammering a "Drill here, drill now" message -- think that they are already seeing the price of gasoline turn to their political advantage.

"The issues are moving in our direction," House Minority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo., says. Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, the minority leader, agrees: "Democrats have made a lot of promises and kept none.... Americans are not impressed."

]]>

Tickets Out of Iowa

James A. Barnes — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 00:00:00 -0500

Among political observers, the conventional wisdom is that "three tickets get punched" in Iowa for White House hopefuls -- the top three finishers in each party's caucuses gain enough momentum and credibility to soldier on. Or, as veteran political reporter David Yepsen of the The Des Moines Register likes to put it, there are three tickets out of Iowa: "first-class, coach, and standby."

But in 2008, with competitive presidential races in both parties vying for the news media's attention, even finishing in the top three in Iowa may not guarantee a candidate a comfortable seat on the post-caucus campaign shuttle to New Hampshire.

"I think there are only two [Republican tickets] that get punched out of Iowa: the winner and the candidate that blows away or exceeds expectations," said veteran GOP strategist Scott Reed, who managed Bob Dole's 1996 presidential campaign but is neutral in the 2008 race.

The notion of three tickets out of Iowa largely came into vogue after the 1988 caucuses, when both third-place finishers -- then-Gov. Michael Dukakis of Massachusetts for the Democrats and Vice President George H.W. Bush for the Republicans -- bounced back to win the New Hampshire primary.

But heading into that year's Iowa caucuses, the Dukakis camp was not claiming to reporters that there was some magic in the number 3. Tad Devine, a top campaign strategist for the 2000 and 2004 Democratic nominees, was working for Dukakis in 1988, overseeing his delegate operation. Devine recalls that he and other Dukakis operatives made the argument to the press corps that their candidate would be "winnowed in" by the Iowa results without projecting where he would place in crossing the finish line.

"I said, 'Well, you'll know it when you see it,' " Devine says, adding that he told reporters "There will be a top tier of candidates who were clearly separated from the rest."

Indeed, Dukakis captured 22 percent of the delegates at stake in the Democratic caucuses, which put him in third place, behind then-Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri, who won 31 percent, and then-Sen. Paul Simon of Illinois, who got 27 percent. Although Dukakis's 22 percent was lower than that of any previous Democrat who had gone on to capture the party's presidential nomination, it clearly met the standard that the Dukakis team had cleverly set for itself. The fourth-place finisher in the Democratic caucuses that year was civil-rights leader Jesse Jackson, who garnered just 9 percent of the delegates at stake.

The Dukakis claim to have been "winnowed in" to contention partly worked because his campaign had a plausible rationale for why the Massachusetts governor would be able to translate his showing in Iowa into future primary victories. Dukakis had two critical points in his favor: The next key nominating contest was in his backyard, New Hampshire, and he had already demonstrated an ability to raise money. He was the fundraising leader among the 1988 Democratic contenders.

"You have to [be able to] explain to the serious press how you succeed," Devine said. And after Dukakis validated his campaign's explanation by actually winning New Hampshire, he cruised to the nomination.

Eight years later, finishing third in the Iowa Republican caucuses was of considerably less help to Lamar Alexander. Alexander grabbed third with 18 percent, which was not an insignificant feat for the long-shot candidate. But the dynamics of that nominating contest were wildly scrambled because conservative commentator Pat Buchanan, a bigger underdog than Alexander, finished second with 23 percent, a mere 3 points behind then-Senate Majority Leader Dole of Kansas, who was the prohibitive favorite going into the caucuses.

Buchanan's success captivated the media's attention. And his colorful campaigning in New Hampshire was able to rally the Republican Right. Meanwhile, Alexander struggled to find his footing in the fluid contest, and the Dole campaign adroitly trained its fire on him, realizing that in the end the party was less likely to turn to a controversial radio and television personality than to a former successful two-term governor of Tennessee.

"The message out of Iowa was not how well we did but how well Buchanan did," recalls veteran Granite State Republican presidential campaign strategist Tom Rath, who was advising Alexander at the time. "And we had not settled on who Lamar was" -- meaning that Alexander had not clearly defined himself for the GOP electorate.

Buchanan scored an upset victory in New Hampshire. And Dole beat out Alexander for second by fewer than 8,000 votes. "We didn't have enough groundwork laid [in New Hampshire] and didn't make people feel comfortable enough to finish [Dole] off," Rath says.

Obviously, coming in third doesn't guarantee that a candidate will survive beyond the next round, but failing to make it into Iowa's top three tends to be a portent of doom. Since 1972, when the Iowa caucuses began to play an important role in the race for the White House, only one candidate who finished out of the money there went on to be nominated, and that was a very special situation: In 1992, Bill Clinton finished fourth in the Democratic caucuses with a measly 3 percent. But that year Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa was also seeking the Democratic nod. The rest of the Democratic field virtually conceded the caucuses to him, and he quite predictably swept them. The news media and the Democratic political establishment judged the 1992 caucuses to be basically a non-event; Harkin gained no momentum from his victory. He finished fourth in New Hampshire and withdrew from the race shortly thereafter.

Third-place caucus finishers who fared poorly in subsequent presidential primaries include Democrat Howard Dean in 2004, Republican Alan Keyes in 2000, Democrat George McGovern in 1984, Republican Howard Baker in 1980, and Democrat Birch Bayh in 1976. Even some second-place finishers, such as Democrat John Edwards in 2004 and Republican Steve Forbes in 2000, weren't able to convert their relatively strong showings into nationally viable campaigns.

The role of the media in catapulting candidates who beat expectations in Iowa cannot be underestimated. But with both nominations being vigorously contested in 2008, the 1-2-3 candidates coming out of Iowa in both parties can't count on being covered as much as they would like. Instead, post-caucus coverage is likely to be obsessed with just one or two story lines -- Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton's stumble or triumph, for example, or whether the GOP's Mitt Romney had his nose bloodied by "expectations."

In 1988, Gephardt's victory in Iowa was a modest upset for the little-known congressman from Missouri. But much of the subsequent media attention that year focused on the Republican race because religious broadcaster Pat Robertson had managed to come in second in the caucuses. "Robertson hurt Gephardt," notes former Dukakis adviser Devine.

It's hard to predict which party's caucus results will captivate the media, but recent events suggest that if Clinton, the Democratic front-runner in national polls, falters in Iowa, she will be the dominant, oxygen-grabbing story. After Clinton had a mediocre debate performance in which she wavered over the issue of granting driver's licenses to illegal aliens, her rivals and the political press corps pummeled her. If someone upsets her in Iowa, that story could overwhelm the sagas of the third-place finishers -- Republican and Democratic alike.

"You all are going to decide the story," GOP strategist Reed said, referring to the role of the media. "And if the story is 'X' and the story is 'Y' and you're not 'X' or 'Y,' you can't get arrested."

Or nominated.

]]>

In W. They Trust

James A. Barnes — Tue, 25 Oct 2005 00:00:00 -0400

"The White House approach to this nomination was, first, they chose someone who really infuriated the Republican base," scoffed conservative columnist George Will last Sunday on ABC News' This Week. To be sure, a group of Republicans are upset and disappointed over the Miers nomination. That set includes conservative pundits Bill Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard, and David Frum, a former Bush White House speechwriter who now writes a daily column for National Review Online and is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.

But while these conservative commentators may have big megaphones inside the Beltway, it's not at all clear how much of the Republican rank and file they really speak for. In fact, a significant part of the GOP base seems quite content with the Miers nomination.

"Bottom line is, I'm not too worried about it, because I trust George Bush," said Lisa Stevens, a Greenville, S.C., mom who is active in her local charter school. But Stevens has driven more than just a carpool in Greenville; she's driven votes. In 2000, she was co-chair of the Bush re-election campaign in Greenville County. And that's the base of the GOP base -- a county that routinely produces the biggest Republican vote margins in this red state and that is home to Bob Jones University, an evangelical institution that posts daily Bible readings on its Web page.

The "trust factor" goes a long way toward explaining why, out in South Carolina's grassroots, much of the conservative base actually sounds pretty pleased with Bush's choice of Miers. "We can trust him to send our children in harm's way, and [trust him] when we vote for him, but we're not going to trust him to make appointments to the Supreme Court? I don't think so," said Kristin Maguire of Clemson. Maguire, a self-described "stay-at-home mom" of four daughters, found time to answer the GOP's call in 2004. She ran the party's volunteer phone bank in her hometown during the final four days of Bush's re-election campaign. For Maguire and many of her volunteers, "judges were something that motivated people to work in those phone banks."

Maguire gushed, "I'm excited. I think Harriet is going to be incredible." And because Miers has never wielded a gavel, "I think she's going to bring insight and direction that the Court lost in Chief [Justice William] Rehnquist," she added. "Gosh, she's not part of the D.C. intelligentsia."

Not every member of Bush's base in South Carolina was initially thrilled by the Miers nomination, however. Terrye Campsen Seckinger, a member of the State Board of Education, admitted that at first she was disappointed that the president had tapped Miers to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Seckinger's personal favorite for the job was former Solicitor General Theodore Olson. But Seckinger, who is a Republican activist in Isle of Palms, near Charleston, added that after thinking about the difficulty that someone like Olson, who argued before the Supreme Court on Bush's behalf in Bush v. Gore, might have in getting confirmed, and after reflecting on the president's choice, she came around.

"It is his call," she said. "When you pull back and look objectively at this -- and so many Supreme Court judges have not sat on the bench before, like Rehnquist -- that creates a different framework to look at Harriet Miers."

Seckinger said she also thought about her own selection by the governor to sit on the state juvenile parole board. "The governor said, 'I'm appointing you because I think you have good judgment,' " recalled Seckinger, who added that she was not the only board member who lacked any formal legal training.

"We did just fine without being attorneys," she said. "When George Bush looked around at the people he knows, he chose someone he knows in his heart has the characteristics that are needed to be a strong judge and have integrity on the Supreme Court."

All of this doesn't sound like much of a revolt on the right. And if the calls to the offices of South Carolina's senators are any measure, the Miers nomination isn't provoking much of a reaction among their constituents. "It's about par for the course on a current issue," said Wesley Denton, a spokesman for Republican Sen. Jim DeMint. "It doesn't appear to be stirring either way on our phones."

"The view in South Carolina is, 'Let's give her a chance,' " said a spokesman for Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham. "We have gotten about 100 calls, total. In fact, we've gotten more correspondence about a horse-slaughter amendment than we have about her nomination."

In Iowa, veteran Republican political strategist Doug Gross, who is well connected to conservative activists in his state, painted much the same picture of reaction to the Miers nomination. "The people I've visited with who were most concerned about judgeships are comfortable with this," Gross said. "We may have this fractured conservative intelligentsia, but not a fractured base. At least, I don't sense it."

Gross said he thinks that one reason many of the party faithful have so readily accepted the Miers nomination might be the nature of Bush's re-election effort, which the president largely made a referendum on his character. "A big part of the campaign was designed to motivate and get the out the base, and it was done in a way that was almost personal to George Bush, so those ties are very strong," Gross observed.

"What the conservative base in the hinterlands is looking for is someone who doesn't legislate from the bench," he added. "To them, you don't have to be a constitutional scholar to do that. To them, that's common sense, not an indicator of intellectual prowess."

And recent public-opinion polls tend to back up Gross's assessment. The Gallup poll conducted for CNN and USA Today on October 13-16 found that 73 percent of Republicans want the Senate to confirm Miers, while only 16 percent want the Senate to reject her. Those figures are almost identical to the 73 percent to 12 percent GOP split in favor of the nomination of John Roberts in a CNN/USA Today poll conducted August 5-7, as he was being introduced to the country.

Likewise, the two polls show that those on the ideological right are giving Miers about the same level of support they gave Roberts. In the latest CNN/USA Today poll, 61 percent of self-described conservatives backed the former White House counsel's nomination. In the August survey, Roberts got 67 percent support from that group.

A poll conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press on October 7-10 found that 54 percent of conservative Republicans backed Miers's confirmation, 37 percent were undecided, and just 9 percent were opposed. Two Pew polls conducted in early September found similarly low levels of opposition to Roberts -- 14 percent and 6 percent -- while 62 percent and 77 percent of conservative Republicans supported his confirmation.

"While there's a little less enthusiasm [for Miers] among conservative Republicans, it certainly isn't in freefall," said Pew Research Director Andrew Kohut. "It isn't the kind of reaction you're getting from the conservative Republican political class here" in Washington.

Kohut quickly added that the conservative Republican opposition to Miers appears to have little to do with concerns about her credentials as a conservative, but rather with the barrage of negative press describing her as a Bush crony.

Karlyn Bowman, an AEI resident fellow and public-opinion analyst, also downplayed the less enthusiastic response of conservative Republicans toward the Miers nomination that shows up in some polls. "This could reflect initial reporting about her, which was much less positive than it was for Roberts," Bowman said. "But it may also reflect a deeper discontent with Bush that goes far beyond this nomination."

Some elite conservatives worry that, although Bush was willing to push the envelope to pursue his agenda during the first term of his presidency, he's now backing down -- tabling his venturesome plans for Social Security, for example, and doing little to control domestic spending.

To Beltway conservatives, the Miers nomination is another manifestation of Bush's new tendency to pull his punches.

"A lot of conservatives were basically disappointed he picked someone who was not obviously stellar and wasn't defined enough on the constitutional issues to bring about a crystallizing moment in the form of a battle," said Clark Judge, a former speechwriter for President Reagan.

Likewise, conservative activists who are already looking toward 2008 are somewhat restive over Miers. "Everywhere we go, nobody likes this nomination," said an adviser to one of the 2008 Republican White House hopefuls. "It isn't a seething anger. It's just disappointment. I think people were geared up for a fight over Janice Rogers Brown or Priscilla Owen, someone who had a clear record of conservative principles. And that is not the case with this nominee."

Some Republican activists undoubtedly would like to go on the offensive over a Supreme Court nomination, especially at a time when their party is on the defensive on issues like Iraq and the simmering scandals surrounding some of their key leaders. But while Will and Kristol and Frum are sounding their trumpets about Miers, few conservatives out in the hinterlands seem to want to do battle over her.

"For me, personally, I've got so much on my plate as someone who's running a charter school," said Stevens. "Yes, I want good conservative judges, but I did my duty when I voted for George Bush."

]]>

Team Bush

James A. Barnes — Wed, 29 Jun 2005 00:00:00 -0400

The Washington Post on top of the early days of the Watergate scandal, recall one of the great morality tales of presidential second terms. According to H.R. (Bob) Haldeman, chief of staff to President Nixon, it was his boss's fervor to consolidate power over the federal bureaucracy after his re-election in 1972 that ultimately was his undoing.

"Reorganization is the secret story of Watergate," Haldeman wrote in his 1978 book on the scandal, The Ends of Power. Haldeman believed that the executive branch restructuring that the president pursued "eventually spurred into action against Nixon the great power blocs of Washington." And thus the No. 2 man at the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Mark Felt, became the most famous anonymous source in journalism.

But even Haldeman at times recoiled at Nixon's "personal obsessions" for tightening his grip on Washington, as in this outburst that Haldeman recounted in his book: " 'Let's remember the VA,' " Nixon raged. " 'Clean those bastards out.... Now on that, take the Park Service, they've been screwing us for four years.' "

It's hard to imagine a rant like that from the current occupant of the Oval Office, but it would be a mistake to underestimate George W. Bush's equally purposeful steps to solidify his control over the government during his second term. Indeed, Bush's replacement of nine Cabinet secretaries between his re-election and second inauguration is matched in the postwar era only by Nixon's housecleaning following his 1972 landslide victory. Nixon and his advisers, though, plotted a "revolution" and a streamlined "super-Cabinet" that would direct domestic policy from offices in the White House. Bush, by contrast, is seeking to extend his authority by sending his West Wing out to trouble spots in the Cabinet.

Condoleezza Rice, the former national security adviser, replaced independent-minded Colin Powell as secretary of State; former White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales supplanted John Ashcroft, a lightning rod for legal controversies, as attorney general; and Margaret Spellings, Bush's chief domestic policy adviser, succeeded Education Secretary Roderick Paige, who was unable to quell local revolts against the No Child Left Behind Act, which Spellings helped shepherd through Congress in 2002.

It's not surprising that Bush is drawing on key West Wing advisers to stock his Cabinet. Like any other president, he's taken their measure in close quarters and has a comfort level with them. And where else would Bush turn?

The president is not a consummate networker like his predecessor, Bill Clinton. When Clinton captured the White House in 1992, he tapped his extensive sets of connections -- from his Rhodes scholar days, his 12-year run as governor of Arkansas, his chairmanships of the Democratic Governors' Association and the Democratic Leadership Council, and even his wife's own impressive list of contacts -- to form a government.

When Bush ran in 2000, the one-and-a-half-term governor had a tight circle of trusted Texas lieutenants, including Karl Rove and Karen Hughes. After he won, he expanded this circle with such people as future Chief of Staff Andrew Card, who had served in the White House and Cabinet of Bush's father.

Bush took most of them to the White House and filled out the rest of the government with Bush 41 alumni: In 2001, a National Journal survey found that 43 percent of Bush's top appointees had worked for his dad. Today, it's less of a "son of" administration -- only 28 percent of Bush's top officials were in his father's government, according to a similar NJ survey this year.

Rice and Spellings have the White House cachet, but they join two other well-regarded women in Bush's Cabinet, Labor Secretary Elaine Chao and Interior Secretary Gale Norton. In a Republican administration, neither of these first-term holdovers has an enviable job; they oversee departments that are often flash points with two key Democratic constituency groups -- unions and environmentalists. But their effective management of two departments that often cause headaches for Republicans is the very reason that both get high marks from GOP operatives. Without a lot of bad press, Chao and Norton have been able to advance Bush's agenda despite fierce resistance from Democratic interest groups and even some civil servants inside Labor and Interior.

Taken together, these four women represent an impressive collection of diverse strengths and talents that any four of Bush's male Cabinet secretaries might be hard-pressed to match: Rice, the Cabinet rock star who could well have a future on the national political stage; Spellings, the policy wonk who midwifed Bush's signature domestic initiative; and Norton and Chao, two lower-profile, but proven, department managers.

The deployment of other White House aides into sub-Cabinet-level jobs could be just as critical for Bush's second-term prospects. A well-placed deputy or assistant secretary with close ties to the White House can provide an early warning of potential problems.

"I think it is important, in this day of 24/7 news cycles, that you have go-to people in these departments," observed Ken Duberstein, a Reagan White House chief of staff. Sometimes it's not "the Cabinet officer, but the loyalist below, who really runs the place on the day-to-day basis."

And during second terms, when a president's clout can wane, White House loyalists can help keep the focus on the president's agenda, not Capitol Hill's or that of the department's other stakeholders.

"In a second term, you have to be careful that the tendency to spin off a bit isn't reinforced -- but rather, you continue to have the pull and tug coming from the White House," said Duberstein, who helped guide President Reagan's successful second term. "Centralized control in any administration is fundamentally important, especially as you begin to move through a second term with everyone knowing that you're not going to be on the ballot again."

Examples abound of how the Bush White House is deploying its forces to avert these problems. Brian Montgomery, the president's former secretary of the Office of Cabinet Affairs, has been dispatched to HUD to serve as the commissioner of the Federal Housing Administration, the nation's largest home-mortgage insurer. His path through the administration has been a familiar one for Bush lieutenants: Montgomery served in state government when Bush was governor of Texas, worked on Bush's 2000 campaign, went to the White House as presidential advance chief after that election, and rose to the position in Cabinet Affairs that he now leaves for HUD.

Claire Buchan, the former White House deputy press secretary, had a shorter move from her office in the West Wing to the Commerce Department, where she now sits as chief of staff to Secretary Carlos Gutierrez. As a communications specialist, Buchan brings a skill that can well serve a Washington newcomer like Gutierrez.

Likewise, Charles Conner, the White House special assistant for agricultural trade, has become the deputy secretary of Agriculture. A White House aide since 2001, Conner will run the day-to-day operations of a department that is trying to repair relations with elements of the farm community that didn't get along with former Secretary Ann Veneman.

Veteran Bush political operatives are also part of the White House outreach in the second term. Maria Cino, the former deputy chairwoman of the Republican National Committee, is now deputy secretary of the Transportation Department. Cino was the political director of Bush's 2000 campaign. After the election, she became the Foreign Commercial Service director at Commerce. Her pedigree in GOP politics -- she was an architect of the congressional Republican strategy that led to the takeover of the House in 1994 -- will come in handy for the Cabinet's lone Democrat, Norman Mineta.

Another political transferee is Timothy D. Adams, who has returned to the Treasury Department. A former staff economist in George H.W. Bush's White House, Adams worked on W.'s 2000 campaign and became chief of staff to Paul O'Neill, Bush's first Treasury secretary. After O'Neill was dumped in 2002, Adams signed on as Bush's 2004 campaign policy director. Now he's been nominated to be undersecretary of Treasury for international affairs, despite his relative lack of experience in that area. Like HUD's Montgomery, who also lacks the housing background that his predecessors possessed, Adams has proved himself as a loyalist and an effective team player.

Watching Bush fill Cabinet and sub-Cabinet jobs with known quantities from the White House, former Clinton White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta said, "The No. 1 quality he seems to be looking for is loyalty -- and not people who in any way will create problems."

Another important element in exerting control over the departments is continuity in the White House itself. The chain of command starts at the top, and Bush Chief of Staff Card is approaching the record for longevity in that post. "No question, when you've got somebody who's operated as your chief of staff in your first term and into the second, by its very nature that consolidates power in the White House," said Panetta. "The president and the key member of his team, who [both] know exactly how they've been doing business, having faced these issues on policy and personnel, can read each other in how they want to handle them. That centralizes key power in that section of the West Wing."

Lost in the shuffling at the sub-Cabinet level, at least for the moment, is diversity. Although only seven of Bush's 15 secretaries are white males -- a level matching Clinton's first-term lineup, which he vowed would look like the rest of America -- Bush's supporting cast has become more homogeneous.

In June 2001, when National Journal last surveyed the top decision makers in Bush's government, 10 percent were African-Americans. Today, that share has declined to 5 percent. And while the portion of top Hispanic officials has inched up from 6 percent in 2001 to 7 percent today, that increase came after Hispanics gave substantially greater support to Bush in 2004 than in 2000 -- anywhere from 1.3 million to 1.7 million additional votes, depending on which exit poll you believe. Meanwhile, the share of Bush top officials who are non-Hispanic whites grew from 80 percent to 83 percent.

The White House has cautioned against jumping to conclusions about these figures. "There are a lot of folks in the process of being nominated, and a great number of individuals we're still looking to place," said Bush spokeswoman Erin Healy. "From our perspective, it might be a little on the premature side."

Hispanic and African-American groups that follow racial representation in government are willing to cut the administration a little slack. Noting the increase, Larry Gonzalez, the director of the Washington office of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, said, "We have a deep pool of talent in our community yet to be tapped, but it's a good start."

And David Bositis, a senior political analyst for the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, who tracks African-Americans' involvement in party politics and the number of presidential appointments they receive, wasn't shocked by the numbers. With so few African-Americans positioned to serve in a GOP administration because of their overwhelming support for Democrats, Bositis said: "There's not a lot there to work with. My thought about Bush's first term was, Why did he have so many black appointments, given his lack of support from African-Americans?"

In the business of designing a Cabinet, ethnic politics can be tricky. Nixon Chief of Staff Haldeman recalled that at the end of the transition for the second-term Cabinet, Nixon complained, "Well, hell, we don't have one Catholic."

Nixon had one Cabinet slot left to fill, Transportation, and Haldeman contacted White House personnel chief Fred Malek. "I've got your man," Malek responded. "His name is Claude Brinegar; he's president of Union Oil of California."

Haldeman took the news back to Nixon, who said, "His name doesn't sound Catholic to me." Haldeman checked back with Malek, who assured him that not only was Brinegar Catholic, he was also Irish, a quality also missing from the Cabinet's ethnic makeup.

Haldeman wrote: "So Claude Brinegar was appointed secretary of Transportation because he was an Irish-Catholic, and two weeks after he was in office, he informed us he was a German Presbyterian."

Maybe it pays to know the people you're appointing. In his second term, Bush apparently thinks so.

]]>

Commander-in-chief

James A. Barnes — Tue, 01 Jul 2003 00:00:00 -0400

Can the Democrats find happiness with a retired four-star Army general on their 2004 presidential ticket? Some party leaders and operatives are toying with the idea. And the general himself-former NATO military Cmdr. Wesley Clark-seems willing to oblige.

Clark's recent round of appearances on television news shows and before Democratic groups on both the left and right have fueled speculation that he might jump into the party's presidential nominating contest-and that he'd do it by Labor Day. The fact that Democratic power brokers would take seriously a late entry by a novice candidate reflects the eagerness of many party strategists to ensure that their 2004 ticket has undeniable national-security heft.

Few observers expect Clark to capture the Democratic Party's presidential nomination. But if Clark, 58, can demonstrate that he can maneuver on the Democratic presidential trail with the same sort of skill with which he led a mechanized infantry company in Vietnam, he would undoubtedly enhance his attractiveness as a potential vice presidential running mate.

"I think he brings a lot to the ticket," said Gerald W. McEntee, president of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, who had Clark address the executive board on June 19. And Clark wasn't invited just because, like Bill Clinton, he's a Rhodes scholar from Arkansas. All Democratic presidential candidates have been asked to speak to the AFSME board this year.

Talking to reporters after the closed-door event, McEntee said that what distinguishes Clark's potential candidacy is "probably the way he was able to discuss terrorism and Iraq with his military background."

In the view of longtime party operative Don Fowler, a Democratic National Committee member from South Carolina, "Having somebody like Clark associated with the Democratic Party as the vice presidential candidate would be very good." Fowler added, "You can never tell what a person will do when they get under the heat [of an actual campaign], but every indication I have about him is positive."

Beginning with the nation's first president, retired military officers have periodically played leading roles in American politics. But not since 1952 has a retired senior military commander been a serious first-time contender for the presidency. That year, two were: The eventual 34th president of the United States, retired Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, who was the supreme Allied commander in Europe during World War II, and retired five-star Gen. Douglas MacArthur, who served as commander-in-chief of U.N. forces in the Korean War.

Just as some Democrats are eager to draw Clark into the fray today, then-President Truman hoped that Ike might seek the White House as a Democrat. Eisenhower's national popularity gave him plenty of options, and he chose the GOP label. But he initially had to share the nation's regard with MacArthur. Indeed, after Truman sacked MacArthur for insubordination during the war, the popularity of the "old soldier" peaked.

At the end of 1951, the Gallup Poll found that MacArthur was the most admired man in America. (Eisenhower ranked second.) MacArthur's standing was so remarkable that when Gallup also asked that year who the next baseball commissioner should be, MacArthur topped the list, beating out politicians and players alike. But when it came to deciding who should sit in the Oval Office, Americans had a different judgment, and Ike beat MacArthur hands down, other Gallup polls showed in 1951 and 1952.

"Even high-visibility generals aren't necessarily perceived as naturals for civilian leadership, but some of them do radiate that confidence," said Fred Greenstein, a presidential scholar at Princeton University. "Every bit of information that I have is that [Clark] is someone who comes across as a straight arrow and not as somebody you'd cast George C. Scott to play"-meaning, Clark is not a larger-than-life figure reminiscent of Gen. George Patton.

To be sure, just having "general" in front of a candidate's name would likely turn off some anti-war Democrats who have recoiled from the Democratic candidates who supported the congressional resolution that gave President Bush authority to use military force in Iraq. But the DNC's Fowler argues that if Clark were to position himself properly, the qualities that would make him an attractive general-election candidate could also be an asset to him in the battle for the Democratic nomination.

"He can't be a George S. Patton in the Democratic primaries, but he could do well as Maxwell Taylor," said Fowler, referring to the Army general who was a favorite of President Kennedy and one of his brothers, Attorney General Robert Kennedy.

Indeed, many Democrats might find what Clark, a CNN commentator during the war on Iraq, has to say on national security reassuring. In a June 17 speech to the annual meeting of the centrist New Democrat Network, Clark articulated a comprehensive diplomatic and military strategy that stressed rebuilding ties to traditional U.S. allies in Europe, using international organizations to pursue American goals, and employing force "only as a last resort."

On the domestic front, Clark's views seem compatible with the center of gravity in the Democratic Party. In recent interviews and speeches, Clark has said he would not have supported the Bush tax cuts; would review the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy barring gays from serving openly in the armed forces; and would back affirmative action.

Clark told the New Democrats that the anti-terrorism USA PATRIOT Act "needs a good open-air review in the sunshine before we retain or modify it." And to the AFSCME board, he stressed that as the commander-in-chief of all U.S. forces in Europe, he spent considerable time dealing with health care issues and education for military dependents-"issues very dear to our people," McEntee noted.

Showing where he stands on key Democratic issues is critical for someone who has yet to even declare that he's a Democrat. "I would say that before General Clark would be seriously considered as a running mate by anybody, he would have to establish himself in terms of those issues with more identification and trust and credibility, more than he possesses now," Fowler said.

And a strategist for a Democratic presidential candidate noted, "He's not going to just parachute into New Hampshire and find thousands of anxious voters ready to lap up his every word."

While it's understandable that a political novice would proceed with caution in testing the presidential waters, Clark's carefully calibrated steps, such as his coyness about his partisan affiliation, can sometimes be disingenuous. Standing before a quartet of television cameras and a dozen reporters after his AFSCME appearance, Clark brushed off a question about his presidential ambitions, saying he wanted to talk about "ideas," not "process." When another reporter pressed him about his potential candidacy and pointed out that that was why he'd drawn a media stakeout, Clark looked puzzled and responded that his host, McEntee, was the one who had summoned the press. "I hope I didn't abuse anybody's time," Clark said.

It's hard to imagine that Clark, given his vast experience with the media, was somehow worried that he had inadvertently taken advantage of reporters. He was a fixture in the CNN studios in Atlanta before and during the war in Iraq. And as his book on the 1999 conflict in Kosovo, "Waging Modern War," makes clear, Clark was no novice when it came to understanding how to motivate and manipulate the press. At one point, he wrote of having "fended off two Wall Street Journal reporters pursuing a potentially damaging story concerning the secretary of Defense's restrictions on me." On another occasion, Clark recounted how he successfully called CNN to correct one of its reports.

Indeed, at times Clark's willingness to talk to the media during the Kosovo crisis irked his civilian bosses. In his book, Clark recalled that after one news conference he received a warning from the then-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Hugh Shelton: " `Wes, at the White House meeting today there was a lot of discussion about your press conference. The secretary of Defense asked me to give you some verbatim guidance, so here it is: `Get your f- - - --g face off the TV. No more briefings, period. That's it.' "

Although Clark's feuds with Washington were not as dramatic as MacArthur's clash with Truman over the conduct of the Korean War, Clark's frosty relationship with then-Defense Secretary William Cohen contributed to Clark's being relieved of his NATO command a year early. In his June 15 appearance on NBC's Meet the Press, Clark was somewhat circumspect about the reasons for his early departure. "Well, the honest answer is, I don't know," said Clark in response to a question from moderator Tim Russert. "And I never really asked."

But in his book, Clark wrote that after being ordered to step aside, "I asked Shelton why Secretary Cohen had made this decision, and why now." Clark said he was told he had to make way for the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Air Force Gen. Joe Ralston, who was due to be reassigned and needed a billet commensurate with his rank. But Clark apparently never believed that story. Throughout his book, he suspects that his "cool relationship with the secretary and his team" was the primary cause of his early retirement.

Former New Hampshire Democratic Party Chairman George Bruno, who has advised Clark and would back him in a White House run, thinks that the Democratic race in his state is so wide open that Clark might be able to post a surprise third- or even fourth-place showing by attracting independents. And there's always the vice presidency.

"To borrow the old Kennedy line," Bruno said, "here is a candidacy that lifts all ships."

]]>

Shrinking surplus may paint Bush into a corner

James A. Barnes — Tue, 04 Sep 2001 00:00:00 -0400

Collaboration is the key to appointments, Bush talent scout says

James A. Barnes — Wed, 27 Jun 2001 00:00:00 -0400

National Journal recently to discuss the process and challenges of staffing the new administration. Johnson's role is a reprise of the one he played when Bush was governor of Texas. Here are excerpts from that interview.

NJ: What was the President's charge to you when he asked you to head up the personnel process?

Johnson: It was the same charge [as] in Texas, which was to find the best people.... Do this in conjunction with the Cabinet Secretary, if it involves a Cabinet department. Get a definition of the target we're looking for, and then go find, with the Cabinet Secretary, that person that's going to best hit that target--that the Cabinet Secretary and the Office of Presidential Personnel will both gladly recommend to the President--and somebody who is politically acceptable. The political acceptability is the last step, as opposed to the first step. And that's the charge, and that's what we do.

NJ: You've said that the first thing you do when interviewing people is to talk to them about their life, their family, and who they are. Why are these important?

Johnson: You want people that are going to be good team players, that have a history of working effectively with other people. You've known people ... that are really fabulous people, but unless they're in charge, they're not very good at working collaboratively with other people. They like assembling their own team, and if they're the assistant secretary or deputy secretary, whatever, they're not going to be able to do that. So, people have got to be comfortable in their role.

NJ: Your background is business. And you've said you're a bring-order-to-chaos kind of guy. What's surprised you about this process?

Johnson: Very little ... because the President's expectations are very similar to what the governor's expectations were.... Some people are very comfortable delegating [job-candidate selection] to us. "Bring me your recommended candidate, and I'll confirm." And some people want to be very involved in the process, and they want to have a lot of say in who the finalists are, and they'll interview more candidates, as opposed to [just] the finalist. They're fussier.... They all have different ways of thinking about it, and you've got to understand what those proclivities are, what those biases or approaches are, and honor them.... One person might be very much of a hands-on manager, and so they wouldn't be as much in need of management types. Whereas another Cabinet Secretary might be more of a policy person, a big-picture person, and they would be looking for people to ... make sure the railroads run on time.

NJ: What do you do if you send up a name and a Cabinet Secretary says no?

Johnson: You go look for another name.... The idea is to develop a trust where there's little pride of authorship, but a real interest in the end result.... The whole process can go very fast if you don't want to try to do that. If the White House says to the Cabinet department, as Jimmy Carter did, "You pick `em, we'll just process the paperwork," it can go very fast. Or, conversely, if the White House says, "We'll pick `em," ... it can be very fast that way.... The best way is a collaborative process.... This collaboration, it takes longer. It's a little messier process.

NJ: Do you have any indication of how the change in partisan control in the Senate will affect processing presidential nominations?

Johnson: No. I'm hopeful that it won't change it.... The Senate is going to really linger over a handful of people because the positions ... [are] really, really important or really, really controversial. But I think that was going to happen, whether it was 50-50 or 49-51.

NJ: In filling out the sub-Cabinet level, does the President ever say, "Hey, Clay, I want X for this job," or "Clay, can we find X a job?"

Johnson: Well, sometimes the latter. But he has never said, "I really want So-and-so for assistant secretary." What he will say in some cases is, "We ought to take a real hard look at So-and-so." It's rarely for a particular job. It's in the transportation world or the commerce world. And we do.

NJ: How often does somebody say, "I don't want to come to Washington," and what reasons do they give?

Johnson: Mostly it's personal. Mostly it's: "I've got kids. And they're juniors in high school. I don't want to move." Or, "My kid's going to be going to college," or "I've done Washington, and I really love what I'm doing now." We've had a few cases ... maybe 10 or so, where a person really wanted to come ... and then they called back and said, "You know, I sat down with my wife and really focused on this, and I'm changing my mind." We've not encountered anybody that says: "I'm just not cut out for Washington. I don't want to get involved. It's too mean."

NJ: Nobody has said, "Clay, I just can't deal with the confirmation process, this is too much for me, the forms, my finances are too complicated here"?

Johnson: Nobody has said that the process of getting cleared ... is too burdensome. Now, some people have said: "What I have to divest myself of, the stock options I have to walk away from, the salary I have to give up, the outside income I have to give up, is too much. I can't afford to come to Washington." There are too many forms to fill out, but that's not been a reason not to come up here. I suspect when some people have said, "I'm really not interested" ... [it] might be that they really don't want to go through an FBI background check.

NJ: A President comes into office, usually very popular in the honeymoon period, and yet he doesn't have much of his government in place. Do you think that's a problem?

Johnson: Yeah.

NJ: How big a problem?

Johnson: I think the Cabinet Secretaries could put this administration's imprint on the Cabinet departments faster if they had their team in place. I don't believe that our nation, that there's a national security risk or a bond market risk ... because everybody focuses on that and makes sure there are good acting people in place there, in those critical positions. But it's ... a missed opportunity. You don't staff an administration in weeks, but a good goal ought to be that the entire Cabinet and sub-Cabinet should be in place, say, by the August recess. We ought to try to get it done in six months.... If the Senate is inclined to be kind of crisp in taking these up, 60-some-odd percent of the sub-Cabinet could be confirmed and, therefore, ready to get to work by the time they recess [in August]. And that's faster than anybody's done it before, but it's still only two-thirds.... I think there are fewer positions that need to be Senate-confirmed. I think there are background checks that don't need to be as extensive for certain areas. The paperwork ... can be streamlined. Some of the conflict-of-interest stuff can be looked at more intelligently.

NJ: Outside of her own staff, does Mrs. Bush play a role?

Johnson: She's asked to be considered and consulted on humanities and arts matters, education matters.... Things that she's been involved with in the past, or intends to be involved in....

NJ: Would you change anything in the transition process?

Johnson: I'd make it a full 70 days long.

NJ: How big a handicap was that?

Johnson: Well, we got almost everything accomplished that we wanted to get accomplished. But it was just ... traumatizing, the pace of it.... We had hoped to have the Cabinet in place and all announced by the middle of December. It really didn't happen until the first of the year.... We wanted to have the senior White House staff identified by about mid-December, and the key to that was having the chief of staff ... identified on day one. That was accomplished. The President had asked Andy to do this before the election....

NJ: So you were talking to the President about that issue in the fall?

Johnson: I said, "You need to think through who your chief-of-staff options are, and, ideally, you need to be assured that the person's going to do it ... before the election." He said, "God, I don't wanna." I said: "You really need to do this. On day one, this is the most important thing that has to happen, and this person needs to be in place."

NJ: Was the President kind of overwhelmed by that?

Johnson: Well, he's running the campaign, and they don't want to jinx it.

NJ: What would you like to see changed in the confirmation process?

Johnson: One of the suggestions that's been made is that there be fewer presidential appointments. We're not for that [at] all ... I would suggest that fewer ... need to be confirmed by the Senate. Why does the legislative affairs person have to be confirmed by the Senate?

NJ: Is that process going to change, now that you have a Democratic committee chairman?

Johnson: I don't know. I don't have any prior experience to refer to.

NJ: Well, you had Democratic chairmen of committees in the Texas Senate.

Johnson: It was always under their advice and consent. And they asked good questions, but they never held people up to accomplish other goals. They never put a hold on somebody to use that as a leverage device to get us to be more open to some new piece of legislation, and that's done here [in the U.S. Senate] all the time.

NJ: How big a problem is that?

Johnson: Most of our delays on confirmations were coming from Republicans, not Democrats.

NJ: What does that tell you?

Johnson: It just says that it's not necessarily a partisan deal. It's an opportunity to give members of the Senate leverage over whatever they want to have leverage over.... There are going to be a handful of positions that will be the focus of a lot of attention, but that was going to be the case no matter who was in charge. I think there's probably going to be more debate over judges, but I'm hopeful that everybody is committed to getting the executive branch staffed. And maybe that's naive, but I'm hopeful.

]]>

Bush turns to old Washington hands to fill key posts

James A. Barnes — Tue, 26 Jun 2001 00:00:00 -0400

The day before the election, Bush drove home his case against Gore at a rally in the Vice President's home state of Tennessee: "He thinks the wisdom exists in Washington, D.C. He forgot his roots. He forgot where he's from."

And now that President Bush is the one forming a government, he seemingly has forgotten all about that anti-Washington rhetoric. As of June 14, more than half of the President's appointments and nominations to senior positions in the executive branch had gone to individuals whose previous job address was inside the Washington Beltway. Government is not the new administration's enemy, either. Only 14 percent of the Bush team can say that they've never before had their salaries paid by the taxpayers.

And almost one in five of Bush's decision makers have worked for a Washington lobbying firm, public relations company, or trade association. Arizona Sen. John McCain, Bush's chief rival for the GOP presidential nomination last year, might find that figure ironic. In the critical South Carolina primary, a Bush advertisement pilloried McCain for accepting contributions from Washington lobbyists.

The son of a President, George W. Bush has created a "son of" administration. According to a survey conducted by National Journal of 300 members of the new Bush team, fully 43 percent had worked under President George H.W. Bush. The senior staff meetings in some Cabinet departments must seem like family reunions. Six out of nine people that the new President Bush named to top posts at the Housing and Urban Development Department previously served Dad. Of the senior officials who have been nominated or are in place at the State Department, a whopping 81 percent--25 out of 31--are alumni of the first Bush administration.

It should be no surprise that the current Bush administration looks more like a restoration of the Republican government-in-waiting than a sagebrush rebellion. In the GOP nominating contest, Bush was, after all, the candidate of the party establishment.

In forming his government, George W. Bush simply does not have the long career in public service and extensive personal political networks that both his father and Bill Clinton were able to draw on. Also, Bush lacked a farm team: Texas's governor is a weak executive and doesn't have a strong cabinet system to tap for important assignments in Washington.

The new Republican President's personal imprint is much clearer on the White House staff than on the myriad departments and agencies he now oversees. In general, the closer people worked to Bush before he won the presidency, the closer they work to him today. Rather than scattering his top Texas aides throughout the government, the former governor has kept them closer at hand--in the West Wing.

Many of the President's critics and admirers think that while Bush has his father's genes, he's more of a kindred spirit to Ronald Reagan. Yet while the new President and Reagan were both governors of states that are culturally distant from Washington, Bush is hardly showing the outsider instincts that Reagan did in building a new government. Among Bush's 14 Cabinet heads, 10 have prior federal experience. Of the first 13 Cabinet Secretaries that Reagan nominated, only six had ever held a federal job.

A similar pattern holds for the lower rungs of the executive branch. In 1981, National Journal surveyed early Reagan administration officials. Out of 213 decision makers profiled that year, 57 percent had previous experience in the federal government. Among the Bush officials covered in this issue, 73 percent have worked before for Uncle Sam.

Despite his own experience in business, Bush is not as much of a fan of recruiting business executives as the Gipper was. Seven of Reagan's first Cabinet chiefs had spent most of their working lives in the corporate world. Bush can point to only one career businessman in his Cabinet--Commerce Secretary Donald L. Evans. The other two CEOs in the Bush Cabinet, Treasury Secretary Paul H. O'Neill and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, got their start in business after, and some might say because, they had served in important posts in the Nixon and Ford administrations.

While the new President's government isn't one of Washington outsiders, as Reagan's was, it lacks the clubby feel that characterized his father's administration. President George W. Bush has only one real chum in his Cabinet: Commerce Secretary Evans, his longtime pal from Midland, Texas. Bush's father had three close friends in his Cabinet: James A. Baker III at State, Robert A. Mosbacher at Commerce, and Nicholas F. Brady at Treasury.

Even Reagan brought more old friends and allies into the Cabinet: His personal lawyer, William French, was Attorney General, and his former state finance director, Caspar W. Weinberger, was Defense Secretary. Pennsylvania Sen. Richard S. Schweiker, whom Reagan had wanted to be his running mate in 1976 had he captured the Republican presidential nomination, became his Health and Human Services Secretary. Reagan's campaign chairman, William J. Casey, became director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

In a couple of Cabinet departments where he wasn't so close to the principals, Reagan placed veterans of his state government as seconds in command. His former gubernatorial chief of staff, William P. Clark, was deputy secretary of State. And Richard E. Lyng, who had headed California's Agriculture Department, became deputy secretary of Agriculture. Bush, on the other hand, hasn't chosen anyone from Austin to fill the critical No. 2 job in any Cabinet department.

In this administration, it's the Vice President who has strong ties to Cabinet members. Dick Cheney is a protege of Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, a relationship dating from their days in the Nixon and Ford administrations. As Ford's chief of staff, Cheney worked with Treasury Secretary O'Neill, then a senior official at the Office of Management and Budget. And when Cheney ran the Pentagon during the first Bush administration, he prosecuted the Gulf War with Colin L. Powell, now Secretary of State but then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

George W. Bush, however, certainly doesn't lack for trusted friends at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. More than 80 percent of the White House decision makers were either paid or volunteer workers during his presidential bid. In the rest of his administration, 34 percent of top officials pitched in on the campaign.

Yet, at the White House the percentage of key officials who served in Bush's father's administration is actually lower than it is elsewhere in the new government. Among White House aides, 38 percent are veterans of the elder Bush's administration. Among other executive branch picks, 44 percent worked in the previous Bush administration.

It's not unusual for a White House to be populated with ex-campaign staffers. Indeed, many on President Clinton's senior staff were veterans of his 1992 election campaign. But in Clinton's case, a number of these people were relatively new associates for him. Others had joined the Arkansan's team only for the general election or had worked at the Democratic National Committee. Some had not worked at the Clinton headquarters in Little Rock--Counselor David R. Gergen and National Economic Council Director Robert E. Rubin, for example. And a few, such as Counsel Bernard W. Nussbaum, were viewed primarily as loyalists to first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton.

In a sense, the Clinton White House staff was more of a coalition--with aides from all parts of the Democratic Party--than the Bush West Wing team, whose Texas cohesiveness is reminiscent of John F. Kennedy's "Massachusetts mafia" and Jimmy Carter's Georgia brigade. Two of President Bush's top advisers, Counselor Karen R. Hughes and Senior Adviser Karl Rove, not only were key players on Bush's 2000 campaign, they've been with him ever since he first ran for governor, in 1994. Likewise, White House personnel chief and prep-school friend Clay Johnson, Counsel Alberto R. Gonzales, and Cabinet Secretary Albert Hawkins have been with Bush since he became governor. Staff Secretary Harriet Miers was his personal attorney in Texas. And Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. ran Bush's convention for him and handled debate negotiations and other key assignments in the run-up to the general election.

"Bush has tended to surround himself with people he's taken the measure of," Rove said. Because so many people on the Bush White House staff worked together either on the campaign or, even before that, in Austin, they've not only demonstrated their fidelity to Bush, they've operated as a team and formed bonds with each other, which may diminish the prospects for internecine warfare.

"One of the great things about this is the ability [that White House staffers have] to discuss, to talk about things and have the confidence that the likelihood of you reading about it on the front page of The Washington Post are relatively modest," Rove said.

Former Clinton White House Chief of Staff Leon E. Panetta (who didn't work on Clinton's campaign) sees trade-offs in Bush's staff structure. "A kind of Kennedy model means it's very high on loyalty and teamwork and generally will be more ideological in terms of positions because that's where they are all from," Panetta said. "The Clinton model tends to be less loyal, because people are more into their own issues. But it tends to be more dynamic in terms of dealing with solutions to problems, because it's more idea-oriented instead of ideologically oriented. It's a little more freewheeling, versus more loyal and disciplined but not as imaginative."

Constructing a Government

In building the new administration, personnel chief Clay Johnson and his staff usually meet once a week with the President for 30 minutes to an hour. The night before the meeting, Bush is given a briefing book describing the job candidates whom the personnel office wants him to approve. "He [has] read that beforehand, reviewed it, sometimes extensively, sometimes very preliminarily," Johnson said.

In the meeting, whichever associate personnel director is responsible for a particular candidate will orally brief Bush on the individual. The President reviews and approves all of the nominations that require Senate confirmation. "He's always understood that the person wouldn't be here if the Cabinet Secretary wasn't supportive," Johnson said.

Johnson's office is in "constant dialogue" with the Cabinet Secretaries on personnel matters, he said. Johnson added that in every case when a name has been submitted to the President, the Secretary or someone in his department will have interviewed the prospective candidate, as will have someone in Johnson's shop.

Once Bush approves a selection, Johnson and his staff notify the individual and send him or her the necessary paperwork to begin the clearance process. After Johnson's office gets the forms back, it reviews them and someone from the office again interviews the prospective presidential nominee--a process that generally takes two to three weeks. If Johnson and his team are comfortable with the preliminary information, they announce the President's intention to nominate the individual. The clearance process generally takes another four to five weeks. If everything goes well, the White House formally sends the nomination to the Senate.

Usually, the day before Johnson and his staff meet with the President, Johnson reviews the proposed nominations with White House Chief of Staff Card. If Card has any concerns, Johnson won't include that candidate's name in the President's briefing book.

Johnson's office is in regular contact with the White House Office of Political Affairs through its deputy director, Matt Schlapp. A Political Affairs representative sits in on weekly meetings with Johnson's staff, vets the names of proposed candidates, and reports back to Presidential Personnel before they are submitted to the President. If Political Affairs objects and the personnel office concurs, then the candidate is dropped.

But if Johnson thinks that a candidate's other qualifications should outweigh the political concerns, then the tie-breaking vote is cast by Chief of Staff Card. Johnson and Rove, to whom Political Affairs reports, will discuss that matter with Card. And Card decides whether the name advances to the President. Even if Card decides in favor of moving the nomination forward, Bush will be made aware of the political objections that were raised.

According to Johnson, there have been only a handful of such disputes. "Where it's real borderline, merit generally trumps politics," Johnson said. "Normally, if it's a political problem, it's a real political problem."

Rove's shop is not the only White House office that is consulted on nominations. White House Counselor Karen Hughes, who oversees communications, signs off on "all the public affairs people" before they are nominated by the President, Johnson said. White House Director of Legislative Affairs Nicholas E. Calio does the same for all the sub-Cabinet lobbyists, and White House Counsel Alberto R. Gonzales does it for all the Cabinet and agency general counsels, "because they are their lieutenants in the field," Johnson explained.

The other key player in the White House on personnel matters is Vice President Cheney, who sits in on the weekly meeting that Johnson and his staff have with the President. He also receives the President's briefing book ahead of time so that he can review it. Johnson said that if he thinks that the President might ask Cheney about a specific nominee in the meeting--usually because the job is in the national security area--Johnson will try to review it with Cheney beforehand, to get "his agreement that this made good sense, and he could support that recommendation to the President.... Sometimes the President will say: 'He was involved in my father's administration. Do you know him, Dick?' Or, 'Do do you know her, Dick?' And sometimes [Cheney] does, and sometimes he doesn't."

When Johnson's office began the task of hiring people for the government, it was advised by Chief of Staff Card to try to get legislative affairs aides, public affairs aides, and general counsels in place as soon as possible. Another key priority was finding the deputy secretaries for the various departments. Filling jobs in areas that were high on the President's policy agenda has also been emphasized. "It's a kind of floating deal," Johnson said. "It's a combination of what we consider the priorities to be and [what] the Cabinet Secretary considers the priority to be."

One thing Bush and his aides have called important in personnel selection is diversity. Although he has appointed a slightly higher percentage of racial minorities than his father did, Bush appears to be lagging behind the percentage Clinton appointed.

Overall, National Journal found that 26 percent of Bush's appointees are women, a percentage that is higher than what his father achieved in the early days of his administration. According to a June 1989 tally by the White House, only 19 percent of George H.W. Bush's appointees were women. But from the first Bush administration to the current one, the increase in the number of minorities serving in top government positions has been less sharp. So far, minorities make up some 20 percent of George W.'s decision makers, compared with 17 percent in his father's administration. In the Clinton White House, as of June 5, 1993, Personnel Director Bruce R. Lindsey reported that women accounted for 34 percent and minorities for 25 percent of the 236 people named to Senate-confirmed posts in the Cabinet departments.

In terms of White House staff, however, Bush holds a slight edge in diversity. Bush has five top staffers who are either black or Hispanic; Clinton had three. In the first year of both the Bush and Clinton administrations, seven top staffers were female.

During the 2000 campaign, Bush made a determined effort to identify with America's fastest-growing ethnic group--now 13 percent of the population--whether it was by reminding audiences that he has a Latina sister-in-law or by tossing off a few Spanish phrases on the stump. But so far, only 6 percent of his appointments and nominations have gone to Hispanics. That figure almost mirrors the percentage of Bush voters who said they were Latino: 5 percent, according to the Voter News Service exit poll.

Yet Hispanics haven't been simply slotted into token posts. In addition to Gonzales, Mel Martinez is Housing and Urban Development Secretary, Ruben Barrales is deputy assistant to the President and director of intergovernmental affairs, Jimmy Gurule is an undersecretary of Treasury, and seven other Hispanics hold assistant secretary posts in Cabinet departments.

White House Counsel Alberto R. Gonzales, who oversees the selection of federal judges for the President and has been one of his senior advisers since 1995, maintains that Bush is sincere in his desire to assimilate minorities into his administration. "He and I have had several conversations in terms of him asking me, 'How are we doing in terms of the diversity?' " Gonzales said. "He thinks it's important that all branches of government are integrated with people of color."

Blacks, one of the constituency groups most hostile to Bush, fared better than Hispanics in the administration's initial hiring: 10 percent of the top assignments Bush has made have gone to blacks. According to the VNS exit poll, only 2 percent of the voters who cast ballots for Bush last November were black.

Catholics were a major target group for Bush in the campaign, and they fare well in terms of administration jobs. Among those who disclosed their religious affiliation to National Journal, 34 percent of Bush's appointees are Catholic, compared with 55 percent who are Protestant. In the election, roughly 26 percent of Bush's voters were Catholic and 66 percent were Protestant.

Johnson said that while his office does "keep track" of the diversity of presidential nominees, it does not have any "quotas." Johnson said that nominations so far are "trending" about 45 percent non-white males, about 25 percent members of a minority group, and about 25 percent to 30 percent female--roughly what Bush's record was in Texas.

Doing things in Washington the way he did them in Austin seems to be a trademark of this President.

]]>

Bush team eyes earmarks, may push biennial budget plan

James A. Barnes — Tue, 13 Feb 2001 00:00:00 -0500

Staffers at the Office of Management and Budget who have been scrubbing the fine print of the spending bills that Congress passed last year have counted 6,183 provisions earmarking funding for specific programs or projects in lawmakers' states or districts. That number, budget analysts believe, is far higher than in previous years.

"People say earmarks are part of the grease that makes government work, and to some extent, that's true," said John Cogan, a Stanford University economist and former OMB deputy director who headed the initial drafting of Bush's budget blueprint as a member of the transition team. "But 6,183 earmarks is an awful lot of grease."

In addition, OMB tallied up the new entitlement spending that was enacted last year. It found that Congress created or expanded about two dozen programs at a cost of roughly $200 billion in new budget outlays over the next 10 years.

The Bush team realizes it can't undo last year's spending binge. On entitlements, the administration is prepared to look at tightening eligibility standards for programs enacted in 2000, but repeals of the programs are unlikely. Even the vast majority of the 6,183 earmarks will survive. With larger budget issues to address, the White House will probably find the political cost of killing the pet projects of individual members of Congress too high.

But the earmarks could become an important symbol that the Bush team highlights to argue for budget reform and spending restraint. "The question is, do you have 6,183 projects in the next fiscal year, or can you use some of that money for debt reduction or research grants that are competitively awarded?" Cogan said.

Former OMB Director Leon Panetta believes that approach is good, so long as the Bush White House is willing to hold the line later this year. "They are going to have to back it up with vetoes and very tough bargaining with the Congress, because the nature of how business is done in Congress is the business of earmarks," said Panetta, a former chairman of the House Budget Committee. "It is unfortunate, but it is reality."

Another budget reform that might be previewed in Bush's blueprint is biennial budgeting. Bush endorsed the concept during his campaign, but it's not going to be incorporated in his first budget submission. And with midterm elections coming in 2002, Bush's advisers are not optimistic that biennial budgeting could be implemented that year, either. This could push the target date to 2003.

Holding off on two-year budgets struck Panetta, a supporter of biennial budgets, as another smart move. "You can't slam-dunk biennial budgets in your first year," he said. "It is a big battle with appropriators, and you don't have to have that headache in addition to getting your feet on the ground and getting your budget done."

In all, Bush's upcoming budget blueprint may be a key document for guiding fiscal policy during his first term. Panetta said the blueprint is the "most important" policy document the White House will release this year, "because it is the foundation that determines whether they can get any of their priorities done." But Panetta cautioned that the Bush team must be prudent: "When they put that blueprint out, it's going to tell us an awful lot about whether the administration is going to be straight with the American people about what it can accomplish, or engage in gimmicks."

Official Washington is watching particularly closely to see whether the Bush blueprint and the upcoming OMB forecast concur with the latest estimate of the Congressional Budget Office--that by 2006, the government will run a surplus that exceeds the amount of long-term debt that has to be paid off to bondholders. "This change is enormous and profoundly affects the debate on Social Security and taxes," Cogan said.

Because Bush's top advisers understand that drafting a budget is a daunting assignment for a new President, they started their preparations even before Bush was certain he would be moving into the White House. The task got under way in early December, when future White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. and Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Joshua Bolten tapped Cogan to head the project.

Among those who worked with Cogan in drawing up the blueprint were several Bush campaign advisers, including fellow Stanford economist John Taylor; Columbia University economist R. Glenn Hubbard, who was deputy assistant secretary for tax analysis at the Treasury Department under Bush's father; and Timothy J. Muris, a George Mason University law professor and former executive associate budget director for President Reagan.

Also pitching in were Darrell Trent, a management expert who was deputy secretary of Transportation during the Reagan administration; Austin Smythe, a former Republican assistant staff director for the Senate Budget Committee who now works for the investment banking firm Lehman Brothers; and Amy Smith, former GOP chief economist on the Senate Budget panel who is assuming that post at OMB. Former Reagan speechwriter Clark Judge, now managing director of the White House Writers Group, a Washington strategic communications consulting firm, has helped organize and write the first draft, which will be fine-tuned by the new OMB team.

]]>

For the 43rd President, it's ready, set, govern

James A. Barnes and John Maggs — Mon, 22 Jan 2001 00:00:00 -0500

The Real Lesson

Ironically, the Napoleonic 100 days might be a better guide to what most historians and political experts believe is the real lesson of past 100-day periods: Don't believe in the myth so much that you ignore the reality of what you face as President. Hubris, in other words, is a greater danger to new leaders than caution. The 100-day window "is an overrated, artificial concept," said Paul Light, a scholar at the Brookings Institution. "[Brookings] just completed a list of the greatest 50 achievements of government of the last 50 years, and virtually none of them were achieved in the first 100 days." Light said that two powerful facts influence new Presidents: First, the early months of a presidency are usually a time of higher approval ratings and better treatment by Congress. At the same time, a new President is more likely to blunder, because of his inexperience, than at any other time during his presidency. Light says the risk of inexperience always outweighs the potential benefits of seizing the moment. "There is a use-it-or-lose-it mentality, and it leads to egregious policy mistakes," he said. An eager John F. Kennedy assumed the CIA and the Pentagon were working together to adequately assess the risks of sponsoring an invasion of Cuba, but his knowledge was imperfect, and the Bay of Pigs debacle dominated Kennedy's first 100 days. Likewise, Bill Clinton was surprised by the explosive reaction to his plan to end the ban on gays in the military, and that miscue came to represent the chaos of his first 100 days. Jimmy Carter sowed resentment by assuming he had the support of a Congress controlled by his party, and he disastrously overloaded the legislative circuits in early 1977. It is no coincidence that those Presidents whom most think of as having had successful 100-day starts came into office in times of crisis. Lyndon B. Johnson was suddenly thrust into the Oval Office after an act he called "the foulest deed of our time." He used a speech five days after the assassination to demand action on two stalled Kennedy initiatives--a tax cut bill and civil rights legislation--and he won on those issues by linking them, at that emotional moment, to the martyred leader. Ronald Reagan was greeted by the worst economy since the Great Depression. Neither Reagan nor Johnson faced the array of problems that Roosevelt did, but the sense of crisis encouraged them to act boldly, and they persuaded Congress to cooperate. If Johnson and Reagan had the best 100-day beginnings of Presidents since Roosevelt, the special circumstances that each faced deserve some credit. Johnson was a canny pol who knew that the grieving nation would rally behind his call for action. Reagan always understood the boost he got from his brush with death after he was shot by John Hinckley on March 30, day 70 of his presidency. Years later, when things were not going well, Reagan suggested to an aide that he should get shot again. Often, the mistakes of the first 100 days--and their true costs--are not evident immediately. Historians generally credit Reagan with a successful first 100 days. On Feb. 18, Reagan had delivered a speech on his economic agenda and, after a delay for his recuperation, it was passed in a series of votes that lasted until June. At the time, his tax cut and defense spending increase were considered a 100-days success, but hindsight shows they were flawed. Reagan ignored the warnings of his budget director and ushered in more than a decade of deficits that harmed the U.S. economy and crippled the presidency of his successor. The central achievement of Reagan's first 100 days--convincing most Americans that he was a brave, unflappable leader--had more to do with his being shot than with any bill or decree. And the legislative effort that received the most focus in his first 100 days turned out to be--with the possible exception of the Iran-Contra scandal--the blackest mark on his presidency. Perhaps the greatest victim of the unforeseen consequences of 100-day efforts was a man who never even became President. Newt Gingrich is among those who think the 100-days concept often entices leaders into overreaching. "I believe Clinton set the stage for [his party's election defeat in] 1994 by rushing in and trying to do too much too fast," said the former House Speaker. When Republicans took over Congress following the 1994 elections, Gingrich spoke of decreasing the size and reach of the federal government, making the President less relevant, and asserting a larger role for Congress. He ignored the prerogatives of the Senate; vastly underestimated the President's power to battle back; and misread the GOP's large majority as a mandate for radical reform, rather than a protest against Democratic rule. In framing his first 100 days as Speaker, he sowed the seeds of the Republican revolution's failure, and of his own demise. Gingrich, naturally, sees his first 100 days in wholly positive terms and argues that he had a great advantage that Clinton in 1993 lacked--a mandate. "We campaigned on the Contract With America, and we got a 53-seat majority," he said. "We had legitimacy." Clinton in 1993, by contrast, had gotten 43 percent of the popular vote and failed to gain any Democratic seats in the House or Senate. Presidents who misread the size of their mandates, as Clinton did in 1993, risk overreaching during the first 100 days, Gingrich said. This was a precept that George H.W. Bush knew well, according to Gingrich. "I was with the President when he was told that he had a 92 percent approval rating," he said. "His reaction was, `Oh, well, it's only down from here.' He understood that a good 100 days only means that now you need another good 100 days." Considering the circumstances of the 2000 election, this is a lesson that George W. Bush is not likely to ignore. The Bush Plan

"I'm sure there's going to be a lot of activity, but he's not going to have the normal honeymoon," said a Bush political adviser. "A lot of Democrats in Congress who are going to be passing judgment view this election as essentially a tie. It's not like he got a mandate, so it will be tougher." Republican pollster Robert M. Teeter, a longtime Bush family political adviser and a close friend of Vice President Dick Cheney, said that the new President would be wise to start off with issues on which there is a better chance for bipartisan agreement. "You don't take on stuff that you don't think the Democrats are going to go for and lead with it," Teeter said. And with Democrats and some of their interest-group allies taking a harder line on the confirmation of some of Bush's Cabinet nominees, some Republicans think that Bush might not be as quick or sweeping in signing executive orders to roll back some Clinton-era regulations. "Bush picks his fights carefully, and he won't go out of his way to antagonize Democrats," said a Bush ally. Although the details of his legislative plan are closely held, Bush's advisers say that his early objectives are likely to be the same ones he enunciated during the campaign. And the way he is using the transition period also offers a few clues. For instance, the first major session that Bush had with conservative and centrist Democratic members of Congress was held at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, in December to discuss education policy. Bush said that there was "a lot of agreement" at the gathering, and that "there is no better place to start to show that our Congress and the President can cooperate for the best of the country than education." The President campaigned on giving more flexibility to states in using federal education aid-including, under some circumstances, vouchers-while raising accountability standards. He has also advocated spending more money to improve literacy among preschool children in Head Start programs. Although vouchers remain controversial for many Democrats and some Republicans, his other proposals have bipartisan support. And because the 106th Congress failed to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act last year, education could be an attractive issue on which Congress and the new Administration could set a cooperative tone. Bush said education reform would be the first initiative he sent to Congress, and in recruiting Houston schools chief Roderick R. Paige to be his Education Secretary, he nominated someone who backed vouchers but would not be opposed by the National Education Association teachers union. Still, some in the Bush camp are cautious about predicting popularity for his education plan. "Education reform gets you into bitter opposition from some elements of the Democratic coalition," said one Bush strategist. "To really do reform, you have to do some things the teachers union is adamantly opposed to." Bush also held an early meeting with corporate CEOs that allowed him to again pitch his campaign proposal for across-the-board tax reductions. Some Republican congressional leaders have called for voting on Bush's tax package in pieces, starting with popular proposals such as reducing the "marriage penalty" and estate taxes. Bush hasn't rejected their advice, but he hasn't embraced it, either. "He is wedded to that tax cut," one adviser said. Unreasonable Expectations

Neustadt, a professor at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government, writes that no President can reasonably hope to meet the popular expectations for 100-day success, and he cites three reasons:

The 20th Amendment. It's hard to believe, but until Franklin Roosevelt's time, a new President had nine months in which to establish his rule before Congress met in regular session. The President could call special sessions before then for limited purposes, but he controlled the agenda. The 20th Amendment established that Congress would convene three weeks before Inauguration Day. Although this is supposed to prepare Congress for quick action on the President's agenda, Neustadt argues that if one or two chambers are controlled by the opposition, it usually gives that party time to gird for battle.
Competition from Congress. Whatever party is in control, Congress is "institutionally suspicious of `downtown' [the executive branch]; competitive with White House control of federal agencies, their programs, and their budgets; and licensed by the Constitution to compete," says Neustadt. Honeymoons are forced on Congress by public opinion, and they disappear as soon as opinion shifts, he argues. "So honeymoons are marginal, at best, in deciding a new President's success with legislation."
Ignorance. Neustadt says that lack of experience is a formidable obstacle. "If he has not already held high executive office ... the President will be ignorant of many things he needs to know, yet can learn only by experience all through the 100 days, and for months after. So those early months are exceptionally hazardous, as well as marginally advantageous." Neustadt recalls that without the experience to know how it might be amplified (and distorted) by the press, the Carter White House sought to conceal some questionable financial dealings by Budget Director Bert Lance, and thus brought on a scandal.

In the face of such overwhelming evidence, why is the 100-days myth so durable? Most people blame the press. "It is one of those hoary old journalistic devices that has very little meaning," said Ed Fouhy, who has served as Washington bureau chief for most of the television networks. But the press reflects an attraction to this idea that runs deeper in the population. "We have a perennial need to compartmentalize," Gingrich said. "It is easier to think that way. We know that preseason football tells us nothing about the regular season, but we watch it anyway." Stephen Hess and most other political experts say the press forces Presidents to hew to the 100-days myth; Fouhy says it is the other way around. Doyle McManus, Los Angeles Times Washington bureau chief, says the 100-days concept keeps the press from delivering a premature judgment on a new Administration, which the 24/7 news culture demands. "I mean, the guy hasn't been sworn in yet, and people are already asking how he's doing. I think most of us use it to hold off the demand to deliver the report card too early." Hess said that the public, the press, or the politicians will always insist on some arbitrary standard by which to measure a new President, and he seconded Bush's suggestion of a 180-day period. Light said that any such deadline makes no sense, because the basic goals of government have changed so much since the 1930s. "The country had big problems then that needed solving, and 100 days was a useful concept to get things moving," Light said. Since the 1960s, though, "government has been about fine-tuning," he said. "We've exhausted the need for that dramatic stuff." Thus, Bill Clinton's grandiose health care plan never had a chance, yet his bite-size steps, such as extending insurance coverage to poor children, have produced steady progress. "We're much more likely to get to national health care through this incremental approach," Light said. And we're more likely to judge our Presidents fairly when we abandon the myth of the first 100 days.

]]>

Now it's President-elect Bush. What next?

James A. Barnes — Thu, 14 Dec 2000 00:00:00 -0500

With the election finally decided, Bush's first responsibility is to assemble an administration. He has indicated for weeks that he'll quickly announce some key appointments.

But looming beyond his Cabinet work is the more difficult task of actually governing. Bush faces an extraordinary challenge in that regard: He will be the first President since Benjamin Harrison in 1889 to enter the White House having lost the popular vote and the political authority that it commands. His party's control in Congress is also tenuous. The Senate is split 50-50; in the House, Republicans hold 221 seats to the Democrats' 212. On top of these hard facts, many Democrats will undoubtedly harbor some resentment over the resolution of the disputed vote count in Florida, especially given the threats from the GOP-led legislature to get into the act.

"If Bush becomes President, he will be seen as an accidental President who only won the electoral vote because people got confused about a butterfly ballot and chad buildup," scoffed one Democratic strategist with ties to the party's congressional leadership.

None of this is lost on Bush. "He understands that it's been a difficult time, that there will be some healing required and some reaching out required," said Mark McKinnon, a Bush media adviser. "That's the sort of thing that Governor Bush does naturally anyway."

Even if this kind of task comes easy to Bush, he would have to get cooperation from both Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill to keep his presidency from sliding into the ditch of partisan deadlock that has defined Washington for the past three years.

The first hurdle that Bush would need to overcome is within his own party: Would congressional conservatives give him enough leeway to shape a legislative agenda that can attract Democratic support?

"In the first year, he'll have all [the leeway] he wants," predicted Republican strategist Donald L. Fierce, president of the Washington lobbying firm Fierce and Isakowitz.

The record of partisan warfare on Capitol Hill over the past three years makes Fierce's assessment sound almost Pollyannaish, but Bush's election is the first real victory the party has had in a while, following a string of defeats that included Bob Dole's unsuccessful presidential campaign in 1996, the loss of Republican seats in Congress in the 1998 midterm elections, the resignation of House Speaker Newt Gingrich, and the failed attempt to remove Bill Clinton from office in early 1999 after impeaching him.

Those setbacks, say Fierce and other Republicans, should chasten GOP conservatives who might otherwise be inclined to push Bush toward adopting a hard-line approach in dealing with congressional Democrats. Moreover, the party was unified during the 2000 campaign and stood strongly behind Bush while he fought the post-election legal and public relations battles in Florida.

"We've got to give the new President room to maneuver, and the Republicans [in Congress] are not going to take kindly to somebody trying to cut him off," said Fierce. "They know we're not going to get 80 to 90 percent of what we want. If we can get 65 to 70, that's good."

Republicans also have to face the reality of the election results--politically, Washington and the rest of the country are very evenly divided. This split not only dictates that the GOP must work with Democrats, it also means that Republicans would probably be prudent to scale back their own legislative wish list. Both of those tactics, bipartisanship and a limited agenda, play to Bush's experience of working with a Democratic-controlled Legislature in Austin, Texas.

Having a Republican in the White House naturally imposes some discipline on GOP members in Congress. Some conservatives will be relieved not to have to deal with an adversary such as Clinton, who at times has driven them to distraction and reckless overreaching. "With the numbers so even, it doesn't mean it will be any less partisan on Capitol Hill," said former Senate GOP leadership aide Kyle McSlarrow, vice president for political and governmental affairs at Grassroots.com, an Internet company that specializes in developing software for advocacy campaigns. "But the general effect of not having to worry about someone with the bully pulpit distorting our agenda may make things less bitter and divisive."

Still, some habits die hard. While Republican congressional leaders and the White House tried to wrap up the unresolved fiscal 2001 appropriations bills last week, House Majority Whip Tom DeLay, R-Texas, roiled the waters on Dec. 6, when he fumed that if President Clinton "wants to shut down the government, that's his problem, not ours." DeLay, a leader of the House conservatives, has invited Democratic cooperation next year, but made clear that it should be on GOP terms.

Citing the GOP's hold-however narrow-on both chambers and the White House, DeLay said: "The things we have been dreaming about, we can now finally do."

DeLay's strength inside the House Republican Conference is unknown, but the message of his recent comments was unmistakable--that he intends to be the protector of the conservative agenda on Capitol Hill. His posturing could force the hand of Speaker Dennis Hastert, who would have to choose between Bush's desire for cooperation and DeLay's confrontational tactics. If Hastert embraces a bipartisan approach, and his Republican colleagues go along, Bush's prospects of reaching out to Democrats improve. If DeLay prevails with his colleagues, with or without Hastert, Bush's ability to reach out to Democrats would be severely constricted.

Most Democrats believe that Bush can be successful only if he pursues a genuinely bipartisan course. "With a little creativity, this could be a very interesting moment," said Patrick J. Griffin, a partner in the Washington lobbying firm of Griffin, Johnson, Dover & Stewart, who was President Clinton's chief of legislative affairs during 1995-96.

Griffin said that Bush would be well advised to study Clinton's first term in office. "In our first two years, Clinton passed almost everything, but the fact that they were virtually partisan successes meant that in 1994, [GOP Senate Minority Leader] Dole was able to say these were not successes, they were Democratic excesses," said Griffin, recalling the disastrous outcome of the midterm elections that year for the Democrats.

If Bush seeks some middle ground with congressional Democrats, as Clinton did with Republicans in 1996, he might be able to chalk up some victories. "His agenda doesn't have to be minimalist, it just has to be moderate," said Griffin.

The wrong course, Griffin said, would be to pursue a legislative strategy that is keyed to passing legislation with nearly unanimous Republican support in the House and help from a dozen or two conservative Democrats. In that case, Democratic leaders in the House, backed by solid support from their caucus, would be able to assert that Bush wasn't pursuing a truly bipartisan course. And once these bills hit the Senate, they would not be well positioned for success, and could die at the hands of a Democratic filibuster.

"You need Democrats on the uptake as co-sponsors of bills and on their PR efforts," said one veteran Democratic congressional strategist who requested anonymity. "Bush has to reach out in significant ways, not cosmetic ways, and not just to the people who are inclined to be with you, or who, politically, can't afford not to be with you."

Some Democrats believe that Bush would have to make substantial compromises on legislation, compromises that would be anathema to conservatives, in order to attract much bipartisan support. "He doesn't have the political leverage to force Democrats to lower the public policy bar," said Democratic pollster Mark Mellman.

Democrats in Congress, however, will now also have to operate without an ally in the White House. Presidential leadership and the threat of a veto have helped Democrats to maintain their own internal discipline in Congress in the past few years, but they will face new pressures.

"Democrats can't just count on their opposition to be effective," said former Rep. Vic Fazio, a California Democrat who is now a partner in the Washington office of public affairs firm Clark & Weinstock. "They will have to decide on which issues they have to compromise on, and which ones to draw lines on--where it is easier to go along substantively, and where they will benefit the most from fighting back."

Although some Democrats are likely to see Bush as an illegitimate President, the public will probably be more tolerant. "I think for sure we will have some kind of honeymoon," said pollster Andy Kohut, director of the Pew Center for the People and the Press. "There is a lot more give in public opinion than you would expect. Large percentages have said they would accept either candidate as the winner."

Ironically, even the unusual conclusion to the election could work to Bush's advantage. Expectations for significant accomplishments have been muted, but the last thing voters will tolerate is the kind of wrangling that has characterized the electoral endgame.

"Having gone through the month we've just gone through, while there probably is a little more burden on the President to reach out, because he's President, there is a real burden on everyone to work together," said Republican pollster Robert M. Teeter, a longtime political adviser to the Bush family. "The penalty for not working together is going to be huge, and whoever gets tagged as being the first guy for blowing things up is going to suffer for it."

That may not be the mandate to govern that Bush had hoped to get on Nov. 7, but at least it's a start.

]]>

The guess list: Who Bush and Gore might appoint to top jobs

James A. Barnes and Alexis Simendinger — Mon, 30 Oct 2000 00:00:00 -0500

National Journal reports.

The Bush Bunch

Given the unanimous support Bush received from Republican governors in the primaries and their apparent affection for him, it's a good bet that a few governors would wind up with important posts. But there are also plenty of policy reasons for recruiting governors to come to Washington, as Bush hopes to devolve more federal power to the states.

And a Bush administration would likely have plenty of Texans. Most would probably be newcomers to Washington, not elected officials or lawyer-lobbyists who are already ensconced in the capital.

Here's a look at some of the people being mentioned most often as possibilities for high-ranking posts in a Bush Administration.

Secretary of State. By all accounts, the job is retired Army Gen. Colin Powell's for the asking. Bush has long admired Powell, who prosecuted the Persian Gulf War for his father. Bush publicly urged 1996 Republican presidential nominee Bob Dole to tap Powell for the post if he won the presidency.

Defense Secretary. The leading candidate may be another one of Daddy's boys, Paul D. Wolfowitz. He's one of Bush's national security campaign advisers and the dean of Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies in Washington. Wolfowitz served as Defense undersecretary in charge of national security strategy and policy when Dick Cheney ran the Pentagon. The two got along well, and Cheney will probably have some say in who ends up on the E-ring. Also in the mix is Bush adviser Richard L. Armitage, who currently serves on the National Defense Panel, a congressional board that reviews Pentagon strategy, and is a veteran of the Reagan and Bush Administrations. Steve Hadley, former assistant secretary of Defense for international security policy under Cheney, also gets mentions. He is now a partner at the law firm Shea and Gardner. Retiring Florida GOP Rep. Tillie K. Fowler, a standout on the House Armed Services Committee, is a long-shot contender.

Treasury Secretary. If Bush were looking to charm Wall Street, he could pick retired Chase Manhattan Corp. chairman Walter Shipley or PaineWebber chairman Donald Marron. Another contender is Bush's top campaign economic adviser, former Federal Reserve governor Lawrence B. Lindsey. Lindsey served in the Bush White House as special assistant to the President for policy development, and is currently a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. Some Bush advisers speculate that if the Treasury assignment went to a financier, then it's more likely Bush would preserve the White House National Economic Council created by Bill Clinton, and tap Lindsey to run that.

Attorney General. If Bush turned to one of his statehouse buddies for the top job at Justice, Oklahoma Gov. Frank Keating would be a natural choice. The former FBI agent and assistant district attorney was an associate attorney general during 1988-89. Another governor mentioned for the post is Virginia's James S. Gilmore III, a key Bush supporter among the GOP governors. But if Bush didn't go this route, he could bring in his personal attorney, Harriet Miers, co-managing partner of Locke Liddell & Sapp, a major Dallas law firm. Bush once appreciatively referred to Miers, the first woman president of the Texas Bar Association, as "a pit bull in size-6 shoes." Until she chose to step down last May, she was chairwoman of the Texas Lottery Commission, appointed by Bush.

Interior Secretary. The post often goes to a Westerner, and Montana Gov. Marc Racicot, who is limited to two terms, will be looking for a new job in January. Racicot is well-regarded in conservative circles, but he also has a moderate style and has been an effective surrogate for Bush on environmental issues. Another possibility is Sen. Slade Gorton, R-Wash., if he loses his re-election bid.

Health and Human Services Secretary. Plenty of names abound for a job that could be in the thick of two Bush priorities, Medicare and Social Security reform. If Bush is looking for a governor savvy in politics and policy, Wisconsin's Tommy G. Thompson might be his man. Thompson is also mentioned as a possible ambassador to Germany, Ireland, or Japan, or a new head of Amtrak. Leading the list of Bush health care advisers with past HHS experience is William L. Roper, the dean of the School of Public Health at the University of North Carolina (Chapel Hill). Roper ran the Health Care Financing Administration during Ronald Reagan's second term and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention under Bush's father. Another former HCFA head, Gail Wilensky, the chairwoman of the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, also gets mentions. She helped craft Bush's Medicare prescription drug plan.

Commerce Secretary. Bush's father put an energy executive who was a key political adviser in this post, and George W. could easily do the same by asking his campaign chairman and longtime pal Don Evans to take the job. If Evans ended up elsewhere in the Administration, Bush might want to pick a high-tech figure, to highlight his attention to the new economy. Floyd Kvamme, a partner at Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, the Silicon Valley powerhouse venture capital firm, has been advising him on technology issues.

Agriculture Secretary. Bush may not need to look far to fill this job. Susan Combs, the Texas Secretary of Agriculture and head of Farmers for Bush, is often mentioned as a possibility. Former California Secretary of Agriculture Anne Veneman, and Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., former chairman of the House Agriculture Committee and father of the 1996 Freedom to Farm bill, are also possibilities, although Roberts may be reluctant to leave a safe Senate seat.

Labor Secretary. Rep. Jennifer R. Dunn, R-Wash., is said to be interested in a Cabinet job, and her name is bandied about as a possibility for Labor, Commerce, or Transportation. Dunn was an early Bush supporter, and she raised more than $100,000 for his nominating campaign. The Bush camp tapped her to be one of the Republican National Convention's deputy permanent co-chairs.

Education Secretary. Given his interest in education reform, Bush could easily turn to one of his fellow governors who've been innovative in this area. Wisconsin Gov. Tommy G. Thompson, who's supported Milwaukee's voucher program and was co-chairman of the National Education Summit this year, is often mentioned. Another Republican governor who makes the grade is Pennsylvania's Tom Ridge. Arizona Education Superintendent Lisa Graham Keegan is mentioned as someone Bush might recruit. She oversees one of the most expansive state charter-schools programs in the country and has been a surrogate campaigner for Bush. And from the front lines in Texas, Roderick R. Paige, the superintendent of the Houston Independent School District since 1995, is a contender. He's a Bush education adviser and is a former dean of the College of Education at Texas Southern University.

Housing and Urban Development Secretary. Former Indianapolis Mayor Stephen Goldsmith, Bush's chief domestic policy adviser, is often talked about for this post. If he loses his New York Senate bid, Republican Rep. Rick Lazio is mentioned as a possibility. So is Oklahoma Rep. J.C. Watts, who debated whether to run for another term this year. From the policy world, Urban Land Institute President Richard M. Rosen and Bob Woodson, founder of the National Center for Neighborhood Enterprise, are seen as possible candidates for the job.

Transportation Secretary. The name turning up most often is that of David M. Laney, chairman of the Texas Transportation Commission and president of Dallas' biggest law firm, Jenkens & Gilchrist. He was an early Team 100 member for Bush, raising more than $100,000 for Bush's primary campaign. Laney is not related to the Texas House speaker, Pete Laney, but both Democrats and Republicans in Texas have boosted him for the transportation job.

Energy Secretary. This would be one of Bush's more intriguing choices. Could a President from Texas get away with appointing an energy company executive to that job? If Bush were so inclined, he might turn to his campaign chairman Don Evans, who is chairman and chief executive officer of Tom Brown Inc., an oil and gas company. Another candidate from the private sector is James C. Langdon Jr., an energy lawyer and partner in the Washington office of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, the Texas-based firm. Langdon is close to Bush and raised significant funds for his campaign. Tony Garza, a member of the Texas Railroad Commission, which oversees the oil and gas industry in the state, is considered a leading contender for the job. Garza, a Mexican-American, was Bush's first political appointee (he was Texas secretary of state), and he co-chairs the Bush-Cheney 2000 National Latino Coalition. Rep. J.C. Watts, R-Okla., is also mentioned as a possibility.

Veterans Affairs Secretary. Bush may recruit from his brother Jeb's administration to fill this job and appoint Robin Higgins, who is the director of the Florida Department of Veterans Affairs and is a retired Marine lieutenant colonel. Also mentioned is Anthony J. Principi, who was a deputy secretary of Veterans Affairs in the elder Bush's Administration and who recently headed up the bipartisan Congressional Commission on Service Members and Veterans Transition Assistance, a group that studied veterans' benefits.

Office of Management and Budget Director. The jobholder needs a deep knowledge of government programs and must be able to negotiate with Congress. If Bush looked to the Republican ranks on Capitol Hill, he could pick retiring House Budget Committee Chairman John R. Kasich of Ohio, or another Buckeye, Rep. Rob Portman. Portman is a rising star in Congress and highly thought of by the Bush campaign. He played Democratic vice presidential nominee Joe Lieberman in debate practice sessions for Dick Cheney. Another potential Office of Management and Budget chief is Christopher C. DeMuth, president of the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. DeMuth advises the Bush team on environmental issues and ran OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs during the Reagan Administration. Another key Bush economic adviser, Stanford economist John F. Cogan, based at the Hoover Institution for War, Revolution and Peace, also gets mentions, but if he returns to Washington, some Republicans think he could be Bush's entitlement reform czar. Cogan served as deputy OMB director for President Reagan. Another person to watch is Albert Hawkins, an African-American and former deputy director of the Legislative Budget Board of Texas, whom Bush recruited to be his state budget director.

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator. Bush might seek a little help from brother Jeb, the governor of Florida, and try to woo David Struhs, the Secretary of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, to Washington. Moderate in style, Struhs does not raise hackles of environmentalists, and given the Gore campaign's heavy assault on air quality in Texas, Bush may want to look outside his own state in filling this job. Also mentioned is American Enterprise Institute chief Christopher C. DeMuth, who got his start in Washington working as staff assistant to President Richard M. Nixon on environmental issues. DeMuth was also the executive director of the President's Task Force on Regulatory Relief during the Reagan years.

The Gore Gang

Those interviewed by National Journal about Gore's possible choices seem to agree he would place a premium on smarts, loyalty, professional heft, and the Democratic Party's insistence on diversity. (Note: The following "guess list" is too heavily dominated by white men and Washington insiders to survive a Gore transition team's scrutiny.) And, of course, campaign paybacks always figure in the appointments.

What is not so clear is whether Gore would insist on sweeping out Clinton-era officials so that he could assure the public he plans to be, as he promised during the Democratic National Convention, "my own man."

One line of thinking is that Gore would eagerly turn to new faces and his own loyalists, but that raises the question of whether, after eight years, the current administration has chewed through the available star roster.

The other thought is that Gore might keep or reclaim a few familiar faces from the Clinton-Gore years and put them in new positions, knowing that experienced lieutenants can help avoid pitfalls and false starts. "I just think that six months into a Gore Administration, everyone will look around and say, 'It looks a lot like the Clinton administration,' " said one White House official.

Secretary of State. The conventional wisdom is that brash, sometimes abrasive Richard C. Holbrooke might at long last get the prize he has so coveted through his years as foreign service officer, State Department assistant, assistant secretary of State, managing director of Lehman Brothers, U.S. ambassador to Germany, Clinton's chief negotiator for the Dayton Peace Accords, vice chair of Credit Suisse First Boston, and U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. If, however, Gore believes Holbrooke is not the right fit for his foreign policy team, former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell, who in 1998 brokered the Good Friday agreement in Northern Ireland as Clinton's envoy, has many boosters. Sources suggest that Mitchell, who is currently a Washington lobbyist and consultant, might be open to such an overture. Also receptive to wooing, sources suggest, is former Sen. Sam Nunn of Georgia, who chaired the Senate Armed Services Committee and served in the Senate from 1972-96. He now serves on a handful of corporate boards, is chairman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, and is also a senior partner in the Atlanta law firm of King & Spalding.

Defense Secretary. More often than not, the top Pentagon post goes to a civilian, although there is always the possibility that Gore might not follow in that tradition. There is also some question about whether Gore would follow Clinton's lead and tap a moderate Republican. But many suggest that Gore would not feel the need to turn to the opposing party, since he does not have Clinton's credibility problem with the military brass. Names being offered up: Rep. Norman Dicks, D-Wash., a Gore ally, but someone who would not likely be released from the House if the Democrats regain a majority there. Norman R. Augustine, retired chairman of Lockheed Martin and a visiting professor at Princeton University, was undersecretary of the Army in the Carter Administration before spending 18 years at Martin Marietta, and he has a new book coming out about government transition. Widely respected, Augustine has privately suggested to colleagues that he might welcome a new challenge. Secretary of the Navy Richard J. Danzig, a Rhodes Scholar, Yale Law School graduate, and former business consultant who is an assertive proponent of women in the military, is another possible name. Informed sources suggest that Danzig's leading booster may be Danzig. Those who hold Clinton National Security Adviser Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger in high regard wonder if Gore might try to persuade Berger--an attorney who is more likely to want to trade the hothouse for a vacation house--to remain in government at the Defense Department. Berger has worked collaboratively over the years with Leon S. Fuerth, the man Gore would like to name as Berger's successor. Other ideas: Philip A. Odeen, the executive vice president and general manager of TRW's Systems and Information Technology group, chaired the independent National Defense Panel that reviewed the findings of the 1997 Quadrennial Defense Review. He is also chairman of the Defense Science Board, and one of the wise men of the defense community. Also, Walter B. Slocombe, undersecretary of Defense for policy, a Rhodes Scholar, and a Harvard Law School graduate who clerked for Justice Abe Fortas and has extensive defense and foreign policy credentials.

Treasury Secretary. To avoid roiling financial markets and relations with the Federal Reserve, and to maintain a steady fiscal course, the betting is that Gore would keep Secretary Lawrence H. Summers right where he is, along with his ample brainpower. Summers, a former Harvard professor and a deputy secretary under Robert E. Rubin, has signaled he would be very, very happy to stay on. He's been advising the Gore campaign on economic policy in his spare time. If, however, Gore wants to make a change, James A. Johnson, who was a managing director of corporate finance at Lehman Brothers before joining Fannie Mae, has also been mentioned as a candidate.

Attorney General. Janet Reno's deputy, Eric H. Holder, is often mentioned as a leading candidate for Attorney General. His predecessor, Jamie S. Gorelick, now the vice chair at Fannie Mae, also wins kudos from those who witnessed her assertive hand under Reno, but she may feel she has run her distance around the Justice track. Also floated: Walter E. Dellinger, a former acting solicitor general in 1996-97, a Duke University law professor, and a former law clerk to Justice Hugo Black.

Interior Secretary. Lovely work if you can get it. All those national parks to visit. All those Western lands issues to battle. For that reason, those in the know would expect Gore to name a candidate who hails from the West in order to get that person through the Senate confirmation process. Some names out there: former Nevada Gov. Robert J. Miller; Sen. Richard H. Bryan of Nevada, who is retiring at the end of this year; and Oregon Gov. John A. Kitzhaber (who may have killed his chances by endorsing Bill Bradley in the primaries).

Health and Human Services Secretary. Gore's key campaign health policy advisers are not considered candidates to handle the sprawling HHS bureaucracy. It is not a requirement that the nominee have hands-on experience with health care. But someone who has juggled the issues for the Clinton Administration-first at the Office of Management and Budge for five years, then as head of the Health Care Financing Administration (which handles the Medicare and Medicaid programs) within HHS--is Nancy-Ann Min DeParle, who recently left Washington for a temporary respite at Harvard. DeParle is an attorney who from 1987-89 was human services commissioner in Tennessee, where she knew both Gore and his father. She graduated from Harvard Law School, earned degrees from Oxford University, and was a Rhodes Scholar. Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, considered a leader on health care issues, has captured some attention. Other prospects include White House Domestic Policy Adviser Bruce N. Reed; former Rep. Tom Downey; OMB Director Jacob Lew; and Surgeon General Dr. David Satcher, a former president of Meharry Medical College in Nashville, Tenn., and a former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta.

Commerce Secretary. Former California Rep. Norman Mineta loves his new job as Commerce Secretary, and Gore might decide to nominate him to stay on. However, before Gore stole William M. Daley away from Commerce to head his campaign, and before Clinton put Mineta in charge of Commerce, Gore had been thinking about Mineta as a good selection to guide the Transportation Department, if he won the election. If Gore wants to play musical chairs and put Mineta at DOT, other ideas (among many) for Commerce Secretary include former Rep. Tom Downey; Clinton national economic adviser Gene B. Sperling, who could be a candidate for a Cabinet promotion and would like to contribute to another Democratic administration (Sperling has provided economic counsel to the Gore campaign on his own time); and former United Airlines Chairman Gerald Greenwald, previously a vice chairman of Chrysler.

Agriculture Secretary. Democrats want a new farm bill in 2001, so the new Secretary may have plenty of work right out of the gate. If he loses his bid for re-election, Rep. Calvin Dooley of California could be a Gore pick for USDA, unless Democratic farm leaders squeal that he's too gung-ho for trade and not focused enough on domestic farm policy. Rep. Charles W. Stenholm of Texas, the ranking Democrat on the House Agriculture Committee, would be a first-class choice, but he'd have to want to leave the House, and the Democratic leadership would have to want to let him go. Some have talked about National Cotton Council Executive Vice President and Secretary Phillip C. Burnett as a candidate. A long shot at USDA might be Undersecretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services August Schumacher, who is a former World Bank official and a former Massachusetts agriculture commissioner. Schumacher is said to be lacking support from the major farming regions.

Labor Secretary. "Anyone John Sweeney wants," is the conventional wisdom, if Gore curtsies to the AFL-CIO president. A possibility from the labor federation is Linda Chavez-Thompson, the group's executive secretary. Also, Gene Sperling, whose White House experience has included plenty of work on labor issues, has a shot. Should Rep. Ron Klink, D-Pa., lose his uphill race against Sen. Rick Santorum, he could get the nod. Current Secretary Alexis Herman has campaigned intensively for Gore and could probably stay put, but most soothsayers don't see her remaining at Labor.

Education Secretary. If you've heard Gore on the campaign stump or during the debates tout the education reform achievements of North Carolina Gov. James B. Hunt Jr., you have a good idea who the Vice President's Cabinet pick might be. Hunt's term is up in 2001, and he's considered a good, safe choice to champion Gore's modest education agenda. Hunt was a co-vice chair of the 1999 National Education Summit (started, by the way, in 1989 by President Bush), which is sponsored by governors and business interests. Other names being floated: Delaware Gov. Thomas R. Carper, who is running for the Senate against William V. Roth Jr., R-Del.; and Bruce N. Reed, who has worked for either Clinton or Gore in some capacity for about a dozen years. Reed, a centrist New Democrat, spent four years as an aide to Gore, including a stint as his chief speechwriter during Gore's unsuccessful 1988 bid for the White House. Reed would be happy to remain in a Democratic Administration, and his name pops up as a candidate for a host of jobs.

Housing and Urban Development Secretary. Andrew Cuomo, a big Gore backer, would rather go home to New York and prepare to run for governor in 2002 than hang around Washington, sources say. Odds are that the HUD Secretary in a Gore Administration would be a mayor. Possibilities include former Seattle Mayor Norm Rice, now executive vice president of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle; former Baltimore Mayor Kurt L. Schmoke; Detroit Mayor Dennis W. Archer, a Democratic National Committee co-chair; Cleveland Mayor Michael R. White; and former Louisville Mayor Jerry Abramson. If Gore decided against choosing a mayor as the next HUD Secretary, he could select HUD Assistant Secretary for Housing William C. Apgar; housing developer Richard Baron, president of McCormack Baron & Associates, who has been at the forefront of public-private housing redevelopment; or Bart Harvey, the chairman and CEO of the Enterprise Foundation, which helps rebuild communities by sending money received through grants and loans to its partners, who erect affordable housing around the country.

Transportation Secretary. Although Secretary Rodney E. Slater has energetically campaigned for Gore, the betting is that he returns to Arkansas after the Clinton administration to revisit his own political ambitions. If Gore does not tap Norman Mineta, who had years of experience with the relevant issues in the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, a potential candidate would be Jane Garvey, administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration. Garvey is smart and enjoys good relations with the Hill. But she has felt the sting of recent criticisms that say the FAA's computer system is unprepared to handle mounting air traffic congestion. Floated by friends: Caltrans Director Jeff Morales, who once worked for Gore in the Vice President's office and now heads California's transportation department.

Energy Secretary. Despite his energetic support for Gore (and dashed hopes of being a VP pick), Bill Richardson is not a likely carry-over into a Gore administration. Sources suggest he will want to return home to New Mexico and, perhaps, run for governor. His salutation this month to the next Energy Secretary: "This is a good job. It's an exciting job. But you can have it." Likely candidates for Energy seem scarce at this point.

Office of Management and Budget Director. The person everyone mentions is Robert D. Reischauer, former director of the Congressional Budget Office and relentless truth-teller about Washington's ways with the public's money. Smart, quotable, influential, and respected by lawmakers of both parties, Reischauer recently became president of the Urban Institute. But other sources say he would not be interested in OMB at this point. Someone who is said to be interested in the office's mission and who would garner enthusiastic support is Rep. John M. Spratt Jr., D-S.C., the ranking minority member of the House Budget Committee. He'd be a smart choice, but only if the Democrats don't need everybody they can keep in the House next year. And if Spratt has a shot at the chairman's seat, his friends believe he would remain in the House. Other names: Elaine C. Kamarck, Gore's campaign adviser for domestic policy, is said to be interested in the job. She has Gore's trust and knows his priorities cold, although she has equal shares of admirers and detractors. If OMB is not in the cards for her, there will be another top slot waiting (heading the Domestic Policy Council?). Her claim to fame in the first term of the Clinton Administration was Gore's reinventing government initiative, and most recently she's been perched at Harvard. Robert Greenstein, the head of the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities who briefly agreed to serve as deputy OMB director during Clinton's first term but changed his mind at the last minute, is another possibility; and, as a real long shot, Harvard professor and Clinton race initiative adviser Christopher Edley.

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator. Administrator Carol Browner was Gore's pick, and he'll want a kindred spirit in this post. Browner last year was rumored to be thinking about a political future at home in Florida; regardless, she is not expected to stay in Washington. Sources say the EPA job is former Gore aide Katie McGinty's for the asking, but there is some question about whether she would want to get back into the rat race after her years battling the GOP majority in Congress as head of the White House Council on Environmental Quality. If she's not game, others mentioned are environmentalist Bobby Kennedy Jr.; William Holman, head of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources in North Carolina; and the Secretary of the California Resources Agency, Mary Nichols, who was an assistant secretary at EPA during the Clinton Administration.

]]>

For Bush backers, it's all about leadership

James A. Barnes — Fri, 04 Aug 2000 00:00:00 -0400

Republicans used to win presidential elections by drawing bright lines to distinguish themselves from Democrats on issues. But George W. Bush is a different kind of Republican, and he wants to wage a different kind of fall campaign.

"It will go to the bigger thematic issue of leadership," said Mark McKinnon, Bush's chief media strategist. "There are differences on Social Security and tax cuts and rebuilding the military, but fundamentally, what people are looking for is leadership. That's a big issue and big idea, under which all these issues fall."

But to some Republicans, that might sound eerily like Democrat Michael Dukakis' effort to define the 1988 presidential campaign around the theme of "competence."

"It's a calculated risk," said religious broadcaster Pat Robertson, the founder of the Christian Coalition. "I believe that sometime after the convention, there has to be a delineation, for people to vote Republican," said Robertson. "I go along with the strategy of this convention, but we've got three months to make that delineation."

Most in the party don't share Robertson's sense of foreboding, although they acknowledge his point. "We haven't established as sharp a contrast as in the past," said Rep. David Dreier of California. But that's less of a problem in 2000, Dreier said, because voters will understand that Bush, and his running mate Dick Cheney, are politicians with "deeply rooted principles."

Added Rep. John Kasich of Ohio: "I think there's plenty of time to distinguish the differences between George Bush and Al Gore, but right now we're playing on their side of the field. That's the way it ought to be."

Indeed, Bush is spending much of his time focusing on education, Social Security, and Medicare reform-issues traditionally associated with Democrats-partly to show swing voters that he's a different kind of Republican. Bush will stress that his record of dealing with Democratic legislators in Austin makes him more likely to be able to craft solutions than is the Vice President, who's been part of the partisan warfare in Washington.

As Bush said in his acceptance speech: "I don't have enemies to fight. And I have no stake in the bitter arguments of the last few years. I want to change the tone of Washington to one of civility and respect."

Bush aides predict that voters will pick up on that theme when measuring Bush against Gore. "Governor Bush wants a campaign that is a hopeful, uplifting debate on the issues, understanding that partisan politics is not in America's interests," said Bush media consultant Russell Schriefer. "I think that's in stark contrast to what the Gore campaign is doing, which is nothing but contrast and attack."

Bush's emphasis on staying positive and seeking consensus could also help deflect concerns of some swing voters about electing a Republican President and a Republican Congress.

Even Republicans with a reputation for confrontation are content to follow Bush's lead. "I think the nation is saying, 'We'd like to see our politics be a little more subtle,' " said House Majority Leader Dick Armey of Texas. "The lines are still there; they're a little more subtle."

Republicans are upbeat about Bush's prospects in the fall, but they don't believe that his lead in the polls following their successful convention in Philadelphia is assured. "It looks good for Bush, but we have a heck of a lot of work to do when we get home," said Ohio Gov. Bob Taft.

With Bush comfortably ahead of Gore in many GOP-leaning states, Bush strategists say that Cheney will spend much of his time campaigning in the battleground states. The campaign says that it will have a significant tactical advantage as long as Bush remains competitive in Democratic-leaning states, such as Washington and West Virginia. "We're going to spend a lot of time talking to independents in battleground states, while the Vice President has to spend time in all 50 states," said Bush campaign spokesman Ari Fleischer.

Those appeals to independents were clear in Bush's acceptance speech. Citing his record in Texas, Bush said: "I don't deserve all the credit, and I don't attempt to take it. I worked with Republicans and Democrats to get things done."

Another Bush goal will be to connect Gore and Bill Clinton. "That is a powerful issue that is fueling the energy in the Bush campaign," said Taft. But some GOP strategists say that it would be a mistake for Bush to spend much time dwelling on the outgoing President.

"I think there is a strong case to be made that Al Gore is a lot more liberal than Clinton, but they haven't drawn those distinctions, because there's a visceral hatred, among Republicans, of Clinton," said Stephen Moore, president of the Club for Growth, a conservative political action committee. "It's time for the GOP to get beyond Bill Clinton."

And despite all the brotherly love that the Republicans and Bush displayed in Philadelphia, some GOP strategists believe that Bush will inevitably sharpen the contrasts with Gore.

"I have no reason to believe they won't draw lines in the sand, because they're smart people and they know that's what you have to do to win," said David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union. "If you want to smile rather than snarl at a convention, that's fine."

]]>

Bush camp fights off anti-government platform planks

James A. Barnes — Tue, 01 Aug 2000 00:00:00 -0400

George W. Bush wanted a Republican party platform more positive than the document the party adopted four years ago. Last weekend, his campaign successfully reinserted his principles for education reform, which conservatives had dumped from the original platform draft during a Platform Subcommittee hearing on Friday. The committee also rejected efforts to abolish the Department of Education and phase out the federal role in education.

This enabled Bush to have his education night on Monday, without any dissonance from the platform. The campaign worked with committee co-chairman Sen. Bill Frist, R-Tenn., who submitted an amendment restoring a version of the Bush principles that called for raising academic standards, reforming Head Start, and "allowing federal dollars to follow" children from failing schools to schools of their choice.

"Gov. Bush has offered a vision, and agenda, that truly captures the spirit of the American people around that concept that no child should be left behind," Frist told the full platform committee.

Platform Committee member Cheryl Williams of Oklahoma complained that portions of the Frist amendment still gave "the appearance of federal control of all education." But when she and other conservatives sought to further compromise the Frist amendment, they were rebuffed. "These are leadership principles," said Frist. "I want to stick with the wording we have."

As soon as the subcommittee struck the language on Friday, Frist and the Bush forces went to work to restore the principles. "My goal as a co-chairman is to marry the will of 107 delegates with the vision of George W. Bush," said Frist in an interview. Sensing that the full Platform Committee wasn't as hard-line as the subcommittee on education and youth, on Friday evening Frist redrafted the principles and changed phrasing to make it more palatable to some conservatives. Yesterday morning, before the Platform Committee convened, Frist shopped around his new version to more than a dozen committee members.

"Our whip operation went to work on the education language to make sure that it reflected the governor's focus," said Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer. "Now the Republican platform on education in 2000 is a marked departure from the 1996 platform, and properly so." The Bush forces and the platform drafters were largely pleased that this document has a more uplifting tone than the document adopted in San Diego. Planks from four years ago that called for abolishing four Cabinet departments and denying public assistance to the children of illegal immigrants never even made it into the platform draft.

Even the debate over the abortion issue was less contentious than in the past. Efforts by abortion-rights proponents to remove from the draft the restrictive language that was duplicated from the 1996 platform were unsuccessful.

Conservatives, who remain more suspicious of the federal government than Bush, won a few other small platform battles. Bush has called childhood illiteracy a "national emergency" and has proposed, among other things, to spend federal dollars to diagnose reading skills of disadvantaged children. The platform draft included language that said, "We will strive to meet the federal obligation and promote the early diagnosis of learning deficiencies." The final platform simply stated: "We will strive to promote the early diagnosis of learning deficiencies.

The full committee also endorsed abstinence programs over more traditional family-planning education. Bush thinks the two approaches should be given equal emphasis.

"There are always going to be issues on which the candidate and the platform have differences," said Bush spokesman Fleischer. There were efforts by the platform drafters, largely to no avail, to remove anti-gay language from the document. "I wanted this document to be as inclusive as it possibly could be, without the vitriolic rhetoric that has plagued us in the past," said committee Chairman Tommy Thompson, governor of Wisconsin.

In preparing the draft, Thompson had removed, from the section in the 1996 platform's section on anti-discrimination laws, language that stated, "We reject the distortion of those laws to cover sexual preference."

"I had the sentence out for one night," said Thompson. The subcommittee on family and community met on Friday and inserted "we do not believe sexual preference should be given special legal protection or standing in law" in the portion of the platform supporting the Defense of Marriage Act.

"Overall, the document is very good," said Thompson. But he added: "I thought the original platform was better. That's a personal preference."

]]>

Time for 'a different tone,' Bush says

James A. Barnes and National Journal — Mon, 31 Jul 2000 00:00:00 -0400

This week, Texas Governor George W. Bush heads to Philadelphia to receive the Republican party's presidential nomination. During one of his last campaign swings before the Republican National Convention, Bush talked with National Journal staff correspondent James A. Barnes between bites of airline food. The following are edited excerpts of their conversation:

NJ: How do you think your approach to leading would differ from Al Gore's?

Bush: I think that Al Gore is a part of a scene in Washington that believes that when you tear something down, when you attack, you get ahead. I don't believe you can lead doing that. I don't think you can solve Social Security's problems by creating an environment of distrust. And there's nothing in this campaign thus far that has shown me there would be a different type of attitude in Washington, D.C., than that attitude of polarization. It's one thing to criticize, it's another thing to put everything in such personal matters. I think a President has got to set a different tone. And this country is starved for a different tone, one of the reasons I'm going to get elected.

NJ: In Knoxville, Tenn., last month, you called for a new approach to the way Washington works and said that "leaving yesterday's quarrels behind" would help achieve that goal.

Bush: Absolutely.

NJ: Is there something Republicans should let go of?

Bush: Yeah. There is a real bitterness about some Republicans, [who] are so used to the squabbles and the finger-pointing. In a speech I gave at the big gala in Washington, I basically said both parties are to blame. I happen to believe most of the onus is on the President. I think a President can set a tone. I wouldn't have run for the presidency if I did not believe an administration can change a tone and an atmosphere in Washington, I firmly believe that. On the other hand, the Congress has responded at times, too, in like kind.

NJ: You also said in Knoxville that if elected you would ask the Senate to act on your nominations in 60 days.

Bush: Yes.

NJ: Thinking about the good will you said is important to establish in Washington, why wait until next year? Why shouldn't the Senate act in this session on President Clinton's nominees whose names were submitted at least 60 days ago?

Bush: That's a very good question. And I would hope that Republicans would hear my call. Now, there's going to be special circumstances in some of the cases. I mean, some judges may be deemed to be incompetent, but I hope there is expeditious review.

NJ: In this session?

Bush: Absolutely.

NJ: And at least hearings for judicial nominees?

Bush: Yeah, if it's good enough for me, it's good enough for the President.

NJ: In terms of letting things go, how about Republican calls for a special counsel investigation of the Clinton-Gore fund raising and their criticism of the Attorney General as being derelict in duty for not moving forward with one?

Bush: Well, there's a great deal of suspicion in Washington. There are folks that have completely overstepped the bounds of fund raising and yet there's been no real accountability. I can understand why Republicans are frustrated. Right after the primaries, my opponent said he wants to ban "soft money," the very same day the President is out raising soft money. These are sleight-of-hand experts. There has been no full accountability of the involvement. I mean, yesterday the Vice President says at the Buddhist temple no money changed hands. My only point is, in the face of a call for campaign funding reform, the best campaign funding reform is going to have honest people.

NJ: It's your first week in the White House.…

Bush: Yes, thank you. I love an optimist. You're the only guy that's ever asked me that question.

… what are some of the first things you do in the office?
Obviously, Step 1 is to bring what is going to be a really interesting, smart, capable Cabinet and staff together and begin the process of doing something I did as governor- of building a team. I haven't thought this far ahead. One of the first things I did was have a full ethics briefing. I said this is the standard, the highest and all that, and attorneys briefed our staff on what to look for, what things to be careful about. Another thing is to start reaching out to Congress to prepare a legislative agenda. The first 100 days, 90 days, or 110 days will be very important. There are some executive directives like getting the Secretary of Defense started on a long-term strategic plan for what the military is going to look like. We have a chance to redefine war and, therefore, enhance peace. I really want our government and our country spending money on the military in a wise, focused fashion. Spending needs to be based upon a strategic vision that says today's military will be high in morale. We'll pay soldiers better and have better training, less deployment. This military needs to look different 30 years from now, so let's start the process today. That requires executive direction.

NJ: If elected, do you plan to use the Reagan model of quick action on major legislation?

Bush: Yes.

NJ: Would Social Security reform be a hundred days agenda item?

Bush: It would be wonderful if it could be, but I think Social Security reform is going to require first and foremost a bipartisan commission, which I would hope to get in place quickly. John McCain had a very good idea on the commission. I don't know whether their recommendations could come out in the first 100 days.

NJ: Would you put McCain on the commission?

Bush: Depends on where he is. I'm not telling you.

NJ: Why haven't you done more in conjunction with Republican congressional leaders in the campaign?

Bush: You mean why haven't I campaigned with them? It's not intentional. They are where they are in Washington, and I'm out in the hustings. They're friends, they're going to be allies. But there is something else here. They asked me yesterday on TV, "Are you for the President's swap on marriage penalty for prescription drugs?" This is up to the Congress and this President to resolve.

NJ: Are you concerned that the Republican Congress and President Clinton might cut some legislative deals to benefit both of them politically, as they did in 1996, which undercut Bob Dole's presidential campaign?

Bush: I expect it. But if it's good for the country, it doesn't concern me. I don't know what you have in mind, but I will tell an example of where I thought the Congress stood strong, and deservedly so, was on eliminating the death tax. In other words, it was a pure bill.

NJ: How much difference ideologically do you see between congressional Republicans and GOP governors?

Bush: It's just a difference. I thought you were going to say between the House and the Senate, and my answer to that was it's hard to tell because of the procedural nature of both houses. You can take the same person with the same philosophy, but because the rules are different, there's a lot of procedural differences that tend to set the tenor of each body. Same with governors. We're all conservative people, but there's such a difference between a governor and a legislator. It's just a different mentality. The governors are decision-makers, they're doers, they play the hand they've been dealt, and the legislative body tends to be more reactive. I tease people, saying appropriators are appropriators. If you think they are going to take surpluses and pay down debt, you don't understand the nature of an appropriator. Both Republican and Democrat appropriators appropriate. That's why I have no faith that unspent money, is going to be spent on what people want.

NJ: Have you ever voted for a Democrat?

Bush: Well, my stock answer is they always put the curtains on the booth for a reason, but, yes, I have, in Texas.

NJ: Who are some Democrats you admire?

Bush: I greatly admired [late Texas Lt. Gov.] Bob Bullock a lot. And he passed as a close friend. When he went it was a tearful moment. Speaker Pete Laney of the Texas House, I admire Pete. We have our differences, sometimes, but I think he's been a very good speaker, and I think the success of my tenure as governor is a result of me being able to work with Pete.

NJ: Democrats outside of Texas?

Bush: I had a good visit with [Sen.] Bob Kerreythe other day. And I found him to be a very interesting man. Just willing to think anew. Bob's an interesting guy. I was very impressed by him.

NJ: Do you think the nominating process should be changed so it's not so compressed?

Bush: That's a really hard question to ask somebody that's just come through the process. We're people who get mikes stuck in our face and[asked], "Will you promise to keep Iowa and New Hampshire first?" as you're campaigning in Iowa and New Hampshire. I mean, you know, hello? And so we're fresh off of promises to these states. Yeah, something has to be done, I think. I don't know what the solution is. I know this, though: It was a pretty tough process, physically. I'm in great condition, and it was a lot tougher than I thought it would be. Maybe it's because it was so compressed. I mean, remember-we're flying across the country, going from New York to California to Ohio to Missouri to California to New York, and it was a lot of work. I'm not averse to work, don't get me wrong. I'm not complaining, but it was tough. I think the process is good in many ways, though. It gave voters a chance to look at me. You didn't know me from Adam. You're probably wondering what this guy is all about. You now have a different set of data points. You saw me lose. You saw me lose, hopefully, gracefully. You saw me turn around and win. Everything looked like it was heading right to victory and all of a sudden I lost again.

NJ: How about what phase in the campaign, like after you lost New Hampshire?

Bush: That was a learning experience. On the road to the presidency, there are certain moments that help define who I am to the public and who I am to myself. I believe that I am growing into the presidency. And I think there's a series of steps toward that. And, there's a certain internal, hard to describe what's happening to me, because you're talking in midprocess. But there's a certain internal, certain events that…

NJ: Steel you?

Bush: Yeah, that steel you; convince you that it's meant to be. Defeat is part of it. You see the primaries are this. You wake up in New Hampshire the next morning, you just got clobbered. Then you're down in Delaware and South Carolina. And you win Delaware, and the next moment it's South Carolina, and you win South Carolina, and then it's Michigan. Those of us who have run for office before remember the victories and then remember a little time off between the victories and the transition. In other words, there's a moment. And the final moment doesn't arrive for the presidency until November. So there's a series of these emotional ups and downs, and it's like a marathon. It's like a very-long-distance race. I've come away realizing that this process requires the utmost of discipline and focus and patience, something I have not been long on in my life. But I'm becoming a much more patient person, which I think will stand me in good stead to be the President. Patience is very important, because with patience comes the confidence-confidence in the strategy, confidence in the wisdom of the American people, confidence in my own abilities.

NJ: How important do you think the debates will be?

Bush: What debates? Just kidding. I think they'll be important, part of the puzzle. I think the selection of the Vice President will be very important. I think the acceptance speech will be important, and I think some of the debates will be important. But I think the Sunday Gore and I appeared on interview shows was important. For those who were paying attention, I think people got to see me under questioning and got to see Gore. It's kind of an interesting side-by-side comparison.

But you pick moments, this is a moment. You walk away saying, you know, "complete idiot" or "maybe I will vote for him." And so do the voters. They pick up glimpses. People decide all kinds of different ways. The debates will have some importance. I found the debates in the primaries to be very important moments, important for me, important for my campaign. We got exposure. People paid attention, but they weren't deciding.

NJ: What lessons did you take from your father's loss in 1992?

Bush: That incumbency, if not properly defended, is fragile.

NJ: And his victory in '88?

Bush: That it's important to drive the agenda.

NJ: How are you like your father?

Bush: Call up people who know us both.

NJ: Same for your mother?

Bush: Sure. I don't know. A lot of people say I'm a lot like my mom. That's a hard question for me to answer. I don't spend a lot of time trying to figure me out, particularly in terms of what my genetic disposition is, and my personality is, relative to my parents. I'm just not into psychobabble. But Beverly Kaufman, the county clerk in Harris County, said one time when she was introducing me, she said, "I'm introducing a very great governor, an interesting man-he's got his daddy's eyes and his mother's mouth."

]]>

Gore's future may be tied to Clinton's

James A. Barnes — Thu, 27 Aug 1998 00:00:00 -0400

Al Gore's aides were taken aback, and more than slightly annoyed, when on the evening of Aug. 17, they saw a CNN report depicting the vice president as hiding out in Hawaii. Even though the report included the caveat that Gore was on a long-scheduled family vacation, the vice president's aides quickly contacted the network's Washington bureau to convey his "110 percent" support for President Clinton as he testified before Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr.

Gore had spoken with the president "several times" since the start of his vacation on Aug. 11, said a senior aide, twice on the night the president addressed the nation about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.

To further quash the "snippy references to the V.P. being in Hawaii," as one Gore official put it, the vice president went before television cameras in Hawaii the day after Clinton's testimony and speech to reiterate, in unequivocal language, his support and affection for the president: "I am proud of him because he is a great president, and I am honored to have him as a friend."

Afterwards, Gore aides expressed exasperation at the very idea that the vice president would do anything less than fully support his boss. "Every time something happens, the press puts this test to him, `Are you 100 percent loyal?' " said one. "I think their relationship speaks for itself."

For Gore, the loyalty test was an easy one. "The vice president always told me his relationship with the president was the 'currency of the realm,' " said a former senior Gore aide. "I think he's certainly internalized that principle, and I don't expect any change in that. This relationship is set in concrete."

That concrete relationship has always been Gore's chief asset as a potential Democratic presidential candidate. No president has been as open as Clinton in endorsing the idea that his vice president should succeed him. But now, what was Gore's great strength may become his great weakness. "If this turns into a debacle with Clinton, 2000 could be a tough year," confided one Democratic elected official who's been a longtime Gore supporter. "The other problem Gore will have is, how is he going to look like a fresh face with all these problems," said the ally. "Sometimes people just want to start over."

If Clinton is irretrievably damaged by the latest turn in his ethical woes, there isn't much Gore can do. Like other vice presidents, Gore's standing in the polls has generally been tied to the president's popularity. But the public has tended to view their characters differently, seeing Gore as more honest and trustworthy than Clinton.

Looking at the high standing that the president has maintained in the polls after his grand jury testimony, the vice president's advisers argue that Clinton will remain more of a help than a hindrance to their candidate in 2000.

"What the president and his team can provide to a presidential candidate is absolutely unlimited," said a senior Gore strategist. "He's one of the smartest politicians and leaders that our party has ever seen, and I think that regardless of any specific issue, he is a great, great asset."

Further, they argue, Clinton's scandal problems are uniquely personal, and the president's misconduct in no way affects the public's view of his vice president. A top Gore political ally in New Hampshire, site of the first presidential primary, said: "I don't think Al Gore's future is tied to anybody's personal life but his own."

But his fate could be tied to Clinton's 1996 re-election campaign. Although Gore's aides don't expect an independent counsel investigation will be triggered by his fund-raising phone calls, they admit that any probe of the campaign's finances could cast a pall over the vice president.

The scrutiny of such an inquiry could be devastating to Gore's ability to raise money for his own White House bid. "It would tie up the V.P. and all his money people," said a veteran party fund-raiser close to Gore. "It's hard enough to get people to give money, let alone when the Justice Department is looking at every check."

If Starr can prove Clinton committed perjury, or worse, Gore's steadfast backing for a president facing impeachment would be awkward, at best. "At some point you guys are going to put tremendous pressure on him to say what he thinks," said the Democratic fund-raiser.

In the short run, Gore needs to preserve unity in the party. On the campaign stump this year, the vice president has frequently contrasted the general concord on issues between congressional Democrats and the White House with the splits among Republicans on Capitol Hill. As Clinton's heir apparent, it serves Gore's interests to keep tensions in the party to a minimum, and thus deny potential rivals any fuel for mounting a challenge against him.

Gore's advisers hope that even if some Democratic lawmakers feel the need to criticize the president's personal behavior, most will remain loyal to Clinton's policy agenda and to the president as the leader of the party. A senior Gore official acknowledged that "dealing with the schism, people being of two minds, is something we have to pay attention to."

But if the president starts to cut legislative deals with Republicans in Congress in order to preserve his high job-approval ratings and keep impeachment at bay, congressional Democrats, who favor confrontation, not compromise, in the run-up to the midterm elections, could become disenchanted.

"Democrats [on Capitol Hill] are afraid of this aspect of Clinton and right now, Gore doesn't want there to be any daylight between them and the White House," said one veteran party strategist. "It takes away the opportunity of the vice president to be supportive of congressional Democrats and kind of leaves him sitting out there."

One former White House aide speculated that Gore may have to take on a higher profile in the looming battles that the administration faces with Republicans over appropriations bills. "If the president is weakened, his credibility to stand up and say 'these [Republicans] are bad' is going to be pretty thin," said the former Clinton official. "Can Gore step in and make the difference? I think that's one thing we've got to watch."

A senior adviser to Gore insisted that there were no plans for him to become the public face of the administration. "Our view is, the president will continue to have the authority to be a leader on the agenda the American people elected him to implement," said the adviser.

And Al Gore can do nothing but wait, and hope.

]]>

A Day in the Life of a Scandal

James A. Barnes and Alexis Simendinger — Fri, 23 Jan 1998 00:00:00 -0500

At the White House, the storm began to gather on Saturday. Clinton aides picked up hints that reporters were tracking another one of "Bill Clinton's women." It was someone who had emerged in the Paula Jones lawsuit and, as it finally came out, someone who had once worked at the White House.

The buzz grew all weekend: Reporters were on the hunt, calling the White House about something Newsweek was investigating. By the night of Tuesday, Jan. 20, the President's press office was on alert. Staff members all over the White House were getting calls from reporters about Monica Lewinsky. "They wanted to know, `Did you know her?' " said one aide. "The story had been floating for three days on the Internet. It was just a matter of time before it made its way into print. You don't know just how, but it always does."

That night, before Clinton gave a 28-minute speech about his presidential agenda to a fund-raising gathering across the street from the White House, Clinton's personal lawyer, David E. Kendall, told the President what he knew of the allegations.

White House aides knew a major story was about to break in The Washington Post, but the details were still sketchy. As the President returned to the White House shortly after 9:30 P.M. to meet for the second time that day with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, some of Clinton's damage-controllers, special counsels Lanny J. Davis and Lanny Breuer and deputy chief of staff John Podesta, prepared for the deluge. White House press secretary Michael D. McCurry and others looked for the story in the Post's 11:30 P.M. edition, but it wasn't there. They had to wait another hour. "We read it and figured, OK, now we know what we're dealing with," McCurry said.

As dawn broke on Wednesday, senior White House officials and the communications staff braced themselves for "a feeding frenzy like you've never seen before," said one aide.

At the 7:45 A.M. senior staff meeting in the Roosevelt Room, chief of staff Erskine B. Bowles made an oblique reference to the Lewinsky story, admonishing everyone to focus on preparations for the State of the Union speech and Palestine Liberation Organization leader Yasir Arafat's meeting with the President on Thursday. At the regular 8:15 A.M. communications meeting, McCurry, Podesta and others discussed the run-up to the State of the Union speech. But it was clear to everyone in the room that for days, and perhaps longer, their influence over the headlines would be nil.

At 8:45 A.M., members of the campaign finance damage control team were assembling in Podesta's office for a previously scheduled meeting to discuss a House oversight hearing later that day. According to one Clinton aide at the meeting, White House counsel Charles F. Ruff came in to tell everyone the Lewinsky matter would not be in their portfolio, and quickly left. "Ruff's take on it was, this is an independent-counsel thing," said the aide. Translation: It was not official White House business. "This is very compartmentalized," said one White House lawyer.

At 10 A.M., Ruff met with Clinton lawyer Robert S. Bennett, Breuer, Kendall and others. Kendall would spend much of the day at the White House, meeting with senior Clinton advisers.

Around the corner in the Oval Office, Clinton arrived from the residence at 8:30 A.M. to get his national security briefing. He was already scheduled to give three interviews in the afternoon to talk about the State of the Union speech and world affairs, but he knew he would have to answer questions about allegations that he had had a sexual affair with a White House intern and later encouraged her to deny it. After the briefing, he talked with Kendall and Ruff about what he would say.

Clinton also met with his foreign policy team on Iraq. The President--"amazingly," according to one aide--kept to a regular schedule.

Around the hallways, White House aides performed their regular duties but talked among themselves about whether they remembered Lewinsky and whether the allegations could be true. Many aides were somber and tense, watching the latest on television and waiting to see what the President would do.

"If you've been here for three weeks, it's crushing," said one aide. "If you've been here since Gennifer Flowers and the [independent counsel Kenneth W.] Starr stuff, you say, 'OK, I've seen this before.' You just ride it out."

But some of the bravado that Clinton's team had displayed on other roller-coaster rides was missing. "In order of magnitude, it is more serious than most things we deal with," McCurry said. "You have to treat it seriously." And he said it packed more sting because many thought the scandal days might be over: "I think most of us thought this was in the past," he said. "We were looking ahead, to State of the Union and other things."

For Clinton counselor Paul E. Begala, who helped manage the President's 1992 campaign, the Lewinsky story was deja vu. "It was six years ago this week that we were dealing with Gennifer Flowers," Begala said, shaking his head at the memory. Asked whether the latest allegations were true, Begala raised both his hands. "I don't know," he said. "The President denied it."

]]>

White House Cuts Cars

James A. Barnes — Mon, 03 Nov 1997 00:00:00 -0500

For an administration that loves to boast about its efforts in shrinking the size of the federal workforce, the latest economy move at the Clinton White House is sure to downsize the egos of more than a few perk-conscious aides. Starting this month, only the handful of White House officials, those with the rank of deputy assistant to the President or higher, will be able to order up a sedan when traveling to Capitol Hill. Unless it's an emergency, the rest of the staff must now ride in one of the vans that are part of the five-month-old White House shuttle service to and from the Capitol.

This edict was handed down in an Oct. 22 memo to the hundreds of White House aides, from Virginia M. Apuzzo, the assistant to the President for management and administration. Her memo also announced an expansion of the van pools. Since June, the black Dodge Ram maxi-wagons have been leaving every 15 minutes during working hours from West Executive Ave., the parking area separating the White House from the Old Executive Office Building, in which most presidential aides work.

But this schedule didn't lend itself to the most habitual of commuters to Capitol Hill--Clinton's legislative affairs operatives. Most of them are housed in the East Wing, and they groused about the long trek across the White House to the vans. So now the vans have started keeping the same schedule from East Executive Ave., between the Treasury Department and the White House. "The expanded service does make it easier for legislative affairs to use," Barry Toiv, a deputy White House press secretary, said.

Not that this has stopped all the grumbling. Occasionally, White House aides still have to wait on street corners on the Hill for the return vans to show up. "If they are two minutes late, people complain about them," a mid-level White House aide said. But, he added, "the unvoiced complaint is the indignity of it." The vans do have a cell phone, "but you need to sit in the front seat to use it," he noted. "They're very modest, just a van. . . . The sedans are kind of plush. They look cool."

The van shuttle has allowed the White House to cut back the size of its motor pool almost by half, Toiv said, "to fewer than 20 [sedans] now." Roughly half of the jaunts that White House aides make, he added, are to Capitol Hill.

Special Assistants to the President--"or their equivalents," Toiv said--will still be permitted to commandeer a sedan when making their appointed rounds elsewhere in Washington. Appuzzo's memo encouraged "all staff, including assistants and deputy assistants to the President" to use the shuttle service. But most van regulars don't anticipate a crush of business coming from the West Wing or the corner offices next door.

"I never see any assistants or deputies," said a special assistant to the President who's made many trips by van to Capitol Hill. "Those people who are used to taking cars just tell their secretary, `Get me a car' to go somewhere." What about the lack of high-powered advisers using the vans? "I'm not at all surprised," Toiv said. "Let's just leave it at that."

]]>